Canon vs Nikon according to DXO

I don't want to start any fan-boy flame wars, but it seems like Nikon cameras surpass Canon cameras at every category and at every level, feature for feature according to DXO. This has been going on since the Nikon D200 came out back in 2005. I'm on the market for a new FF(affordable) camera and I was looking at the Nikon D610, Nikon D750, Pentax K-1, and Canon 6D(maybe a used 5D II) . Feature for feature I would say the Pentax K-1 wins, but the lack of Pentax lenses and lack of support makes me Jittery... The 6D looks like a great deal and since I already have Canon equipment it would be a breeze to just get that !

 

But when you compare the features against the Nikon D750 even the D600 not to mention the D610 which precedes it, all these cameras are equal or surpass the 6D feature for feature according to DXO. I don't know, maybe DXO is biased toward Nikon cameras, but when you look at the features offered by the Nikon cameras you got to wonder if its just bias. The one thing Canon cameras have is their rendering of images. I'm not sure about Nikon but canon with their home made sensors render images really well despite the pixel peeping and scientific charts. I'm also taking this into consideration although I never owned a Nikon DSLR to make comparisons...itti

Though there'd be a learning curve, shooting Canons would produce results indistinguishable from my Nikons. I know because I had a fine Canon on loan from a friend before I owned my first Nikon. At the start, before invested in equipment, I could have gone either way. If the best and second best duelist fought, there was a name for it "Coup de deux veuves" . Both men died and left widows.

Yes, certainly since Nikon adopted Sony sensors, they have been comparing favorably to Canon's sensors in DXO mark results. However, they do certainly seem to love Sony sensors in Sony units even more... Have you considered a Sony?

 

In real life though? meh. Not really any significantly perceptible difference. Lenses make a s__load more difference than the difference in sensors. If you've got a stable of crappy lenses and want to sell them all and buy equiv Nikon lenses I suspect you'll not see a tangible difference. If you've got a stable full of quality glass, and exchange for similar? likely the same result. If, however, you sell your crappy glass, spend $10+k, and buy good glass... then you'll see a HUGE difference ;) .

I don't want to start any fan-boy flame wars

 

Good way to actually start one then! Except that the forum is moribund so most of us will not bother to get involved. I would just ignore DXO altogether and buy any one of those cameras you list. My bet is that you will not find anyone of them significantly different that it will impact your shooting. Nowadays, I give only a second thought to full frame sensor differences between Canon. Nikon and Sony for the same generation of cameras. Sony-in-Sony cameras are generally considered "the best", but this has zero correlation with the quality of the photos that result for 99% of people. In the Canon realm I would get a 6D over the 5DII as the images are slightly better, and the 6D is a later-generation sensor. If you don't work in RAW then perhaps there will be some more noticeable differences - but I don't use JPEGs so I don't know.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Robin Smith

Nothing quite like those DxO scores. Sure they probably mean something, but in realistic use where objects are 3-dimensional, it's just some number. It doesn't tell the whole story about a camera anyway; it's only about sensor performance and nothing else. There are plenty other considerations that matter, like how complete a system is (not much of an issue with Canon or Nikon) and whether the lenses you need most are available at reasonable cost, how it handles, how it feels in your hands, how the AF works etc. etc.

 

Realistically, practically all the current cameras can deliver on such a high level that means the limiting factor is behind the camera, making that DxO score an even more academic footnote. So I wouldn't give much weight to it when I'd go shopping for a camera.

Look further than the overall rating. If you shoot birds and wildlife, requiring higher ISOs, then Canon, in general is superior. I say, "in general" because both makers make cameras designed to excel at different usages. No camera does everything equally well. If you like to underexpose landscapes and then fix it in post, then Nikon is your body of choice. If you know how to properly expose digital files, then it hardly matters.

it seems like Nikon cameras surpass Canon cameras at every category and at every level, feature for feature according to DXO. This has been going on since the Nikon D200 came out back in 2005

I neither know nor agree. First of all: DxO don't test much. They rate dynamic range high ISO and color depth. If you dig deep they maybe publish weight too but nothing about AF performance and menus, the two camera features that tend to stand between me, a not entirely static fully compliant subject and a great picture. If you are lucky, they tested lenses too. I recently watched a video where a Nikon guy complained that the release of the 5D hit him hard because Nikon had nothing to compete against it. So I guess Canon haven't been always entirely behind Nikon since 2005?

I guess my Fuji X-E1 would score high in DxO if they tested it. The Pentax K1 BTW does.

My aim was to finally buy a 70-200mm f2.8 for sports and non compliant portraiture. When I look at DxO's camera scores, the D750 outperform's the 5D IV by 0.9 stops dynamic range. - Otherwise they seem sufficiently equal. But lets put that fact into the proper perspective: I'm happily shooting my M8 and Pentax K20D. You have to scroll down pretty far to spot these and the EOS provides 2.3 stops of additional dynamic range to what I am usually considering good enough.

If you are budgeting, I'd first check if the Canons you are looking at seem better than what you already have. In a 2nd step I'd look at lenses. To me they seem having an edge in that field; their 70-200 looks like a steal, compared to Nikon's 3rd version. The equally priced 2nd version scores low and has that focus breathing issue. Further on I never liked or managed the D90's menu and spent my last vacation next to a guy cursing his D750's live view AF. Toss in haggling success and Canon's cash back in Germany + my hope to save 20 Euro on 3rd party flashes + rumors about Canon service being more successful than Nikon's and you have the base of my purchasing decision.

OK that rambling was apples vs oranges, since the 5D IV is maybe the first Canon with an "almost there" sensor, but that is something you should figure out in Lightroom, looking at your previous work.

Upon the K1 and similar:

the lack of Pentax lenses and lack of support makes me Jittery...

I honestly don't know. - I have a k-mount lens line. When buying a body is already a stretch, what are you planning &/ desiring lenses wise? - To me it doesn't matter that Canon build an awesome 200-400mm f4 with integrated converter. I fear when I'd have finished saving up for it my (human) body won't be in a shape to carry it anymore. Support? What are we talking about and how is it supposed to save our behinds when?

If any camera breaks on Friday, we have to shoot the Saturday wedding with something else. Is there really any "platinum level" professional service fixing gear overnight and delivering it Saturday morning? - When my K20D took dropping damage I got another Samsung GX 20 on ebay. A recently needed 100mm macro repair took not overly long via independent shop(s). - I'm just saying: "Be realistic." This unfortunately includes the fact that Pentax charge a little extra for a rebadged Tamron, although their version comes without IS. - Really sad that camera bodies are a package deal and prices get shifted to confuse us. The K1 isn't for me on the long end. - I even ponder buying a D500 200-500mm combo for that lens' sake instead of going Tamron / Sigma 150-600mm on Canon. If your subjects don't need much AF the K1 seems a great offer and you have some lenses, haven't you? I can't afford switching systems. I rather mix them according to my needs.

...

If any camera breaks on Friday, we have to shoot the Saturday wedding with something else. Is there really any "platinum level" professional service fixing gear overnight and delivering it Saturday morning? - When my K20D took dropping damage I got another Samsung GX 20 on ebay. A recently needed 100mm macro repair took not overly long via independent shop(s). - I'm just saying: "Be realistic." This unfortunately includes the fact that Pentax charge a little extra for a rebadged Tamron, although their version comes without IS. - Really sad that camera bodies are a package deal and prices get shifted to confuse us. The K1 isn't for me on the long end. - I even ponder buying a D500 200-500mm combo for that lens' sake instead of going Tamron / Sigma 150-600mm on Canon. If your subjects don't need much AF the K1 seems a great offer and you have some lenses, haven't you? I can't afford switching systems. I rather mix them according to my needs.

 

Canon Professional Services "Platinum" membership will, indeed, get you a loaner by the next day. Still, a "professional" wedding photographer that takes a gig and doesn't have a back-up rig should be shot, but that's another matter.

 

About lenses, you start a sentence about Nikon and end it with Canon. I just want to make it clear that when considering a Tamron 150-600mm vs. a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, check out the IQ comparison on DxOMark. The Canon blows away the Tamron. I know several Canon shooters that tried the 150-600mm and either moved up to the Canon 100-400mm or a Canon prime. The superior IQ really shows in the finished product.

@dcstep: Thank you. I am aware of the Canon 100-400mm's superiority compared to Tamron and even Sigma but still: Half of twice the money spent on overlap seems not that wise when reach for the buck is the goal, so adding a Nikon with lens for just 1100 Euro more remains appealing.

I checked out CPS Europe. They want me to own basically two 5D series bodies + 3 qualifying lenses for a "gold" membership which might get me a free loaner after repairs exceed a three working days turn around time in house, without shipping. 3rd body and 4th lens added grant the loaner on the 3rd day. Nice to know such a service exists, but practically thinking: If you have to shoot like crazy to make a dead line and something breaks, you 'll probably still need a rental or backup.

Yes. Nikon is superior in DxO measures.

The next question is why.

 

Like some others, I am inclined to feel that the problem is with the measurements employed rather than any major iq issue

I think that there's no arguing that at base ISO, in general, the Nikons have higher dynamic range than the competing Canons. As the ISO needs to be raised, the Canons close the gap and, in some cases are superior. Those of us that shoot birds and wildlife, requiring higher ISOs to get shutter speeds up, find that the Canons perform very well. Canon's wide selection of super-telephoto lenses weighed heavily on my decision to go with a Canon system. You really have to look at the whole system and how you plan to use it.