DXO Mark comparison of Nikon D7100 and Canon 70d

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Nikon rocks<br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/865%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/865%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon</a><br>

As much as sometimes we are frustrated with Nikon they are putting out great products<br>

This test shows a definite Nikon win. For me personally the dynamic range and high ISO are<br>

very significant. I also was surprised that the Canon was just on par with the Olympus E-P5<br>

M 4/3 camera (I have one of those) despite the much larger sensor.</p>

[pge]

<p>The link doesn't work for me.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Can't we leave this flamebait fanboy "<em>DxO says Nikon's best...</em>" crap for the trolls on DPR?</p>

<p>This DR "win" only matters at all if you're at base ISO - get above that, and there's no Real World Nikon (which is to say, <em>Sony sensor</em>) advantage whatsoever; and even at base ISO it's only useful if you can't expose the shadows properly and need to drag some detail out of them in PP because you couldn't capture them in camera.</p>

[swede71114]

<p>Link doesn't work for me either></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>With an AF system similar to (but not the same as) that on the 7D with 19 cross-type AF points, I am sure the 70D is a fine camera. Meanwhile, as a D7100 owner, I am very happy with it as well, although I certainly would like to have a deeper RAW buffer. Personally, I would pay no attention to whatever DXO has to say.</p>

<P>

P.S. Keith, any Canon vs. Nikon thread does not have to become a flame war, unless people want to make it that way. I, for one, certainly do not welcome it.

</P>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Link doesn't work because DXO is flooded with usage.</p>

<p>"Due to the huge traffic on our website, we apologize for this inconvenience. Please come back later to visit us."</p>

<p>You don't like T's enthusiasm? Sorry to hear that.....</p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>+1 Keith Reeder</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>I challenge people to distinguish, on a double-blind test, the differences between any current or recent generation digital SLR or MILC on a 16x20 print.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>When I compare real images at ISO 1600 on DPReview, I prefer the 70D. See:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9</a></p>

[elliot1]

<p>I believe the 70D is supposed to offer improved AF performance over Nikon. This article says the AF is revolutionary. If you watch the video, you will see the claim it quite true. And if you shoot video, this new AF system will be the system of choice.</p>

<p>As far as IQ goes, it would be difficult to see much of a difference in typical prints between the two cameras. When it comes to final IQ, it is all about the lenses, technique and post processing. And both Canon and Nikon offer exceptional lenses.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p><strong>The dam is bust!</strong><br>

Sell your Canon cameras!</p>

<p>Meh...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>For those that shoot wildlife and sports, IQ is much more than lenses because we find ourselves shooting up at ISO 1600 and above. At that ISO noise and detail resolution after NR, varies considerably from camera to camera. Looking at high ISO images side-by-side, the Canon is a clear winner at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Comparing those two cameras, you might prefer the Nikon for it's fps and some other factors that may make it a quicker responding camera, so long as your happy with IQ at ISO 800. Today, both these bodies beat the old Canon 7D, but the 7D MkII, if it gets this new sensor, should be a hot performer.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I believe the 70D is supposed to offer improved AF performance over Nikon. This article says the AF is revolutionary. If you watch the video, you will see the claim it quite true. And if you shoot video, this new AF system will be the system of choice.</p>

<p>As far as IQ goes, it would be difficult to see much of a difference in typical prints between the two cameras. When it comes to final IQ, it is all about the lenses, technique and post processing. And both Canon and Nikon offer exceptional lenses.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>David, I would trust the DXOmark scores more than the DPReview images which are likely just out-of-the-camera JPGS (most sites that compare IQ use OOTC jpgs, not sure how DPReview handles its test images). The DXOmark scores show high ISO performance to be about equal, with a slight edge to Nikon. I suspect that if RAW images were taken and then processed identically, it would be very, very difficult to see any differences at any ISO.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>DPReview shows both JPEG and Raw images, converted with ACR 8.2. The only thing unrealistic is that you would apply exactly the same NR to two different bodies, but they needed to makes some assumptions to get a comparison.</p>

<p>Still, I agree, there's not a lot to chose from in IQ and a Raw shooter should be deciding based on features that the require.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>David, thanks for pointing out that they also have the RAW images available, I you look at the comparison RAW images, Nikon perhaps looks better (perhaps too close to really call- which confirms DXOs findings). But I agree, the OOTC JPGs from Canon might look a bit better, although Canon tends to apply more NR to their JPGs. In any case, I maintain it would likely be difficult to see any differences under normal usage and normal print sizes.</p>

[abbas_haider]

I remember that DXO ranked Nikon d5000 sensore evenly with canon 1d mkiii or iv I belief that there findings are

astronomical findings

Where they will tell you before million of years that event occurred and after another million will be repeated so no witness

on both side just they produce these reports to keep the cash flowing to them

 

Get any cam and shot and if you are interesting in comparison do a test your self

 

Personally I can get same result from both of them just with little tweak in the cameras since there is full manual option

[elliot1]

<p>Abbas, you are mistaken, DXO does not rank the D5000 evenly with the canon 1d mkiii or iv.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot: The 70D has (almost) whole-sensor on-sensor phase-detect focus - like the 1-series Nikons, but with many more points. It probably makes a huge difference for video (which I rarely shoot). It may avoid some of the focus fine tuning issues I have with phase-detect focus on the D800, though I may just need to recalibrate (and get my Sigma on its dock). I don't know how well it works in low light - when the 1 series, at least, drops back to contrast-detect. It's certainly an interesting feature, though whether it's enough to swing you away from a D7100 is another matter. The 5D3's autofocus is probably better than the D800's as well, but my D800's is good enough that I don't feel overly deprived - even if I have been claiming that it might matter more to some people who are platform-agnostic than 36MP would...<br />

<br />

Keith: I find myself trying to keep my D800 at ISO 100 as much as possible to have the dynamic range advantage - with my D700 I was happy to float up to ISO 1600 without it making much difference to the image. As for exposing incorrectly, the dynamic range of the camera has saved me for candid wedding photos taken in direct sunlight (the whole wedding was outdoors). Even if I'd been the official photographer, wandering up to the happy couple with a reflector while they were saying their vows would have been a bit out of order. One cannot always control the lighting. (Though the dual-ISO trick with Magic Lantern does mean that some Canon owners can get some dynamic range back, with a mild loss of resolution.)<br />

<br />

And yes, David/Elliot, Canon are known for applying stronger JPEG noise reduction in the latest cameras; this makes the 5D3 appear more significantly less noisy than the D800 than it actually is if you're worried about losing image detail - though if you're actually shooting JPEGs in a hurry (probably more likely with a 5D3 than a D800) then this behaviour may matter to you.<br />

<br />

I'm sure both the D7100 and D70 are very fine cameras. I suspect the biggest reason for choosing between them (for someone without a commitment to either system) is ergonomics, just as is true at the low end of both ranges.<br />

<br />

T.: Dare I mention that Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK have this week done an in-depth comparative review of an 18-35 f/1.8 against a 16-35 f/2.8 L? Spoiler: They like the new lens, although they think it's a bit heavy.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<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>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Good base ISO dynamic range is very useful when photographing e.g. landscape, or when photographing people in a very common lighting situation i.e. direct sunlight that has been traditionally been difficult for photographic materials to handle - not so with the D800. It is a very real advantage in my experience.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I would be interested (from an academic perspective) in knowing whether the 70D has the dual-channel read which has allowed the dual-ISO hack for improving the dynamic range on the 5D3 and 7D. Still, interesting to know the strengths of these devices - and to see that Canon's approach to their most significantly new sensor for a while seems to have the same low ISO characteristics as their older ones. At some point one assumes that they'll catch up with Sony/Nikon in this area, so it's interesting that "at some point" is "not yet", in this case. Dynamic range definitely matters, although so does better autofocus, and I'm not sure that either is enough to make the cameras more than "somewhat" better than their very good predecessors. Always good to see technology progressing, though.</p>

[nico_morris]

<p>I cannot see the dynamic range cameras are capable of on my monitor. I can't even see them on prints. I don't think I ever saw them on slides either. And I shouldn't rely on it to save me when I don't expose shots properly. I am interested in this new pro-sumer camera for other more practical reasons.</p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>I wonder if the on-chip AF capability is harming certain other capabilities of the sensor? If that's the case it's going to have implications for this attempt by camera manufacturers to combine top-notch video and stills performance in a single body. Still, definitely worth waiting for a second opinion on this one. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>AF performance, fps, video AF, DR, resolution, high ISO performance are all competing parameters, some requiring compromise of another parameter. Canon doesn't need to "catch up" with Nikon for most of their users that like the compromises that Canon's made. DxO has designed one test, which has some meaning and is useful, but it's not a complete overview of the relative performance of one camera to another. It's only looking at the sensor and only in limited circumstances. DPReview at least compares in a variety of situation, but, unfortunately, they don't optimize each cameras performance by using each camera's Raw converter. DPP will do a much better job with CR2 files than ACR or LR, but DPReview needs to use just one program for comparability.</p>

<p>DPP is part of the Canon "system". Many of us chose not to use it for convenience sake, but Canon cameras give better IQ and resolution with DPP conversion in the hands of an experienced user.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nico: You've never adjusted an exposure slider? You've never adjusted the "recover shadows" or "recover highlights" sliders, or even adjusted contrast, in a raw converter? Every photo you've ever taken has been under lighting conditions which resulted in the subject falling the desired dynamic range - you've never taken a photo of anyone in direct sunlight? I'm sorry, but that seems unlikely. It's not the only reason to like recent cameras, but it is <i>a</i> reason - and it's a major reason I was interested in upgrading my D700 to a D800 (with the resolution being secondary).<br />

<br />

I don't think you'd see much in most slides, since many slide films actually did record a very limited range (which is why getting the exposure wrong is so catastrophic). Something like Velvia is very high contrast, but the tones that it records are very limited. It <a href="http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/">has been argued</a> that some reversal films can record a very large dynamic range, on the other hand. Ansel Adams wouldn't have been so keen on dodging and burning if the negative wasn't able to record more stops than could be easily represented in the print. It's not new for this to matter to some photographs. Not, I admit, to all.<br />

<br />

David: Canon would probably sell more cameras if they were superior in every way to Nikon's. Instead, each is superior in some ways. It is generally true of Canon's current sensor range that it cannot match the dynamic range of Sony/Nikon's current sensors at low ISO - even when the Nikon sensor is reading faster and has higher resolution, so I don't believe their deficiency here is a result of trade-offs; it may be a result of Sony having a patented solution that happens to behave better. I believe Canon will, at some point, catch up in this area - just as I expect Nikon will continue to update their autofocus mechanisms; things get better, generally. I just noted that currently this behaviour is a Canon weak point, depending on how you look at the dual-ISO hack. I chose Nikon because the areas in which Nikon were stronger when I swapped systems were more important to me than those for which the reverse was true - and, at the time, Nikon's strength wasn't dynamic range. Current new camera buyers might choose Canon over Nikon because they prefer the strengths of the Canon system, and some of these wil be because of design decisions Canon made - but some might choose Nikon because of the (I hasten to add <i>small</i>) dynamic range advantage. Canon <i>will</i> want to rectify this, because it's costing them some (but I've no idea how many) sales, however many systems they're already selling.</p>