Please Malaysian people, watch 1st till end before comment anything based on title only.

A good info & knowledge for those always comparing canon vs nikon.
Another vital point is, for any casual user, can choose ANY brand & it doesn't matter.
So don't talk kok & comment like a pro wannabe at here, can you?

i own 2 cameras from 2 different brands, but my picture looks the same

It's like he's doing a thesis, so much maths and charts and stats o.o

What I get was, if money is no object, buy Nikon. Low end and mid range, Nikon got some gaps in their range.

I somehow got to the conclusion that Nikon got better quality image, Canon got better quality video. But from my experience, not much of a difference really. Then again, I'm just a hobbyist.

alang2 get hasselblad

Me too.. it's like Canon pics are always oversaturated. Good for race days, but not for natural photography

Yeahh..I'm agreed with you.
Like me, both of my camera is Nikon. Even I'm bit frustrated most of the review saying canon is better than nikon, but hey...I'm just casual user, not a pro.
Photography is just my hobby.

In fact, if I'm using high end body & lens from both brand, technically, I don't think I can distinguish the different on it.

This post has been edited by BaRT: Sep 6 2014, 07:21 PM

actually la, in the past the decision was

Canon for natural skin tones.
Nikon for saturated colors.

after listening for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, i couldn't be bothered as there's a bunch of crappy stuff and over generalization.

this is the same guy behind that nonsense video about what ISO la what APS-C / FF / M43 / Sony cheating you stuff. I gave him a chance in this video, he failed in straight at the start.

sensor details and sharpness are 2 different things.

Canon? More buffer? zomg how fast the buffer clears is all about how fast it writes to the card, more buffer space / memory area doesn't do anything if you're using Class 2 vs a Class 10 with 80Mb/s write speed.

well i think i saw before about the small buffer on the d7100, 7 raw bursts or seomthing then fill up buffer already, even if you using class 10. with canon i think even 70D can do better than that.

that being said, i used both canon and nikon before. IQ wise, not really big difference from RAW. but i can't stand the ergonomic and rubbish screen on nikon, the colors are so wrong!

ehh because choice of card is about how fast the buffer clears.

how fast the buffer fills up is about the burst mode vs the available buffer space.

with a fast writing card, the system starts to write when moment the first shot is captured so you will be able to go more than 1 second on burst mode.

that's why no one really talks about burst mode. i can't imagine that within that 150 seconds he already concluded that Canon's only strong point is the buffer.

it's already 2014, any respectable pro wouldn't even discuss Canon vs Nikon as both are great brands.

IQ wise actually Nikon is super impressive, so far the only camera that was ever able to WOW me with image quality (details and dynamic range) was the image from Nikon D800.

Anyway, I'd say skip the video above - head over to this page http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/06/...en-waiting-for/ for a proper Canon vs Nikon comparison.

That's how it should be compared, based on camera levels and available lens, systems and what not.

I guess it is good if you watch till the end of this video.
He not really comparing on technical detail about both brands, and I love how he reveal on the efficiency of high end lens on every respective model.
How people was mislead about size of megapixel & the focal length.

The conclusion was Canon is recommended brand anyway.

I never use any canon camera before, but yep, the colours on nikon's screen was not really accurate.

erm. he's the same guy that talk a bunch of crap last time on the APS-C vs FF and how lens makers are cheating on client.

that alone already discredit him enough.

good that he highlighted some other stuff but i skimmed through, still find it crappy.

LOL that he mentioned sports photography = Canon. Fast and accurate AF has always been on Nikon's side.

It's videos like this that confuses newbies even more.

Even the megapixels part is nonsense. The calculation of megapixels for image is by simple pixel width vs pixel height. It's as simple as that.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51398342

hmm...

wah at least edit the post a bit la.

anyway it's exactly like what i mentioned, you would be able to go a little over 1 second for it.

reference http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/niko...kon-d7100A6.HTM

the link you gave me highlights the buffer but not the speed. say the 60D with 16 frames. Sure but 60D is only 5.3 fps and also 18MP.

the new models with higher MP and faster FPS always face the buffer fill up issue so it's not so much of the brand but rather the specifics of the camera.

ok..gimme 37.34 minutes to watch his video about APS-C vs FF, crop factor cheating.
Anyway, some people agreed with his opinion. Some may not.

I just amateur level. Cant say much about it ..

okay... i didn't put the FPS and amount of frames until buffer fill up into my consideration. now i see why faster FPS cameras only last 1 or 2 second of burst most of the time.

my bad for misunderstanding your statement at first.

Well like I mentioned before on the other thread - he talks so much but those things aren't important. Better use the time and effort to improve photography than trying to understand what he's saying

If you're interested http://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/tony-north...ra-spec-debate/

Through the years, I see the following
1. newbies - very interested in technical stuff, especially things like what Tony N mentioned.
2. amateurs / enthusiast - mixed but most of them would just focus on taking pictures.
3. pros - don't care la what that Tony dude say. they're busy creating more beautiful pictures and give workshops



I think the tutorial / guide / other videos from Tony N is pretty good though, should spend more time viewing those than his technical stuff.

Sorry for bringing up this post again, I had some questions regarding the buffer issue.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii

As the 7D II is launched, you can see the spec sheet comparison between 7D, 7D II and D7100.

the 7D II has 10fps and can shoot 31 Raw until the buffer fill up compared to 9 Raw with the D7100? Nothing about card spec was mentioned in that table.

actually hor, I wonder why they compare the 7D II vs the D7100. The D7100 is selling at around 1,100 USD, which is the price point of EOS 70D.

anyway back to topic - they're just stating the size of the buffer.

it's like what i said earlier.



it means the 7D 2 now has awesomely huge buffer space for machine-gun style shooters. it takes up to 31 shots at 10 fps.

fill it up within 3 - 4 seconds and if you use a slow card it's going to take forever to clear.

for example an EOS 60D has about 16 frames buffer.

in my simple test, the camera shows i have enough buffer for 14 shots (high ISO bright scene = larger file size) BUT i manage to squeeze in 15 shots. totalling up to 366MB in 3.5 seconds then it took another 18 seconds to clear.

despite my card being rated at 80Mb/s the camera is writing at approximately 20Mb per second which is pretty neat, that's why I managed to squeeze in another frame.

now imagine if I were to us something like Class 2 SD card with 2Mb/s write speed. buffer remains the same, buffer clearance time is going to be very different.

in the end it goes back to my thoughts

Tony generalized that Canon had better buffer BUT failed to consider that
a) the entry level units that fill the frame in 6 burst of RAW images just like Nikon entry level?
b) the Nikon D4 has more buffer than Canon's 1D X? Canon USA didn't even publish the rated buffer till today while Nikon D4 states so clearly http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/features02.htm - and they specified the type of memory card used as well, which I think is appropriate if one talks about buffer.

I think that alone takes a chunk away from his credibility points.

Canon is the most popular.

I look at the pictures and the picture i prefer just coincidencely is shot on canon...the canob color are imho more pleasing

This brand war will never come to an end.
Nikon sharpness as hell for natural shooter.
Canon desaturated tone where most of
Photographic trendy needs it.a tone.
Since they both fight against each other to produce good device for video shooting,
Canon wins......but IMHO, if you shoot a video with manual focus, get a nikon mount adapter, and try nikon old school lenses.the AIS.have a try.its a good blend for video.canon fd lenses s u c k s.

Really? Canon not sharp? Show me sample pics please. I used Canon for 3 years already and never feel the images are not sharp enough. Talking about tone, take 2 Nikon and Canon RAW files and compare yourself.

What for? Don't you know Canon produce STM lenses + video autofocus capable camera like the 70D? Any canon EF/ EFS lens works well with Canon body for video shooting too.

What you said aren't true at all.

Chill bro.

I think what he meant is that the trend now is an AA filter-less sensors which Canon has been fallen behind. Therefore comparing a D7100 or even a D3300's sharpness with the Canon 5D Mark III or a 1dx at say ISO 100 in good lighting the Nikon might win. You don't even need to compare it with the D800e. Seems like Nikon's sensor performance is up there with Fuji and Pentax. APS-C size wise.

I think why Canon and Nikon is so popular is because they have a full support for Professional level photographers which neither Fuji, Pentax, Sony or other brands provide. Therefore, everywhere you see Pro's using either Nikon or Canon. Many people said that Canon's sensor is not the best because they develop it them self and uses it for years the same old sensor with minor improvements here and there. Like the 18mp 7D sensor which is used in all the latter Rebels and XXD's. Unlike Nikon, they uses the best current sensor out there in the market. Just like Fuji and Pentax.

So I think you wont be able to conclude which is better than which. This month Nikon might be better with the D750, then maybe next month Canon came out with a 6D Mark II then Canon takes the Flag back. Then 3 month later, Nikon come out with a D400e then Nikon regain the flag. Never ending. And that is just the battle between Canon and Nikon. If you take it out to the WILD with Fuji, Pentax, Oly, Leica, Hassy, P,One. Then I think both Canikon will have a tough time even getting into the ring.

Just my half cents worth, no offense........... Cheers.....

Good point there..
For amateur level (like me), doesn't matter either nikon or canon, I will choose the best spec which value for money..and it's all rely on budget available from my pocket.

for this reason i will support canon. most canon lenses are cheaper than nikon. for example you can get a good quality UWA for crop (10-18) below rm1k. then you have the 50mm f1.8 for rm200-300 (build is bad and focusing is bad, but still usable for me). the newer STM kit lenses are not bad too, focusing a lot quicker and quieter than previous version. when you go to the telephoto range, you get L quality lens for rm2k (70-200 f4L). the 100mm macro is around rm1.2k only too. not to mention 17-40L, 16-35 f4L, 24-105L, 24-70 f4L (really cheap after price drop) are cheaper than Nikon equivalent too.

some might say these lenses aren't as sharp as nikon, but are you willing to pay like another thousand or more just to get a bit sharper?

1740 F4L and 70-200 F4L - cheapest way to reach pro grade status.

Before I bought my first dslr I did some checking.
I ended up choosing between the nikon d7000 and canon 60d.

It seemed that nikon had the slightly better camera but there was this oil/dust issue.
Nikon did not seem to address it at all or very well so ended up going with canon.