Canons vs. Nikons Video DSLRs- the entire line up.

[terozzz]

The Canon 7D mk II DXOmark scores are out.. So What u think? Canon still in the race?   http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D5200-versus-Nikon-D7000___977_850_680

[Danyyyel]

It is the same than the Canon 2008-2010 models!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Inazuma]

I have always said I think DXOmark's results are overrated at best or totally unreliable at worst.

 

For one, look at this comparison gallery: http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=nikon_d5300&attr13_2=canon_eos700d&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.33728931254340005&y=0.21647887339789734

The 7d ii is clearly looking better here

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I don't believe in DxO mark results either, not even slightly. I've done side by side tests between the 70D raw stills vs D5300 raw stills. Not a single time have I seen the supposedly significantly superior Nikon beat the 70D's supppsedly horrible sensor, they are identical in noise levels at low and high ISO, they are identical in shadow and highlight recoverability, they are virtually identical in resolution (Nikon ever so slightly sharper at 100% but 70D cleaner of aliasing and artefacts), they are identical in great colour performance. The 7D mk II is even slightly better than the 70D.

If I had only looked at DxO mark like Internet gearheads on forums do, I would have believed Canon's sensor is terrible and several stops behind Nikons/Sonys, and that they will produce significantly higher quality images. They don't.

The only test I've done that showed Canon sensor being beaten by a Sony one, is the D810 vs 5D (stills). Yes that 36mp sensor (in the d810 not d800 as the later falls behind Canon's in lowligh performance and shadow detail) is great and better than Canons offering in resolution and noise levels and shadow highlight recoverability. Yet the D810 is 3 years newer than a 5D. I bet the the MK IV will have close results to Nikons competition, just like every single time in the history of the two companies.

The amount of hate subjected at Canon these days on the forums (not just video forums) is unforseen, yet everytime I actually compare both there's not much difference and there's benefits and quirks to both. Now wait for the comment accusing me of being on a "fanboy" as I've been called before here comparing a Canon vs a Nikon when I said they're similar, you must completely trash Canon and incrimenate their sensor technology and state their cameras are significantly worse than every other company to gain trust on the forum boards. Perhaps I am a Canon "fanboy", I am shooting with a D5300 and D810 afterall :D

[Andrew Reid]

Shame DXOMark don't measure video, the gap would be even larger between Nikon and Canon there, not to mention Sony.

 

The D5300 vs 7D Mark II for video - it's a no brainer. The D5300 has a better image, an articulated screen and is less than half the price.

 

As for AF, it's still not fully usable for video. You can't rely on it. Not a single pro DP uses it.

[Andrew Reid]

In 2009 Canon had the best full frame and APS-C sensor technology.

 

Now they are behind almost everyone. Fuji have a tiny R&D budget compared to Canon BTW.

 

Fuji with their X-trans APS-C sensor

Panasonic with their 4K readout for cheap

Sony across the board (both APS-C and full frame)

Nikon with their custom Sony manufactured 36MP sensor

 

Canon's 1D X/C sensor is their best and most innovative, the C300 sensor not far behind... but look at the prices!! Not competitive on price at all.

[Andrew Reid]

Canon claimed they "pioneered 4K with the C500 in 2012".

 

http://www.canon-europe.com/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/News/Disneyland_uses_Canon_Cinema_EOS.aspx

 

Yep. Pioneered as in the first to do 4K.

 

I don't want to buy cameras from a company who lies in a press release.

 

Not to mention one that doesn't have anything appealing or 4K to sell me under $12k.

 

If we stop airbrushing history for a moment, it was actually Dalsa who pioneered cinema 4K and RED who pioneered 4K for cheaper prices.

[Danyyyel]

I prefer to listen to scientific test that to listen to people subjective opinion. DXO has brought peace to the world of digital photography at least to the non Canon fanboys who want to convince themselves that their beloved brand is still at the top to feel well. Look at this comparative done by Canon shooters

. I have the a Canon 7d that I bought for video long time ago, I can tell you that it lags behind a lot compared to my D7100 in terms of DR as in the video above (My d7100 somehow does exibit some banding and is the only Nikon selling model now having it). In video it is different, in general the Nikons have been measured about 12 stop (the D4 was 13 stop) and the Canon's at about 10.5 - 11 stop.

[Danyyyel]

In 2009 Canon had the best full frame and APS-C sensor technology.

 

Now they are behind almost everyone. Fuji have a tiny R&D budget compared to Canon BTW.

 

Fuji with their X-trans APS-C sensor

Panasonic with their 4K readout for cheap

Sony across the board (both APS-C and full frame)

Nikon with their custom Sony manufactured 36MP sensor

 

Canon's 1D X/C sensor is their best and most innovative, the C300 sensor not far behind... but look at the prices!! Not competitive on price at all.

 

Why should Canon have to change their sensor!!!!!!!!!!. It is known that they have not changed fabrication sensor tech since about 5d2 and 7d compared to Sony who have invested massively in thinner process for its sensors. This is why you find this gap and that the sensor since about the 7d and 5d2 performance have not evolved that much. But since they have the best marketing department in the world with their fan boys, that won't criticize or admit that Canon is lagging behind, because their ego will take some beating. They can just tweak and not invest a cent as the money will still be flowing in.

[odie]

I don't believe in DxO mark results either, not even slightly. I've done side by side tests between the 70D raw stills vs D5300 raw stills. Not a single time have I seen the supposedly significantly superior Nikon beat the 70D's supppsedly horrible sensor, they are identical in noise levels at low and high ISO, they are identical in shadow and highlight recoverability, they are virtually identical in resolution (Nikon ever so slightly sharper at 100% but 70D cleaner of aliasing and artefacts), they are identical in great colour performance. The 7D mk II is even slightly better than the 70D.

If I had only looked at DxO mark like Internet gearheads on forums do, I would have believed Canon's sensor is terrible and several stops behind Nikons/Sonys, and that they will produce significantly higher quality images. They don't.

The only test I've done that showed Canon sensor being beaten by a Sony one, is the D810 vs 5D (stills). Yes that 36mp sensor (in the d810 not d800 as the later falls behind Canon's in lowligh performance and shadow detail) is great and better than Canons offering in resolution and noise levels and shadow highlight recoverability. Yet the D810 is 3 years newer than a 5D. I bet the the MK IV will have close results to Nikons competition, just like every single time in the history of the two companies.

The amount of hate subjected at Canon these days on the forums (not just video forums) is unforseen, yet everytime I actually compare both there's not much difference and there's benefits and quirks to both. Now wait for the comment accusing me of being on a "fanboy" as I've been called before here comparing a Canon vs a Nikon when I said they're similar, you must completely trash Canon and incrimenate their sensor technology and state their cameras are significantly worse than every other company to gain trust on the forum boards. Perhaps I am a Canon "fanboy", I am shooting with a D5300 and D810 afterall :D

my last 3 jobs have been shot on 35mm kodak film….canon's 5d mark iii (with Magic Lantern)  was the b camera in tight spots and when we couldn't get lights at the location quick enough…a big plus is Magic Lantern and their integrity…as well as kodak and their artistry of image…

[pablogrollan]

I prefer to listen to scientific test that to listen to people subjective opinion. DXO has brought peace to the world of digital photography at least to the non Canon fanboys who want to convince themselves that their beloved brand is still at the top to feel well. Look at this comparative done by Canon shooters

. I have the a Canon 7d that I bought for video long time ago, I can tell you that it lags behind a lot compared to my D7100 in terms of DR as in the video above (My d7100 somehow does exibit some banding and is the only Nikon selling model now having it). In video it is different, in general the Nikons have been measured about 12 stop (the D4 was 13 stop) and the Canon's at about 10.5 - 11 stop.

 

Like Andy said, DXOMark does not measure the sensor's video performance. Nikons probably won't reach 12 stops in video mode just like Canons have about 8-9 stops for video. You can see a considerable difference with ML raw video (which gives the claimed 11.5 stops) or a C300 which does give you about 12 stops in video.

 

Having said that and admitting Sony and Panasonic are a step ahead in technology, the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer). I can see why a stills shooter would rather side with Canon in spite of its outdated tech, considering the wide range of accessories, lenses and the peace of mind that something really weird has to happen for the camera to fail on you.

[Wulf]

 

 the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer).

--- the peace of mind that something really weird has to happen for the camera to fail on you.

 

Canon more reliable than Nikon?

an astonishing claim, and hard to believe for the semiprof models, period.

 

Canon has some advantages, skin colours for example, but never forget - Nikon win wars, Canon sport events and fashion shows.

[dahlfors]

Having said that and admitting Sony and Panasonic are a step ahead in technology, the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer). 

 

Really. Got something to back those words up with or are you just throwing out words? :)

 

I have a lot of friends into photography / filming. I have yet to see one of them having a Nikon break down. Yet I have seen at least 20-25 Canons ranging from 550D and upwards to 5Dmk2 fail. Often within their warranties or just outside their warranty period.

[dahlfors]

I don't believe in DxO mark results either, not even slightly. I've done side by side tests between the 70D raw stills vs D5300 raw stills. Not a single time have I seen the supposedly significantly superior Nikon beat the 70D's supppsedly horrible sensor, they are identical in noise levels at low and high ISO, they are identical in shadow and highlight recoverability, they are virtually identical in resolution (Nikon ever so slightly sharper at 100% but 70D cleaner of aliasing and artefacts), they are identical in great colour performance. The 7D mk II is even slightly better than the 70D.

 

It's not about believing, it's about their testing methodology. Noone else on the net keep it as unbiased as dxomark. You can read about their methodology here: http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols

 

Keep in mind that the advantage of Sony sensors in DR is at ISO100 to ISO800. Quite a lot of people seem to miss that.

Unless you shoot at ISO100 to ISO400 you won't really find huge differences in DR between a Canon and a Nikon (or any other camera with Sony sensor, except A7S which seems to be unusually good at keeping a high DR together with low noise at higher ISOs).

 

Also, if you want maximum DR for stills on a Nikon, expose for the highlights. From the shadows you can pull a lot of detail without getting noise if you shoot at low ISO, while you can't get that much recovered from the highlights.

[Danyyyel]

Like Andy said, DXOMark does not measure the sensor's video performance. Nikons probably won't reach 12 stops in video mode just like Canons have about 8-9 stops for video. You can see a considerable difference with ML raw video (which gives the claimed 11.5 stops) or a C300 which does give you about 12 stops in video.

 

Having said that and admitting Sony and Panasonic are a step ahead in technology, the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer). I can see why a stills shooter would rather side with Canon in spite of its outdated tech, considering the wide range of accessories, lenses and the peace of mind that something really weird has to happen for the camera to fail on you.

 

Just google Nikon D800 bbc test. In this test done by the guy who does test for the BBC the D800 is at 11.9 and the D4 at 13 stop. Since then most of the Nikons have been rated at about the same level. You can search for Samul H who does Flaat picture profile and you will see that his conclusion is about the same. The zacuto test also gave the Canon 5d3 about 11 stop in there non raw test. I did a test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?311058-Nikon-D7100-12-13-Dynamic-range-test for my D7100 and it was also about 12 stop. This is in video because in photo the Nikon are all about 14 and now Nikon D810 closer to 15 stop.

 

The concept that Canon is considered more reliable than Nikon is a bit ludicrous, both have got some very reliable camera and some duds. But in general I don't see anyone question Nikon vs Canon in terms of reliability at least in the long run as Nikons have been use in space and war zone for decades.

[Cinegain]

I can see why a stills shooter would rather side with Canon in spite of its outdated tech

That's because they simply don't know any better. 'Yeah, eh Canon right? I think that's the best, I always see people with a Canon'.

They probably would walk up to a Nikon guy shooting away and asking him 'oeh, what Canon is that?', or have the same response to somebody showing them their Sony pictures.

Canon's bred themselves a nice herd of sheeple. And although the grass is starting to get dry and there's soil patches and mud puddles everywhere, that's what they know... and apparantly it feels comfortable not having to go thru change or something, so they just stick with it, eventhough the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

 

I didn't expect that much difference from the 70D, and surprise, it was very close indeed. Sure, if you had a 7D and was very pleased with it, the 7DmkII will give still give you that nice APS-C crop that turns your tele lenses into super tele and make it really usuable for sports and wildlife photography, especially with that nice burst and improved AF. But you kinda are allowed to expect something better when it has years and years to evolve. And what that concerned, I'm not sure if it has come far enough yet. I mean, it has pretty decent features and all, but if you want to bring your image quality to a new level, I'm not sure the 7DmkII is going to blow you away. And Nikon just shows how far sensor technology has come, the image quality you can get out of a Nikon is pretty amazing. It's like the turtle and the rabbit, with the turtle taking a nap.

 

I'm not biased to any brand. There's some stuff every brand has going for them, it being Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm or whatever. But I feel like Canon is starting to have less and less going for them, whilst the others are sprinting away with evolution, innovation and new concepts.

 

And we're on a forum for dSLR filmmaking... whereas Canon was very meaningful with the 550D, 7D and 5DmkII... the cameras we've seen recently still fall back to that one great period. But it's 2014, almost 2015, for crying out loud! They need to make something for this day and age! Everybody else is doing it... why not them? "Ok, if you want nicer video, get our multithousends pro gear." What are you talking about Canon? Really, c'mon, get real. I don't mind buying something that has 'Canon' on it, but it needs to make sense...

[Danyyyel]

Test of lee powells gama control picture profile shows you how much DR is in the Nikon shadows for video.

 

https://vimeo.com/108015355

 

https://vimeo.com/108015354

[pablogrollan]

I have a lot of friends into photography / filming. I have yet to see one of them having a Nikon break down. Yet I have seen at least 20-25 Canons ranging from 550D and upwards to 5Dmk2 fail. Often within their warranties or just outside their warranty period.

 

My experience has been the other way around (and some D600 users would probably agree). Anyway my comment was that, as stills cameras, Canons are more reliable than Sony and Panasonic. The bracketed addition regarding the Nikons is because in my experience Canon has a slight edge in build quality, though obviously not in every line or model. I've had plenty of Nikons, from a 60's Nikomat (indestructible) to an F60, D100, D90... and in the last 8 years or so I've felt the Canon counterparts to be a little sturdier, not implying that Nikons are flimsy or poorly built.

 

 

Just google Nikon D800 bbc test. In this test done by the guy who does test for the BBC the D800 is at 11.9 and the D4 at 13 stop. Since then most of the Nikons have been rated at about the same level. 

 

I stand corrected regarding the D800 -which has a Sony sensor-, though regarding the 13 stops of the D4 the only source is that controversial and vague report that led Nikon to announce both the D800 and D4 were broadcast approved and then take it back... The dynamic range was measured using a 4.85 stop chart, which is not really the best way to do it though it makes sense since for broadcast approval purposes a stop more or less is not really that relevant.

 

That's because they simply don't know any better. 'Yeah, eh Canon right? I think that's the best, I always see people with a Canon'.

 

I'm not biased to any brand. There's some stuff every brand has going for them, it being Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm or whatever. But I feel like Canon is starting to have less and less going for them, whilst the others are sprinting away with evolution, innovation and new concepts.

 

I, too am brand agnostic and can see that Canon is lagging in terms of innovation for quite a few years now, but the 1DX and the 7D MKII with their lack of video-oriented appeal are still among the top choices in their category for a stills shooter, and that's the crowd they are aimed at.

 

They need to make something for this day and age! Everybody else is doing it... why not them? "Ok, if you want nicer video, get our multithousends pro gear." What are you talking about Canon? Really, c'mon, get real. I don't mind buying something that has 'Canon' on it, but it needs to make sense...

 

Until now, their expensive cinema line has been doing really well. It's taken Sony quite a few years to release what looks like a C300 killer (the FS7) and I personally thought it would happen a lot sooner (remember what so many were saying when the Scarlet was announced at the same time as the C300?). I don't like Canon's strategy either but let's face it, they are squeezing top profit for every dollar spent while other brands with the "urge" to be at the top of the tech race are making their own previous models obsolete with too-short product cycles. Some F55 owners may not be so pleased to see the release of the FS7.

 

I don't think any of us has enough information to claim a certain strategy is right or wrong. Sure, I prefer to see brands pushing the limits and bringing better and cheaper tools to the market, but I can understand that doing a little as possible to stay on top (and pulling it off) is a profitable business model. If legions of stills shooters are happy with those releases and your cinema cameras are widely used in hollywood, why spend more? why give more features for a cheaper price and a smaller margin? That really would not make sense for a company in Canon's position (it would if they were Blackmagic).

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

So I had a chance again to test the 7D mk II in full release firmware in the middle of a documentary shoot, not much time for scientific results but the owner of the camera kept repeating how good it is in lowlight, so I thought it would be cool to compare to the 5D mk III just to male him shut up B|

The thing is, the 7D mk II, here to my eye, performs better in lowlight than the full frame 5D mk III. Less noise at ISOs over 6400 and the camera virtually shows no noise or colour shifts at its highest 16.000 ISO. It's perfectly usable at 16.000 ISO.

In my previous tests in OP I didn't notice that difference (perhaps as I didn't test above 6400 and only vs the d7100) and no reviewer suggested it's cleaner the the mk III, so That shouldn't be the case and there must be something I am doing wrong so what are the possibilities of things I am missing up here? I am shooting indoor with consistent light, full resolution stills and comparing 100% blowups on a high end calibrated Eizo monitor. I had no time to test video ISO performance so I just shot them once at 6400 ISO, again they seem identical and both significantly cleaner than the D810 by at least a stop. I'll try to post 2 JPEGs but even those take 2 full hours to upload on my connection in a small country village where I am shooting!

[dafreaking]

Ebrahim. If you get the chance please compare the ISO in VIDEOs. How do they compare with the same lenses at same apertures as far as light transmission/brightness are concerned?