70D and Dxomark....
- Thread starter pedro
- Start date
- Status
Gary Irwin said:
We admit that Canon sensors don't have as much DR as Nikon's. What we don't need is a daily dose of it; what we find offensive is being hit over the head with it on nearly every camera thread. Do a search on this site, and you'll see it.
And the DR advantage matters to different extents to different people -- it is not the only factor that matters, which is point that is lost on the DR trolls (and that advantage is only there at low ISOs). For indoors sports, I'm at ISO 3200 and above. What advantage will the Nikon have? The D800 will give me worse AF performance, lower frame rate and it's lost its DR advantage. For architecture, I'm using 5 stop brackets. The Nikon might save me a couple shots, but then I lose the ability to use the TS-E 17 and 24, which is not worth the trade to me.
If I made enough money to be able to switch systems every few years or buy both systems, then I might consider it, but I don't and so I won't. But saying that I have cognitive dissonance because I do not switch is insulting. For now, the Canon SYSTEM works better for me. Canon's high end glass is better, and I've got enough of it that the DR advantage of the Nikon sensor is not going to trump Canon's advantages. What part of this is so hard to understand?
Upvote
0
I think we should start a thread about how horrible Intel's Haswell chips are because they haven't significantly increased core clock speed in years. All they've done is add more cores. They must be out of ideas.
[Never mind the advancements in thermal performance and integration of additional functionality (read "live view AF) to focus on mobile platforms (read "for video enthusiasts and those who shoot in live view").]
[Not to mention Intel's marketing people artificially crippled i5 chips to position them as a middle tier. I want 8MB L3 cache, darn it! I want i7 performance for my i5 price! Besides, look what Qualcom can do with their new chips!!! :
]
This analogy should re-fuel the flames (or flaming?) for this thread. ;D
[Never mind the advancements in thermal performance and integration of additional functionality (read "live view AF) to focus on mobile platforms (read "for video enthusiasts and those who shoot in live view").]
[Not to mention Intel's marketing people artificially crippled i5 chips to position them as a middle tier. I want 8MB L3 cache, darn it! I want i7 performance for my i5 price! Besides, look what Qualcom can do with their new chips!!! :
]This analogy should re-fuel the flames (or flaming?) for this thread. ;D
Upvote
0
Apop said:I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?
It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.
It only matters that you are happy with the images you are getting, despite maybe not having the best equipment out there....
Looking at it from a canon users perspective (now) , I am just happy that Nikon is totally destroying canon in the sensor department , It means canon will sooner or later have to follow with better sensors.
All the time some of you spend trying to bash Nikon or defend canon, you better spend that time working so you can add a d800 with 14-24 to your kit
If nikon/sony sensors were in fact ---that much better than canons then there would be no need for you to come here and make a post like this - the evidence would be clear, it would be represented in the real world. Canon images would never be in newspapers, and white lenses would not be at every major sporting event in droves.
Sorry but there is more to a system than the sensor. The only real advantage for sony is DR, and if you need the DR then you buy the right system for you.
I have nothing against nikon, they make some good stuff. Your statements are total fanboi though, this statement alone bears that out --- "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant."
This makes ZERO sense. If there is no real world difference the where is the inferiority - or the superiority? The sensor camera combo is only inferior/superior if there is a REAL tangible REAL WORLD Difference. If there is no real world difference then logically - one is not greater than the other. Again, this is photography, people buy images, people hire you because you craft good images - they don't hire/buy because the sensor is better. And you can even take that to the consumer level - ohhh...thanks for taking some pictures of my sons first birthday, but, I saw that you used a canon so I don't even want to look at the pics because nikon has better sensors?????does anyone in the real world do that?????
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
The real world also includes hobbyists, who do not buy or sell photos. They are curious about the challenges pros face and about the way the run their business but do not really relate to that.
It is like being a car enthusiast and discussing taxis which professional taxi drivers drive. Every taxi driver would tell you than the clients could not care less about handling, acceleration but they care about space and a smooth ride. The drivers themselves want reliability, trunk space, fuel economy. This automatically excluded the hottest car brands.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
That's why I added the bit with shots of my, your, someones sons first birthday party, and telling your friend with the canon to just delete the shots cause their on a canon and they can't be good because nikons sensors are much better... Yes, the real world involves hobbyists, who may care more about the tech side than the rest of us...still though, using your own analogy = "The drivers themselves want reliability, trunk space, fuel economy." These are things that would make a real world difference. You are completely illuminating the real world from your equation. Might a hobbyist be more into the tech side of things? Perhaps, but, don't the actual images count for something, anything at all?????
Again you claim that ----"It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." Again, how many National geographic covers show just text saying "image withheld due to inferior sensor." Or a sports illustrated swimsuit edition where instead of a center fold you see, image withheld for lack of DR. Or a billboard with text just say 14 stops of DR here. LOL Why are you buying a camera if not for images????? whether your a hobbyist, a photo-journalist, a porn photographer, weddings, need a camera for my newborne baby, to shooting disaster scenes for insurance companies to grandma's new P&S ---- isn't about the images???
So yes, DXO may say nikon has better sensors. But, the sensors in canon's are damn good too. Tests show one thing, real world shows us a ton of images from both systems that are freaking amazing. And when i look at images, the only time I really care what body/lens was used is if i am in the market to buy one. If I am looking for new posing ideas, I don't go to DXO....lol....uggg...stop typing now....
Upvote
0
Why would you assume that I implied that hobbyists do not care about real images? Where did I say that? I am only saying that we may have different priorities. For example, we may not be so concerned how durable lens X is because we may own it 10 years and take less shots than you in 1 month. In the same way, BMW is far from being the most reliable brand on the planet but try to convince a BMW enthusiast to get a Toyota. Or, try to convince a taxi driver to buy a BMW (in the US, at least).
I like to take night "cityscapes", and when I do, low DR is a big problem. A wedding photographer would likely never have to do that; and in the rare case he does, the client would not notice a problem.
I like to take night "cityscapes", and when I do, low DR is a big problem. A wedding photographer would likely never have to do that; and in the rare case he does, the client would not notice a problem.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
+1, well stated analogy.
I have a few "taxis" in my garage which get regular use; a couple 4x4s (d800/e), Austin Mini (Pentax Q), and a few other assorted oddballs including a high performance daily commuter (Pentax k52s). I'm still waiting for an affordable sport coupe (d400 or preferably improved 7d2) to work with long lenses and dim light with high fps.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
So. . you're waving a flag and cheering because the sales/SNR charts for the last 10 years look good?.. ;D
perhaps if Canon's sensors improved as much as their oft' touted sales figures these recurring discussions wouldn't exist.
FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS.
I think the time I spent putting together the animated graphs and essay demonstrates that perfectly.
Don't forget, I didn't just compare the 70D in a previous graph with the d7100, I deliberately chose the sub-$600 consumer-class D5200.
But yes, I'd prefer a 70D to a 20D for the wealth of other improvements and the fact that, at least at base ISO, the performance is comparable with higher resolution and the few higher ISO levels I use are also still adequate.
but that doesn't change the facts about the sensor system tech | NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS FOR STILL IMAGES
But maybe Canon is finally approaching a corner of sorts and, when they finally change their course, they'll be able to provide customers with actual sensor performance improvements along with all the other bells, whistles and flashing lights they're so good at adding to the mix.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
All I am battling is this idea - "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." To imply that real world usage is not relevant is to imply that the only things that matter are a lab test like DXO - and real world images be damned...
And your car analogy is off - BMW vs toyota is more like a MF system 35mm, Nikon vs canon is more like comparing toyota to a honda... sorry, nikon sensors do have an edge in some areas, but, not enough to elevate nikon to bmw vs toyota status...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Aglet said:
Right. So what? It seems that it was good enough for consumers 10 years ago, and since dSLR sales have generally increased over those 10 years, with Canon gaining significant market share during that period, it seems that it is still good enough for consumers.
Extension cords haven't significantly improved in 10 years either. So what?
Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. Sure, improvement would always be welcome. But while I'd like fully wireless power transmission instead of extension cords and 20 stops of DR instead of 11, by and large the current versions are getting the job done for the majority of people.
All the capitalization, bold and colored font in the world doesn't change that:
FACTS STILL STAND: CANON HAS SOLD MORE DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS THAN ANY OTHER BRAND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS
Of course, from that it follows that the lack of improvement at the per-pixel level is pretty much irrelevant as far as consumer decision making is concerned. All this endless discussion proves is that while irrelevant to the market, some individuals just can't seem to get past it, and miss few opportinuties to DRone on about it.
Aglet said:
Don't worry, the trolls (present company not excepted) would still find something to troll about.
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
Ask the author of the quote then, not me. I can see it in real world usage.
Let us talk about Honda to Toyota then. Many Honda owners (I use to be one of them) think of Honda as the poor's man BMW.
When I bought my Accord, I knew very well that Camry was a bit more reliable, had better fuel economy, and a smoother ride (a downside for me). It had better resale value as well, and it was more popular. I still bought the Accord. BTW, I did not like what they did to it afterwards.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Oh please, it was the canon fanboys who were going on about per pixel information and trashing the DR-lovers who were saying it makes more sense to compare at a normalized level.
Upvote
0
symmar22 said:
It is a solid 1/2 stop better for SNR than the 60D. It doesn't sound like much but it is about as much better as the 5D3 was over the 5D2 for SNR. The thing is for the sort of tech being used, it's hard to improve the SNR a lot. I think you'd need a totally different sort of technology and I'm not sure anyone has worked anything out yet that does much better (maybe in some government lab somewhere who knows). I'm not sure yet but it sounds like it will have less banding than the 60D and especially 7D (the latter even had a type of banding that showed up in bright tones at times).
The lack of improvement in DR is a bit disappointing, especially since they are now not only behind at low ISO DR but also high ISO DR too for APS-C.
The new AF method is pretty cool though.
Upvote
0
julescar said:
Not actually true, since none of the talk about banding or DR came up until after people encountered issues doing real world photography. For some it may never come up, for some very rarely, for some semi-regularly. It doesn't have to matter to you but enough with the nonsense about how it can never have any real world bearing and was just thought up by some people in a lab for no particular reason.
Upvote
0
Aglet said:
Yes, some facts still stand. For example ...
Facts: Many pro photographers happily use the Canon system for their work. Some of them produce amazing work and are among the most renowned photographers on the planet.
Fact: Some anonymous people are ardent critics of Canon sensors on a pixel level.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
So? You could also say that people don't buy lenses without bodies so I guess nobody can talk about lens performance then right? I don't want you to dare ever mention that the MPE or 70-300L are pretty awesome and not to found in Nikon's lineup because people buy complete systems not bare lenses!!!! hah
Another possible conclusion is that if they didn't have better sensors or Canon had kept up and also not for a while in the past in particular crippled bodies quite so much that Nikon would really barely have any sales at all by this point.
And once again it's funny how you love to only talk about actual photography and real world and then constantly bring up a sales pitch like you are on the Canon board and trying to get a very short term stock gain.
Upvote
0
Dukinald said:
I've seen countless posts saying that DxO can't be trusted. That the results are a lie. That any difference is only a minute fraction of what DxO claims. That more DR is actually very bad for image quality. That nobody ever needs more DR. Not everyone, but plenty enough. And plenty of insults about the photo skills or knowledge of anyone who ever mentions that Canon is not the best in every single aspect.
Upvote
0
Famateur said:
Not a valid comparison. Since neither has AMD no anyone else in that market.
Many of us 'Nikon' trolls have praised the new AF system a ton. It's the fanboys who go all one-sided.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
LetTheRightLensIn said:
No, your analogy is flawed. I can put a lens on an optical bench and test it independently. I can buy a lens for use on multiple cameras. I can even (gasp!) buy a Nikon lens and use it on a Canon camera, but of course, not the reverse.
Discussing the performance of the bare silicon sensor without considering the rest of the camera is like discussing the isolated performance of (and making purchasing decisions based solely on) just the rear element of lenses under consideration. That would be a pretty silly thing to do, just as it is for bare silicon.
Upvote
0
- Status
