Canon 7D has same Dynamic Range as the 1D X!!!
According to DxOMark the Canon 7D has an ISO 100 Dynamic Range (screen) of 11.12 EV and the Canon 1D X has an ISO 100 Dynamic Range (screen) of 11.17 EV.
Of course I think this is another example of how DxOMark is not properly/fully decoding the CR2 file, and not that the two cameras actually have the same dynamic range.
Sensorgen lists the minimum read noise of the 7D at 2.8 (e-) and the minimum read noise of the 1D X at 1.3 (e-), and the maximum saturation of the 7D at a mere 20187 (e-) and the maximum saturation of the 1D X at a whopping 90367 (e-). So of course if DxOMark tests were accurately indicating the true dynamic range of Canon cameras, the 1D X would kick the 7Ds butt.
Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested has had the basically the same dynamic range (screen) +/- .4 EV from the first Digital Rebel (300D) through the current 1D X. I believe this is not because the dynamic range of the cameras hasn't changed in 10 years, but, instead that DxOMark is not accurately reflecting the performance of Canon cameras.
So if you think DxOMark is accurate, and dynamic range is so important, you should buy a 7D, because according to DxOMark, you get 1D X dynamic range performance, at 1/6 the cost.
You seem to have difficulty reading graphs. I don't know what you're spouting regarding the minimum read noise and maximum saturation values? Maybe put those statements into some context? From the DXO graph, it looks to me that the 1DX shows steady improvement above ISO200. Looking at the graph, which camera would you choose based upon its dynamic range? The 1DX or the very pathetic 7D? The graph at DxoMark I looked at seems to be more impressive than your graph! LOL !! :). Why are you so bent towards discrediting DXOMark?
Looking at the Sensorgen.info dynamic range graphs, they don't seem any different than the DXOmark graphs. I think your only real beef is perhaps in line with the comment at Sensorgen.info's, which is that DXOMark does "not to give the three major 'figures of merit'", "..the quantum efficiency, the read noise and the saturation capacity" ... I'm confident there is a plausible reason why they have chosen not to include them. Please do note that Sensorgen.info refers very positively to DXOMark. Again, why are you so negative towards DXOMArk?
Edit: The pasted images failed to appear properly on this web forum. Instead, I refer you to the Senorgen.info web site to view the graphs.
|Post ( )||Posted by||When|
|Mar 19, 2013||3|
|Mar 19, 2013||1|
|Mar 20, 2013||2|
|Mar 19, 2013|
|Mar 20, 2013|
|Mar 20, 2013|