I would agree with the exception of the 1D X at ISO 3200+. It's a huge increase in performance. That said, my old Rebel XSi files shot at ISO 800 and below hold up pretty well in comparison to the newest bodies.pdirestajr said:
Upvote
0
DXO calls the D7200 "Super awesome greatness with frosting on top"
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
It makes sense. The image quality Canon cameras has improved little in the last seven years, it was already very good at that time.pdirestajr said:
Moreover, Nikon had a major improvement with EXMOR sensors. By the year 2008, Nikon cameras had rather poor image quality at high ISO, and the improvements are obvious.
Upvote
0
pdirestajr said:
well, in the Canon camp that's been true for a decade. At least until the 70D/7d2 which have finally removed pattern noise that came in in a bad way with the 50D.
If you look at SoNikon, they have noticeable progression as models get updated and they've leapfrogged Canon's IQ back when the Nikon D90 came out and Canon's been trying to keep up ever since.. and falling behind IMO.
joejohnbear said:
Canon did a similar thing with the 60D by dropping top display features and button functions.
The only thing that really bothered me about that was the mushy buttons vs the 40/50D I used before that.
My bigger gripe is how some mfrs keep rearranging the buttons instead of staying more consistent from model to model.
RLPhoto said:
the lack of a d400 has certainly irked a lot of longtime Nikon shooters and I can understand why. OTOH, D7x00 provides the IQ and is "good enough" I think they've learned that trick from Canon.
Upvote
0
The D7200 and 7D2 aren't direct competitors.
Nikon abandoned the high performance APS-C camera concept. This will remain true until they come out with a D400 or whatever. I very much doubt that will happen as too many years have passed. As the 7D2's sale price and gray market price plummeted to $1,200 - the market for high end APS-C is dead.
For over $1,300 - people want FF. I'm in the same camp. Who really wants to spend $1,800 for crop? The 7D2 at $1,200 - $1,400 is more reasonable, and a big part of that is the high FPS and AF system. At least it gives something for that premium.
Now, if you have to compare the two cameras.
On IQ, they are very close.
On build quality, the D7200 is a turd compared to the pro-quality 7D2. The D7100/D7200 is like a toy in comparison.
On features and performance - the 7D2 is way, way ahead.
There is really nothing about the D7200 that can justify it as a better camera than the 7D2. The advantage was the lower price, but the 7D2 is creeping down there...thus becoming sort of a competitor in price.
The D7200 is Nikon's way of providing semi-pro-ish controls to their DX users. There are actual buttons for various settings. It is very different than the D3300 and D5500 in this regard. Otherwise, the IQ and much of the rest is the same. The D7200 is essentially a D3300 with real controls.
Nikon abandoned the high performance APS-C camera concept. This will remain true until they come out with a D400 or whatever. I very much doubt that will happen as too many years have passed. As the 7D2's sale price and gray market price plummeted to $1,200 - the market for high end APS-C is dead.
For over $1,300 - people want FF. I'm in the same camp. Who really wants to spend $1,800 for crop? The 7D2 at $1,200 - $1,400 is more reasonable, and a big part of that is the high FPS and AF system. At least it gives something for that premium.
Now, if you have to compare the two cameras.
On IQ, they are very close.
On build quality, the D7200 is a turd compared to the pro-quality 7D2. The D7100/D7200 is like a toy in comparison.
On features and performance - the 7D2 is way, way ahead.
There is really nothing about the D7200 that can justify it as a better camera than the 7D2. The advantage was the lower price, but the 7D2 is creeping down there...thus becoming sort of a competitor in price.
The D7200 is Nikon's way of providing semi-pro-ish controls to their DX users. There are actual buttons for various settings. It is very different than the D3300 and D5500 in this regard. Otherwise, the IQ and much of the rest is the same. The D7200 is essentially a D3300 with real controls.
Upvote
0
Just because the 7D2 is dropping price on the grey marked doesn't mean there's no market.
If another recent thread pointing out mirrorless photographers doing pro-level work has anything to say, the 7D2 should be more popular than ever (FF is being ignored longer than you might expect).
Rather than the 7D2 being too expensive, at only double the price I actually can't justify buying a Rebel because of the 7D2.
If another recent thread pointing out mirrorless photographers doing pro-level work has anything to say, the 7D2 should be more popular than ever (FF is being ignored longer than you might expect).
Rather than the 7D2 being too expensive, at only double the price I actually can't justify buying a Rebel because of the 7D2.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
You throw around the word "obviously" very loosely. Is it possible they disabled user-AFMA to differentiate between one model and another? Maybe. But it's certainly not obvious.
Maybe they don't want the majority of their user base, a vast mob of untrained individuals, intentionally or accidentally impacting camera performance (and likely complaining about it on the internets). Maybe they want more people sending cameras and lenses to service centers for matching adjustments.
One thing is certain: without a leaked document stating the reason some cameras have it and other don't, you're just guessing.
Upvote
0
I just have one question. Does DXOMark explain somewhere how they calculate their mark. There must be some formula how they calculate this all defining number from all the measurments they make.
I also look at their test often, but they are not as helpful as I hoped them to be. For Camera sensors it might still be okay, their is some usefull information you can get out of their measurements; it is just difficult to translate this into real world effects. DPReview does a better here with their comparison tool.
But for lenses it is even harder. At first I thought, well this is a nice tool, and compared some lenses. The measurments might be correct, but what does a difference of 1Mp in sharpness mean, and how does their field map with different colors from green to red translate in real world resolution.
For example, I compared the EF 70-200 f4 L IS to the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS; with just looking at DXOMark, I thought well, the 70-300 lags only a little bit behind the 70-200 in IQ but I like the longer reach. I then went over to The-Digital-Picture and compared the lenses with the tool there. I was surprised that the small difference in numbers on DXO translated into such a big difference in IQ.
What I learned, it is not enough to judge a sensor or a lens just by a few numbers on a webpage.
I also look at their test often, but they are not as helpful as I hoped them to be. For Camera sensors it might still be okay, their is some usefull information you can get out of their measurements; it is just difficult to translate this into real world effects. DPReview does a better here with their comparison tool.
But for lenses it is even harder. At first I thought, well this is a nice tool, and compared some lenses. The measurments might be correct, but what does a difference of 1Mp in sharpness mean, and how does their field map with different colors from green to red translate in real world resolution.
For example, I compared the EF 70-200 f4 L IS to the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS; with just looking at DXOMark, I thought well, the 70-300 lags only a little bit behind the 70-200 in IQ but I like the longer reach. I then went over to The-Digital-Picture and compared the lenses with the tool there. I was surprised that the small difference in numbers on DXO translated into such a big difference in IQ.
What I learned, it is not enough to judge a sensor or a lens just by a few numbers on a webpage.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
aj1575 said:
They don't, it's a black box 'weighted' calculation where the weightings aren't disclosed and may change from camera to camera.
Peter van den Hamer posted an article on Luminous Landscape a while back, where he described some of the problems with DxO's sensor analyses, such as the low ISO bias of the sensor score (one reason I call them Biased Scores = BS), the fact that measuring color depth (i.e. chroma noise) at low ISO is basically meaningless (and yet it's a major factor in the Sensor Score), their confusing nomenclature for the subscores (e.g. Sports Score), etc.
He also took issue with DxO's refusal to divulge the way they calculate the overall score. He has come up with an approximation which he suggests is usually to accurate to within 1-2 points: DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2. He also states, "My guess is that the actual formula is non-linear and may use (under some conditions) coefficients of 5/5/5 rather than 4.3/3.4/4.4." His suggestion that the 'master formula' which DxO uses may be modified under some conditions further supports the claim that DxO's scoring is biased.
Upvote
0
The main users of AFMA are those who have very fast or very long lenses, where tiny differences in product dimensions and other parameters may matter. If you are shooting at 50mm f/8, AFMA is pointless. If you have average luck, and get an "average" 60D and an "average" example of a given lens, and aren't shooting at f/1.4 or at 600mm f/4, you ought to get reasonable AF accuracy without needing AFMA. I have been happy with the 400mm f/5.6L and 60D combo, it does fine with birds in flight, so either both the camera and lens are "average" or the camera and lens vary in the same direction.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dilbert said:
Bias is bias, period. It should be avoided where possible, and in this case it is certainly possible.
By your flawed logic, evaluations of lens performance should be based on an aperture 2-3 stops narrower than wide open, because that's where the lens produces its best IQ.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I think the principal issue here is the arrogance of a 'score' rating system. I honestly believe that if DXO just reported data, were transparent in their methods (and probably stopped writing any opinions whatsoever) we'd all use them like we use TDP, Lens Tip, PhotoZone, Roger Cicala's data, etc.
But putting a score to a piece of technology will inevitably bring about an inquest as to how that was done. We're having one right now.
- A
Upvote
0
You only need to know two past examples. The first was when they scored the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L I IS higher than the II. Only later they then rescored the II higher.
Then the classic 500mm lens comparison (Nikon vs. Canon). They got equal scores because of the "superior DR of the D800" used in the testing.
That's really all you need to know.
Then the classic 500mm lens comparison (Nikon vs. Canon). They got equal scores because of the "superior DR of the D800" used in the testing.
That's really all you need to know.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ahsanford said:
PZ gives a score (of sorts, a star rating system), and tags a 'highly recommended' rating on some lenses...and it doesn't raise hackles. The thing is, PZ's scored are derived from optical performance, and PZ's ratings are both internally and externally consistent...whereas DxO fails to meet those criteria. It's not really the what, it's the how.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Fair, neuro, that's fair.
Even TDP has a star rating system now, which is silly because he rates almost all Canon gear 4-5 stars. I simply disregard it and appreciate his writing and user experience much, much more. I love the weird little stuff you only find from proper heavy use. His writing is terrific.
- A
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Lawliet said:It's easier on system level:
budget-(equipment cost+(staff+post processing time required to make up for equipment compromises)*hourly rates)
Tends to cause hissy fits in certain circles...
Indeed. I remember when I used Nikon to shoot architecture, and I had to have a team of architects and four construction crews relocate a building to make up for the compromise of not having an ultrawide PC-E lens. After that I switched to Canon.
True story.
Upvote
0
A smart person would have used a Hblad & the TS-adapter, the better IQ would have been thrown in for free...neuroanatomist said:Lawliet said:It's easier on system level:
budget-(equipment cost+(staff+post processing time required to make up for equipment compromises)*hourly rates)
Tends to cause hissy fits in certain circles...
Indeed. I remember when I used Nikon to shoot architecture, and I had to have a team of architects and four construction crews relocate a building to make up for the compromise of not having an ultrawide PC-E lens. After that I switched to Canon.
True story.
Upvote
0
and a third thing....bdunbar79 said:
The Canon 50F1.8 rates as a superior lens to the 600F4 version 2....
Upvote
0
