Nikon still has the IQ advantage, and not by a short measure i.m.o. I now use the D500 next to the 7DII, and the difference is really substantial. Not that you can't shoot beautiful wildlife images with Canon, but Nikon's raw images are simply on a different level. And that still goes for the FF bodies 5DIV/5DSr vs D850 as well.
I have heard this a few times and wonder why these substantial differences don't show in the controlled comparisons or scientific test data we have available (except for low ISO DR of the 7DII, but that is rarely relevant for wildlife), and why the people who say this don't provide images for direct comparison, showing these substantial differences.
Personally, I don't really care for either scientific data (although nothing wrong with taking notice and can be very informative) or for comparisons to find out which body/brand is better than the other.
All I really care about, is when a special moment arises under uncontrolled circumstances in nature photography, that the raw file allows for editing an image to taste. In this, the 7DII is much more limited than the D500. With the D500, you don't háve to get exposure spot-on, you can accidentally underexpose and it doesn't matter, you can protect the highlights in a high contrast shot knowing you can bring back the shadows. All the color information is there, also in underexposed shots. In the same way you can easily restore overexposed shots. Nature photography can present you with dificult light, unless you always go out in the golden hour, or have predictable weather and the sun always in the right place etc.
To me, the possibility of working on a raw image knowing that it is worth it, is essential. Nikon is well ahead in my experience, but others may have different experiences, which is fine.
Feb 25, 2020 at 10:05 AM
Previous versions of ChrisMak's message #15153729 « Pre-order: Canon 1DX Mark III ($6500) »
