canon rookie wrote in post #17848734
Open your eyes man,Nikon has been eating up Canon's lunch now (At least in camera bodies)for 8 years now.
I sought comparative performance statements in DPReview.com camera tests, to see if I could discern a trend in comparative performance over time. Unfortunately there are few comparisons over the past 2 years of the higher end cameras.
I color coded the comments, so that at a glance we could see how the Nikon-Canon balance of power fared. Blue = tie, Green = Canon, Red = Nikon
- 2007, D300 vs. 40D RAW : "Switching to a standard RAW converter (in this case our benchmark; Adobe Camera RAW) means that the image processing pipeline is equalized between the cameras. Both cameras gain from the use of ACR with images looking considerably sharper and better detailed than their JPEG equivalents. There is now a more obvious advantage to the D300, better defined areas of fine detail and more texture, although as previously mentioned you would need to be outputing at a very large size for these differences to be noticeable.
- 2008, D700 vs. 5D RAW: "Taking the in-camera processing out of the equation shows that at base ISO these two cameras produce very similar results. The D700's RAW files produce better sharpness and detail than its JPG counterparts but the 5D has a weaker anti alias filter and therefore produces an even marginally finer resolution and better 'per pixel' sharpness than the Nikon. In any case you'll have to indulge in some serious pixel-peeping to spot a difference (especially after adding a tad of additional sharpening to the D700's images). -- dpreview.com"
- 2008, Nikon D3 (RAW) vs. Canon EOS-1DS Mark III (RAW): " Shooting RAW equalizing the amount of software sharpening to the output of the D3 and 1DS Mark III produces no surprises; the cameras would appear to be very similar indeed in terms of per-pixel sharpness and obviously have a similar strength AA filter. So the difference (at base ISO) comes down to how much resolution you need; the 1-DS Mark III's 1000 pixel or so advantage in both horizontal and vertical directions (912 vertically by 1360 horizontally to be precise) means more resolution and more fine detail and the ability to produce larger prints or crop more aggressively. Of course whether you actually need that much resolution is another matter altogether, and will vary from photographer to photographer."
- 2009, Nikon D3X vs. Canon 5DII: "For the purpose of this comparison we have also included the new Canon EOS 5D Mark II (at lower sensitivities its output is virtually identical to the EOS-1Ds Mark III), which does a slightly better job at high ISOs than its bigger brother. It's pretty much on par with the D3X showing comparable detail at ISO 1600. At the highest sensitivities Canon's stronger luminance noise reduction results in some blurring of detail, but there's also visibly less grain than in the D3X image, giving a more appealing overall result."
- 2010, NikonD3S vs. Canon 1DIV: " the extra resolution of the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV's sensor pays off in slightly better detail capture, although the advantage is only slight in practical terms. The only area of this scene in which the Canon has unequivocally managed to capture more detail is in the finest engraving lines in the third crop from the top, which are undoubtedly better defined (though softer) than the D3S, which simply lacks the pixels to render the finest lines accurately. At their respective pixel counts, it is debatable whether either camera could perform any better. In both cases, pixel level image quality is excellent."
- 2012, Nikon D800/D800E vs. Canon 5DIII: "With the D800 arriving in camera shops alongside its chief competitor, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, we have two well built photographic tools that are capable of outstanding images. While the 36MP D800 has the resolution advantage over its 22MP rival, it's wise to take note of other differences, like maximum frame rate; here the 5D Mark III takes the edge at 6fps vs 4fps (FX mode)....The specification commanding the most attention with the D800 is undoubtedly its 36.3MP resolution sensor and you can read the resolution page of this review to see just just what this means in our testing environment. Yet, in the real world there is more to image quality than pixel count. After spending a lot of time shooting with, and evaluating images from the D800, it is in characteristics like noise reduction, dynamic range and metering that we find ourselves most impressed.
"The camera's metering and auto white balance algorithms produce generally pleasing images in a variety of both natural and artificial lighting scenarios. Color reproduction is fairly accurate overall, with the D800 sensibly erring a bit on the conservative side, yielding a more subtle 'unprocessed' rendering that can be adjusted post-capture rather than 'over the top' colors and contrast that are difficult to later undo.
"At ISO sensitivity settings up to 6400, chroma noise is kept at stunningly low levels even at the camera's default JPEG settings. It's clear to us that Nikon has not sacrificed low light performance for a high pixel numbers. In our noise comparisons with the 22MP Canon EOS 5D Mark III, the D800 arguably produces slightly better results in terms of shadow detail."
- 2014, Nikon D750 v. Canon 6D: "Nikon's latest midrange full-frame camera is the 24 megapixel D750, which is at the same level as the aging Canon EOS 6D and Sony's recently announced Alpha 7 II."
We do know that in recent years the Sony sensor have given Nikon advantage over not only Canon, but over Sony as well! So if there is any 'lunch eating', I would submit it has NOT been over the past 8 years, but only the past 1-2 years.