User Experience is Top Metric Again

Let's face it - dynamic range, high ISO noise and all those traditionally explosive areas of argument regarding which camera is better is now generally history.

With DR and IQ across camera brands just marginally different, the other area of debate is which has better AF. Again, the differences right now across camera brands are marginal.

To me, Canon remains a preferred choice because of superb ergonomics. The way it handles, the way it feels on my hands. Can be subjective. But the grip on Canon cameras - including smaller bodies such as the R10, remain superior to my view.

Specs matters. Megapixels count (literally, especially). Ergonomics to me is more valuable than ever, especially as lenses become bigger / fatter / heavier.

Then there's the menu system. While Sony's menu layout and intuitiveness has improved over the past few years, Canon's menu remains the simplest to navigate.

Are we at the stage of photography when cameras across brands are becoming more similar in "technical" capabilities?

CamerEyes wrote:

Let's face it - dynamic range, high ISO noise and all those traditionally explosive areas of argument regarding which camera is better is now generally history.

With DR and IQ across camera brands just marginally different, the other area of debate is which has better AF. Again, the differences right now across camera brands are marginal.

To me, Canon remains a preferred choice because of superb ergonomics. The way it handles, the way it feels on my hands. Can be subjective. But the grip on Canon cameras - including smaller bodies such as the R10, remain superior to my view.

Specs matters. Megapixels count (literally, especially). Ergonomics to me is more valuable than ever, especially as lenses become bigger / fatter / heavier.

Then there's the menu system. While Sony's menu layout and intuitiveness has improved over the past few years, Canon's menu remains the simplest to navigate.

Are we at the stage of photography when cameras across brands are becoming more similar in "technical" capabilities?

Pretty much, IMO. Canon has one more thing going for it which is superb customer service. You hope this stuff never breaks down but occasionally it does and when it does, Canon has some of the best service support I have ever encountered.

A few years ago, the function knob fell off on my M5 about two weeks before I was leaving for Europe. There was no time to send it to NJ, get it fixed and get it back even if we expedited it. There were 2 weeks left on the 1-year warranty. The guy I spoke with in NJ told me to save the knob at home, use the menus on the touch screen and send it in when i get back -- don't worry about the warranty.

Turn around is quick and they keep you posted as to what is going on.

David Hull wrote:

CamerEyes wrote:

Let's face it - dynamic range, high ISO noise and all those traditionally explosive areas of argument regarding which camera is better is now generally history.

With DR and IQ across camera brands just marginally different, the other area of debate is which has better AF. Again, the differences right now across camera brands are marginal.

To me, Canon remains a preferred choice because of superb ergonomics. The way it handles, the way it feels on my hands. Can be subjective. But the grip on Canon cameras - including smaller bodies such as the R10, remain superior to my view.

Specs matters. Megapixels count (literally, especially). Ergonomics to me is more valuable than ever, especially as lenses become bigger / fatter / heavier.

Then there's the menu system. While Sony's menu layout and intuitiveness has improved over the past few years, Canon's menu remains the simplest to navigate.

Are we at the stage of photography when cameras across brands are becoming more similar in "technical" capabilities?

Pretty much, IMO. Canon has one more thing going for it which is superb customer service. You hope this stuff never breaks down but occasionally it does and when it does, Canon has some of the best service support I have ever encountered.

A few years ago, the function knob fell off on my M5 about two weeks before I was leaving for Europe. There was no time to send it to NJ, get it fixed and get it back even if we expedited it. There were 2 weeks left on the 1-year warranty. The guy I spoke with in NJ told me to save the knob at home, use the menus on the touch screen and send it in when i get back -- don't worry about the warranty.

Turn around is quick and they keep you posted as to what is going on.

Another excellent point, the after-sales support of a brand does define camera ownership experience!

In the few very instances I had a Canon camera repaired within warranty and outside of warranty, customer service in this side of Asia has been largely positive!

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

Jozef M wrote:

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

I point them to manufactures that make cheap cameras and even cheaper lenses.  Plenty of choices out there for all budgets.  But, there are hidden downsides to using cheap tools made by cheap labor.

CamerEyes wrote:

Let's face it - dynamic range, high ISO noise and all those traditionally explosive areas of argument regarding which camera is better is now generally history.

With DR and IQ across camera brands just marginally different, the other area of debate is which has better AF. Again, the differences right now across camera brands are marginal.

To me, Canon remains a preferred choice because of superb ergonomics. The way it handles, the way it feels on my hands. Can be subjective. But the grip on Canon cameras - including smaller bodies such as the R10, remain superior to my view.

Specs matters. Megapixels count (literally, especially). Ergonomics to me is more valuable than ever, especially as lenses become bigger / fatter / heavier.

Then there's the menu system. While Sony's menu layout and intuitiveness has improved over the past few years, Canon's menu remains the simplest to navigate.

Are we at the stage of photography when cameras across brands are becoming more similar in "technical" capabilities?

All the cameras are capable for basic photography. Canon support and build quality attracted me to the brand. Plus, I like the closed system Canon has implemented.   The parts of the kit just work and are backed by Canon.

No worries as I know who built it.

charisgratia wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

I point them to manufactures that make cheap cameras and even cheaper lenses. Plenty of choices out there for all budgets. But, there are hidden downsides to using cheap tools made by cheap labor.

The cheapest as well as most expensive cameras I've owned have been Canon. Same for lenses. There's a camera/lens for every budget with Canon.

Yes but,...I am referring to getting a cheap body or lenses from other brands with all the features and, on the surface appearing to, has all the same specs for cheaper price.

Canon putting more build cost into quality materials (that don't matter when new), cost of quality design versus just a clone copy, and quality labor (resulting in less copy to copy variations).

Something for everyone while the basic photography mission is met.

Agree all three brands are the same now. Just depends which you prefer to own/use and have the cash for.

I’ve owned canon for thirty years and have zero interest in other brands as they always have had an offering that suited me.

Jozef M wrote:

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

If you are buying Canon, you are not worrying about "expensive." Canon has not been the low priced alternative for quite some time. If you are worried about TP lenses, once again, there are alternatives.

It isn't like Canon is the only option out there. You must make a decision and, yes indeed, all these things are factors.

Edit: in writing this comment, I have in mind something like the R5 and "L" glass. As one other poster points out, Canon offers great cameras in all price ranges. It’s a bit like complaining that a Lexus is too expensive – well, that’s why there is a Camry.

David Hull wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

If you are buying Canon, you are not worrying about "expensive." Canon has not been the low priced alternative for quite some time. If you are worried about TP lenses, once again, there are alternatives.

It isn't like Canon is the only option out there. You must make a decision and, yes indeed, all these things are factors.

Edit: in writing this comment, I have in mind something like the R5 and "L" glass. As one other poster points out, Canon offers great cameras in all price ranges. It’s a bit like complaining that a Lexus is too expensive – well, that’s why there is a Camry.

So you are saying here that it is correct, the statement that Canon is too expensive for what it is worth. Very good. The competition is cheaper and equally good, especially in the lens field.
The cheaper-priced cameras do not have a well-built and cheaper lens catalogue.

If you want to defend Canon at all costs, dismissing any negative criticism, you will end up in the slavish follower approach, all those who say a bad word about Canon are against me and I will destroy you. This is not smart, David.
You can also say: 'Come on Canon, give us some cheaper prices for your L-glass, these prices are a bit too excessive.'

This is all I have to say about this subject.

Jozef

Jozef M wrote:

What if someone says to you: 'Canon is too expensive, camera bodies and lenses, and no third party lenses ...'

Jozef.

Hasselblad and Leica are more expensive.

It's always been true. You take more and better pictures with a camera you enjoy using than with one with superior performance that you don't enjoy using. And the technical differences between cameras have never been as stark as people on these forums make out - it's almost as though the "digital" in the site's title refers to opinions, something is either 100% perfect or 0% useful, never anywhere in between.

I often say that Sony is a top consumer electronics company, whereas Canon is a top camera company. For me, Canon cameras have always made it easy to get the right results, whereas Sonys, even when technically superior, have always been more of a PITA, from menu structures, viewfinders (I've yet to find a Sony camera whose viewfinder doesn't trigger my residual balance disorder, although I've not tried one in the last year) or aftersales support. Sonys feel to me like the results of various compartmentalised departments all stuck together, Canons feel like there's an integrated approach. Now of course YMMV, others might disagree with all of that, and that's fine - it's user experience either way.