I have a Canon GL2 and a Canon EOS 20D and will never purchase anything from Canon again and I recommend you do not purchase anything from this profoundly disapointing corporation.
After 5 years the CCD chip in the GL2 died. Replacement is $700.00 and the authorized Canon repair service told me the chips are so poorly made not to bother.
The pop up Flash on my 20D will not pop up. To fix that Canon expects me to shell out $500.00 for a problem they constructed into their camera.
I feel Canon is engaged in fraud as all the problems I have were well known by Canon before they sold me the camera and yet they don't stand behind their shoddy products.
I fell for their advertising. Never again.

Honestly, I would have to say that I agree with this review. As a person who has owned a Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Elixim, and Kodak camera, I have to say that Nikon leads the pack in DSLR's. I say this because, while Canon has extremely nice DSLR's and Lenses, they preform poorly at high iso's, and are far to expensive than they are sold for. Now look at Nikon. What we see here is a company which puts out cameras that have very good high iso performance, very good lenses, and they don't break the bank account. As far as film goes, the cameras are even.

This review has me won and lost, won because yes the iso performance on canon cameras NOW SUCK, if canon goes back to the old days on HIGH ISO low noise performance, it'll be great, but right now I want a nikon, the lost thing is because people are pissing me off saying onne is better than the other, may I remind you that nikon "borrows" sensors? from what you say? sony, I'd say thats a very unfair battle, canon does its own sensors, unless they do the same thing

Canon is hailed as the 800 pound gorilla in the camera industry. When it comes to image quality, canon is way way ahead of any brand. Even in the DSLR market, top end nikon are no where close to their canon counterpart.

Funny, I have always used Nikon, and I was impartial and bought a Canon 7d, and 5d mk II to check them out and see which one I wanted. I was shocked that out of the camera the images are MUCH blurrier than Nikon. I used all mediocre brand lenses when testing, and even tried a Canon L lens against my 300 dollar Nikon, and the Nikon won hands down. As far as the ISO performance goes....who cares? I shoot outdoors, or indoors with a flash so that is a moot point.

are u nuts? Canon DSLR are all hyped by their marketing campaings nothing more.

Have you all been living under a rock? Nikon high ISO performance is horrible to say the least. Canon's is wayyyyyyyy better. Especially Nikon point and shoots, almost anything over ISO 400 is useless, looks like you took the picture on sandpaper.

Canon ISO performance was better until Nikon released D300/ D90..
my first Digital SLR was canon 400d second 40d, I have spend over £1000 on a EF 24-70mm L Lens, and few weeks a go been playing with my friend Nikon D300 + 18-105mm VR and that lens cost one fifth of my EF 24-70mm lens, and almost equal in performance, and that makes me mad !
Canon officially makes me angry so i decided to sell my Canon gear and go with the same kit as my friend has, Nikon D300 and 18-105mm VR ROCK !!!

BTW I'm working in professional photography studio, and that decision is not just a moment of anger about Canon overpriced gear, I did photos of the same object in the same light conditions with both cameras on the best possible setting (on various F stops) and was compering results with my friends from the studio, and just don't see the point of staying with Canon any longer..

Nikon cheap 18-105mm VR lens (£200) can stand to the same image standard as my Canon EF 24-70mm (over £1000)
try to find any Canon lens in that price range at least almost that sharp as Nikon 18-105mm VR ! (excluding Canon plastic 50mm prime..)

Canon is a joke. My Nikons always kick my buddies Canon's ass. The Canon is always in the shop, Canon is always asking for repair costs in excess of $200. The experience that my friends go through is just amazing. Of the 20 or 30 people I know who are avid shooter most use Nikons, and the remaining Canon users are seriously looking at moving to Nikon.

I'm glad that I can buy a Nikon, use it for years and it won't break. I'm sure Canon makes a technically good product, but I would not own one simply because of the horror stories I've witnessed.

Good luck to all you Canon users, you're going to need it.

The only reason Nikon's high ISO performance "SEEMS" to be better is because they applied NR (noise reduction) to their RAW files. It is applied even if you turn it "off". It makes you think they have "better" noise control when in fact it's just a BIG LIE. Nikon users do not know this and they don't want to know this because it makes them look stupid!

All Nikon DSLRs use Sony sensors - the heart of a camera. Until Nikon could actually PRODUCE a sensor of their own, they are just a second rated camera company. If I were to buy a DSLR with Sony sensor I would just buy a Sony DSLR. There is no need for Nikon as an intermediary.

So far my observation is that the majority of actual professionals use Canon. The pro-wannabes with less than little talent tend to use Nikon because Nikon is good at marketing to the ignorant. They appeal to people who don't know how a good photography should look like.

Wow, what an idiot you are. Nikon makes million dollar lenses for the integrated circuit industry, while Canon likes to make copiers...ha!
Where is your PROOF about the noise reduction? Did you write the software? What a stupid claim. All I know is that I owned both of them for 1 month and returned ALL the canon stuff and kept the nikon because it is better. I can care less about marketing, and NEVER have listend to anythin they said. I just use the camera and the proof is indisputeable that Nikon is superior.

CANON COMPACT CAMERAS SUCKS!!!!!!

I bought a Canon Ixus 990is, it was suposed to be a great camera.
I must say that it is the WORSE camera I ever used!

Picture quality is awful. Even simple shots in a sunny day in automatic mode give you horrible pics. Geometric distortion is so obvious that seems that you are using a damn fisheye lens!
Even my old Exilim could take pictures with higher quality than Canon..

Canon Cameras NEVER again!!!

If you're the type of person with the ideology that a certain camera brand or how much you spent on your camera equipment defines your photograph's, than you are not a photographer. Only beginners and newb's who dont know how to take a decent photograph more than one time with any camera thinks like that. The camera is just a tool, the photographer is where the ideas flow from. I have seen people win awards useing point and shoot cameras. And have also seen people that take terrible photographs despite years practicing and they buy a $5,000 hoping it will make there photos look better, technically the image's have less noise and are clearer but they still get crap but at a higher mega pixel. There composition still sucks, and even with 10 fps they still miss the moments. Again its stupid to say this brand sucks and that brand is better. All the camera companies are great, you cant really go wrong with any of them.

Brand doesn't matter, it is the person taking the photos that matters.

The best photographer is the person who are at the right place and right time with the right camera.

He/she must also have the right skill to adjust the right camera setting and right aim at the right subject.

The last thing is to press the button at the right moment.

1) Right place
2) Right time
3) Right camera
4) Right skill
5) Right setting
6) Right aim
7) Right subject
8) Right moment

Right setting refer to
a) Aperture Size
b) Shutter Speed
c) ISO setting
d) Exposure value
e) White Balance
f) Right focus

The best camera is the one, which give you the manual control over all the factors above to control the quality of your picture.

depend on what type of object you shot, if you only shoot inside a studio with full set of flash strobe, and you stop down your camera to f16, you are right, any camera can do the trick ,but what if you going to shoot dim light dancing? or dim light latin, with people moving non stop? if you use a canon dslr, all your shoots will endup fuzzy soft

i have designed, manufactured, sold and used optics/cameras for about 40 years. My observations suggeat why can rules. Best selling pro-microscopes, Nikon, Zeiss, Olympus - despite Canon's "feature-rich" products, most pathologists, researchers, and industial users rate Canon's quality as pretty low. Most common complaint I heard from end users was lenses with poor geometry and color distortion (key in many fields color rendition and lack of rainbows, flares enzovoort are critical to these users. After that users commonly complain about that highly quantifiable quality called "feel". Sit at a Nikon telescope and focus,coarse then fine on a body ( can't be that hard, it's infinity - right? Now try it with the Canon. Combining poorly placed, clumsy, sticky controls with flaring lenses Canon has perfected the science of getting people to first gouge their eyes out, then dash out their brains on the nearest coffee table. Finally, look at the massive size of theur products. I am speaking now in the DSLR category now. Compare any Nikon, or Olympus (my preference for 25 years) to a Canon and you find the Canon shares size/weight specs with a '68 Buick. Now point them @ Best Buy's (hey, why not spend an extra 25 bucks at a reliable photo store, right?) fluorescent lighting. After sharpening them up compare the quality of the image in terms of color and light. I'll say no more to color your opinion about this. Next zoom both all the way out (wide) and focus acrooss et store at the far corner by washers and stoves. Now move you camera right or left so that the vertical line in the corner is still in the picture. One will mirror reality and the Canon won't, it is no longer straight but rather is bowed. Look again see. Try that wit the Sear's (Willis) tower in Chicago. Your aunt from Pascagoula will complain it makes her look fat. Now zoom in with each camera and focus on the same corner. Not so easy to see with the stock 14-42, or 18-54 mm (but it's there) as with the next up such as a 50-200 mm. Now zoom out. Are you still par-focal? Should be.
All of these defects and others, are caused by one simple issue. Cost enginering. Design/build a product whose paper spec looks good, but whose manufacturing cost is lowest possible to create a product that is cheap and profitable and has mass-appeal based on the largest market (US) #1, #2

Oh btw, I see many comments about ISO. Most pros l ow already that ISO is interchangeable with shutter and aperture. Need more sensivity? Slow down, and open up. But the dirty little secret is hidden in several comments made about how sensitivity was better on earlier models and new specs seem exaggerated. Of the 4 common sensor types CCD, MOS, CPD, CID, the first two are usually chosen because they yield the most sensors "per crop". CCDs are more sensitive and produce more accurate colors. Recently, manfacturers are leaving the "schott" filter off the sensor which makes it very sensitive down into the IR range. Using circuits and software to do this instead isn't exactly perfect, I found color shifts and ringing on Sony Cameras. MOS sensors are less sensitive, have less accurate color, and go into snowstorm mode sooner as lights get dimmer. Also, a quirk in the way that MOS sensors clock an MOS can be rated as having higher resolution. Here's a test 4 you. Take a CCD Camera and an MOS sensor and photograph an Indian Head resolution chart. The chary was used by TV stations a for a long time and shpuld be available on the net. Huh? Even higher res MOS sensors will suddenly seem to have ower

lower res??? What's more the driving force behind the shift to CMOS is iprice. CMOS are cheaper. As for makers of sensors, many major brands make them,supply them to other brands, and often consider their own brand of products (say point

Over the years I have owned most Nikon high end cameras from f2, f3, f4, to f5 and recently I purchased Nikon D300S and I must say it was a total disappointment. Nikon it aspires sets the sensor specifications for maximum profit definitely not for maximum image quality.
D3x at astronomical price of $8,000 you would expect would have absolutely state of art sensor but it also utilizes a sensor that is so noisy that software noise reduction must be used at all times in order to get an almost acceptable image quality. Since corporations have gotten greedier and greedier and consumer protection is nonexistent I do not expect situation to change for better. Corporations have money and can by lots of representation (“justice”) and consumer cannot.

Want the best image quality? Go with Olympus and Zuiko glass.

I second that-they crush both nikon and canon. I have an e-5 that is awesome. Dont believe the marketing hype of the megapixel wars. It is 12 megapixel which is enough! ANy more, and you introduce noise. Your * hdtv is only 2 megapixels and looks great!

I have been a canon user since eos1 20 years ago, there are few things i just hate canon, 1) poor AF under dim light 2) poor tracking AF 3) tend to over exposure on random time 4)hot heart yellow indoor color cast)

non 'L' are soft and rubbish, even the top 'L' lens only last within 5 years then the coating will degrade( i guess it made with plastic) my 28-70mm f2.8L is a great example, canon said the problem parts need to be replaced and they have no spare parts to fix my lens, so be clever don't buy their lens into system, in 5 years, it will be a worthless junk.