DXO Mark comparison of Nikon D7100 and Canon 70d

<p>When you consider the whole system, bodies, lenses, software there's plenty to chose from between Canon, Nikon and Sony. Buyers that just look at low ISO DR are part of one of many niches in the market. Very every buyer with that view, there are plenty more that looks at other parameters and weight their evaluations differently.</p>

<p>In time, Canon will increase the low ISO DR of all their sensor/processor combinations, but there'll still be times where they sacrifice that to benefit other parameters. Look at the 1D X. It's low pixel-density and other design compromises, allow it to deliver high IQ at almost insane ISOs. It's aimed at the photographer that is shooting fast subjects in potentially low light, among other targets. I plan to buy one for my bird photography as soon as I scrape together the money; however, for most photographers, the 5D MkIII may be as good or better choice and for those that don't really need the sophisticated AF system, then the 5D MkII might be a better value for the money. Of course, there are alternatives in the Nikon/Sony camps. (As long as things stay close and reasonable, I'm not jumping brands to gain one small parameter.)</p>

<p>We're lucky that we've got so many choices.</p>

<p>Look at how close the M 4/3 is to the Canon with its larger APS-C sensor, in fact<br>

in every DXO mark test, except High Iso (where they were still close) the M 4/3 won.</p>

<p>Nikon was head and shoulders winner here must be that those Toshiba sensors <br>

are using new tech.<br>

The Nex 5n also beats the Canon 70d, but not the Nikon.</p>

 

 

<p>Canon 70D // Olympus E-P5 // Nikon D7100 //<br />DxOMark Sensor Scores <br />Overall score<br />Canon 70D // Olympus E-P5 // Nikon D7100 //<br />68 // 72// 83//<br />Canon 70D // Olympus E-P5 // Nikon D7100 //<br />Color Depth<br />22.5 bits // 22.8 bits // 24.2 bits//<br />Canon 70D // Olympus E-P5 // Nikon D7100 //<br />Dynamic Range<br />11.6 EVS // 12.4 EVS // 13.7 EVS //<br />Canon 70D // Olympus E-P5 // Nikon D7100 //<br />Low light ISO<br />926 ISO // 895 ISO // 1256 ISO //</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>Tell you what! Let's upset another bunch of fanboys and say that the D7100 also beats the Leica M Typ 240 on Colour Depth and Dynamic Range - according to DxO.<br>

And the D800 clearly 'overrules' the lot on every graph.</p>

<p>Over on Dpreview Nikon forum they have 111 posts/replies on this subject.<br>

The Canon defenders have their shorts in a bunch, making excuses like at ISO<br>

200 shooting a race car they would rather have a 70d. They are blaming<br>

the messenger DXO, but have no way to refute their machine optical bench findings.<br>

I find it humorous. Sure if you can shoot at base ISO, but almost any half way decent<br>

digital can give nice ISO 200 results, one expects more of a camera costing over $1,000.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52067367">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52067367</a></p>

>>>DPP will do a much better job with CR2 files than ACR or LR, but DPReview needs to use just one program for comparability.<<<

 

Please qualify your definition of "doing a much better job". This sounds optimistic given the power of ACR and the LR Develop Module,

not to mention their wide user base..

<p>How many of you people have actually tried the 70D ?? </p>

<p>How many people have an Optical test bench?<br>

While I am sure next to older cameras like the D300, the 70D does fine<br>

and can satisfy most people, especially sports shooters, that isn't the point<br>

that most people are talking about. The point most of the posts I have<br>

read here on Pnet, and Dpreview Nikon forum have made is that <br>

a $1200 aps-c camera is unable to trounce the M 4/3 Om e m5.<br>

Also, the D7100 is a much better IQ camera, for a similar price.<br>

While the Canon touts its phase detection AF, the D7100 uses<br>

the D4 AF module, and its known as Nikons best sports AF, which is<br>

top notch. The DXO computer analytic s just spits out the test results<br>

it doesn't know if its a Canon or Olympus, a FF or a M 4/3, its<br>

blind to fanboy politics, so its a useful tool. If you got Canon lenses<br>

the 70d has lots of up to date features so go get it if you need a new camera<br>

otherwise wait for Canon to come up with the 80d which will be better.</p>

 

<p>Here's one of the articles that really got me considering DPP seriously. I got the guide, tried it myself and saw the DPP advantages. See:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/10/16/two-great-new-eguides-and-important-digital-basics-info/">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/10/16/two-great-new-eguides-and-important-digital-basics-info/</a></p>

<p>The choice is clear:<br>

- still image quality D7100<br>

- videos, buffer 70D<br>

the noise in the images is about 1/2 stop at high iso, perhaps even 2/3 at low ISO. It's a shame for Canon users but unlikely to be enough to make them change system. As for low DR, they are used to it.</p>

<p>Nico, all a comparison like this can do is provide a parameter to someone who is considering which camera to buy. Hopefully they'll take into account what features are important to them and the cost of the decision - including whether to switch systems. Some people, like myself, are obsessive in researching this kind of thing before buying (for example, I tend to download the camera manual beforehand and read it for information). Some people will completely ignore all this and buy whatever their local retailer had on the shelf. Some people will obsess about one little figure, or make a sweeping generalisation. I'd hope people on the market for these cameras might do their research, but I suspect I'd be disappointed. The only "clear" choice would be D800e (or medium format) and a 1Dx, or possibly D4. :-)<br />

<br />

David: The reason that people tend to be dismissive of software noise handling is that software gets updated, and what you can do to one raw file you can do to another (mostly) - there isn't secret sauce in the Canon sensor that makes it more amenable to raw conversion, as far as I know. It is true that different filters can have an effect on the combined noise behaviour, admittedly, but generally this is an area where Nikon have seemed to do better.<br />

<br />

T: I'm sure the 90D will be even better. The best camera will be whatever you have in hand when you need to take the shot - I don't begrudge that the D800E has got a lot cheaper since I bought mine, since there are many shots I'd not have been able to take if I'd not bought when I did. I'm not sure how much of a huge leap in image quality we'll expect between the 70D and its successor, but I do think the 70D is quite a big introduction of new technology - certainly compared with the 50D/60D generations, which is as good a thing to wait for as any. It's true that paying a premium for a small upgrade is wasteful, but it's rare for the latest camera not to be the best one (in a price bracket).</p>

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"David: The reason that people tend to be dismissive of software noise handling is that software gets updated, and what you can do to one raw file you can do to another (mostly) - there isn't secret sauce in the Canon sensor that makes it more amenable to raw conversion, as far as I know."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether we like it or not, the digital system is body/lens/software. Many chose to let the camera do the Raw conversion, but many of us maximize DR by ETTR and using software designed for our specific body/lens combination. Apply the corrections one at a time during Raw conversion and you'll see how incredibly important each correction can be.</p>

<p>I'm not only talking about NR, but lens sharpness, CA, geometric distortion, normalization of the ETTR exposure, etc. Testing a digital camera's performance when the exposure is taken as if it were shot with Kodachrome using unoptimized software is a shortcut and a way to approximate and consistent result. It's not the way to optimize each camera's performance.</p>

<p>The usefulness of these simplistic test, such as DxO does, is to show if a camera is way out in left field in such a way that might require further investigation. It's not the full story, nor meant to be. BTW, I love DxO and use their Optics Pro software for 99% of my Raw conversion.</p>

<p>David: I agree, raw conversion is important. My assertion is that if Canon have an advantage in their proprietary raw converter today, Adobe (or DxO, or Phase One, or Apple, or...) will have implemented the same improvements tomorrow, and this processing can be retrospectively applied to old raw files. I commend any manufacturer for shipping above-average software, but I believe buying a camera on the basis of the quality of its raw conversion software is prioritizing a short-term gain - which, of course, may be fine if you're worried about a short-term project. The in-camera JPEG conversion (which is updated infrequently, for better or worse) is another matter - you're stuck with that as part of the camera, and you won't get those images back once they've been badly converted.</p>

<p>In my experience, Raw converters are never all equal. LR may try to replicate DPP or DxO, but they never do. Some are better and some things and with certain cameras and some are better with others.</p>

<p>Too bad that DPP is not more user friendly. Canon doesn't sell it independently, so they seem to focus mainly on performance and little on usability.</p>

<p>"Personally, I would pay no attention to whatever DXO has to say." --Shun Cheung</p>

<p>I think that that sums it up pretty well.</p>

<p>After all these years, we are still getting "Canon v. Nikon." Amazing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, I'm just astonished that "Archimedes vs Amiga" ever died out. Or maybe I stopped hanging around on comp.sys.advocacy newsgroups. :-)<br />

<br />

Give it time. I'm sure the respective companies' marketing teams would love it if there were more "Pentax vs Sony" or "Olympus/Panasonic vs Samsung" debates (although I'm not so sure about "Fuji vs Leica"). I'm sure there are plenty of Hasselblad vs Phase One arguments, with the distinction that most of those discussing Canon vs Nikon probably own one (if not the one being debated).</p>