Zerg2905: Thing is, Canon should do a proper 7D Mark II. If they do, it will not probably get the Gold Award here (and probably that will generate much bla-bla like comments), but many of its users will be rather happy. I am, my 7D is a "wreck" but it shoots high velocity RAWs and, if properly tuned, even low ISOs are acceptable. Not the 2013 quality, but acceptable and printable on A3. Canon, I hope you listen. Well. Cheers! :)
It is not entirely relevant, I agree. Please do the following (I will do a bit of "reverse engineering" with your comment): compare the 7D & the 7100 in RAW, 3200 or 6400. Is the 7100 better? Yes it is. It is "mind blowingly" good? No, it is not. And that, for a bigger, modern 2013 sensor, it's a shame. And, that's just Part One. Part Two: the EOS 7D is a rock and a machine gun (RAW) at the same time. The 7100 has to prove that, too. Cheers! :) P.S.: I am a big critic of the current Canon strategy, but I am not responsible for their P&L, so they should know better if this keeps the company alive or not.
SRT3lkt: In a few years' time, top score will exceed 100%.
Oh, but yes, as Canon is so "weak", there will be Nikon vs Nikon only, so the score might exceed 100%... Cheers! :)
Luck is not part of my plan. Never was. Cheers! :)
Thing is, Canon should do a proper 7D Mark II. If they do, it will not probably get the Gold Award here (and probably that will generate much bla-bla like comments), but many of its users will be rather happy. I am, my 7D is a "wreck" but it shoots high velocity RAWs and, if properly tuned, even low ISOs are acceptable. Not the 2013 quality, but acceptable and printable on A3. Canon, I hope you listen. Well. Cheers! :)
Uh, Canon, are you there? If yes, then please give me a superb EF 15-35 f/2 L IS USM. I mean optically perfect and with weather sealing, not less. oh, and not at 2500 EUR, please. Thank you. Cheers! :-)
Zvonimir Tosic: Brilliant move from Canon — finally a camera that makes tiny kindergarten fingers happy (Canon had huge complains from kindergartens across the world, that their DSLRs were unusable by 5-year olds). Now, if they could pull out the same trick with their lenses, especially zooms, and shrink them too. O boy, shall we dare to see … 18-55mm f11-f16 for APS-C ! .. now, that would be something!
You should not be worried and buy a Pentax 645 instead. Cheers! :)
Come on Canon, you cannot "send into battle" only light tanks and super-heavies... There is an armada of crap cameras challenging the grounds right now... Where is the Medium "Panzer Abteilung" (EOS 70D, EOS 7D Mk II)?! Cheers! :)
lightandday: What credibility has this Company ( DXO ) got ? i.e. Are Nikkors really that better than Canon EF lenses as demonstrated in their "TEST" results ?Should I be selling my digital Canon digital camerasand lenses and buying Nikon/Nikkor equipment ?Are they( DXO ) independent with no financial benefit received for their results and are there any other non commercial "TESTING "organisations that perform and publish their results ?
@wakaba: in science, if you want to be credible, you will have to reference all your statements. Just saying "The D-cams and the new FX-lenses are 5 years ahead of Canon" is not quite enough, because I might say "Nikon has a Sony sensor that is stronger in resolution, BUT, many features on the Nikon(s) are crap -e.g. ergonomics- when compared with Canon and, Nikon lenses are less sharp than the Canon counterparts (especially pro lenses, Nikon is 10 years behind Canon)"... I hope you will understand my point. Cheers! :)
Let's say the photographer equipped with a RX1 vs the photographer equipped with a 1D-X will feel like a guy armed with a Kalashnikov in open field vs a guy in a M1A2 Abrams tank. Right. But you cannot "conceal" the Abrams that easy, you know... It's far easier to conceal an AK-47. A "deadly" weapon, that is (like the Abrams), for the "right" targets. Like the RX1. And, in urban areas (mostly), it is difficult to use the tank as primary weapon... Cheers! :)
Princess Leia: Canon is falling behind this market. Nikon high end compact is in the works and Sony is way ahead with Rx1.
Han Solo would disagree. About the Canon part. Canon is the "Millenium Falcon" of the industry, even if Sony is the "Empire". Cheers! :)
Recently I've read a comparative test: the new Audi A6 vs the new BMW 5. One of these at the end of the review got the first place. Let's say it was the Audi (I can't remember). But does this mean that the BMW 5 is "worse"?!? So, if you want to compare the D600 with the 6D and claim that the 6D got "just" the silver... then please remember that it is a wonderful camera and the real world is only about personal taste at this quality level. Driving any of the A6 or 5 series will be a pleasure, taking photos with the D600 or the 6D will be the same. Cheers! :)
Please read carefully and don't be fooled: this is "usual" corporate "smoke screen". The quantity of information you (we) got is (almost) "zero", this gentleman (Mr. Maeda) is very good. Cheers! :)
Mmmm... nope, not for me (I had a look on it as a side camera for my 5DIII). My take: for Canon owners with FF desire/need, aspirations, but tight budget, yes, for neophytes either this or the D600 will do the job (many will eventually end up on this site, posting comments about "mine is better than yours"). Cheers! :)
Once upon a time I was the proud owner of the S3IS... Since then, I went the DSLR "way", owning various APS-C & FF camera bodies from Canon. Now, I was curious about the 50X "performance", because as I do not make money from photography, a (=THE) 1200 mm lens is out of scope - otherwise my wife will prepare an IED or equivalent. Just one opinion: at the "perceived quality" level, the SX50 looks... cheap (well, at least compared with the G series). It seems that indeed Canon is doing some hard "cost cutting" work. For the rest, however, I was impressed - and I will certainly buy one, just for the fun to have access to that amazing zoom range... as per the IQ, you cannot have the 5DIII quality here, right? :) Cheers! :)
Michael Yung: I wonder ... if the winner is Canon, Nikon, or Sony, would people say the "poll" is "meaningless" ?
@Timmbits: there is no such thing as the "perfect" camera, therefore each camera is a compromise. For instance, I also shoot macro (I am a big fan of it, and I am using the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 & 100 f/2.8 IS & the Tamron 180 f/3.5), and cropping "ability" is an important factor (for me, anyway). The bigger the resolution of the sensor, the better. Cheers! :) (P.S.: again, please don't get me wrong, 5D III is outstanding, but not "perfect").
I don't know about the others, but as a Canon 5D Mk III user, I will. Because only THE OWNER can define the BEST CAMERA for its needs. If printing on A2 format and above is what I will ever need, then Nikon D800 (or medium format) might be the answer, and I will certainly buy one. If photographing my kids or other "reasonably fast" moving objects (or low light items) is my primary need, then I will stay with the 5D III. And for me, that is THE BEST CAMERA (a compromise, obviously). Fiat Panda might be The CAR of the YEAR, but what if I need 7 places? Happy New Year & Cheers! :)
stefano888: CameraLabTester wrote:"Interesting outcome as of closing time.
Of the Top Ten cameras, by BRAND:
Nikon is No.1 (4,429 votes) and Sony is No.2 (2,504 votes)
Where's Canon?"Is Olympus N°.2 (3,568 votes)...
@stefano888 - here is Canon, oh dear oh dear: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-sells-more-dslrs-than-anyone/Cheers! :) :) :)
Zerg2905: History repeating: the Tiger I (or II) had a huge 88 mm gun (like the sensor on the D800) but was a sluggish and non-reliable (mechanichally) piece of machinery. It was devastating however, but only in open field and in perfect conditions. The Pershing tank was a very good all-rounder (like the Canon 5D Mk III), but even if it was reliable, relatively quick and had a powerful gun it was perceived as "inferior" to the Tiger, and arived very late. And, in the end, the T-34 (OM-D) was the one that made the difference. Ha-haaaa... Cheers! :)
Saumur & Bovington, done. Munster & Kubinka, not done yet. But you see, they have a Maus in Kubinka... But both Maus (worked only as prototype) & Jagdtiger were not that "mobile" (Jagdtiger was more used in "fixed" positions and hat terrible combat disadvantages). You cannot compare 88 Jagdtigers with thousands of T-34s, Shermans, ISs, ISUs etc - and this to your point about "superiority". In this case, "production" superiority. Cheers! :) :) :) P. S.: I will stop here (I appreciated the discussion), and wish you all a Happy New Year! :)
@illy: well, well, then in your opinion the biggest CORPORATION with photography as main business is (pick one from Canon, Nikon, Olympus)? Oh dear, Canon is an easy winner. "Bombing" everyone else with their production facilities, R&D etc. So, "poor factual evidence"? Cheers! :) P.S.: yes, it took 5 Shermans to take out a single Tiger, but there were exceptions - a) if the Sherman was the British modified Firefly with the 17pdr gun, ask Wittman what happened with his Tiger...; b) playing "hide & seek" in Normandy, the Shermans were able to outmaneuver the Tiger and bang, hit them from the back! c) there were other examples as well... But I will get back to my T-34 example - in Kursk, the Tigers were no match for the armada of T-34s... And more, just for the sake of "factual evidence": IS-2, ISU 122 & even ISU-152 were also operational... Not sure if you have seen one of these "lifesize". Hope we will see one camera equivalent in 2013! :) :) :)
:-) - - - @Peter 1745 et al.: exactly! So, "The Best Camera"?!?!?!? No way. Cheers! :) P.S.: Sherman = a good example, too.