Why do people buy Canon?

As a Nikon user I am thrilled to see the remarkable advantage that a dynamic range of 14 stops has over 11 stops. I am even more thrilled that my monitor with a dynamic range of less than 10 stops can display the difference so well. Obviously this is confusing me slightly.

But heck why should I be confused when seeing is believing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letrow

That test is funny, because Pepsi is slightly sweeter I think. So the first few swallows taste better, but a whole bottle is too much apparently.
Could we have the same problem here?

---

Drinking Coke can kill you :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-coroner-says/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Drinking Coke can kill you :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-coroner-says/

---

And apparently Canon cameras get killed as well.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/26/...led-by-a-lion/

The lioness wouldn't have done this to a Nikon is my guess.

This is one of the funniest posts on what is typically a controversial topic and on other sites, which leads to heated discussions, then the circling of wagons and hunkering down for a siege! Thanks for the laugh. A good start to the day! The links you posted are great, Kathy.

Hi Mike,
Perhaps that's cos we are more interested in photography than electronics.
Long live the image!!
Graham

There are people on site who are very knowledgeable about the technical side, but usually the argument is driven by the image (which is subjective) and most of the time personal preferences/requirements are accepted (or at least tolerated).
There seems to very few fanboys/girls on site, a blessing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradSut26

they showed up for me. But here. Canons sensors are lose 3 stops of light to that of Nikons. SO here is a simulation of that. with 1.5 stops off the top threshold and 1.5 from the bottom

Nikon:

Canon:

---

IF you want to post a comparison, fine, but make it a real one. Not a 'simulation' without any technical detail, please.

Just a few of the things that I wonder about here.
First and foremost: did this scene really have a contrast ratio of >12 EV on the bird (the white edge on the tail excepted)?
In that case, how did you manage to get such a contrast w/o visible shadows
If not, why is there such a large differnece in tones on the body?

Then: how did you treat the images; there's NO information whatsoever about shooting conditions or whatever.
And there has been PP on both versions (I don't know of any modern camera that produces 1.6 MP images with a custom watermark added)

Sorry, but if I ever tried to present such a 'comparison' as proof of anything, my colleagues would have laughed me out of the room
(and if it was discovered after publication: end of career)