Camera body ratings

<p>Always had/used Nikon film cameras. After 5DII was on market with a high MP than most Nikons, switched to Canon. <br>

Shooting landscape, kids, cities, travel.. Sold 5D II some time ago and switched to 6D for better AF. Now I realised 5D II was better camera than 6D especially on color depth. Now has some real investment on the lenses and waiting for 5d IV. Hope it will be much better camera on some ways. <br>

Checked the camera reviews on Dxo which is told a trustable site about reviews (hope it is ok to talk about another review site), and saw ratings of most Nikon cameras are much higher than Canons. Really shocked.</p>

<p>For example when 5d III s overall rating is 81, Nikon D 750 has 93<br>

EOS 5 D S has 87 but D 810 has 97<br>

and EOS 6 D has only 82 ...</p>

<p>When I look at this result, I am a looser by giving up Nikon bodies. </p>

<p>If I decide to go back to Nikon system I need to sell <strong>12 lenses</strong>...<br>

When I take picture with 6 D I dont find the picture so satisfying, especially color depths and overall feelings...</p>

<p>Of course this is a Canon forum and I am a sinner by saying this ... But that's my feelings...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sony A7R II score is 98 ... Canons scores are really low...</p>

I can't think of a single time a camera rating on some website made anyone like any of my photos less. I very strongly suspect that if you sell off all your Canon gear and purchase the highest-rated camera you can afford, it will do almost nothing to improve your photos.

<p>You say you can discriminate between color depths of images from the Canon 5DII and 6D yet you are relying on comparison website ratings to try to make major buying decisions. I suggest if your likes and dislikes are so precise then nothing but personally trying the different cameras will do.</p>

<p>OK. I am in agreement with Mike. I find the 6D files marginally superior to the 5DII's myself. I think the color depth for both these cameras are the same, so I am not sure what you are seeing. I think it will be a complete waste of money for you to go back to Nikon, but if it makes you happier then by all means go ahead! Why not go to Sony as they score so highly in those all-important DxO scores?</p>

<p>As a Nikon user - fully agree with Mike. Those test/review rating may be interesting for technology sake, but in terms of making a seriously good photo, they're not all that relevant.<br>

If you're unhappy with the files you get, work on creating better profiles in your raw editing software (Lightroom, CaptureOne, whatever you use) and possibly simply work more on your postprocessing skills - that's very likely going to have a lot more impact than switching one brand to the other. Switching brands is just a very expensive way for getting more of the exact same thing.</p>

<p>DxO's overall rating is highly skewed toward low ISO dynamic range. As ISOs go up, the Canons' performance close the gap and actually get better. For sports, birds and wildlife, the Canons give up nothing.</p>

<p>Is there anything wrong with you pictures? Are you maximizing sensor performance by shooting Raw and ETTR? If not, those are free ways to gain 1 to 2-stops of DR. Do you print large prints, where resolution is really important? Canon holds that lead at the moment, with the 5DsR. That'll change, so don't chase that. Just stick with one system and learn to maximize your product.</p>

<p>Another way to look at it is the way I do: ignore the hype and try to improve your craft. There's always a "better" camera coming out. If you get caught on the upgrade treadmill, you'll spend more time, energy and money on the gear, and less on photography.</p>

<p>For the record, I use a 5DII/7D combination, and see little need to upgrade at this point. Do I think they're the best cameras in the world? No, of course not. Do I wish they were better in some respects? Yes, of course, especially in their low ISO dynamic range. But this doesn't mean I'm going to shell out thousands of dollars just to marginally improve upon them.</p>

<p>Another consideration is lenses. And Canon, as we all know, makes superb lenses. If you were to replace your <em>twelve</em> EF lenses with their Nikkor counterparts, not only would you be out many thousands of dollars, you'd also have an inferior set of lenses.</p>

<p>12 lenses to get rid of? You must have spent a lot. <br>

I would want to be sure I would get some tangible benefit before making such a switch.<br>

Whatever you decide, the image quality of each generation of cameras is so much better than what came before that you can't really lose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>BTW, 12-lenses is likely way too many. Use Digital Lens Optimization in your Raw conversion and replace most of your primes with a couple of high-quality zooms.</p>

<p>Here's my preferred line-up:<br>

EF 14mm f/2.8L II<br>

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS<br>

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS<br>

EF 500mm f/4L IS II<br>

EF 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III<br>

EF 25ET</p>

<p>That's four lenses, covering every important focal length from 14mm to 1,000mm. I use them all regularly, in widley varying situation. With a couple of those you can cite reviews that say they're not top of the heap. That said, I'd challenge you to beat my results, after I've used ETTR, applied DLO and completed my Raw conversion.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for contributions... especially some very precious advices which I am totally agree.<br>

Yes, switching between brands and systems is a foolish act especially after 12 lenses. They are not all EF. Some Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc.</p>

<p>I need to improve my digital retouch/post processing skills...</p>

<p>And need to read more... Recently I learned that I need to switch off Auto WB when using CPL filter... Results were awful with a color combo filter with auto WB ON ! :(</p>

 

<p>I've been shooting with the 6D and 5D2 side by side for a couple years and, while IQ is similar, the 6D certainly gets the better IQ nod. There's a lot more to a camera and its system than Dxo ratings. Dxo ratings often seem like they're celebrating 4/20 all year round...</p>

<p>Sami, you must not be shooting Raw; otherwise, WB would be a total non-issue and you would adjust WB in Raw conversion. If what I just said is Greek to you, then you need to learn how to shoot Raw and convert to JPEG.</p>

<p>Canon cameras all ship with Digital Photo Professional, which is a Raw conversion software. DPP is exceptionally fine software, but its user interface is not up to LightRoom or DxO Optics Pro. I use DxO, but generally recommend LR because of its wide usage, user forums and online video training, which is superior. I have both and prefer DxO, but I've been using it since 2008.</p>

<p>This is where you should invest your time. Using presets, Raw conversion is not that time consuming. At first, it'll seem like drudgery, but your speed and skills will build quickly. At about $10 per month, Adobe's Creative Cloud gives you LR, PS and other tools. Start with LR, NOT PS. It's far more user friendly a more intuitive. </p>

<p>While on the topic of where to spend your money, it's foolish to worry about the latest sensor technology when your lenses don't provide optimal Image Quality. Seriously think about paring down your lens collection, but going to L-series, particularly with zooms and primes at the extreme ends. The body you already have will show the IQ differences between the latest L-series and some of those other brands. Canon is not just gouging with those prices. There are very real differences between lenses, in general. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but buying on price is not getting the most out of your body.</p>

<p>Thank you David and everybody for precious advices.<br>

I know my minus is not spending time on software.<br>

I will start soon. Sure it will add more on my pictures...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sami, this weekend would be a good time to start. Stop putting it off and make the investment.</p>

<p>If you have unlimited financial resources, then switch when you feel like it.<br>

As for using "numerical ratings" to judge cameras, see the many commentaries like Thom's<br>

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html<br>

There are differences among the various camera systems; but, as many above have pointed out, somehow Nikon users stumble along with "low MPs" and Canon users with "poor image quality".</p>

 

<p>At a purely technical level, there's not a lot of difference between Nikon and Canon, and certainly none visible to the naked eye. There's difference within the manufacturer's range of products in both cases - a Canon 1DX is not designed for the same uses as the 6D, and both are far more capable than a 1200D.</p>

<p>Worrying about DxO ratings and counting pixels is silly. The camera of whatever make, shape, size or type is a device with but one purpose - to record, more or less, the image in front of it. That raw digital file is the modern equivalent of the negative. It is a starting point only. You need to process the file just as you need to adjust the image from the negative in the darkroom. Expecting a "perfect" digital file is like wanting a film camera that will always and only produce the perfect negative that can be printed without dodging and burning, without filtering, just straight to paper. Such things don't exist.</p>

<p>Keep your Canon stuff. There's nothing wrong with it (disclaimer - I use Canon, for no better reason than that I always have). If the Canon is 0.001% inferior or superior to the Nikon in ways that the human eye cannot discern, what does it matter?</p>

<p>Don't beleive everything you read. DxO is highly biased toward Nikon. I bet you they have a Nikon camera as the "standard" that all other cameras must match up to... </p>

<p>I want to thank everybody and especially to David Stephens for encouraging me for using digital software for postprocess my shootings.<br /> Since last 2 weeks I spent some time on Lightroom. Now I have much more better results. For me this is a new start to my photography knowledge.</p>

<p>I need to spend some time also on Photoshop... of course after completing LR lessons.<br /><br /></p>

<p><img src="http://i.hizliresim.com/57Ag2z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks for the follow-up report Sami. I wish more OPs would keep us in the loop.</p>

<p>I'd love to see that image full screen, if you have a link. I can see the beginnings of detail on that near ridge, but I suspect it's not showing to full advantage, due to photo.net restrictions. For internet, you probably need to raise the level on that near ridge, just a bit more, so that the detail is more obvious. Are you saving as sRGB for internet? (I convert back to RGB for printing, but use sRGB for internet).</p>

<p>Welcome fully into the world of digital photography. You have, indeed, opened a new chapter. I'd suggest concentrating on LR. My view is that if LR can't make it right, then it's not worth keeping. I use PS for stitching (can now be done in LR), cloning out distractions and that's about it. </p>

<p>I don't have a link for that image. If you can write down your e-mail address, I will send it gladly. <br>

I save pictures as RGB. I will start saving with sRGB.</p>

 

<p>I'll send a PM in a minute.</p>

<p>Remember, sRGB for internet and RGB for the best print quality. However, there's a caveat in that some printer/publishers, such as MyPublisher.com have set their presses for sRGB. Printing is a whole other bag of crap, to be discussed later.</p>