70D and Dxomark....

[Pi]

It was simply to note that if your photography is at a high enough level that a stop or two of dynamic range is legitimately holding you back, what on earth are you doing complaining about the sensor in a mid-level amateur/enthusiast crop-sensor camera?

It has nothing to do with the level of the camera. Canon's DR sucks on all levels. Almost every other brand: Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, you name it, beats every Canon regardless of price. I am not arguing how important it is for you or anybody else. For me, it often is, because of what I like to do. For many others - probably not.

 

[NormanBates]

Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system 8)

So sad...

 

[CarlTN]

Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system 8)

So sad...

What's funny is, people are doing fairly decent photography with their phones, sometimes. Yesterday I visited a print shop whose owner had proudly displayed an approximately 24 x 60 inch print of a pano shot he had done with his iPhone. From 10 feet away I had to admit it was nice. I didn't get up close...the counter was in the way...no accident? Haha...still, it looked quite good.

As for wondering why "serious" or "professional" photographers would talk so much about a new crop sensor camera...mainly because it's a new Canon product, but also because DXOmark is known for being in the bag for Nikon/Sony...at least regarding camera bodies.

And also, of course there are those (many) who like to either have a crop sensor camera as their backup, or else they use it as their primary...for the reach advantage on telephoto lenses. This is a new Canon sensor, so it's kind of a big deal...considering the old one has been around 5 years...and might be around for another 5 years in one form or another. Also there's at least an even chance this sensor will find its way into the 7D2.

 

[Aglet]

OK, put the popcorn away for a minute.
Let's do some quick analysis using DxOmark's data.

Putting aside the 70D's sensor-based AF achievement for a moment, let's look at the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of today's 70d, compared with the 20d from 9 years ago, and the 10d from 10 years ago.
As SNR goes, so does DR to a large extent but SNR is a little more telling and when you compare them overlaid you can see how they differ and where the changes in sensor performance are.

The upper blue line is the ISO 100 SNR plot for all 3 cameras.
On all 3 cameras you'll see that the 100% gray scale (white) is at about the same 42dB level. So all 3 have the same SNR at white.

Where the line meets the bottom axis is where signal = noise and the image information gets lost in the noise and vice-versa. Well, unless there's a pattern that's discernible but DxOmark is still not publishing noise pattern data as far as I know. (I've requested that they do so we can estimate FPN severity of a sensor.)

Anyway, the signal=noise level of 0db is the cutoff level for all ISO measurements. That is at gray scale 0.052% for the 70d at 100(claimed) ISO. That's about 10.9 stops of highlite-to-dark range where dark = average noise. (It's late at night, somebody please correct me if I make a math mistake here, auto-correct may also mess up some spelling)

Without getting the specific data points for the other 2 cameras we can see that they also have about the same end points for 0db and white.

Net result. At a per-pixel level, the 70d's base ISO performance has not improved in 10 years. But, because it's pixels are about half the total area of the 10d's pixels (likely slightly more because of better fill-factor in modern sensors where more surface is actually actively used but lets go with half as that's in the 70d's favour) the 70d has made a technical achievement of about 1 full effective stop for one full effective pixel.
This may be even better by one more stop because of the way the split-pixel AF system functions but since I have no technical details on how this is really done at the sensor level I'll leave this to other tech types to expound. I'm also not considering each camera's real-effective ISO performance, just the rated level.

If we look at some other ISO levels:

- the 20D has better SNR results at white for all ISO levels. This is not something that's easy to see in prints since a little noise on a big signal pretty much disappears. This is also due in part to the physics of larger pixels, which is why full-frame sensors do even better. The 10D is similar to the 20D except for its highest ISO which falls down a bit

- the 20D's curves are ALL higher in every part of the graph, denoting that its SNR is better than the 70D's at all intensities from white right down into very dark shades at matching ISOs. The 10D's curves are considerably lower; it has worse SNR than the 20D pretty much at every point below base ISO.


SUMMARY.

At a per-pixel level, the 20D was a significant improvement over the 10D which came 1 year before it. The 70D, at the same per-pixel level, has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D. Taking into account the smaller pixels of the 70D's sensor, the practical net improvement is less than 1 stop in 9 years. (possibly close to 2 stops, depending on how the dual-sensel-AF-pixels really work)

Compared the 20D to the 60D/7D and Rebel xx0 using 18MP sensors we have an honest improvement of less than 1 stop in the period between the 20D and the 7D's release.

So, if Canon's 70D sensor is read out in such a way as to provide the same level of read noise as a regular single sensel pixel then they may be able to achieve a measurable improvement (nearly 1 stop) in base ISO dark noise which should translate into a similar improvement in total DR of a similar sensor NOT using this new AF system.

So, will the 7D Mark II have no such split AF pixels and offer us slightly improved SNR and DR because of this method or will they do something more akin to the Exmor's superior noise elimination?
Or will they provide these new AF pixels and compromise the stills performance for the sake of video and improved live-view AF?

Please Canon, give us the best possible STILLS camera in the 7D Mark II. I might then buy one.

 

[fman]

It's a bit disappointing to see that Canon fails to improve its APS-C sensor generations after generations, however it's still too little reason for me to swap my Canon system (although I use it less and less nowadays).

The much rumored Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 12-40 looks very interesting though and for me as casual shooter (I don't need any of the special glass that Nikon has no equivalent, in fact I don't need even glass that mFT has no equivalent) it looks much more appealing than any of the Canon APS-C offerings.

Olympus has sensational sensor stabilization system already now and the E-M1 is rumored to have also sensor based PDAF. I don't know though if its similar or not what is introduced by Canon.

FF is a different story, the much bigger pixels mask the inferiority of the Canon sensor tech. but to invest a whole range of huge/pricy FF lens is something I'm unwilling to do.

So in short as time passes the behind the competition DR of Canon APS-C has started to loose quite much relevance to me as not only in that but in many other areas Canon APS-C has started to be behind the competition. Panasonic e.g. introduced also IBIS in GX7 and E-M1 is rumored to have also sensor PDAF.
So my lightweight mFT system can easily beat Canon APS-C for 99% of the time. Those who are after e.g. BIF shooting probably Canon is still the only way to go but for most what I use APS-C mFT starting to offer a lot more not just DR.
This is not measured at all by DxOMark...

 

[Woody]

The much rumored Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 12-40 looks very interesting though and for me as casual shooter... it looks much more appealing than any of the Canon APS-C offerings.

So my lightweight mFT system can easily beat Canon APS-C for 99% of the time... This is not measured at all by DxOMark...

Interesting. I recently sold ALL my m43 stuff (OM-D, 12 f/2, 17 f/1.8, 25 f/1.4) and replaced it with a 70D. Couldn't be happier.

Took my OM-D for a trip recently. That was when I realized I really really really hated the EVF. I have spent 9 months with the OM-D and it has given me some great photos. But I just cannot put up with the EVF anymore.

So, I am now firmly entrenched in the Canon camp: 6D and 70D, plus bunch of lenses.

 

[fman]

That was when I realized I really really really hated the EVF. I have spent 9 months with the OM-D and it has given me some great photos. But I just cannot put up with the EVF anymore.

Interesting, actually I like EVF especially in case of video where you see nothing in the viewfinder of the DSLR (so EVF or something like that has to be used, which negates the aim of touch screen...).

Btw how many days of experience do you have with the 70D? I could get my hands on one only on Monday this week...

But like I wrote, I have still both systems. I'm ready to accept if someone dislikes the EVF.

 

[Loswr]

The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.

Oh, I think it's a little better. I hope your analysis really was quick, because I'd hate to think you wasted even more time. Per-pixel SNR? Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop. I wonder why? I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys cameras cares. The 70D is a massive improvement over the 20D in 99.9999% of ways that matter to people. Canon will sell loads of 70D bodies, quite likely more than the D7100 by a wide margin.

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

 

[symmar22]

I agree that people don't buy sensors and Canon is still n°1 in DSLR sales, nevertheless, however good a camera the 70D is, the main improvement I see is for video. It seems Canon has found an elegant way to solve the AF problem in video, but as a still photographer I find it a bit disappointing. And the sensor results show clearly that Canon has still no reply to the most advanced sensors on the market. I was expecting better ISO, noise and DR, we get the (roughly) same sensor as the 60D but now it can take care of the focus. I do not deny the technological advance (for video), but IMO it is still a very elegant way to hide their inability to improve the IQ of their sensors.

As a low ISO user, I stick with my 5D2s, but they are getting a bit old, and I would love to see one day a new sensor with huge improvement, like the 5D was in it's time or the 5D2 was an upgrade over the 5D. I sincerely hope the 5D4 will show such an improvement.

 

[insanitybeard]

Stupidly, I keep getting riled up by this endless debate. Some people just want to bash Canon regardless. Some people try to be objective and are continually shouted down....... where does it end? I'm not saying there isn't a desire amoungst many Canon users here, myself included, for Canon to improve the DR, SNR etc etc of their sensors, certainly I welcome all improvements, I'm happy to concede Canon lags the competition in this area. How much difference it actually will make to my photography, when there are many other perameters to also consider, I don't know. What I do know is that the same old arguments are very wearing, the same old people triumphantly claiming SoNikon's world dominating superiority- and no, I'm not dismissing people who come up with reasoned arguments from either side. The sun still shines. I think I need to spend less time on this forum. :-\

 

[Apop]

The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.

Oh, I think it's a little better. I hope your analysis really was quick, because I'd hate to think you wasted even more time. Per-pixel SNR? Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop. I wonder why? I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys cameras cares. The 70D is a massive improvement over the 20D in 99.9999% of ways that matter to people. Canon will sell loads of 70D bodies, quite likely more than the D7100 by a wide margin.

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

You clearly have not done your homework.........
Nikon d800 is a much better sensor than the 5dIII
It has many more MP, much more DR, less noise in RAW
It also has more buttons , so it must be more sophisticated
More importantly the canon does not even have a built in flash....
So more money to spend on that
Does canon finally have a built in time-lapse feature? and automatically makes a movie...?
The d800 has, it's for pros



You are just a canon fanboy with fancy equipment .....
Only because you own a 1dx you feel superior to the rest of us and try to annoy us with dorky comments!( CR GEEK)
I can assure you I only changed from nikon d800 to canon because my skills could not handle such a superior product, my skill set was way to limited for the sensor of the d800 :-(
I only bought it because nikon had the 200-400 and the d800 was significantly cheaper than the 5dIII when introduced, in the end it cost me potential shots of something I am likely to never encounter again....
so i have a personal issue with nikon poor fps and buffer!

That nikon has sold less d800's than canon sold 5dIII(if true), is clearly because the d800 is more of an exclusive product....., people buy sensors just as much as people buy engines

Nikon is the c63 amg, more power, better engine, where the 5dIII is a m3, it handles better but slightly less power in a straight line (landscapes), as soon as you hit a circuit (sports/wildlife) things might be different.
But as long was we discuss them sitting in the pit lane, the d800 clearly wins ....

If you never are on the circuit you are likely to enjoy the c63 more!



But really , this topic only comes up because people like trolling
Cameras get replaced a lot more than lenses, why don't we see 50 topics about the relatively poor teles from nikon?, heavy , not as well built , less sharp , not loving tc's ?

And female friendly bodies, if your a MAN and you have HANDS, it is impossible that the feel of a d800 is better than a 5d3, just impossible!

 

[julescar]

Well put don't worry about this mindless discussion its technobabble and has no relevance to what these devices are used for, "photography". I am a professional photographer and own 2 5D mk iii and 1 D800 and 1 D800E ... I have heaps of lenses and you know I end up using the 5D mk iii most of the time... The D800E is technically fantastic, but the 5D mk iii with the 24-70L 2.8 ii is a fantastic camera to capture images with. The D800 with 85mm 1.4G is beautiful but the captures from the Canon 85mm 1.2L are incredible. I use all of them for different reasons (and yes I am lucky to be able to choose whatever I need, I can afford them as they are tools of my trade). I actually purchased the 70D as I wanted a crop body for the 1.6X factor to use with some of the longer lenses 100-400. I did debate getting the D7100 but the sensor only factored a little into my consideration.

 

[Don Haines]

Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments.
1. You all have way too much time on your hands. If you need something to do, I have lots of projects that need getting done.
2. I am surprised to see Nixon users on a Canon forum. What's with that? Shouldn't you be on a Nixon forum or something?
This thread has really turned me off to this forum.

Might I suggest you go look at the images section of the forum... there are some absolutely fantastic images there and it is both a great source of inspiration and a place to ask questions. It has helped many of us to become better photographers.... and the images are taken with everything from p/s cameras to $15,000 lens/body combo...

Thanks Don. I will be spending my time on that thread. I didn't mean to be rude, I was just very surprised.

For what it's worth, the 70D will be my upgrade from my Rebel.

Every time anybody says anything about sensors there is the same crew which goes absolutely crazy. It is a never ending argument which cannot be won, But everybody seems ready to try, hence the comments about popcorn and beverage of choice...

Enjoy your 70D, looks like a great camera.... Hope to see some of your pictures...

 

[aj1575]

The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.

...

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

I would even go further; it is not only a question of salesfigures, it also a question of the qualitiy of the camera. Sure the sensor is an important part, but the DXOmark numbers is somehow like playing topcard with cars, and the Nikon has the biggest engine with the highest torque. But this only shows part of the true real life quality of a car.
Sure, Nikon has some nice sensors at the moment, they are better in some aspects than Canon, and somehow this is reflected in the DXOmark score by a wide margin (the sensors in the Sony cameras are also suposed to be better according to DXO, but just compare them against Canon at high ISO and you realize pretty fast that the Canon sensor gives you better pictures in real life). This score system makes it "easy" for everybody to somehow rank cameras by a single number; this is easy, so everybody does it. But as I mentioned befor, it only shows a small part of the whole thing.
For example, to me it seems that Canon has the better chips, their Digic5+ does a great job when it comes to noise reduction in JPEGs, while the RAWs seem to look a bit noisier from Canon, they look better than the Nikons as JPEG (maybe Nikon shooters are all RAW shooters so JPEG is no priority).

So looking at the camera as a whole, I'm happy with what Canon does and how the pictures I got straight out of the camera look.

 

[dstppy]

Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.

I agree. It's like ANY Apple discussion on Slick Deals ;D

Also, I come for Neuros posts; it's like watching The Daily Show for me. I get to think "oh, so there's someone else that thinks these people are loony"

 

[mountain_drew]

The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.

Oh, I think it's a little better. I hope your analysis really was quick, because I'd hate to think you wasted even more time. Per-pixel SNR? Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop. I wonder why? I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys cameras cares. The 70D is a massive improvement over the 20D in 99.9999% of ways that matter to people. Canon will sell loads of 70D bodies, quite likely more than the D7100 by a wide margin.

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

It's a thread that discuss the estimation of the sensor's performance based on DXOmark scores. DXOmark doesn't review cameras, as you said, merely sensors (actually, they probably review raw files but that's another issue). It's clearly not the thread to talk about sales and cameras features so I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

 

[insanitybeard]

It's a thread that discuss the estimation of the sensor's performance based on DXOmark scores. DXOmark doesn't review cameras, as you said, merely sensors (actually, they probably review raw files but that's another issue). It's clearly not the thread to talk about sales and cameras features so I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Because it's not just a thread that discusses sensor performance, inevitably all manner of other conclusions are reached ranging from Canon cameras are useless in general to DR is relevant, but not the be all and end all of photography, and everything imaginable inbetween, just like every other DR discussion that occurs on CR.

 

[Dukinald]

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".

I have to agree with this...I'm a little surprised so many Canon shooters can't seem to publicly admit Canon sensors just aren't as good as Sony's or Nikon's. .......

In the hundres (thousands..) of posts that i read in CR regarding this topic, I dont recall any canon shooter stating the canon sensor is better than Nikon's / Sony's.

 

[Pi]

While Canon is improving the video capabilities of its dSLRs, Nikon is thinking about (and patenting) a selectable strength AA filter.

 

[Famateur]

I am a professional photographer and own 2 5D mk iii and 1 D800 and 1 D800E ... I have heaps of lenses... I can afford them as they are tools of my trade.

Brilliant! This is a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said that pros that need the utmost in quality will buy the gear that facilitates it, regardless of brand, instead of fixating on the limitations of a sensor alone. That should certainly exempt you from the pejorative moniker of "fanboy" on either side, as some are eager to assign.

Strip the badges off and pretend they're all one brand for a moment, and then it's about choosing each camera or lens combination for what you need to do. I'm sure there are probably quirks and limitations of each that can be an irritant at times, and sensor advancements on one side or sharper lenses on the other would be welcomed enthusiastically, but for the most part, it sounds like you choose the system that works for what you're doing in each situation. Refreshing...

I actually purchased the 70D as I wanted a crop body for the 1.6X factor to use with some of the longer lenses 100-400.

Well, I guess maybe this camera is relevant to pros (I stand corrected), despite it's positioning as a mid-level amateur/enthusiast camera. That being said, with the flexibility your funds provide, I would expect you'll possibly sell it for the 7DII when it's finally released (or a Nikon alternative) -- if it will serve as a better tool for your purposes.

I did debate getting the D7100 but the sensor only factored a little into my consideration.

Another great example of someone choosing a camera system and not a sensor. To those who say this concept is irrelevant in a discussion about DxOMark scores, it's absolutely relevant as a response to the sensor-obsessed that make the leap from sensor scores to "Canon sucks". Leave all the "Canon sucks" and "what's Canon's problem" comments out, and talk about the scores and what trade-offs Canon may have chosen to accept when focusing on AF performance in this sensor generation. The trolling is unnecessary.

It's not about an inability to admit a deficiency in one or two aspects of sensor performance, it's about how small a factor that is to many people -- outside of this thread, anyway.