Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon EOS 7D II - poor sensor (DxO Mark)
#1
Originally I planned to move to the EOS 7D II but at least over at Dxo Mark the sensor seems to be mediocre at best:

 

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/S...77_953_865

 

Even the Olympus E-M1 is better (73pts) with its substantially smaller sensor. The 7DII is barely better than the 70D (70 vs 68pts)

 

This is disappointing regarding its very steep price tag.

 

Not sure what to do with this ...

#2
Are you really using the DxO overall score to determine how "good" a sensor is? Unless your criteria exactly matches theirs, then you need to dig into the details of its characteristics and how they apply.

 

DxO heavily weight low ISO dynamic range, something which Canon lags others in. Once you get to moderate ISO (say, 800) pretty much all APS-C sensors are equal there. Also Canon continue to use a weaker red colour filter in their bayer matrix which likely contributes to a below average colour score too. Are either of these relevant in lens testing here? For tests here, my question would simply be is testing 20MP going to add value over continuing to use the existing 18MP sensor? Not a big difference by any means, but the 20MP sensor could be the new standard for Canon APS-C in a similar way variations of the 18MP sensor have been used almost everywhere for years now.

 

Also a lot of the 7D mk2's price isn't about the sensor. It possibly has the most advanced phase AF system in any APS-C body, plus it has weather sealing pretty much everywhere they can stick some. Those are likely the biggest reasons to look at the 7D mk2.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#3
Well, the EOS 50D (15mp) was released back in late 2008(!) so it's overdue for a replacement here in the zone.

However, it seems pointless to prefer the 7D II over a 70D - at more than the double price. The sensor quality is the same and the rest is rather irrelevant for us here.

That being said, the 70D was released in mid 2013 so it's not new anymore either.

 

I reckon we have to go for the 7DII for "political" reasons rather than technical ones.

 

While DxO doesn't seem to care about the resolving power for whatever reason, it still shows the technical state.

#4
I missed the detail you still test at 15MP on Canon. Guess I had the 18MP sensor bodies for so long I took it for granted.

 

I assume waiting for the 20MP sensor to filter down into lower bodies might be too big a possible wait?

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#5
What are you going to do with the 50D-based reviews if you switch? If you're going to archive them due to not being suitable for comparison, then I think it would be better to just stay with the 50D. It's not like the "jump" in resolution would make the reviews more useful for people than the ability to compare new tested lenses with old one.

#6
Taking DXO "tests" that serious? Their colour tests are silly, their noise tests never catch NR kicking in at higher ISO settings, even when the graphs clearly show jumps in the graphs, and their DR at low ISO bias is only useful for the new breed of 4 stop shadow pullers (lets not call them photographers). Their lens tests are a joke, by the way.

 

The normal output from the 7D mk II looks to be pretty good to say the least, but if you don't need an action/sports shooter, or want/need the most advanced AF system, the 70D is a fine camera too (and quite a bit lighter). For the lens test won't matter, of course.

#7
Dear Klaus,

 

while I do not know about the quality of the 7DII  sensor in particular, I suggest you take a  more critical approach towards DXO. I beleive their ranking is highly flawed as it does not reassamble the  quality one can achieve with a camera in real life. In addition to that, their lens test are quite often flawed from a technical perspective.

 

Cameras:

 

Currently I am shooting a 5D III supplemented by a Sony A7. I bought the Sony because of (i) light weight and (ii) higher dynamic range, because I love to push shaodws in post. To be honest, after a year of intense testing  I am thoroughly dispappointed with the Sony. The higher dynamic range materializes only below iso 400 and even there only in very few instances.  For example: I can easily push the shaowds in my 5D shots  with a full 100% in Lightroom and addtionally increase exposure by a stop without any problems in most shots. Only if there are extremly underexposed parts in an image ( or if I did not get the exposure right) the Sony has visibly less colour noise in the shadows. In normal circumstances the Canon's low iso shots are easily just as good as the Sony. At high iso (meaning already ISo 800 above) the Canon has a lot less colour and lumiscence noise than the Sony, yielding sharper shots for bigger prints. In total: the Sony is slightly better at iso 100- iso200, which only shows in about 1 out of 500 of my images, because it requires extreme manipulation to see any of it.  The Canon however is much beter than the from iso 800. Thus, unless you are only shooting from a tripod at low iso, or in studio, I think the Canon sendor is the better one. It certainly delivers much more even results throughout the iso range. I wish I could report a different result as this actually negates the point of my purchase of the Sony, which is very unsatisfying to say the least.

 

My work can be seen here: www.photography-in-style.de

 

Lenses:

 

DxO Mark lens test are sometimes so flawed it is actually ridiculous. Take for example their test of the Canon 16-35 /2.8 L II and look at the  sharpness field for 16mm. According to that graph the image borders and corners are sharpest at f/2.8 and become less sharp the more you stop the lens down. While I am not a fan of this particular lens, (as it just is not very good at the borders), a result which claims that it actually looses sharpness at 16mm when you stop it down, is plainly wrong (outside the m43 world  I do not know any lens which is difrraction limited wide open).  If you click through their other lens tests you will find similar questionable results all over the place (regardless of manufacturer).

 

 Thus I would recommmend that you rent a 7DII and try it out for yourself. At least I dont find DXO particularly helpful fro any practical photographer.

 

Regards

 

 Jens

 

 

Quote:Originally I planned to move to the EOS 7D II but at least over at Dxo Mark the sensor seems to be mediocre at best:

 

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/S...77_953_865

 

Even the Olympus E-M1 is better (73pts) with its substantially smaller sensor. The 7DII is barely better than the 70D (70 vs 68pts)

 

This is disappointing regarding its very steep price tag.

 

Not sure what to do with this ...
#8
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-y...omark.html

 

Only just saw the above link this morning, but it sums up what I wanted to say better than what I did say.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#9
Just one comment on this: I  am finding that since the time of the EOS 40D the sensor quality (regardless of manfacturer) has not significantly improved regardless of what certain test sites claim. I still have a 50D from the old times and comparing it to newer Canon, Nikon or any other sensors, I do not find much progress apart from the increased resoluion of the newer sensors. Furthermore, if you compare prints ( I print usally larger than 50x75 cm) , the differeces between cameras of the same sensor size has been almost indistinguishable for about 6 year.  What you do notice however are two things:

 

1. Raw process ing has improved considerably. Meaning if I re-process my old raws from the 50D with the latest Lightroom process, I get sharper shots with less noise and more pleasing colours ( This actually might be the reason why newer cameras appear to better, because they are quite often tested with newer raw converters);

 

2. Jpg processing has also improved quite a bit, with newer camers usually delivering better results.

 

In other words:  If you are satisfied with the resoluition of your sensor, upgrade your camera only if you need better jpg-processing, better features, faster operation etc.. Raw image quality  has remained almost the same across manufacturer for the past 6 years. It usally pays of to re-process your files with a newer raw engine.

Quote:Well, the EOS 50D (15mp) was released back in late 2008(!) so it's overdue for a replacement here in the zone.

However, it seems pointless to prefer the 7D II over a 70D - at more than the double price. The sensor quality is the same and the rest is rather irrelevant for us here.

That being said, the 70D was released in mid 2013 so it's not new anymore either.

 

I reckon we have to go for the 7DII for "political" reasons rather than technical ones.

 

While DxO doesn't seem to care about the resolving power for whatever reason, it still shows the technical state.
#10
http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evalu...index.html

The 7D mk II's sensor is as good as any or one of the best. Just the higher read noise due to off-sensor ADC spoils the DR from RAW measurements. Why would you find that a problem?

 

I'd find the lower 12 bit tonality and the artifacting non-lossless compression of the current Sony RAW format a bigger problem.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)