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

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Ouch. That hurt. It's a very respectable site so I must believe it's true. I think I'll sell my 7D and the 7 lenses I have and get a D90 and similar lenses. Goodbye Canon. It was nice while it lasted (20 years) but I must move on.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[quintino1]

<p>I have a 7D and a 1Ds MKII and the only "negative" thing a can say is that when I use around 14 to 16 stops of ND filters, I noticed a slight bit of vertical banding on the shots taken, which easily are cleared with a noise software, other than that, it is an amazing and comfortable camera to shoot with. When I say comfortable I mean in terms of the optional bits and bobs it provides and for sure the other two cameras on the comparison could not provide.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Thought I had a camera problem. Turns out my test chart has blurred print.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I find the DxO Mark results consistent with the cameras I've personally used. I have no reason to believe the results aren't accurate for the items being measured. In the end, it's a number. A single number is meaningless for declaring one camera is "better" than another.</p>

<p>For ISO noise, it looks like the D90 has slightly better results than the 7D. From what I can see on the SNR graph, it looks like noise in a given size print is about the same. So I'm not sure why the blogger is claiming that DxO Mark shows the D90 as being better, other than he's ignorant about how to interpret the data and wants to expose such. :)</p>

<p>Looks like about an even match between the two in terms of prints. Make a series of prints from both cameras. Spread them out on a table. You're not going to see a difference.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>OP writes</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the performance of the D90 compared to the 7D is <strong>"quite jaw dropping."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm. Nothing I've ever seen at DxO mark qualifies as "jaw dropping," let alone minor differences like this. A healthy serving of hyperbole, anyone?</p>

<p>But it was a clever way to drive people to the OP's blog....</p>

<p> </p>

[hakon_soreide]

<p>Oh no! this means all photos taken with the 7D now has to be thrown out and new shots have to be taken using a D90.</p>

[manrique_molina]

<p>Remember the days when you just went out and shoot and enjoyed the photographs you made?<br>

Its funny to see the Nikon and Canon folks arguing about stuff for which you need a microspocope to distinguish between the results.<br>

Does this discussion go between Sony, Pentax and Olympus owners as well or their cameras are so much superior than Canon and Nikon that they don't need these kind of silly battles?<br>

I own a Canon 40D and I'm as happy as I can be, and I have close friends who are Nikon users and I am happy for them too as both brands are as excellent as they can possibly be. I guess the "who is better" arguments might be necessary for new users who are trying to choose between Canon and Nikon and need some kind of decision point (even if its pointless). Once you choose a brand I dont see the point of fighting like 4 year old kids.<br>

Oh well, I guess we need this competition so we can get better products each year for our particular brands but don't see significant differences that justify "jumping ship".</p>

<p> </p>

[chris_gampat]

<p>David, I partially agree with you. Full frames are just so much better in low light, true. But it also depends on how picky your client is. I know photographers that still use the 40D and 5D Mk I and still get happy clients.<br>

Sure we're competing with one another as to who can deliver the better images, but we also charge a premium for it. Not everyone can afford that premium.<br>

For celebrity photographers, wildlife photographers, and news photographers the cropped sensor is very important.</p>

[peterq]

<p>What are all these "best" qualification discussions about?<br>

Who is so desperately waiting for the 256.000 ISO? combined with 40Mpix and 25 Fps? etc.<br>

If the camera is blocking your qualities as a photographer, then it could be an argument,<br>

but to be honest, looking at what we could produce in the film era (256.000 ISO?), amazing it is.<br>

However, for a lot of people this fantastic DSLR gear is allways to expensive if it isn't (nearly) for free.<br>

Please, look at your own qualities as a photographer, specify your actual needs and your budget, get real and select the gear that fits best. Keep on dreaming of the ultimate thing and don't forget to make pictures.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p>To be honest, I think crop sensors are destined to become a playground for amateur and enthusiast photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By that logic, is the Canon 1D IV an excellent example of a crop sensor that can't handle the dark and is just for enthusiasts? :)</p>

<p>I'm getting similar noise from the 1D4 at 6400 as the 5D at 1600. From what I've read, my results are on par with what others are seeing. That's easily two stops improvement with 25% smaller pixel pitch. Just four years difference in technology. I have to believe this same sensor technology will be in the 1.6x crop sensors within the next 4 years.</p>

<p>It wasn't all that long ago that "full frame" 35mm film was considered the hallmark of rank amateurs and real professionals wouldn't use anything smaller than medium format. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[seragram]

<p>And I was looking to 7D as my next camera. Not good news my friend. Now I have to get another manufacturers camera and get new lenses. This is not good, wondering if I can sleep tonight. Oh DXO is crap. Never mind all is good again.</p>

[calvin_choy]

<p>Time to close this thread I guess, what was the purpose of this post anyway ?<br /> Topic: "7D not marked as highly by the DXO Mark as the Nikon D90"<br /> Ok, whatever makes you happy :)</p>

<p> </p>

[pgranone]

<p>DXO ratings are non-sense</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I would worry more about how prints look than those DXO scores. The skill of the photographer is far more important than DXO scores or whether a camera has an FX sensor or DX sensor.</p>

[photom]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2396115">Angel Bocanegra</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2010; 02:12 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is, until Sony releases their next generation CMOS sensor that will replace the one in the D300s and Nikon puts their fingerprint designs on it. The cheap Sony sensor in the Pentax K-X is already passing high ISO quality of D300s.</p>