Jump to content

7D not marked as highly by the DXO Mark as the Nikon D90


chris_gampat

Recommended Posts

<p><br />The DXO Mark mark is determined through a very generalized process. It cannot be used to compare how two different bodies will perform in specific situations. More specific testing and results would be required to be useful. Since they are basing their findings on RAW images they would be judging different lenses from different manufacturers at the same time. It is not possible for them to eliminate the lens resolution variable from the results.</p>

<p>Take their mark with a grain of salt.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> It is not possible for them to eliminate the lens resolution variable from the results.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lens resolution doesn't really affect measurements of noise, dynamic range, ISO accuracy or color depth, which is pretty much all that Dxomark report on.</p>

<p>Just because you don't like, don't understand or don't agree with data doesn't make it BS or crap.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No one made such comparisons because the D300S and 7D are in another class. The D90 is more closely matched with the rebel t1I or the 50D. In which case they are about the same quality. I've had the pleasure to handle both the D300s and D3s. They are very fine camera's and if it weren't for canon's true HD and manual video control, I would seriously consider a switch. But Canon came with the 7D which is also a much lighter camera with more MP than the D300s and still manage lower noise at high ISO is impressive. best nikon APS-C is the D300s, and the best APS-C of all brands is the 7D. PERIOD.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 7D has a smaller sensor and a higher pixel count, so it is quite possible that the D90 could win an image quality test. But regardless of which one does win, they're going to be so close that it's not going to make a difference in actual use. These days, I think the image quality of most cameras exceeds what 99.9% of users need, and that 0.1% isn't concerned with the difference between a 7D and D90, they're looking at 5D II, 1Ds III, D3x, or a Blad. What matters most is the features that make the camera versatile and easy to use for specific, real world tasks. The 7D beats the D90 hands down in any number of ways that matter to someone actually using it:</p>

<ul>

<li>faster shooting and a bigger buffer</li>

<li>much better video</li>

<li>vibration free macro and tele shooting. D90 has no mirror lockup and in liveview mode it actually gives you <strong>double vibration</strong> , the mirror moves twice, dropping and raising again rapidly. 7D can shoot from liveview without moving either the mirror or the shutter: it's a macro shooter's dream.</li>

</ul>

<p>I could go on, but 7D is so cool that even a D90 owner like me can see it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 7D is a great camera, and everytime I use it only reinforces that fact.<br>

Copy and paste from DxO web site.<br>

<strong>DxOMark Sensor measures only the RAW image quality</strong> of a digital camera; therefore, DxOMark Sensor is <strong>NOT </strong>an evaluation of overall camera image quality or performance<br>

Folks its just a number and nothing more.<br>

Lets add to the fact. DxO only tests one body. Not much of a sample size. I work in the manufacturing industry, and sampling one of something is not a test. Tolerances from one of anything can be on the high side of acceptable or on the low side of acceptable.<br>

Take the number for what is worth...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>Just because you don't like, don't understand or don't agree with data doesn't make it BS or crap.</em></p>

<p>I for one do understand DxO's methodology. While I won't use the word crap, I will say their results are at best irrelevant to real world photography, and at worst false and misleading. They are pixel peepers who derive their performance estimates from theoretical models. As has been discussed a thousand times, final image and print quality cannot be judged by pixel peeping or theory.</p>

<p>They're not the only ones who fall into this trap. R. N. Clark is a man I respect who offers a wealth of information at his site, along with beautiful photographs. Never the less, he publishes dynamic range estimates for sensors which are based on pixel noise measurements (pixel peeping) and theoretical models of how that translates into DR. Compare any of his estimates to a standard shot of a transmission step wedge and you will find his predictions are off from real world performance by 2-4 stops.</p>

<p>Pixel peeping doesn't work. It's useful to know how pixels perform, but that knowledge must be placed in context. This context is missing from DxO's tests.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also understand the DxO Mark methodology (it's hardly rocket science), and I'm very happy to stand by my use of the word "crap" - a perfectly valid description of the welter of arbitrarily-defined and essentially meaningless numbers they provide, poorly presented and lacking in real context, which are being touted as valuable information and somehow indicative of what a given body will deliver in terms of image quality: many of which scores bear no earthly semblance to the Real-World evidence available and the hands-on experience many have had of the cameras in question.</p>

<p>Crap indeed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow Chris, you really pushed some buttons. Do I sence some hostility from Canonites. The 7D might be a more capable camera or not? But for pure value, the D90 wins hands down. I played with the 7D briefly, found it inadequate for my needs and never looked back...my D300 rules for APS C.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>do they measure the final print, or do they measure 1's and 0's on a screen at 400% zoom? it's all crap, just buy a camera and shoot it. my d3 could take no better picture at normal to moderate iso's than a d90.........and high iso shots are <em>often</em> crap shots of boring subjects. just jump on the Digital Gravy Train and enjoy the ride.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wondering what all this DXO stuff was about I finally looked at their site. What a shock! Oh my goodness, I found out I'm using a 4 year old, hopelessly out of date, entry level DSLR!<br>

Woe is me, woe is me, my camera would suck in DXO measurements.<br>

What shall I do? What should I do? WHAT WILL I DO!?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A camera RAW file should tell everything about camera sensor + AD-converters etc. . The overall D0X score may be somewhat arbitrary, but the individual measurements about color depth, noise, dynamic range are physical quantities. And as such they matter in every day use. I use an S5 along with a D700. The S5 deals very good with high contrast situations (that is, high dynamic range), whereas the D700 excels in low light conditions (that is, low high-ISO sensor noise). Resolution, on the other hand, depends on how many pixels a sensor has, light, and of course lens quality. As mentioned, lens quality should normally not interfere with high ISO noise nor with dynamic range. Furthermore, RAW files are also indendent from the noise-suppression algorithms for producing the final photograph. These algorithms improve with time. These improvements are one of the reason that CANON could increase the sensor resolution while obtaining good high-ISO performance at the same time (another improvement along these lines is optimizing the microlens arrays for light transmission). As to me, pixel count is not a priority though. To me low high ISO noise and dynamic range are crucial. Others have different priorities, such as focus tracking, frames per second, etc.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If raw images were indeed a true raw image the DxO results might be worth something despite their lackluster methodology. Unfortunately, all raw images are preprocessed to one degree or another as manufacturers attempt to optimize sensor performance. As manufacturers don't really reveal what exactly occurs during this preprocessing (nor would I likely understand it even if they did) it is difficult to equate results from overly constrained tests (like DxO) to the real world. This is doubly true if any of the manufacturers are "gaming" the tests... which occurs so often in other technology sectors that I wouldn't be surprised if it is occuring here as well. </p>

<p>Thus, the final proof is still in the prints (or web images). </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"The D90 was known to be better at low-light vs the D300"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP should double check his sources, according to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/page29.asp">dpreview tests</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Yet, for all the similarities in publically announced sensor specifications and consistent color rendering, there are clear differences in per-pixel-sharpness and contrast. Both are shot with the same lens but no amount of re-shooting could get the D90 to match the D300's output."</em></p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John Robison - I understand your despair. I share it. My camera is also hopelessly inadequate, someone who I never even met has revealed it to be so. What can we do? We'll have to give up photography, condemned to a life of abject failure as artists. Life can be so cruel.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Heh. You guys's Nikon jealousy is cute.</p>

<p>But seriously, it's just a measure of a few aspects of image quality from the raw file, and they're metrics where you'd expect the D90 - with its larger sensor and lower pixel count (look at the pixel pitch quoted) to perform better. You can't have one camera do everything. There are other measures of performance, like AF speed and frame rate, that are the 7D's specialty and where it's closer to the D300S's performance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nikon and Canon have top pro models that compare well as do the lower models. State your case make your choice. In the middle things are not even. The D90 is a fine camera but it has a lesser build and is less of a pro camera than a 50D which IMO is not quite up to the build of a D300. All Nice cameras but tough to equate one on one. Haven't handled a 7D yet so I'm not quite sure how that fits in to the scheme of things.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>enough capability to cement its appeal as the top APS-C camera available</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well i'm not going to counter that statement with a pro nikon one, but how do you define 'best'? i would rate the leica x1 as a better camera than the 7d, but that's only for me. personally I don't piss around with digicams much nowadays.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...