Mornnb wrote in post #17423130
Well if that's the case Canon is underselling their new sensor, because 2 stops is how far they are behind the Sony sensor.
On the purely technical measurement, yes. But, apart from the 6D, the darkest few stops of Canon's sensors are also so noisy as to be unusable. Maybe this is what they meant when they mentioned better noise handling - the same technical DR, but more usable DR.
No.... Canon does have better glass and generally nicer better designed cameras which are more fun to use. By design I am referencing to the user experience and attention to detail.
For this reason I picked up a Sony A7r. An A7r with Canon glass is a better option than a Nikon set up.
Sony does have the disadvantage of a lossy compression format for RAW, which makes the A7r poor when dealing with certain details such as star trails - you end up with a lot of aliasing artifacts. If they can fix this, it would be a huge boon for detail-oriented photographers (i.e. anyone who buys a 36-50MP camera) even if it is at the expense of a larger RAW file.
With regards to lens selection, Canon probably have the upper hand at the moment, with a few exceptions (14-24). Once Nikon update a few lenses, though (24-70 and 200-400 especially) it may be a different story.
With regards to ergonomics and functionality, I always found Canon cameras clunky and inconvenient to use, compared to Nikon. I still went with then when moving from MF film, though, mainly because of the 5D2's sensor advantage over the D700 at the time, and currently use Canon lenses on the A7r solely because of the Canon tilt-shift lenses.