70D and Dxomark....

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?????

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.

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....

Maybe because you don't need more DR for every type of shot and for swimsuit models and such they just pop up some reflectors or what not if there are any issues. Not every scenario is like that. How can you say just because sidelines have lots of white lenses that this proves DR makes no difference? What does sports sidelines have to do with shooting in a forest?? (also for a while there the sidelines had gone from just about pure white to more black than white for a while with the 1D3 AF and other issues for a while although it is turning back a bit again)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

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.

I wouldn't go that far, on a PER IMAGE basis, the 70D does quite a bit better than the 20D at ISO3200 due to a full stop better SNR and 2/3rds of a stop better DR and TON less banding which makes high iso shots that have lots of darker portions much more likely to look acceptable. And at low ISO you are talking 20MP vs 8MP so you get a lot more detail for say landscape shots and a lot more reach for say birds.

High ISO improvements have been crawling along but nobody has really crawled them along any faster they are all stuck in a very tricky zone where it is not easy to make big strides at this point with current technology.

Canon has been often falling behind in color sensitivity though and has fallen way behind in DR. In fact they were actually getting worse in terms of DR and banding for most of the last half decade and only recently have just managed to get almost back to where they had gotten to with the old 1Ds3. Even Nikons own non-Exmor sensors that don't even use column ADC managed to improve well over a stop in DR over the time while Canon's got like 1/2 stop worse. Canon went from reasonably well controlled banding in the 1Ds3 and 40D at low ISO to gobs of it with the 50D and 5D2 and it is not until the 1DX and 6D that they even started beginning to head back to old 1Ds3 and 40D levels, the 70D may finally be fully back there again or perhaps even better, not sure yet.

 

[mountain_drew]

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.

Who cares how many cameras canon sell? BMW and Mercedes sell less cars than Honda, and that doesn't mean it's better. Moreover, I couldn't care less about what other people buy. As Canon owners, we can also expect this company to improve on some aspects and DR/low ISO noise is obviously something they can improve on.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

FACTS STILL STAND: CANON HAS SOLD MORE DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS THAN ANY OTHER BRAND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS

1. Who cares unless you are directly monetarily gaining off of that somehow!
2. Who says they would not have sold yet a ton more on top if they had done some thing differently?
3. You should well known that in the tech world the best product often doesn't win, it's who has the best marketing and influence on the press, etc. Just look at computers and how Apple was even able to have Apple IIe junk, never mind Mac stuff, be pushed as superior to stuff like an Amiga, ridiculous, but that is how it goes.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors.

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

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.

that's a pretty flawed response

 

[mountain_drew]

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.

As a scientist, you should understand the point of isolating the contribution of specific factors to a certain outcome. Sure, sensor is only one of them, but that doesn't preclude from looking at it in isolation.

 

[MLfan3]

70D and Dxomark... As far as I have learned here on this forum, their assessment is not the last verdict...;-)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52066617

in fact in this case, DXO is spot on but so what?
all cameras should not be rated or evaluated by sensor quality alone , and DXO is not even measuring actual sensor quality since there is no such thing as real RAW or sensor alone image quality.
my D600 , which has a great if not the greatest sensor ever but the camera as whole is not that great , in fact , it has so many design flaws.

read amazon reviews on the D600 and the D800 , you will know the great sensor alone never make a good camera.

btw, I own both the D800E and the D600 and have experienced through Nikon Service horror stories you find at Amazon, and so I decided to go dual mount in last Oct with a new EOS6D,which I decided to replace with a new 5D3 body in this July.

in my humble opinion , the 5D3 is the best all around camera ever in its price range, and the new 70D is the best APS-C camera ever , it seems to me is the obvious first step(of Canon) to go real hybrid APS(like an APS-C version of the Pana's great GH3).

I think the 70D successor will not have the mirror and OVF but will be real sophisticated hybrid mirrorless EF mount camera.

 

[meli]

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 keep touting this sales horn since forever and i cant really understand it, "what does X or Y matter when sales show that". Last i checked it was a hardware forum not retail or brokerage. Otherwise, lets dump our 5ds & 1ds cause, you know, rebels are where sales are.
People comment /grind on one particular deficiency of canon's line cause its exactly this, a deficiency. It doesn't make sense counteracting it with "what does it matter the rest of the camera is great" (or worse: oh but look at the sales...) Yes, everything else is great, people see that, and that makes it all the more obvious that a camera like 5d3 with d600's sensor would be the perfect camera. 90% of the users maybe don't mind but 10% does cause canon is trailing everybody else in this field, and its becoming obvious that its either arrogance or inability rather than decision.
And yes, since sensor isn't everything thats why people bitch about, otherwise they would just jump ship.

look at this:

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.

What does this mean? That since Canon has been outselling Nikon then there is no point arguing about Canon ineficiency to improve low iso for the last decade? That doesn't make sense.
And btw, your 'obvious' conclusion isn't really that obvious or a conclusion. Sensors did help Nikon sales, hardware failures didnt.

 

[Famateur]

FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS.

Yep.

Another fact: If that fact mattered much to the average person buying a DSLR camera, it would be reflected in sales volume and market share...but it doesn't, so it isn't.

Another fact: This silly debate continues on ad infinitum -- every time it's brought up. Some how the DR trolls think they represent the masses and that those who disagree are a tiny, stubborn, uninformed minority? I refer back to sales volume...(speaking of things people don't want to admit).

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

Yeah...Canon should give up now. Maybe if Canon did some research and patented something relevant to stills shooters. :

Anybody think it's significant that this crappy new 70D sensor that sucks so bad managed to still improve somewhat over the previous generation in some ways...while cutting its sensor diodes in half? I know the math doesn't necessarily work out like this, but: it seems kinda like this inferior chip is managing to keep up (and slightly pick up) its pace with one arm tied behind its back. ;D

If I am looking for new posing ideas, I don't go to DXO....lol....uggg...stop typing now...

LOL...I hear you, man! This thread might just go on forever. Based on at least one contributor's forum handle, it might remain irrational and never end. :-X

I guess that last bit probably sounds mean-spirited. Sorry -- couldn't resist the comparison. I do mean it as a lighthearted ribbing...

One last thought: It seems to me that this forum has had discussions about mirrorless being the technology of the future and that DSLRs may fall by the wayside as mirrorless catches up. I'm not going to make a prediction about that, but if Canon tends to agree, maybe that Dual Pixel Live View AF technology they just released isn't so video-centric after all. Maybe it really is part of a long-term strategy. Suddenly Nikon/Sony is scrambling to file patents and catch up. Have you seen the video of the D7100 trying to keep up with the 70D in Live View and Video AF? I think the future is bright for Canon (and I don't care how many stops that brightness scores on some chart).

Before I hang up my keyboard for this thread, I will make a prediction: This debate will not result in one side becoming enlightened and reversing their opinions to agree with the other side. There will be no virtual hand-holding and Kumbaya in harmony.

I am looking forward to having a tutu with the 70D when it hits local stores, though...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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?????

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.

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....

Maybe because you don't need more DR for every type of shot and for swimsuit models and such they just pop up some reflectors or what not if there are any issues. Not every scenario is like that. How can you say just because sidelines have lots of white lenses that this proves DR makes no difference? What does sports sidelines have to do with shooting in a forest?? (also for a while there the sidelines had gone from just about pure white to more black than white for a while with the 1D3 AF and other issues for a while although it is turning back a bit again)

Never did I say having DR doesn't matter, or is useless, or shouldn't be a concern. My argument was against the idea 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."

A 1dx or a d4 is gonna perform better shooting sports than a d800 would do. Take it to the next extreme - A rebel would probably outdo a hasslebad shooting sports as well. this claim of outright inferior/superior is just silly, it all depends on what you shoot, what your needs are, what your style is...what you want to do. If it's your passion to shoot in a forest with vast amounts of DR to contend with, by all means, buy the body with better DR. But just because that body is top of the line in a forest, that doesn't mean it's better for something else. this still doesn't address the idea that 'whether it is noticeable in real world usage is not really that relevant.' Because if that's the case, then your what about shooting in forest scenario doesn't matter because thats a real world scenario. Intended use doesn't matter, that's real world too. All that matters is what the spec sheet says, or the lab results say because, whether it is noticeable in real world usage is not really that relevant.

Sorry, I say real world usage is relevant. If you spend most of your shooting time with your camera on a tripod, at ISO 100, then yes, DR and low ISO IQ makes a huge difference to you, and the nikon sensor is superior for that purpose...no arguments there. But if your shooting events, sports, weddings - then that DR advantage goes away because your not using ISO 100 the majority of the time. For sports fps and accurate servo tracking trump DR any day of the week. For weddings, High ISO and AF trump DR. For these 2 types of shooters canon is superior at that price point.

And for the hobbyists...sorry to bring in a small dose of reality here ---but talk about first world problems. I'm not letting Canon off the hook, but, this is 2013! this is a first world problem for sure, I mean cry me a river, my $XXXX value camera can't do 14 stops of DR which I process on my expensive computer using the latest professional grade software???? I get that we have wants, but seriously now, this is 1st world craziness written all over it. Its a hobby. That shot you get of your kid at the birthday party, is 14 stops vs 11 stops of DR going to really stop you from showing it grandchildren? That landscape you took and had framed and put on the wall, are your friends really coming over for a bbq and telling you wow, look at that banding in the corner, see it, here's the magnifying glass - or wow, this would have been so much better had you lifted the shadows 2 stops. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but at least pros do have some valid concerns for tech upgrades, their livelyhood depends on it. But as a hobby, come on now, can't we all just agree that the modern age has a lot of badass tools we can use???????

 

[docsmith]

You all remember that the 70D is a consumer level, maybe prosumer level,camera body right? We aren't talking about the 1DX or 1DXII. I can understand that you are wanting improvement in Canon's sensor tech...but did you really expect improvement in DR, which to me is a "higher end" feature, in a consumer level product?

For a consumer level product, I actually think Canon nailed the sensor improvement. Give the masses better AF during video while still having great stills! So the masses don't need to buy a camcorder and a dSLR, they can just buy the 70D.

To me, Canon nailed the improvement that matches the market for this body.

For those of you that are arguing, were you ever going to buy a 70D? Going with the car analogy from a page or two ago, this is like Acura owners complaining about the horsepower in the latest Honda Civic. You were never going to buy one and you are not the target market.....

 

[zlatko]

Canon has been often falling behind in color sensitivity though and has fallen way behind in DR. In fact they were actually getting worse in terms of DR and banding for most of the last half decade and only recently have just managed to get almost back to where they had gotten to with the old 1Ds3.

I edit thousands of Canon files each week, and have done so for 10+ years. I've seen each new generation of camera bring improved image quality. And I've edited thousands of photos from photographers who use the latest Nikon cameras. Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.

 

[heptagon]

This forum feels like being caught in a loop, the same arguments repeated over and over again...

 

[duydaniel]

You are under captivity of negativity

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

To cover some stuff not covered by DxO regarding sensors:

Low ISO banding definitely seems better than with the 7D, almost for certain the vertical banding is clearly less. Don't have the proper samples to judge horizontal banding yet, but almost for sure it is not worse and it certainly might be better or much too, don't know yet. But horizontal handn't been as bad on the 7D, using masked area on RAWs you see lots of fine vertical banding at ISO100 although horizontal in that little area looks OK. With the 70D all the fine vertical bandings that leap out at you are gone.

Acutance appears to be better than the 7D as well. I can't yet be 100% sure it is real, but I suspect it will prove to be. It could be a change in the AA filter and/or also the greens in the CFA might be so extremely split as they on the 7D so RAW converters can get better acutance out of the files without running into mazing issues. If you compare 7D files developed with the original beta RAW support in ACR or even Canon's own DPP they have a bit better acutance than when using release versions of ACR or later DPP versions. But the earlier RAW converters also left 7D files riddles with "mazing" artifacts all over which is why they had to be changed and were (after I reported the issue and then others concurred and also reported it).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 keep touting this sales horn since forever and i cant really understand it, "what does X or Y matter when sales show that". Last i checked it was a hardware forum not retail or brokerage. Otherwise, lets dump our 5ds & 1ds cause, you know, rebels are where sales are.
People comment /grind on one particular deficiency of canon's line cause its exactly this, a deficiency. It doesn't make sense counteracting it with "what does it matter the rest of the camera is great" (or worse: oh but look at the sales...) Yes, everything else is great, people see that, and that makes it all the more obvious that a camera like 5d3 with d600's sensor would be the perfect camera. 90% of the users maybe don't mind but 10% does cause canon is trailing everybody else in this field, and its becoming obvious that its either arrogance or inability rather than decision.
And yes, since sensor isn't everything thats why people bitch about, otherwise they would just jump ship.

look at this:

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.

What does this mean? That since Canon has been outselling Nikon then there is no point arguing about Canon ineficiency to improve low iso for the last decade? That doesn't make sense.
And btw, your 'obvious' conclusion isn't really that obvious or a conclusion. Sensors did help Nikon sales, hardware failures didnt.

+1

 

[Aglet]

I've done well to stick to the topic of 70D and DxOmark, I think.
I've merely presented DxO's data in a way which tellingly demonstrates just what they measured on the 70D's sensor in comparison to what they measured to a 10 year old model.
A per-pixel level comparison is important because this is what defines the quality of the electronics in the system.

Can we imagine how fabulous the 70D would be if it also had 2 full stops better SNR or DR?.. I'd be drooling! The capabilities of such a CAMERA would be truly class-leading.
As it is, there's just a lot of compromising.


@Neuro; sorry, your big corp style capitalist justifications are not relevant when talking about sensor tech unless they're invested more of those profits into R&D or patent licensing to improve the foundation of the actual product, it's sensor technology. And coming up with RESULTS. It seems dividends were more important than technology investment in the last 10 years.
Can't argue with success tho, Canon's doing very well in that regard.

I will repeat, what they've done in the 70D with the AF ability is very impressive. I just wish they'd also bring more than minuscule improvements to the base stills performance of ALL their sensors.

Off-topic:
FWIW, 2012-2013 saw me liquidate a lot of newer Canon gear and give that money to Ricoh-Pentax.
I'm now only looking for a high performance crop body for long glass, dim light and high fps rates.
Will it be a 7d MkII, a D400, a K-3(?), or possibly even a new mirrorless system?
If the old 7D had less FPN, it'd have stayed in my inventory. If the 7d2 has a vastly improved sensor, it'll top my list.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You all remember that the 70D is a consumer level, maybe prosumer level,camera body right? We aren't talking about the 1DX or 1DXII. I can understand that you are wanting improvement in Canon's sensor tech...but did you really expect improvement in DR, which to me is a "higher end" feature, in a consumer level product?

How is DR a higher end feature when even the lowest end Nikon or whatnot has it better? Even a few POINT AND SHOOTS actually have more engineering measured lowest ISO DR than the 5D3! (yes the P&S still are worse in all other sensor aspects though, mostly by a decently large degree, not saying I whip out the P&S for landscapes, but just pointing out that I mean when P&S can on a per IMAGE basis get better DR than a FF DSLR.... and P&S are not high end).

Also even with Nikon, at low ISO the D4, their highest end body in some senses, has somewhat less DR than the D600 or even D7100.

For a consumer level product, I actually think Canon nailed the sensor improvement. Give the masses better AF during video while still having great stills! So the masses don't need to buy a camcorder and a dSLR, they can just buy the 70D.

It's certainly a great thing.

To me, Canon nailed the improvement that matches the market for this body.

perhaps

although it wouldn't have hurt it they had nailed both (and they probably do have the tech in house to do it if they were allowed to)

it also makes some worried that they might also forget to do it for stuff like a 5D4 and such though too

For those of you that are arguing, were you ever going to buy a 70D? Going with the car analogy from a page or two ago, this is like Acura owners complaining about the horsepower in the latest Honda Civic. You were never going to buy one and you are not the target market.....

no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.

You seriously did notice the banding got worse going for 1Ds3 to 5D2? Or 40D to 50D? And then better again from 5D2 to 6D (although maybe still a trace behind the old 1Ds3)?

You actually think that many Nikons have not had a lot less banding than stuff like 50D,5D2,5D3,1D4,etc.?

Maybe you don't ever shoot to where it matters, but that is something else.

You wish Nikon color sensitivity were as good? It's better.
As for what color is better overall, not just talking color sensitivity, that is a very complex topic with no easy answers. Overall it seems Nikon has filters that allow for more accurate color overall on average although Canon make make certain skin types easier to pull off nicely. It's a very twisted subejct and it varies model to model and in many cases there is probably no universal answer comparing any given body to any given other it might depend upon the very exactingly specific question you ask. But in terms of color sensitivity and metamerism overall on average Nikon has often been a full stop ahead recently.

 

[Aglet]

Black-Cap event

70D in stock at my local store.
Goin' in for some lens cap shots.