Camera advice needed.

[bob100]

I don't know anyone who thinks Canon has better image quality anymore. Though they are starting to catch up to the others.
And never ever follow the "pros"... You wouldn't buy your family sedan based on what brand professional race car drivers are driving.
Pros are drawn to Canon for reasons that are entirely irrelevant to ordinary customers:
1-- CPS-- Canon Professional Support, their support program for pros is spectacular. But only pros can use it. For example, at the Olympics, they maintain a full inventory of loaner equipment, they maintain on site staff to clean and repair gear.
2-- There are only 2 truly completely professional models that exist -- the Nikon D5 and Canon 1dx series. The race cars. But the great Canon race car doesn't make a Canon minivan any better than a Sony/Fuji/Olympus minivan.
3-- Momentum. Canon has been around a long time. Their current mount system is 30 years old. If you got your professional start 10-20 years ago, it was probably on Canon. And once you start, you don't switch generally. Canon makes great cameras, and their system has many pros and cons. In the end though, every other system is just as good, but with different pros and cons. Image quality is an area where Canon has fallen behind, but they are starting to catch up. And we are really only talking microscopic differences. Some jpeg shooters really like Canon jpeg rendering. Sony/Nikon sensors have a noticeable raw shooting advantage with a great degree of ISO invariance.
Personally, my favorite thing about Canon is their lens lineup. Nikon is almost as good. Sony now has many lenses superior to Canon lenses, but Canon still has a much broader selection with better price points. I also like Canon's touch screen integration and their dual pixel AF.

.

Canon obviously has better image "IQ" although Nikon and Fuji are catching up (except for mirrorless - is Nikon even making mirrorless cameras anymore) Sony is not far behind but you would need to sell a kidney to buy their lens.
Canon has a larger and better selection of lens (duh !)
Canon lens are cheaper
Canon is the preferred choice for photo "enthusiasts" and professional photographers. Nikon is the choice for beginners until they eventually upgrade to Canon

 

[havoc315]

.

Canon obviously has better image "IQ" although Nikon and Fuji are catching up (except for mirrorless - is Nikon even making mirrorless cameras anymore) Sony is not far behind but you would need to sell a kidney to buy their lens.
Canon has a larger and better selection of lens (duh !)
Canon lens are cheaper
Canon is the preferred choice for photo "enthusiasts" and professional photographers. Nikon is the choice for beginners until they eventually upgrade to Canon

Lol. Interesting fiction. The only true statements up there are that Canon has a larger lens selection.
Interesting that you suggested Sony has the poorest IQ.. the DXO ratings are the exact opposite. Sony the highest, Canon the lowest.

 

[bob100]

Lol. Canon has a larger lens selection.
Interesting that you suggested Sony has the poorest IQ.. e. Sony the highest, Canon the lowest.

LOL !
Canon is usually rated higher - with better lens. The poorest IQ is usually assigned to Nikon
It's so obvious, just this morning I took these bird pics right outside my window with a cheap thirty 30 year old lens

Untitled by D W, on Flickr

Untitled by D W, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

LOL !
Canon is usually rated higher - with better lens. The poorest IQ is usually assigned to Nikon
It's so obvious, just this morning I took these bird pics right outside my window with a cheap thirty 30 year old lens

Untitled by D W, on Flickr

Untitled by D W, on Flickr

I assume you're just being tongue in cheek?

I don't have any ancient Nikon lenses, as I started with their system more recently. I did shoot Sony with lenses that were older than the entire Canon EF system:
From 1985 designed and built lenses:

Lilly in the Rain by Adam Brown, on Flickr

April flowers by Adam Brown, on Flickr

If you want to stick to birds taken with Nikon:

Hungry Cedar Waxwing by Adam Brown, on Flickr

The owl by Adam Brown, on Flickr

As I said, I don't shoot with very old Nikon lenses, but this was is 11 years old:

Dandelion by Adam Brown, on Flickr

As is this:

Sushi by Adam Brown, on Flickr

As I said, every single modern full frame and APS-C camera is capable of some amazing results. Any differences in image quality are really on the pixel peeping level.
That said, for example, on the shots you posted, you have blown highlights that are less of an issue for me on Sony and Nikon.

Using objective measures, such as the DXO ratings, really does show these tiny differences in IQ:

If you look at all FF Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras in the last 5 years, these are the results you get:

cameracompare by Adam Brown, on Flickr

cameracompare2 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Personally, I find DXO scores a bit over-rated but they do give an objective measure of IQ.

 

[bob100]

I assume you're just being tongue in cheek?

I don't have any ancient Nikon lenses, as I started with their system more recently. I did shoot Sony with lenses that were older than the entire Canon EF system:
From 1985 designed and built lenses:
If you want to stick to birds taken with Nikon:
As I said, I don't shoot with very old Nikon lenses, but this was is 11 years old:
As is this:
As I said, every single modern full frame and APS-C camera is capable of some amazing results. Any differences in image quality are really on the pixel peeping level.
That said, for example, on the shots you posted, you have blown highlights that are less of an issue for me on Sony and Nikon.
Personally, I find DXO scores a bit over-rated but they do give an objective measure of IQ.

right, the Nikon pics .... soft, not sharp, and the colors ........ there's a good reason the pros shoot with Canon !



.

photos with a $100 camera .....
.... kinda makes you feel sorry for the self-proclaimed "pros" that have spent $20,000 on Nikon and Sony camera gear.

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

Emu bird by c w, on Flickr

 

[dmaxphil]

This thread got interesting!

To be fair DXO does hate Canon. And the latest Nikon offerings are superior in most of the areas I care about. Noise handling, dynamic range and most importantly, familiarity with the controls. I find that for portrait work, Canon's rendering of skin tones has been a notch above the others. Canon has a couple of lenses I've wanted bad enough to almost buy into the system.

I believe we can mostly thank Canon for the hideousness of modern dslr bodies.

The sad truth for me is that there are folks out there creating much more with less than I have. I've seen stunning shots on Nikon D90's & Canon T2i's that would put my shots to shame.

 

[zackiedawg]

Wow...some really silly arguments going on in here. Anyone who genuinely thinks that only one brand of camera can achieve great photos is sadly misguided, but if it makes them happy to stand by one brand and disdain all others, it's probably best to just let them be. For others, don't take the bait. Sharp, detailed photos with good color come from the light, the lens, the photographer, and the processing...ALL of these things matter far more than the camera brand in achieving good results. If we're just trying to show sharp shots from various cameras, here are a few sharp Sony shots, with Tamron and Sony lenses:

Even a $5 lens can do sharpness, with good light and the right aperture...this is a lens that's 40 years old and cost me $5 - taken almost 7 years ago on a 14MP camera:

OK - so we proved sharp results can come from a Sony. And from a Canon. And a Nikon. Proving that a particular brand is capable of sharp results doesn't prove all other brands CAN'T produce sharp results. So can we leave the silly arguments behind, accept that all brands make very good cameras nowadays, and whether you are an amateur or pro, you pick the gear that you like, that fits you well, and that works well for you?