Lost in Space

<p>With the low light performance of Nikon cameras and their competitive pricing...without the plastic fantastic of most Canon cams....</p>

<p>And those Mirrorless cams and the super quality of their lenses (Fuji)...and they can use any Canon lens.</p>

<p>Could it be "Goodnight Vienna" for Canon?. Sports super fast focus today but tomorrow ...well, goodbye Canon. Just trading on a brand name...what do you think?</p>

I think my five-year-old 5D Mk. 2 still exceeds my needs about 99% of the time (and I shoot in the dark a lot). I find it hard to believe that the current cameras have worse performance.

 

Wasn't Canon supposed to go out of business several years ago when Nikon released the D800?

<p>I'm with Mike. My 5D2 is still my workhorse and probably will be for the foreseeable future...</p>

<p>I'm another long time 5D2 user. No point in changing a camera that does just about everything you could wish for. Nikons are no better built than Canons. DSLRs will eventually morph into cameras that look almost identical but will have EVFs instead of optical viewfinders. They fit better in the hand and have far better handling than smaller mirrorless bodies and, for a working photographer, that's what matters. That is why the mirrorless offerings of both Nikon and Canon have been half-hearted... they know what the future holds.</p>

<p>I sold my (excellent and much used) 5DII a few months ago and bought a Canon 6D. It does all I want, is a bit lighter and slightly smaller than the 5DII, has higher ISO capability and a much quieter shutter. I can see that a pro user might well prefer the more rugged shutter of the Canon 5D series but the 6D shutter will probably do for me.<br /> At about the same time my brother bought a Sony A7. It too is a very fine camera, a bit smaller and lighter than most DSLRs, but I prefer the optical viewfinder of a DSLR and the handling when using long lenses.<br /> The use of high quality plastics is perfectly acceptable from an engineering point of view with the advantages of dimensional stability and lightness.<br /> With today's cameras and lenses all the major manufacturers are offering excellent products and the one you should go for is probably the one you feel happiest taking pictures with. <br /> Maybe the revolution has been postponed:-)</p>

I switched from Canon to Nikon a long time ago (when

the D700 came out). I don't regret it. But the majority of

the world disagrees, and for now, Canon outsell Nikon

and DSLRs outsell mirrorless. Most people don't care

about the dynamic range differences (admittedly, I do,

but there's always Magic Lantern). Canon bodies are

absolutely "good enough", and any advantage in another

system is balanced by an advantage of Canon (like the

200-400 or 17mm T/S, for example) - most of it is personal preference,

and I don't go around trying to "convert" people to Nikon:

a lot would justifiably prefer the Canon way of doing

things, and frankly it wouldn't kill me to switch system again if I had to.

 

Experienced photographers will choose based on

specific needs - which currently usually means Canikon

because of the accessory range - and the less

experienced will get what's cheap, what's in their

department store or (rarely these days) high street

retailer, and what their friends have. Small technical

differences are largely moot - they're for the 1% of shots

that only a few of us care about.

 

As for competitive pricing and low light, the 6D is awfully

competitive. Yes, slower and with a simpler autofocus

system than the D610, but for a low-light solution Nikon

users have to spend more to match it. I'd not give up yet.

(And I'd really like Nikon to put more cross sensors in

their next autofocus module...)

Soooo many types of cameras available today, quality is better than ever, there is something available for

everyone, yet the bitching never stops. Go take photos. Don't let the equipment be your handicap.

<p>Maybe related to Frank Herbert, hence "Lost in Space?" </p>

<p>1. Nikon uses just as much plastic. As someone else mentioned plastics are not what they used to be.</p>

<p>2. You still want to use Canon lenses on a mirrorless body, so they must be doing something right. </p>

<p>3. High speed sports will always be around and some are even getting faster. Nikon and Canon DSLRs will reign for many more years.</p>

<p>I use both Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses to take advantage of both worlds.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if you are aware, but Canon makes a lot of products other than DSLRs. So, (hypothetically) even were they to become outclassed to the point where they found DSLRs to be unprofitable, it would take a lot more than that to sound their death knell.</p>

<p> That said, they face some very stiff competition from other DSLRs... Though, yeah, Nikon cams have plastic too. But there is nothing new in that regard, Nikon and Canon have always bounced back and forth, probably will until the DSLR is a thing of the past. IMO this is a good thing. Hopefully, one of these days they'll take the lack of improvement in DR into account.</p>

<p> What <em>is</em> new is the viability of 3rd party lens manufacturers. Both Tamron and Sigma have recently been putting lenses on the market which consistently outperform their peers from Canon. Either that are they are nearly there at half the price. This puts pressure on Canon from a new direction. </p>

<p>...MILCs are not a huge concern I think, as most pros (whether it be fashion, sports, weddings, or portraiture or product) wouldn't give up their DSLRs unless you pried them from their cold dead hands. I know I wouldn't! ...not to pick up a camera which is less capable, slower, and harder to handle - not to mention doesn't have a decent sized VF (regardless of type). While MILCs may be a great toy (and of course, quite capable machines), they are not nearly ready for a pro's camera bag, except (maybe) as a backup's backup. Most likely, given their form factor, they never will be. </p>

<p>I think it's nonsense. In the old days there was Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Leica R, Contax, Konica competing with Canon in addition to Nikon. Contax, Konica and Leica R are out as brands, and Minolta is now Sony, Fuji is in with non-MF kit and there is Samsung and Panasonic added to the mix. Olympus is still with us. So the competition is about the same as always. Sigma and Tamron are still with us as they were 25 years ago. Zeiss used to provide Contax lenses, now they supply all and sundry. Plus ca change...</p>

<p>Stop feeding the TROLL!</p>

<p>As for Canon "plastic fantastic", check out these videos. It is the higher end Nikon D90 vs. a Canon 550D (T2i name in Europe) on YouTube. They are much more durable than you would assume for the plastic. <br>

<p>There is an article about this in the latest issue of Digital PhotoPro magazine, titled "The DSLR is Still King". This article explains that the high-speed processors, optical viewfinders, versatility and high-speed frame rates still make the DSLR the camera of choice for professional photographers and it will probably remain that way for years to come.</p>

<p>On the other hand there is an article about the Sony's a7R II mirror-less camera that can capture 4K and much, much more. </p>

<p>I use the Canon 5DII because, by using affordable but reliable adapters, I can attach Leica R and Carl Zeiss (Hasselblad) lenses. That's what counts, after all.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>What people forget is Canon is making a profit Nikon is doing OK Sony and most of the mirror-less lot are in deep do do </p>