With both Nikon and Canon having released their mirrorless systems, many photographers might be wondering about their similarities and differences. Although Nikon released two mirrorless cameras with 24.5 MP and 45.7 MP resolutions to appeal different photography needs, Canon decided to go ahead with a single 30.4 MP camera at launch. In this article, I would like to take a closer look at all three cameras and compare their specifications side-by-side.
Below are the technical specifications of all three cameras, including their mount and pricing information:
| Camera Feature | Canon EOS R | Nikon Z6 | Nikon Z7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mount Inner Diameter | 54.0mm | 55.0mm | 55.0mm |
| Flange Distance | 20.0mm | 16.0mm | 16.0mm |
| Sensor Resolution | 30.4 MP | 24.5 MP | 45.7 MP |
| Sensor Type | CMOS | BSI CMOS | BSI CMOS |
| Sensor Size | 36.0 x 24.0mm | 35.9 x 24.0mm | 35.9 x 23.9mm |
| Low-Pass Filter | Yes | Yes | No |
| In-Body Image Stabilization | No | Yes, 5-axis | Yes, 5-axis |
| Sensor Pixel Size | 5.36µ | 5.9µ | 4.35µ |
| Image Size | 6,720 x 4,480 | 6000 x 4000 | 8256 x 5504 |
| Image Processor | DIGIC 8 | EXPEED 6 | EXPEED 6 |
| Max Buffer Capacity (14-bit RAW) | 47 Images | 18 Images | 18 Images |
| Native ISO Sensitivity | ISO 100-40,000 | ISO 100-51,200 | ISO 64-25,600 |
| Boosted ISO Sensitivity | ISO 50, ISO 51,200-102,400 | ISO 50, ISO 102,400-204,800 | ISO 32, ISO 51,200-102,400 |
| Dust Reduction / Sensor Cleaning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Viewfinder | Electronic / EVF | Electronic / EVF | Electronic / EVF |
| Viewfinder Type / Resolution | OLED / 3.69 million dots | QVGA / 3.6 million dots | QVGA / 3.6 million dots |
| Viewfinder Coverage | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Viewfinder Magnification | 0.76x | 0.8x | 0.8x |
| Built-in Flash | No | No | No |
| Flash Sync Speed | 1/200 | 1/200 | 1/200 |
| Storage Media | 1x SD (UHS-II) | 1x XQD | 1x XQD |
| Continuous Shooting Speed | 8 FPS (no AF), 5 FPS with AF | 12 FPS (limited to 12-bit RAW and no AE), 9 FPS (14-bit RAW but no AE), 5.5 FPS with AE | 9 FPS (only 12-bit RAW, no AE), 8 FPS (14-bit RAW, no AE), 5.5 FPS (14-bit RAW and AE) |
| Max Shutter Speed | 1/8000 to 30 sec | 1/8000 to 30 sec | 1/8000 to 30 sec |
| AE Bracketing Range | ±3 EV | ±3 EV | ±3 EV |
| Shutter Durability | 150,000 cycles | 200,000 cycles | 200,000 cycles |
| Electronic Front-Curtain Shutter | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Autofocus System | Hybrid PDAF | Hybrid PDAF | Hybrid PDAF |
| Number of AF Points | 5655 | 273 | 493 |
| Focus Peaking | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Focus Stacking | No | Yes | Yes |
| Video Maximum Resolution | 4K @ 24/25/30 FPS | 4K @ 24/25/30 FPS | 4K @ 24/25/30 FPS |
| 1080p Video Max Frame Rate | 60 FPS | 120 FPS | 120 FPS |
| Video Crop Factor | 1.74x | 1.0x | 1.0x |
| HDMI Out / LOG | 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI Output / Yes | 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI Output / Yes | 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI Output / Yes |
| Audio Recording | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Headphone Jack | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| LCD Size and Type | 3.2″ Tilting Touchscreen LCD | 3.2″ Tilting Touchscreen LCD | 3.2″ Tilting Touchscreen LCD |
| Articulating LCD | Yes, Tilting and Front/Back | Yes, Tilting | Yes, Tilting |
| LCD Resolution | 2,100,000 dots | 2,100,000 dots | 2,100,000 dots |
| Wi-Fi Functionality | Built-in | Built-in | Built-in |
| Bluetooth | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Battery | LP-E6N | EN-EL15b | EN-EL15b |
| Battery Life | 350 shots (CIPA) | 330 shots (CIPA) | 310 shots (CIPA) |
| Weather Sealed Body | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| USB Version | 3.1 | Type-C 3.1 | Type-C 3.1 |
| Weight (Camera Body Only) | 580g | 585g | 585g |
| Dimensions | 135.8 x 98.3 x 67.7mm | 134 x 100.5 x 67.5mm | 134 x 100.5 x 67.5mm |
| MSRP Price | $2,299.00 (check price) | $1,999.95 (check price) | $3,399.95 (check price) |
First, let’s talk about the differences in the mounts between the two camera systems. While Nikon decided to go for a brand new mount with a much larger 55mm inner diameter and a very short flange distance of 16mm for its Z mirrorless system, Canon decided to keep its mount size the same as EF at 54mm. However, Canon also changed the flange distance to 20mm to be able to be closer to the image sensor and reduce the overall size of the camera. While one could argue that Nikon has an advantage with a larger mount and a shorter flange distance, the differences are too small to make any differences in both lens design and lens sizes. Thus, both systems are equally strong with their mounts today.
Resolution-wise, the Canon EOS R sits between the Nikon Z6 and the Nikon Z7, so it strikes a good balance here. Unfortunately, Canon decided to go with a very similar image sensor as on the Canon 5D Mark IV, which means that we are still dealing with older CMOS sensor technology, while Nikon is using newer BSI CMOS sensors. However, if we look at it from the practical side, the differences between CMOS and BSI CMOS in terms of overall performance in the real world are not that great to put Canon at a serious disadvantage. All three cameras should have excellent high ISO performance, but knowing that Canon has traditionally delivered inferior dynamic range than its Nikon counterparts, we can expect Nikon to edge out Canon here a bit, especially with the Nikon Z7 at ISO 64. Lack of a low-pass filter on the Nikon Z7 is also going to result in crisper details when compared to the Nikon Z6 or the Canon EOS R, which is a difference worth noting.
The big difference comes into play in terms of in-body image stabilization (IBIS). Here, Canon is at a rather serious disadvantage – it decided to go only with lens-based stabilization, whereas Nikon introduced its first IBIS implementation on the Nikon Z6 and Z7 cameras. Canon definitely loses out here, mainly because Canon shooters will not be able to take advantage of image stabilization on all lenses, new or old, whereas Nikon shooters can use any existing Nikon F mount lens, even really old glass from 50 years ago and still enjoy the benefits of image stabilization. In addition to this, Nikon found ways to make both IBIS and lens stabilization work together to deliver more stabilization opportunities, which gives a bit more flexibility in comparison.
Where Canon outclasses Nikon is in its excellent implementation of Dual Pixel AF technology and a flip-out LCD screen. As we have already seen on a number of Canon DSLRs, Dual Pixel AF is a fantastic autofocus technology that does an excellent job with tracking and focusing subjects. Because of this technology, many vloggers pick Canon DSLR cameras to create their video content and now they have a much smaller, lighter and more capable camera. Couple this with a fully flipping articulating screen and Canon has definitely hit the spot for video content creators. Unfortunately, Nikon is not even an option for this purpose, as its LCD screen only tilts, making it impossible to see what is being recorded when facing the camera.
Thanks to Dual Pixel AF, Canon was also able to make a whopping 5,655 autofocus points available and selectable to use. This is something that has never been done before and no other camera on the market has this many focus points to choose from. Compare that to 273 AF points on the Nikon Z6 and 493 AF points on the Nikon Z7 and you will see why it is a significant difference. At the same time, the sheer number of autofocus points is not going to make much difference if it takes too long to move those focus points, or if the AF system itself is slow. While it appears that Canon has done a good job with making sure that the autofocus points move fast enough, it is hard to say how fast the autofocus system works when compared to Nikon’s Z-series cameras. We will need to evaluate both in detail to be able to tell for sure. Based on the performance of Dual Pixel AF we have seen before on other cameras, the Canon EOS R should not disappoint. There is one area that Nikon is already losing out on at the moment and that’s Eye Autofocus.
Canon has already implemented this on the Canon EOS R, while Nikon only has face detection and we don’t know if it does any sort of eye prioritization at the moment. While the Eye Autofocus feature is only limited to Single Shot AF (there is no eye tracking available for AI Servo on the Canon EOS R), it is still a great feature to have.
When it comes to continuous shooting speed, the Canon EOS R certainly looks weaker than its Nikon counterparts with its 8 FPS shooting and locked autofocus. In comparison, the Nikon Z6 can shoot 12 FPS while tracking the subject continuously (although at 12-bit RAW only) and 9 FPS with 14-bit RAW, while the Nikon Z can shoot 9 FPS with tracking at 12-bit and comparable 8 FPS with 14-bit RAW. If you want to be able to track subjects continuously with the Canon EOS R, you will need to drop shooting speed to 5 FPS, which is unfortunate. At the same time, the Canon EOS R provides a much larger buffer that is capable of accommodating a total of 47 images, whereas the Nikon Z6 and Z7 cameras are limited to only 18 RAW images when shooting 14-bit RAW before the buffer fills up and the camera slows down.
Both manufacturers decided to go with a single memory card slot, but Nikon’s decision to go with the XQD memory card is going to prove advantageous in the long run, since XQD cards are much faster, arguably more reliable, and the memory card slot is going to be upgradeable to PCI Express once it becomes available, giving even more options to Nikon shooters in the future.
Lastly, Nikon is also ahead in video features. The main reason for this is Canon’s 1.74x video crop mode, which is much worse compared to Nikon’s 1.0x full sensor read-out. Basically, anyone who wants to shoot video with the Canon EOS R will need to properly plan their lenses and focal lengths for desired angle of view coverage, while all lenses mounted on the Nikon Z-series cameras will behave normally. All three cameras are capable of outputting 4:2:2 10-bit video via their HDMI ports, but both Nikon Z6 and Z7 can shoot up to 120 FPS in 1080p mode, while the Canon EOS R is limited to 60 FPS.
We are looking forward to testing all three cameras later this year. Once we get our hands on the Canon EOS R and Nikon Z6 / Z7 cameras, we will update this article with more information, as well as high ISO comparisons, so please stay tuned!
The canon 28-70 is AF while nikon 50mm f0.95 is not reportedly.
…the ƒ0.95 is clearly aimed at video ( ie. the electronic DOF display on the lens ). You can expect that lens to quickly become a favourite among video shooters !
Hi Nasim,
thanx for this good and helpful article. Albeit one thing could be improved:
In the line ‘Video Crop Factor’ the Canon box the background color should be red, shouldn’t it?
(Canon: 1.74x Nikon 1.0x)
Thanks a lot!
Michael from Germany
great article. Why buying a canon mirrorless full frame (with no mountadapter for existing eos-m mirrorless lenses ????) if the body plus adapter (for es and es-f lenses) has the same weight and dimensions as a canon 5dm4.
To use it for mounting RF-lenses, for example. A 5DmarkIV / 6DmarkII with 24-105 is a bigger package than the EOS R with the RF version.
For the rest the benefits mirrorless and this EOS R offers (EVF, smaller body weight, multiple AF points, ….).
I wonder if anyone really need the ability to select that many AF points. What for??
I was thinking the same thing… I know there’s always a ‘more is better’ mentality but at some point it might become ‘too much’ to be actually useful…
It’s a misleading number as all the mirrorless AF points are. Technically you will select from a fewer number of boxes. Each of those boxes will contain many AF points. So the question is how many selectable ranges will there be? In any case, there’s a lot to choose from for all the platforms.
I was thinking the same thing… I know there’s always a ‘more is better’ mentality but at some point it might become ‘too much’ to be actually useful…
“[Mount] … the differences are too small to make any differences in both lens design and lens sizes. ” – Are you a lens designer?
Sorry, but 4mm closer to the sensor means a huge difference in the angle the light hits the edges of the sensor – the more perpendicular the sharper. Especially important for wide angle. Just as one example.
Then look at the radical designs that are possible with shorter flange distances – example for Sony the Tamron 28-75 which is tiny and costs a fraction of the native lenses with basically the same IQ – mainly because it needed less elements to correct the light path.
As a professional Canon shooter who just bought a Sony A7 III for video and personal use, I don’t feel very compelled to pre-order the EOS R. I’m already enjoying using my L lenses on my Sony with a Metabones V adapter. That crop factor for video is a deal breaker. I am glad that Canon included eye-focus as that is the #1 feature I’m enjoying most with my Sony. However, I think that I’ll wait for a model with dual memory cards and proper 4K video before I part with my A7 or my 5D Mark IV, for that matter.
No one in the Nikon or Canon camps will be tempted to move over to the other side based on these offerings. These are basically stop gap cameras intended to prevent Nikon or Canon users from jumping on the Sony bandwagon.
When all is said and done, it would appear that the current generation Sony offerings are better in most respects (excluding ergonomics and weather sealing) than the Canon and Nikon options. And they have the advantage that they are not hobbling their offerings to prevent cannibalization of pre-existing products. Since they are continuing to innovate at a rapid clip, there is every reason to believe that they will remain in front over the next several years. So for anyone not already invested in a particular system, Sony would seem to offer the best option at the moment.
I suspect that in five years all three manufacturers will have outstanding, fully realized systems with a large array of fantastic lenses. We are lucky to be living in this moment. Competition is good.
I agree with you Kirk. It seems Canon and Nikon have everything they need to compete head-on with Sony, but they chose to hold back. Personally, the most disappointing aspect of Canon and Nikon offerings is pricing. If their cameras were a couple of hundred dollars below Sony’s counterparts, they would be much more appealing.
If Nikon had implemented a good Eye AF, I had already pre-ordered the Z7. It is such a nice feature on the Sony cameras and now Canons have it too. I really don’t understand Nikon. :(
The fact you don’t see additional square on eye, doesn’t mean Nikon hasn’t implemented some eye-detection.
Watch this Z7 face detection demo:
youtu.be/rUbyHMGU8Qo
The detection square seems to favor the eye closest to the camera, which yields me to think the algorithm included “eye prioritization”, just like in the D850. JP Morgan, from The Slanted Lens, did a comparison video showing the D850 did better than the A7RIII and almost as well as the A7III.
Nikon’s fps decreases to 5.5 if you choose AE which puts it back to Canon’s level. Who takes serial shots without AE?
Nikon had to make a choice. Keep AF active or keep AE active. I think they made the right choice. In most cases exposure isn’t changing that dramatically during a burst and you can fix that easier in post than fixing missed focus.
Canon drops to 3fps if you use focus priority
I always do, and I shoot a lot of action photographs.
Flagship bodies have AFL/AEL button for a reason.
I also prefer having bursts with the same exposure. Makes post-processing easier too.
I stopped watching YouTube, especially the negativity annoyed me. I concluded the Z6 will be a huge leap forward. Therefore I placed an order this morning. I managed to shoot good fotos before, it will be even better. I mean I don’t shoot weddings, just my family and our holidays. And our hiking tours or when my girl is on stage. It’s not cheap, but I don’t work for free either. I don’t drink or smoke, so it’s ok.
Good comment. U-tubers are not a big authority; I watch them but don’t take them seriously, they argue and get mad about features I never used in my cameras. What they like is not necessarily what we need, and what they hate is not entirely bad.
I don’t see any advantage in XQD cards. SD-Cards are still fast enough for anything I can imagine and future speed increases have already been anounced. They are ubiquitous and countless manufacturers offer them. Any decent notebook has an integrated full size SD-card reader. And of all the card formats it is the one which imho has the highest chance to still be available in 10 years. Your reporting on this matter seems very one-sided and not very objective.
So in my view XQD is a HUGE mistake and clearly an advantage of Sony FE or Canon R.
Correct. Can you plug an xqd into your pc? No. Can you use a micro xqd that goes in your phone? No. Do you existing card readers have xqd? No. Does your car audio have an xqd card slot? No. Sorry, this is just snake oil sales. Memory reliability and cheapness was sorted 10 years ago.
You wanna use SD card from your camera in your phone or car audio? Sorry, that’s just stupid. Existing reader doesn’t provide enough speed to transfer image anyway. You have to buy new one for fast SD cards or XQD – not a big deal anyway.
No it’s not stupid to want your cards to work in multiple devices: (i) Transferring a micro-SD card to a phone is the fastest way to e-mail a huge file when you haven’t got a wi-fi connection and even then it would be faster from your phone than using the wi-fi in cameras. (ii) Transfer speeds of card readers are mainly determined by the connection and plenty have been in existence for many years on USB-3 which is fast. Sure, XQD is ‘better’ in terms of it does what SD and CF have for the last 10 years but in a slightly faster more robust way, but they are not worth 10 times the price.
Currently when you can buy a 1tb SSD drive for $80, or 128gb SD card for $25, there is no special reason for an XQD to be $250.
XQD are more expensive
but burghclerebilly please post the link to buy 1tb ssd and 128gb sd at the price you mention.
are you sure?
I am not
I think you are right if you look at the majority of users. But I think and hope Nikon’s strategy is to provide a platform for the future, and it is much more pleasant if people invest in one type of card that will be relevant in the future. Maybe it is not convenient at this moment, but somewhat later, you’ll be happy that you have invested in XQD since SD may be obsolete (in the prosumer cameras anyway).
Don’t forget that Apple also caused a lot of controversy when they removed the floppy disk, went USB-only, or removed the disk drive in the laptops not so long ago (where do you see those currently in all other laptops?) or most recently went USB-C only (that connector is seen more and more elsewhere).
And for me personally, the argument of “there’s a SD slot in your pc, phone and car” is not applicable. The last two (phone and car) are a joke if you are a photographer, and for the PC I’ve been used to using external CF-readers or just connecting the camera directly. I much rather have a more reliable, more durable, and faster card for my camera than saving 10 seconds of connecting the images to my pc. Mind you, that’s “connecting”, the transfer rate of many built-in readers are not very competitive.
Last remark: do you like watching your RAW photos while you’re driving? And I wonder where you found a phone with a SD-card-slot? Or do you suggest that Nikon should have used the microSD format, since that is indeed very applicable to prosumer cameras?
You seem to suggest, that XQD was somehow more future proof. I wager, it is NOT! The most commonly used media types are the ones most future proof. And while SDcards are everywhere (Sony FE, Canon EOS R, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji all use SD), XQD is used by Nikon and…? Some very niche products as far as I can see.
Have a look at history. Sony MemoryStick anyone? Or Olympus XD-Card?
Without enough market penetration it will die.
I remember when all computers came with CD drives, and floppy drives before. When every car came with cassette players. When just about every household had turntables that played vinyl LPs. I guess they weren’t quite future-proof. Or maybe future-proof is a fallacy.
Nasim wrote a good primer on memory cards:
www.google.com/amp/s…-cards/amp
Technology is relentlessly fluid, if it weren’t, we would still be using film SLRs. We’d still have shelves filled with vinyl, and cars would still come with cassette players. And on and on.
XQD = CF Express ( the latest technology ) Are you the sort that complained about the USB-C ports in the Mac?
XQD is a big deal when you shooting 4k video or 45MP stills. And also far more reliable than SD. SD port in most laptops isn’t fast enough anyway
Total bullshit. Sony A7R3 does 4k and 42MP with plain SD-Cards. And if you look at the actual data rates necessary, that SDcards work fine is to be expected.
Besides, current SDcard specs allow up to 1 GB/sec and 128TB size. That’s hardly any practical limit today and in the forseable future. And once it becomes a limit, it will be bumped up as it was ten times before.
As to card readers: crappy readers are crappy readers, no matter the card type. Get a decent laptop then. I am more than happy to have the possibility to open the card and grab a few shots without having to care a dongle with me.
Are you joking? XQD is much better than SD. Much much more reliable in all ways possible and much faster. Importantly the Z slots set them up for future CF which will be game changers. Why need buffer when you can write straight to the card?
SD is old technology just like floppy disks. Good riddance. My MacBook Pro sure doesn’t have an SD reader. It’s old tech.
I can’t believe how much Canon crippled this camera. One SD card? No IBIS. No camera USB charging. Cropped 4K?
Lenses and AF seem to be the only saving grace
It is almost as if they collaborated. CIPA shots 330 for both Canon and Nikon. For other controversial features, Canikon have roughly the same to offer – only one card slot, viewfinder 3.6-3.7 million dots, LCD 2.1 million dots, nearly identical size and weight, etc. For most features that I would care about there is no significant difference, except maybe buffer size, AF and focus points, and articulating LCD (advantage Canon), vs IBIS, storage media and focus stacking (advantage Nikon). I don’t see Nikon’s video performance as an advantage because Canon’s articulating screen is more helpful for video shooters – a better quality video is not so good if you can’t get the shot in the first place.
I can’t see these offerings making many people change from one to the other, but having the mirrorless option should stop people switching away from Canikon to others.
It is not collaboration, it is the fact that all batteries use Li-Ion tech and all electronics use Si and its alloys tech- no magic already long ago! if Sony has different figures it is because they use larger batteries. only
They make good cameras, but with weak battery life? the cameras are meant to be used (mostly outdoors), and not changing batteries too often would be nice
You can just check how many pictures you can take with your DSLR in live view mode. I bet it will be the same numbers or less. Full frame sensor and screen consumes a LOT of energy.
Low pass filter yes/no results given any consideration?
From above:
EOS Z6 Z7
Low-Pass Filter Yes Yes No
I haven’t seen any discussion on pros and cons here, and what, if any difference it makes. If this refers, as I suspect it does, to an OLPF (anti-aliasing filter) it’s certainly been a topic of discussion in the past in the DSLR market, and my conclusion has been that we are better off without it. Does it matter here? Is this spec correct on the chart (seems strange the Z6 and Z7 would differ here), and why is there no preference stated exact opposite specs?
Please add Sony A7R and A7R III to the table for comparisons.
photographylife.com/canon…ny-a7r-iii
Sorry, but I don’t buy the perceived advantage of a 6mp larger sensor over the Z6 and the 5655 focus points ( somehow this reminds me of a Three Stooges sketch in real world use ). The flippy screen might be nice for vloggers but I’m almost sure it hinders weather sealing. Also, I don’t believe the R’s buffer capacity will be anywhere close to specs in real world use. Besides, I do expect that the firmware update to CF Express on the Nikons will dramatically increase the buffers of both Z bodies.
rich
communication theory states that for sampling a sinewave you need 2 times the frequency, you can found this as nyquist-shanon theorem.
in order to avoid signal frequencies higher than half sampling frequencies it is necessary to add a low pass filter in order to avoid alias.
you can skip low pass filter if your source never goes over half sampling freq.
I am not an optic, but mathematics are the same.
on older cameras (6-12MP) lens resolution (lpm) could be more than twice as large as sensor resolution, in order to avoid alias (moiree) a low pass is required.
If sensor resolution (sample frequency) is large enough the lens acts a a low pass filter, then no need to add an additional one, and with few lenses you could get moiree
conclusion, if nikon and canon added an olpf to these cameras is because they think they can provide better lenses.
but only time will tell
just a typo
in older cameras lens resolution could be larger than half the sensor resolution
Nikon Z looks way way better to me. Out of all the FF mirrorless systems it’s the most well rounded.
Thaks for your thorough review. I especially like the green stoplight chart which lays thigs out at a glance. Still have not gone to mirrorless.
Low pass filter?
Even Z6 full-frame sensor has no low-pass filter, you write “Yes” ….?
Like Nikon’s cameras, the Canon EOS R has a roughly 3.2-inch, 2100k-dot touchscreen LCD. However, while Nikon’s screen can only tilt, the EOS R’s display flips outward, and can be rotates vertically, making it more versatile. Also similar is the digital viewfinder, as well as the small display on the top right of the cameras, which shows such information as shutter speed, ISO, and f/stop without needing to look at the rear panel.