70D and Dxomark....

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.

I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.

My conclusion: The 70D sensor offers an almost imperceptible improvement over the 7D and the D7100 might be an equally imperceptible improvement over both the Canon's but not enough to make buying a camera based on the sensor alone worthwhile.

For all the talk about how antiquated Canon's sensor tech is, I'm not seeing it in these results. Even their summary (if I read it correctly) says the Canon and Nikon sensors are only about a fifth of a stop different in ISO performance. One-fifth of a stop?

Okay...I'm waiting for the flaming to start.

Not much for luminance SNR. It's right there with the best of the best D7100. Whatever differences there are you'd never spot.

Tons for DR though and now it's also at high ISO where it is behind for that not just low ISO. The D7100 utterly whomps it for dynamic range. Also considerably for color sensitivity (very oddly though, despite that, the metamerism index is only 2 #s apart this time for daylight and the Canon is actually one number ahead for indoor lighting in terms of color discrimination, I guess somehow it manages to have about the same color discrimination and yet still a lot more chroma noise, in the past when the canon had worse chroma noise it also had noticeably worse color discrimination. Looks to have the same chroma noise as the old 7D but better color discrimination indoors by four points (whatever exactly four points means, that's a tricky element).)

So the 70D seems to be more or state of the art for luminance SNR, reasonably solid for passes for solid these days for daylight color discrimination (although weaker than old stuff), quite strong for tungsten/artificial lighting color discrimination, wayyyyy behind state of the art for low ISO dynamic range, solidly behind the state of the art for high ISO dynamic range, solidly behind state of the art for chroma SNR.

Compared to the 7D alone it appears to improve tungsten lighting color discrimination a fair bit, improves luminance SNR somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3rds of a stop, slightly improves DR at very high ISO (although oddly 1/2 stop worse at ISO200, otherwise appears to be within margin of error for DR), has about the same chroma SNR. It probably has a lot less banding than the 7D though for both low ISO deep shadows and vertical gain banding in the lighter shades. But the random noise at low ISO shadows are still very circa 2007 quality.

Thanks. Not sure I understand all this, but I appreciate the time you spent and your summation seems very reasonable.

I'm not one of those who needs to convince the world that Canon is perfect and frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the argument that better lenses (which frankly I doubt) and better ergonomics (which is pretty individualized) should trump everything else.

I'm always looking forward to the next generation of improvements and recognize that someone must always be slightly ahead. The manufacturers tend to leap frog one another, so I know that if Nikon is leading in one area now, Canon will overtake them and then they will overtake Canon and so on and so forth.

The truth is, this idea that Canon is greatest in the world is all pretty foreign to me. I bought my first Canon in the 1970s while working on a small newspaper. In those days, Canon was considered a distant second by virtually every professional photographer. It was Nikon or nothing and if you shot Canon you were looked down upon.

It didn't really bother me. I always identified with underdogs and the lower price of Canon enabled me to pick up an extra lens for the cost of what I would have spent buying the same kit from Nikon. When I finally sold the F1 and converted to digital I was stunned to learn that Canon was now considered better than Nikon by some.

Honestly, I don't get how fiercely some people on both sides of the equation hold to these beliefs. Frankly, the differences are so slight these days, I wonder why anyone cares.

Yeah Canon used to make it a lot easier to get into big time lenses. You could get a 300 2.8 from Canon for like $3400 when it was more like $5500 or something from Nikon, pretty darn rough and bit much. That was a big advantage for Canon. Recently the pricing has sort of swapped though (not that the high priced recent glass from Canon hasn't been mostly top notch though).

yeah UI is a personal thing. I know it actually used to be looked down upon to admit you liked the Canon-way better (I always did), although it seems these days that probably more people do admit to preferring current Canon UI to Nikon UI. Of course still plenty prefer the Nikon UI.

(Yeah way back in film days, in FD film days, I've heard that Nikon was considered the serious brand, the pro brand and Canon the serious consumer brand. The EF mount helped flip that around. Their big supertele, their IS lenses. And then the better Canon DSLR sensors in the early days. Every side line was filled with white lenses. Every newspaper, every PJ school seemed to recommend Canon as the way to go. It was all Canon, Canon, Canon. You'd run into a Getty photographer shooting Nikon and he'd spot even just your little 20D and act all jealous and talk about how he was just about done with Nikon and their stinking sensors. And then the 1D3 AF disaster hit and people realized that any sub-1 series Canon really could not AF all that well and the superior sensors were starting to no longer be enough, Canon kept top AF only for 1 series and then they even started falling behind in some ways for sensors and not kept not putting in as many features in most bodies, all the bodies but 1 series were stripped down in performance and so on and so on and then Nikon came back and you'd no longer see newspaper pool equipment totally dominated by Canon all over the place, or PJ schools categorically recommend going with Canon. Sidelines would have a lot of big black lenses again. You'd read blogs from the Olympics where PJs would trash Canon cameras for having terribly unreliable AF compared to Nikon. Sidelines were starting to get almost more black lenses than white. The 1D4 and 1DX and 5D3 seemed to stem that a lot though, especially the latter two. The D800 had the left side AF issue. It seems things are now in a pretty evenly mixed stage at this point in terms of what you see being used.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

That statement implies that you don't know how to use a camera correctly actually .

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I do not find it to be a problem — ever.

Fair enough. I do not find to be a problem most of the time. But when I do, I wish it was not a problem , and that happens often enough to be a problem.

+1
;D

I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck.

Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.

and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)

 

[Apop]

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

 

[Apop]

I do not find it to be a problem — ever.

Fair enough. I do not find to be a problem most of the time. But when I do, I wish it was not a problem , and that happens often enough to be a problem.

+1
;D

I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck.

Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.

and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)

Sheldon cooper?

or maybe edward witten

 

[zlatko]

I do not find it to be a problem — ever.

Fair enough. I do not find to be a problem most of the time. But when I do, I wish it was not a problem , and that happens often enough to be a problem.

I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck.

Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.

Sorry, I don't know those people.

I was referring to anonymous people who can and do say whatever they want without any accountability — no one knows who they are or what, if any, photography experience they have. Such people can dominate a forum with their purported (but unseen) expertise. I just don't trust any anonymous person to give me a reliable opinion, let alone to instruct others about a camera's technical details.

 

[zlatko]

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.

For a photographer, whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is absolutely relevant.

 

[Aglet]

Well, as innovative as the 70D's new dual-sensel pixels for continuous AF are, the overall signal to noise ratios, as reported by DxOmark, have changed very little. Hopefully there'll be less banding in dark shadow for those who need to push it but I thought I'd put together some animated gifs to compare the difference between the 70D and the 60D and then the 70D compared to the Nikon D5200.
I hope DxOmark will allow this editorial use of their material here. If not, it can be removed easily enough.
I find the complete SNR graphs are more useful to see where the low ISO deep shadow SNR limits are and what the highlite end shows for difference, which combined can help indicate DR and more. Switching between them is a useful way to quickly see the differences.

 

[Apop]

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.

For a photographer, whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is absolutely relevant.

No it's not, because you apparently stopped reading, here is what it said.


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.... ///////

If your not happy you will probably try out a different camera/brand or lens(es)
I was not happy with the d800 because of the 4fps, missing too many moments, Canon had the 1dmkiv as an interesting alternative, where i felt nikon did not offer something similar, hence I am now shooting canon and more happy with the images i get. Despite them lacking the resolution, DR etc that the d800 had, and it's quite noticeable on a retina screen.

 

[Nishi Drew]

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.

Yeah well, sooner or later has been going on for like, how many years now? At least 4, and looking at the 70D it's hard to tell if the 7DII will be slightly above that, or leaps and bounds beyond. Since sensor technology in the global market has been improving in so many ways with a number of other manufacturers the past few years it's easy to question how much effort Canon has given. Or Canon genuinely doesn't care, as their focus is with the casual consumers whom the majority repeat what the sales rep said about their toy and are into whatever that's cool and new, like the super-amzing-hi-tech AF in the 70D, oh and that it has more megapixels, everyone loves megapixels... but if that were the winning factor then Canon still loses anyways...

 

[insanitybeard]

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

I think a majority are not trying to 'defend' their 'inferior' sensors, many are happy to concede at the present time Nikon/Sony sensors have some superior characteristics, myself included. What I am sick of is that it keeps being shoved in our faces again and again and again like it's the only damn thing that matters.

 

[celestyx]

and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)

String theory has nothing to do with camera sensors. I am also doing research in string theory, this does not make me more competent to express my opinion on dynamic range of camera sensors.

 

[Loswr]

Since sensor technology in the global market has been improving in so many ways with a number of other manufacturers the past few years it's easy to question how much effort Canon has given. Or Canon genuinely doesn't care, as their focus is with the casual consumers whom the majority repeat what the sales rep said about their toy and are into whatever that's cool and new, like the super-amzing-hi-tech AF in the 70D, oh and that it has more megapixels, everyone loves megapixels... but if that were the winning factor then Canon still loses anyways...

Define "lose". Does it mean selling more dSLRs than the competition, having and maintaining the largest market share of the segment, or just not making 'the best' sensor? It seems the last one has had no meaningful impact on the first two, and it's the first two that Canon cares most about - and in fact, Nikon cares most about them, too (as would any publicly held company), it's just that Nikon is "losing" where it really matters (to their shareholders, I mean, not to people who think DR is the most important thing in a camera system).

 

[AlanF]

and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)

String theory has nothing to do with camera sensors. I am also doing research in string theory, this does not make me more competent to express my opinion on dynamic range of camera sensors.

Have any of these string theory guys ever done an experiment to test the theory?

 

[docsmith]

Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.

I know....when I see one coming...I stop reading...go pop a big bowl full of popcorn...find a bunch of Milk Duds and come back to finish reading.....

 

[sandymandy]

Every new body such a thread comes out. And its always the same like Canon reasults are not good. 3 years later: remember the 70D? i still own one...fucking nice cam

 

[Loswr]

Every new body such a thread comes out.

If only that were true. But there've already been at least 5 threads like this on the 70D, and no doubt there will be more DRivel to come...

 

[Loswr]

Mikael : DxOMark thread :: moth : flame

How good/fast is the AF on that Sigma 500mm. Besides, 500mm isn't long enough for me. Where's the Sigma 600/4?

As usual, your points lack relevance.

 

[simonxu11]

Not as clean as D7100 even @iso100

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/RAW_noise.shtml

 

[mkabi]

Get whatever... do whatever...

Dont' be fooled by numbers, if you like Nikon... get it!

Just don't go around on forums complaining... friggin... you bought a camera, right?
Stop bitchin and go f-ing use it!

Its the art you create with it that matters.
No painter complains or bitches about one paint brush over another...

Yes, I'm a canon guy... I did my research... and I recently (meaning within the last 2 weeks) got myself a 7D.
I knew it had its problems in terms of low light, but didn't care.

By the way, Im more into video than photos, yet 70D didn't cut it for multiple reasons, especially the SD slot.
If you have to know, one of the main reasons I chose 7D cause ML unlocked 2.5K.
I would have gotten a 5D Mark 3 cause thats closer to 4K, but I can't afford it.