70D and Dxomark....

[poias]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

 

[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.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".

Cognitive dissonance is very high with Nikon customers who just shelled out (more than) a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that, "I don't really focus on anything in the left side of the field," and, "The sharpness of my images isn't affected by the CA endemic to my lenses, that can be fixed in post," and, "I like lots of buttons," and, "A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better (and no, I don't mind waiting almost a month for a service when needed)."

Back in the day I recall many a Nikon user readily admitting that their sensors were well behind Canon and some were getting antsy and upset although they did like that their bodies had more features. Today Canon users go insane if anyone suggests that anything about their cameras in any even hint of a practical way is not the best.

Nikon picked up their game for sensors.
Canon does not.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"ISOless"...priceless...thanks for the laugh.

What pray tell is laughable about "ISOless"???????
The only thing I can find laughable is that you find the suggestion laughable.

 

[Loswr]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 12 fps-capable body and handholdable 600mm f/4 lens as part of the system can mean (1D X + EF 600mm f/4L IS II on top, no competiton on the bottom):

 

[Loswr]

Nikon picked up their game for sensors.

I think you mean Sony picked up their game, and Nikon came along for the ride.

 

[Pi]

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).)

Yes, color sensitivity is directly affected by noise, both shot and read noise. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity

 

[Daniel Flather]

Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.

 

[wsmith96]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):

Sweet picture of the water on the web. What is that reflected in the water?

 

[Loswr]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):

Sweet picture of the water on the web. What is that reflected in the water?

Thanks! It's a ground cover plant with very tiny leaves and yellow flowers, but I have no idea what specific plant.

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[Pi]

It is the first time I see pattern noise in the form of diagonal lines.

Cool shot!

 

[David Hull]

Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".

Cognitive dissonance is very high with Nikon customers who just shelled out (more than) a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that, "I don't really focus on anything in the left side of the field," and, "The sharpness of my images isn't affected by the CA endemic to my lenses, that can be fixed in post," and, "I like lots of buttons," and, "A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better (and no, I don't mind waiting almost a month for a service when needed)."

You forgot to mention those "artsy" oil spots on the sensor and how nice they look in the images. Canon can't even come close to that.

 

[zlatko]

Not exactly. I push and pull exposures as much as I ever need to with Canon cameras and never have a problem with shadows or anything else relating to sensor.

If by that you mean - shadow noise is there but I do not find it to be a problem, I can believe you. But if you are trying to say that you do not know what just about everybody else is talking about - I am skeptical.

I do not find it to be a problem — ever. The files have plenty of tolerance for exposure error. I don't believe "everybody" is talking about shadow noise.

I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck. It is as if people seek out some trivial imperfection and then harp about it as if it were the utmost measure of a camera's performance. It's like saying Kodak or Fuji really need to reduce the graininess of their 8x10" sheet film because that's such a problem that everyone is talking about it.

I've talked about all sorts of technical topics with other professional Canon users, and the topic of shadow noise never comes up.

 

[Loswr]

It is the first time I see pattern noise in the form of diagonal lines.

Cool shot!

LOL. Thanks!

 

[David Hull]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

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

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[Woody]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 12 fps-capable body and handholdable 600mm f/4 lens as part of the system can mean (1D X + EF 600mm f/4L IS II on top, no competiton on the bottom):

These are beautiful images. I really like them a lot.

 

[Woody]

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.

There's no denying that John Sheehy and Joe James are knowledgeable. I don't really trust Bob (bobn2) because his views are highly prejudiced.

Anyway, the truth is that the so-called 'deficiencies' in Canon sensors are not as severe for real photographers as what we are led to believe. They are there... but just not that bad.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

MPE

Yeah Canon does have some good ones like MPE, 70-300L and 17 TSE of which nothing equivalent exists elsewhere and others like the 24mm TSE II which Nikon doesn't really truly have a solid clone of and the 24-70 II which probably could resolve the edges of a D800 shot unlike the 24-70 Nikon.