In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2 was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...
--
teleportation kills