Previous news story    Next news story

DxOMark tests Canon EOS 70D sensor and lenses

By dpreview staff on Sep 3, 2013 at 16:41 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,099.008 deals

Our friends and collaborators over at DxOMark have been looking at the Canon EOS 70D, and testing out how its innovative 20.2MP 'Dual Pixel AF' image sensor measures up in terms of RAW image quality. They've also looked at how Canon's three currently-available STM lenses score on this latest mid-range SLR, as the start of a larger multi-part lens recommendation article for the camera. Click the links below to read more.

We're not going to assess DxOMark's sensor review of the EOS 70D in detail here, but in essence it agrees pretty well with the observations we've made in our preview coverage of the camera, based on using a pre-production sample. There's no obvious image quality penalty for the 70D's clever sensor design (which uses two photodiodes per pixel to enable fast phase detections autofocus in live view). But equally, there's no huge improvement either.

One consequence of this is that the EOS 70D still lags substantially behind cameras such as the Nikon D7100 and Sony SLT-A77 in terms of dynamic range, especially at base ISO, which results in a much lower DxOMark Sensor headline score. In practical terms, this means that RAW shooters can't dig as much detail out of deep shadows when shooting high contrast scenes. Of course, in return the 70D gains the most sophisticated live view AF system available on any SLR.


567
I own it
238
I want it
40
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 133
bull detector
By bull detector (2 months ago)

Maybe i am to late but was told by a person that was long in the arena of cameras that: if you look at different cameras with same lens same iso you nuts its like drag racing a f1 car and a monster truck. Get to know your camera and see what works for your camera and what don't. One camera in certain circumstances a certain lens work and iso and shutter speed and with the other another lens and iso and shutter speed. Well i said it!!!!!!! Stone me so i can know who need equipment to take good photos.

0 upvotes
Trinity Wescott
By Trinity Wescott (4 months ago)

Well, good information to keep in mind. Still not much of a difference compared to its competition when it comes to anything I want to use for.

0 upvotes
Fernando823
By Fernando823 (5 months ago)

Hello everyone! I was hoping for anyones advice about which lens to get for a my new 70D. I already have a ultra-wide 10-22, and a 50mm f1.4. So I was wondering would be a great next step? I was debating between the 135mm f/2 and the 24-104. I hear amazing things about the 135mm, but I was wondering if it is good for group shots or more for portraits only. I'm looking to spend up to 1000 dollars or so. Thanks!

0 upvotes
alongwayfromthepenthousetotheouthouse

Reading all these comments about the 'poor' sensor on the 70D prompted me to have my say...Most of you gear junkies in here are absolutely full of yourselves....you really are worrying an awful lot about the shortcomings of this new camera.....And what is it with this DXO mark crowd? You're all carrying on as if its some sort of Oracle....that site is just a mouthpiece for specific marketing strategies and they've successfully hooked you all in !!!.. I own two cameras: a Nikon D5100 and a Canon 600D. I love them both and I can tell you from 2 years usage of both that the so called shadow pulling advantage in Nikon cameras is a half truth because my D5100 loses the highlights quicker than my Canon..So in essence, the Nikon gets the lower part of the spectrum better while the Canon gets the upper better... There you go ! real world scientific verification from a guy who clicks every day...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

You've tested the Nikon and the Canon with the exact same lens?

You see one of the reasons to ignore DXO sensor scoring is that they always ignore the lens factor.

Now the general comments by DPReview regarding this Canon and the Nikon 7100 sure lead me to conclude that the sensor in the Nikon D7100 has better DR. And frankly I don't think that Nikon's Toshiba sensor has the greatest DR, at least at higher ISOs--even when shooting with a very good lens.

1 upvote
GigaBrent
By GigaBrent (7 months ago)

So the 70D sensor has the dynamics of a Nikon from the past and the video features of a Nikon somewhere in the future. I understand some people were hoping for the best of both breeds, but I bought the 70D. Nikon's video limitations were to great for me, as I shoot video AND stills as part of my living. (I'm sure all my photos will be unacceptable now, because nobody could shoot good photos with this better-than-a-7d-in-every-way sensor.)

0 upvotes
RunStrom
By RunStrom (7 months ago)

I'm sure there will still be no shortage of new buyers for this camera but if you (Canon) are going to launch a good video camera please put a headphone jack on it.

0 upvotes
Funduro
By Funduro (7 months ago)

Ouch !

0 upvotes
Zoltan Csuka
By Zoltan Csuka (7 months ago)

Little disappointing... I was really waiting for the new eos m with this sensor and a new upcoming tele lens to complement my rx100. Obviously the image quality is the same as rx100 which is not completely bad news but a little letdown. This sensor still can't do 1080/60p or global shutter. Focusing will be better though...You can't have everything.

0 upvotes
dweberphotography
By dweberphotography (7 months ago)

@dual12

We dont need another fanboy trolling the comments sections. If you want to back up your claims of poor noise performance and blooming, then by all means go ahead and upload some shots for the community to review and judge themselves. But as far as I can tell, you have no proof so your arguement means almost nothing as of yet.

And just so you know, I dont use Nikon or Canon. BIG Sony shooter here, owning the a700, a230, and NEX-3. I could argue that Sonys are better than Nikon, but I won't.

0 upvotes
MarshallG
By MarshallG (7 months ago)

I'm really shocked by the DxOMark measurements. They do not describe anywhere how they created these numbers. They merely stated that the measured bit depth, color depth and dynamic range, and they assign numbers to them.

This is a joke. There's no way to know if these numbers reflect any quantifiable difference or if they're just made up. I have a lot more trust in the DPReview analysis and I'm curious to see what they say. DXoMark is a bunch of nonsense, as far as I'm concerned, until they publish an explanation of how they compute these values.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Well, at least they can almost match m43 sensors now. Not quite yet, but close enough.

2 upvotes
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (7 months ago)

As a follow up to the msg I just posted.

I just compared my old Rebel 450d/XSi to the new 700d/t5i (in the Comparometer). At ISO 1600, the XSi actually looks better in the tricky red fabric area! The T5i looks better elsewhere, but I'm surprised how little better it is after so many years. I knew Canon is not "leaping forwards", but their progress is slower than I thought.
Tool: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

0 upvotes
MarshallG
By MarshallG (7 months ago)

I think they're completely wrong, based on the fantastic improvements in the photos I take with my 7D compared toy XSi.

0 upvotes
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (7 months ago)

What I don't understand is that the Nikon 5200 for example is highly rated by DxoMark, but when I look at high ISO shots in the Comparometer tool, I think the various Canon 18MP sensors fare well against the Nikon (in terms of detail retention versus noise).

Better example - Nikon D3200 is very highly rated in DxoMark, but in the T5i review, it looks awful. The review says so, not just me:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-t5i/canon-t5iA.HTM

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D3200
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-700D

So I wonder if DxoMark doesn't measure sensor performance correctly (wrong methodology). For example, maybe Nikon simply blurs their images more, hiding noise, but losing detail.

Or maybe Canon has superior firmware/processing which overcomes/hides their sensors' inferiority. But in the end, if the images look the same, what does it matter.

0 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

The images don't look the same. Canon images are inferior. They're noisy, they lack dynamic range, and blooming is a significant problem. Whether you like them or not is a different issue.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

In the DPR comparometer you're looking at raw files converted to JPEG using the default settings in Adobe Camera Raw.
DxO's test results, on the other hand, are based on analysis of the unconverted, undemosaiced raw files. They look at numbers, not images. They do this to avoid being dependent on any particular raw conversion software, and come as close to the hardware performance as possible.

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (7 months ago)

And exactly how do they carry out this analysis of the demosaiced RAW files...? By applying their in-house reconstructive interpolation algorithms...? Or do they strip the sensor of its internal circuitry and scrutinize its SNR ratio through external amplification...?

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

They analyze undemosaiced raw files, not demosaiced RGB images.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

If DxO had lied and said the Canon 70D sensor was great, there would be 5-6 times as many comments from Canon users.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

From the RX1R review "Following on from the unexpected buzz surrounding the original RX1..."

"Unexpected" buzz? Around the only FF compact camera with a 35mm f/2 lens in existence? UNEXPECTED buzz!?

I find that a very snarky, almost derogatory, remark coming from what I expect to be a neutral website.

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (7 months ago)

DXO might serve as the holly grail for the average Nikon fan... but their "supposed tests" hardly serve as any meaningful purpose in determining which camera / brand is the best from an overall performance point of view...

DXO's only real purpose seems to be that of a proxy for Nikon's marketing department... to give the average joe something "scientific" to go by... Plus they should add a camera quality score... something where Nikon's D600 / 800 would score abysmally... oil spots and dust galore...

Best method of determining which camera is best suited for you is to read a broad spectrum of reviews across the web to formulate your own nonbiased opinions... Or just walk into any camera store and get a first hand account for which body suits your best...

4 upvotes
Collie Camp
By Collie Camp (7 months ago)

As a long term Canon User, I have to admit:

comments like the one above used to be written by the Nikonians around 5 years ago, when Canon had the best sensors :)

time changes

8 upvotes
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (7 months ago)

Ok, lets forget about the Nikon full frame models for a second and focus only on the APS-C line up. Actually, let's forget about even THE CURRENT Nikon APS-C line up and compare the previous models against the current Canon lineup. What do we find? even the lowly D5100 completely outclasses the entire Canon APS-C lineup for image quality, and these "tests" are not done only by DXO, they have been overwhelmingly confirmed by every outfit that has tested image quality. Saying dynamic range is not important is like saying DSLR's are not important compared to compacts for image quality. The differences are real, they have practical applications, and they are significant points to consider when choosing a system to invest in. Throw into that mix the excellent Nikon lenses and the hight spec focusing systems (even on entry bodies) and you have a compelling reason for people to go with a Nikon APS-C camera.
Defend Canon to the hilt, who cares, but it doesn't change the situation.

4 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (7 months ago)

I'm not a canon user anymore. But still: seeing only Nikon and Sigma lenses in the dxo top ten with canon glass being nowhere near in sight makes me wonder. Are 50% of all pro-photographers in the world so wrong with their choices or could it be that theses tests are in fact somewhat biased?

1 upvote
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Yes, 50% are possibly wrong. But most of them don't care whether they are wrong or not. What they have is what they have. They made their brand decision many years ago when DPreview and other websites were saying how great Canon was.

Also, lens reviews don't say anything about reliability. And in my experience, Sigma lenses aren't particularly reliable.

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (7 months ago)

@ Shunda77 - The D5100 / D7000 may outclass Canon's previous generation 18 MP sensors - but there's no way that can be said for Canon's new 20 MP sensor...

Canons new dual pixel sensor is definitely on par with the Toshiba variant found in the D7100... and quite frankly it looks slightly cleaner at high ISO's in RAW... I'm not the only one saying it - camera review websites that have conducted initial tests are confirming it...

Granted Canon isn't as good as Nikon where dynamic range is concerned... but come on, the differences aren't anywhere nearly as drastic as earlier years...

@ Collie Camp - 5 years ago wasn't the D300 considered better than the Canon 50D ... Why would Nikonians have made a comment like mine...? Was there some underlying uncertainty that the D300 wasn't as good as claimed to be...?

3 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

Canon has been using the same 18 MP sensor 4 years back with the 7D. According to DXO mark the DR hasn't improved.

I have processed my friends 7D photos and let me tell you the DR sucked. My A55 was much better and the A55 has got a light grabbing mirror which Nikon bodies lack.

I am no Nikon fan. (Am all at sea with their pro bodies) but facts are facts and Canon sensors just lack the DR performance of Nikon and Sony sensors.

0 upvotes
Frederik Paul
By Frederik Paul (7 months ago)

DXO supports cheating by Nikon because it's quite obvious that Nikons (and Sonys) RAW files are processed in camera in the lower ISO range to gain more DR. It's very curious that from ISO 800 on the EOS 5D Mk. III takes over the Nikons, isn't it? And why the lower ISO values? Because you have less noise there after boosting the shadows, so the closer you get the narrower the gap gets until it disappears completely. And some guys call this "scientific". Another reason why we don't need science…

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

To Lensberg,

you say, "Granted Canon isn't as good as Nikon where dynamic range is concerned... but come on, the differences aren't anywhere nearly as drastic as earlier years..."

What earlier years are you talking about?

Canon has been using the same sensor design and pretty much the same sensors (just warmed over) for the past 5 years.
5dII to 5DIII
50D, 60D, 7D and most of the Rebels

0 upvotes
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (7 months ago)

Wow! that's an expensive video camera. It's a real shame the stills performance is now MORE than a generation behind.

Amazing really.

4 upvotes
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (7 months ago)

The video performance is still behind the Panasonic GH3

3 upvotes
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (7 months ago)

It just gets worse!!

1 upvote
SenorFoto
By SenorFoto (7 months ago)

Well, it happens that I badly want to purchase the d7100 when the 70d came alive. Would someone think the 70d will bring the same oil-in-sensor issue and the corresponding formal denial from the company? I really don't want to regret going for Nikon. Any comments?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

sensor performance is much more important an issue because we cannot help by cleaning the sensor.

Sony or all of them used to perform badly before 2007 and the tide turned after that. the tide could turn again, but we have been waiting for too long and it's not turning yet.

either Canon or Nikon should be okay. you will not regret or you will either way.

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (7 months ago)

DXO is total BS, I wish someone would sue them into oblivion, all they have managed to do is turn a great hobby into a constant debate of image quality which has absolutely zero merit. I have shot with Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Olympus and can say without an ounce of doubt their tests are total garbage. I wish we could just move on, I miss the good old days when taking pictures was a gauge of image quality and not a bunch of questionable numbers..

11 upvotes
NAwlins Contrarian
By NAwlins Contrarian (7 months ago)

DxO Mark tests are hardly BS--and just because you don't like the results and/or don't find the tests useful to you doesn't change that. I find some of their metrics very clear and useful, and others less so, but that's true of every equipment test--on audio gear, video gear, cars, cameras, lenses, etc.--I've seen over the last thirty years. And suggesting there's some valid basis on which to sue them shows even less knowledge of the law. If you don't like 'em, ignore 'em!

17 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

these results are interesting and useful, but they can also be deceiving, especially the combined mark which is a mere sum of the contributions of the characteristics of the sensor. For instance it makes the D800 sound like it completely blows out of the waters the 5D MKIII. Which is somewhat true at base ISO, but if your consistently use relatively high iso then not so anymore. These ratings are just numbers and as such they cannot tell the whole story, however they do give an insight on the potential of the sensor.

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (7 months ago)

The DxO results can be compared with those of the majority of Clinical Trials (where you can find some of the most accurate tests / measurements), trying to prove that one drug is "better" than the other (="comparator"). But... Tests and measurements cannot tell the entire story, isn't it?... The conclusion is yours (plus, regarding DxO: is this an independent or a "sponsored" institution? I simply don't know, so I have the right to have a doubt). Cheers!:) P.S.: in photography, believe your eyes, in music, your ears etc...

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

don't know if DxOMark test both Nikon and Canon cameras with a same copy of Nikon lens (or a medium format lens for all the SLRs). using multiple lenses we will have to calibrate them carefully with high accuracy.

also shutter speed should be part of camera test. none should we trust, camera ISO, shutter, or aperture (T-number), if we want reliable result which cannot be based on advertised values.

that said, DxOMark is still the best on the web.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

Sensors are todays film.
Didn't you care which film you used 'back in the days'?

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (7 months ago)

You wouldn't have cared at all and posted the comment above if it didn't really mattered. It just seems to me that you just don't agree with the outcomes.
I actually find their tests quite true and speaks of what is current and specs, such as the ageing Canon APSC sensor and better performance(yet diminishing returns) of the larger formats.

1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (7 months ago)

I'd be interested to know why people think DXO tests are not BS. What are they based on? Their own made-up methodology? Has anyone put it under scientific scrutiny?

I never really followed the evolution of DXO as a web site and don't really know its origins. I always read this site when Phil Askey owned it and Imaging Resource. I often commented tests on both sites were not scientific in their rigour and I wonder if the same applies to DXO.

DPR, IR and DXO have been around for some time but just because they were fortunate to be the first in on the digital revolution doesn't mean they have the scientific rigour to be held in as high regard as they are. The fact camera companies have to pander to these sites and hope to get good reviews just shows the power of the Internet not that it contains accurate or well derived data.

I am not a Canon user and I am making a general point about all self proclaimed "expert" sites.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

^^ If you could post some flaw in their testing methodology that would be great. Why should anyone bother to convince you their testing is flawed ? Rather you should try an convince everyone that their testing is flawed (if at all that is).

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

"I'd be interested to know why people think DXO tests are not BS."
It's rather the opposite. When choosing to state it is BS, I would seem fit to qualify and quantify that statement.
Accusing, or insinuating, that they are not professional, is ... not professional ... if it is done without anything to back it up.

0 upvotes
TrickTheLight
By TrickTheLight (7 months ago)

It would be difficult to post a flaw in their methodology, as they don't tell us what it is. They say that their testing isolates the sensor, but they don't say how. Some correction happens, based on in camera processing, or perceived in-camera processing, to reach a final score. They don't tell us how the RAW is rendered into an image for testing.There is all sorts of language on their website qualifying their test results. There is a lot they don't tell us, and which very clearly does not reflect how anyone uses the sensor outside of their lab.

Every other professional assessment I have encountered describes the testing method. DxO entirely refuses to do so. I suppose if I was only using the sensor, without the camera, and wished to only compare it to whatever other sensors the test is considered valid for (DxO says you can't compare scores between different classes of sensors, but doesn't label sensors by class) then the DxO test would be very useful.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

I always hear about how bad Canon sensors are in shadow recovery when compared to the competition, which is quite true. However I have not seen reliable comparisons in the highlight recovery. My experience has showed me that Canon dynamic range is quite adequate for most situations as long as the image is exposed correctly or on the right side. On the other hand other sensors, to my experience, are often not quite as forgiving when overexposing. While a high dynamic range is convenient for some situations good highlight roll off is desirable for all images. Not to mention that images straight out of the camera are more pleasing, with no post processing.
Still, I consider, in my opinion, that Canon sensors need to improve, nevertheless who judges sensors strictly on dynamic range and shadow recovery ends up bashing them more than what they deserve to.

3 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

The difference is that with the Nikon you can expose for the highlights without worrying about recovering shadow info later.

With Canon this option will cause serious banding and noise in the shadows.

4 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

I am familiar with that. My point is that Canon does not need to expose for highlight as much as it handles them better. It is more like film style shooting.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Actually there has never been a review that has shown that Canon handles highlights better.
I believe when DPReview does their Dynamic range analysis they only use Jpegs and even then Canon does not fair better than Nikon in the highlights...
Take for example the 6D vs. the D600; the later not even being the best Nikon in the dynamic range department.
BTW armandino, you asked for lens reviews in a post further down which i posted for you to review.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (7 months ago)

I don't know of any added technology that can make Canon's highlight recovery any different or better than competition.
I feel they remained with the older sensor since consumers kept buying them anyway, and still beat Nikon.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

my comments are based on my own experience with Canon full frame, Nikon full frame, and Pentax 645D. I have no much experience with recent crop sensor technology. I have also seen the eyes of some Nikonians popping when I have shown the highlights recovery from a 5D mK III in Lightroom. Not scientific at all, but based on processing a tonne of images.

0 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Canon sensors bloom like no others, so how can you possibly say that Canon is better in the highlights? Look at any photo taken with a Canon sensor with the sun in the frame, and what do you see? Unless the shadows have gone to black or near black, you'll see absurd blooming!

1 upvote
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

Out of curiosity - with so many people bashing Canon's DR and noise performance - are there any links to actual image comparisons between a current Canon sensor and any competitor that outperforms them? I mostly see numbers, which of course do tell something, but the point is, is the difference really that visible in actual shots?

1 upvote
LauP
By LauP (7 months ago)

Here you go:http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/

1 upvote
Stanchung
By Stanchung (7 months ago)

Yeah the crops looks poorer when comparing with the D7100 even at ISO 100 RAW processed files. :/

Still, some good tech there with the AF for live view.
Not a bad camera but disappointing for those who wanted it to trump the D7100 in the IQ dept.

1 upvote
KW Phua
By KW Phua (7 months ago)

Without showing actual picture the test is not so meaning full. Lower noise does not mean nice picture, if detail is out. Bass on the result all pro should replace 1DX with Sony P&S. LOL.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (7 months ago)

Disappointing looks like my advice to friends if your buying aps-c stick with Nikon the camera, focus, lenses are of a higher quality. If you shoot prime lenses like me then buy the glass which in my case is 35L, 50L, 85L. Nikon don't have the goods there, any Canon FF body will do the shots will come out beautiful with no post production work needed. Perfect for the pro DSLR shooter looking for the best results with minimal effort.

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

The Nikon 35 1.4G outperforms the Canon version, in pretty much all resects, center to edge, Micro-contrast.
The Nikon 85 1.4G Outperforms the Canon 85 1.2 even when you stop down to 1.4 on the Canon, not to mention size, micro-contrast, and focus accuracy and speed.
Nikon does not make a 1.2 offering but pretty much all of the 1.4 lenses and all of the 1.8 lenses have had recent updates, and outperform Canon's equivalent.

6 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

can you reference your statement? I am not so convinced with the 85 and 50 mm 1.2 lenses. To me optical and construction quality by Canon is superior

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Here you go Amadino.
I used the 6D and the D600 so that you have like cameras in the same price point.
Please note that the 85 1.2 Canon had to be tested at 2.0 for it to perform near the quality of the 85 1.4 at 1.4.
I also included the 85 1.8's from both brands for comparison.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/940/(lens2)/388/(lens3)/823/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/834/(brand3)/Nikkor/(camera3)/834

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/823/(brand)/Nikkor/(camera1)/834/(lens2)/241/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/795/(lens3)/241/(brand3)/Canon/(camera3)/836

and here is PhotoZone's review of both 85mms...
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/606-nikkorafs8514ff?start=2
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff?start=2

I can look up other reviews for the 35mm's, but needless to say, the results are pretty much the same for the other focal lengths.

0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (7 months ago)

Maybe, but in the f/2.8 "section" the new lenses from Canon simply crush everything else. Not speaking about f/4, where the 200-400 has no equivalent on Earth. With a fun fact: for DxO, the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 II is "not quite stellar". For the rest of the World (of reviewers, including photozone.de), it is. Cheers! :) P.S.: no worries, Canon will soon start to upgrade the 1.4s... They have no other option, as a jump in sensor resolution is fast approaching.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

Dear Bamboojled,
thanks for bringing up the evidence. From my side I do not really trust the dxo tests on lenses as there is something simply unreliable about their results. For instance they show that the f 1.2 MKI is optically superior to the MKII which is a nonsense. I have no experience with the Nikon 1.4, however I can say that the 1.2 MKII is stellar, amazingly sharp at 1.2. Even if the Nikon has and edge, which I doubt, I cannot see needing more than what this lens has to offer, not forgetting the extra subject isolation and light for being a slightly faster lens.
I can post a sample image here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96121329@N04/9666870493/in/set-72157634926187534

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Dear armandino,
I figured that that test would not be sufficient to prove my point as there are so many DXO detractors, especially considering how poorly Canon does under their testing parameters...

So I also included the lens tests from Photozone which is regarded favorably among DPReview visitors in my original reply.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/606-nikkorafs8514ff?start=2

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff?start=2

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

So let me understand,
on your source the 1.4 outscore the 1.2 in shallow depth of field. How seriously should I take that?
Also, I do not doubt that the Nikon is a more all round performer. The Canon lens is designed for more specific applications, I do not think Nikon does better there. The image I posted is an example where I do not think the Nikon 1.4 can do much better. I would be actually surprised if it is as good. I really think your source really misses the point of this lens as much as anybody who has not mastered its personality. And where it shines there is no replacement. Not to mention that Nikon CANNOT even make and 85/1.2.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Ok, so let me get this straight...

You state " optical and construction quality are superior" on the Canon.
I then reference four separate reviews by very reputable sources.
One of which is considered the GOLD standard for methodology, and is often referenced in DPReviews own reviews (DXO).
Showing that performance is better across the board for the Nikon.
You then post one particular image that you shot to show proof of why the 85 1.2 is better, as if this image proves your point.

BTW, the image posted by you is very nice, but by no means is this an example of how this lens outperforms the Nikon since you do not have a side by side comparison shot against the Nikon, unlike the reviewers that used both lenses and came to the conclusion that the Nikon outperforms the Canon at every level....

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

Your second reference is not a direct comparison, they are simple reviews. The fact that they do not compare is clear in that Nikon lens had full stars on shallow depth, while Canon did not while still having a larger aperture (which also leaves me wander, this is just math). Canon lens review was quite sloppy too, clearly they did not capture the spirit of the lens. DXO is what it is. They even think that Canon 70-200 MK II is not that great. And again, the 1.2 MKI scores better than the MKII. Canon engineers must be pure idiots. Do not forget that the Canon lens has a lot more glass, I do not think that it sits there for nothing.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Abbas Rafey
By Abbas Rafey (7 months ago)

I have never seen DXO saying any good about canon
Is it that bad
Or it is advertising for Sony sensors only.
I used both Nikon, canon and sigma
I can shoot with a,l the cameras without any noticeable difference only you need to know your camera and how tweak with it.

the only thing I have moved to canon is there superior focusing system.

No matter what is your sensor it is worthless if it cannot focus it fast.

2 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Most people don't need to focus fast.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

DxOMark is far from "advertising for Sony sensors only".

The sensors that test well rise to the top of the ratings, i.e. the Toshiba sensor in the Nikon D7100 leads all APS-C sensors tested on DxOMark.

2 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

Problem is, from everything I've read, the Nikon D7100 is also supposed to have better autofocus.

6 upvotes
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (7 months ago)

@chj, then you heard wrong!

2 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

" Of course, in return the 70D gains the most sophisticated live view AF system available on any SLR."
????
It got beaten by the a-77, and in my view, it deliveres better live view AF than 70D.

What is the rationale behind the statement above??

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

70D is obviously better. we have been knowing in theory that SLT won't last long and now we see something real.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

hmm, my irony-meter fluctuates between 0 and 100% right now...
I would still like to know from Dpr what warrants that comment.

I'm willing to take a bet that it is Shawn Barrnett who has written the text above, could that be correct?

0 upvotes
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (7 months ago)

@Eleson,
the A77 video autofocus is useless for video if you want to use your lens at anything else but f/3.5 or wide open, whichever of the two are worse! So want to shoot at f/10 - no autofocus. Want to shoot at f/1.8 with your fast lens - no autofocus!

1 upvote
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

"the A77 video autofocus is useless for video (...)"

Be that as it may, that refers to video. The sweeping statement by DPR seems to refer to/include stills live view and I agree with Eleson (owning an A65 myself) that it seems to (deliberately?) overlook the Sony SLT system.

Camera Labs, while also not directly comparing the 70D against either the A77 or A65, seem to be clearer: "If you want to shoot fast moving action stills with a screen then consider a Sony SLT as these will out-perform current mirrorless and DSLRs for continuous AF in Live View" (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/verdict.shtml)
I think that directly contradicts DPR's statement.

Maybe DPR is playing language games around DSLR/DSLT which I would find disingeneous.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (7 months ago)

Nikon DSLR sensors regularly score higher than Canon DSLR sensors on DxO Mark. When this is pointed out to Canon users they say the numbers don't mean anything.

My two year old D5100 scores 80 over sensor rating. This 70D scores lower on all metrics. Of course, the numbers don't mean anything!

6 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (7 months ago)

Not exactly -- when people say the numbers don't mean anything, they are generally referring to the summary number (the 83 vs. the 63 or whatever). On the other hand, the foundational numbers and curves are meaningful and the meaning of these is relatively clear.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I often go straight to "measurements : SNR 18% print" and this is the performance that most people care.

the dynamic range is less important. it becomes a serious issue because the gap is too large now.

we have to punish lower color accuracy because makers can trade it off for better low light performance so it won't be a fare game without it. though some users may prefer higher SNR at lower color accuracy (our eyes are very good to adapt to different/wrong colors, sunglass is a good example).

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tapper123
By Tapper123 (7 months ago)

I used to be a Canon user. Good riddance.

But no doubt the Canon faithful will lap this sub-par performance up and make endless excuses. A sad reminder how powerful branding can be for typical consumers.

6 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (7 months ago)

> But no doubt the Canon faithful will lap this sub-par performance up and make endless excuses.

Does the sub-par performance include the live view AF?

1 upvote
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

Just because there are better cameras does not mean this is "sub par". You're making it sound like it's insufferably bad, but from my own experience and looking at what other people can produce with a Canon, the difference between the different makers is definitely not so huge that it would compensate for lesser skill. What I'm saying is, the variance in photographic skills between users is so big that the small differences between sensors don't really come into play that much. I see fantastic photography made on both Nikon and Canon.

1 upvote
Daxs
By Daxs (7 months ago)

O yes, only Nikon users can get nice landscapes! :D
I'm laughing! :D
Stupid people!
:D

2 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

It's the other way around:
If you can shot great landscapes, why limit yourself with the 2nd best sensor?

1 upvote
Jawed
By Jawed (7 months ago)

If you want a sobering comparison, just compare 70D and RX100 Mk2. The Sony has almost 1 stop more dynamic range and the same colour depth. Low light is one stop worse on the Sony. It scores 67.

14 upvotes
PredatorsPrey
By PredatorsPrey (7 months ago)

And for what do you need the very high dynamic range? I hardly can think of a situation in which I actually need such a high DR. The situations I can think of still need more DR than just 1 stop more, so it's no replacement for exposure bracketing.

Cameras nowadays have such a fantastic DR, that you don't have to be so fussy about a bit more or less DR because you mostly won't need it.. except maybe if you expect to be able to point and shoot landscapes with high contrast.

Instead of more DR at base ISO, it would be better if the DR drops less when increasing iso.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (7 months ago)

@predatorsprey. As a person wbo process RAWs from different photographers for a living, you seem to underestimate the importance of DR. Noise is generally easier to process and handle than clipped ranges. Bracketing is non-existent in studio model shots or any other kinetic scenes. As a note, you can get away with noise by massaging the scene to make it more like film grain properties but it's harder to recoverkey textures when you have limited and/or clipped dynamics.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (7 months ago)

I have mixed felling about this. Everyone wants more DR because it is more forgiving. There are situations where it is actually useful, however I find it can easily lead to HDR effect all the time, overdoing it. Also, I am not a sensor AD conversion engineer, I would be curious if there is any penalty to pay with quantization when stretching the dynamic range with a 14 bit AD conversion.

0 upvotes
PredatorsPrey
By PredatorsPrey (7 months ago)

@Nukunukoo
If you get clipped highlights in studio, then you should adjust the power of the flashes and other light sources. I mean in studio you have the control of the light, so why should you need a high DR?

Noise isn't as easy to process as you think, or how do you get out fine details out of animal fur (or peoples hair) when it is overlaid by noise? And making it look like film grain isn't the solution for some photos.

People who commercially shoot sports also use jpg, which is much more limited in terms of DR, still manage to take good photos for the press or something else without blown out surfaces. And if there are a few shots with clipped highlights, then you still have others.

And for other scenes with movement, you barely use base iso, so the so excellent DR at it won't help you.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (7 months ago)

@PredatorsPrey
Studio controlled lighting is one thing. Everything else is another. I don't think that needs any further explanation.

Noise have different characteristics and I'm not implying that they are taken nor treated distinctly (nobody does in practice). Noise/DR profiles all play together when processing images. And a good DR helps significantly.

You'd be surprise how good NR is these days or else you would not have questioned it. Of course, ridiculously heavy noise is another thing, as well as banding but we have already developed a technique to reduce that as well.

JPEG output largely depends on the JPEG engine, other better than some. Again, all is not perfect and that's why some come to us. I can, like you, selectively choose situations like sports photography, where they may would use JPEGs for high frame rates. And if you DO take Sports Photography, I don't have to tell you how many shots with bad focus and exposure occur in ratio with the good ones.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (7 months ago)

I don't get your last statement. Having a sensor with good DR characteristics is very useful (nope, extremely useful) at higher ISOs because your mentioning of bracketing is not practical in scenes with lots of motion. In fact, with some landscaping shots, rustling leaves can give really bad artifacts with bracketing.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (7 months ago)

Some post in this thread make me think of a guy who will not consider buying a car for daily driving because it won't go 140 mph.

3 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

For photos, it's clearly inferior. They are not meaningless numbers. Competitors are offering products that will produce better photos, in a wider range of environments, for the same price. Of course if you shoot both photos and videos, the 70D may be ideal.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

It is more like buying a car that only gets AM radio. You don’t really need the radio but you know that FM is better and satellite is supposed to be even better than that. If you haven’t been using those things before then you probably won’t miss them.

However, if you have become accustomed to them then you will feel like your new car is more of a downgrade than an upgrade if everything else is the same.

5 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (7 months ago)

In your analogy, this canon camera is a bicycle, not a car...

4 upvotes
Lanski
By Lanski (7 months ago)

I'll be happy to buy a sub 140mph car, as long as it isn't the same price, or more expensive than the one that does do 140mph.

3 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 months ago)

I don't want my images to look accurate, I want them to look awesome.

Look, I'm a Nikon shooter, but I do find the Canon images very appealing. Who cares how scientifically accurate it is it is as long as it looks great?

Edit: As an engineer in test and measurement, I don't can't seriously fault DxO on a methodology front. Frankly, I think DxO has the most believable method.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

It doesn't look great for landscape. It's often noisy and lacking shadow and highlight detail. And don't dare get a light source in the frame, or the Canon will bloom like no other.

1 upvote
PCorvo
By PCorvo (7 months ago)

Yeah yeah... Ofc, only nikon can make good landscapes... In fact i dont understand why canon users dont give up trying.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (7 months ago)

@dual12, blooming has been a thing of the past - the last camera to really suffer from that phenomenon was the Nikon D70 and to a lesser extent the Nikon D50. Since then blooming hasn't been an issue on any brand! So you are talking plain rubbish!

1 upvote
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Nonsense. Canons bloom so much that they are a running joke among those involved in astrophotography, or anyone who shoots into the sun!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

if they cannot compete in quality, they will have to compete in price,
and the production rate of 70D is twice of that of D7100.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (7 months ago)

Same old, same old.

I have shot digital Canons since 2001 (Powershot S40) and have owned 10 Canons since then. While not a fanboy I certainly have enjoyed their products for a long time.

I decided to try something new with the RX100 and that experience led me to buy an RX1.

My advice at this point is not to shoot an Exmor if you want to remain happy with your Canon gear. That is particularly true if you enjoy post-processing.

The game has moved on. Where's Canon?

20 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (7 months ago)

Well, this should get the forums a hoppin :-)

2 upvotes
Walsh_uk
By Walsh_uk (7 months ago)

Oh dear ne... no.

I waited all summer for this. . Very disappointed.

2 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Same old mediocre Canon sensor dressed up in Canon's latest marketing trick.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

So are we finally at the point where Canon cameras are not quite living up to Micro Four Thirds standards? The GH3 has had the AFC that the Canon 70D has for almost a year now and it clearly scores better in the DXO mark sensor test.

I like the 70D because I think the improved AFC is great and I think that the Canon cameras have offered reasonably good image quality for years. What I don’t like is when other manufactures are held to a much higher standard than Canon is.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (7 months ago)

The 70D has a completely different on-chip AF system to any other camera currently on the market. The GH3 really isn't the same.

9 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

If the GH3 can do the AFC just as well as the Canon using only Contrast detection then I don’t see the dual system as a benefit.

8 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

@mpgxsvcd

But the GH3 cannot do AF tracking using AF-C at anywhere near the same level of accuracy as any DSLR with PDAF during still shooting.

As far as sensor scores they are so close as to be essentially within the margins of error. Not to mention that the more shallow DOF of APS-C can give images a bit more depth.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

the dual-pixel AF may compromise sensor SNR in that the micro lensese have to split light which may not be as efficient as 40.3M smaller micro lenses (without on sensor PDAF).

but this should not affect dynamic range (may be a little but not the majority of it).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (7 months ago)

So they have good on-sensor AF married to the same poor DR sensor they've always had. This is starting to sound like a broken record. Please, Canon, do some serious upgrades to your designs and fab-shop. Even Samsung (NX300's sensor) is passing you now by a fairly wide margin. You don't appear to want to compete anymore.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (7 months ago)

But they will sell truckloads of them because of the video capabilities. Canon are judging the market well, if stills matter more buy a Nikon.

6 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (7 months ago)

People who are primarily interested in video should buy a video camera. Duhhhh...

4 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

and people who are interested in video AND stills should buy a 70D, (i.e. anyone with kids, pretty big market) Duhhh...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

People really interested in video using DSLRs are using Manual Focus with a follow focus.

5 upvotes
tokugawa
By tokugawa (7 months ago)

Just out of curiosity, do you have any link that shows comparison shots between a Canon sensor and a competitor that demonstrates the gap in DR/noise performance?

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

@marike6 Really? Parents shooting video of their kids are using manual focus? Yeah, they probably wouldn't be interested in a camera that can track in live view and can be corrected by simply tapping the screen.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (7 months ago)

Samsung uses Sony sensors.

0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (7 months ago)

Samsung phones might but Samsung manufactures its own sensors for its NX range.

0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

tokugawa: if you check the latest reviews of the Canon 700D and 100D on Imaging Resource, IIRC the Canon sensors get spanked by the much smaller MFT (both Olympus and Panasonic) as well as by the cheaper Sony A58 (this despite the light loss to the fixed mirror).

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

D7100 83 DXO-marks
K5/K5II(s) 82 DXO-marks
70D 68 DXO Marks

The 70D simply is mediocre on high iso and dynamic range and just good, not even excellent at color depth

19 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (7 months ago)

And the difference between 83 and 68 = 15 but what does that mean in terms of real world photographic applications again? It is nothing but a number w/o any real value.

Well, it does add value to DxO in that it attracts attention to their site and the products they sell, but for photography, it really tells you nothing.

And... in terms of high ISO DR, Canon gear is the equal of any of the others which would be obvious to you had you bothered to look past that stupid “68” number.

4 upvotes
dual12
By dual12 (7 months ago)

Canon gear is clearly NOT equal to the competition at high ISO. Canon is visibly noisier than both Nikon and Pentax. And the dynamic range stinks too.

6 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (7 months ago)

Comparing the 70D to the D7000, above 1600 there is essentially no difference in the DR. At 400 there is one stop but why would you even care. If it is DR you want i.e. DR in the sense that DxO measures it (as opposed to what is usually discussed in these forums) why would you EVER set ISO above 100. Once you go above 100, you are trading off DR for something else, in other words, you no longer care about DR.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

I know someone who went from the K-5 to the 7D (66 DXO marks so comparable to the 70d) when he saw the iso noise in his bird shots he cried. Then he sold his 7d an got a k-5 again.

8 upvotes
NAwlins Contrarian
By NAwlins Contrarian (7 months ago)

"If it is DR you want ... why would you EVER set ISO above 100."

Because sometimes the need to stop motion, increase depth of field, and/or minimize camera shake means that ISO 100 won't let you capture the shot! Go shoot a nighttime ball game or live music in a club with available light (sometimes flash isn't allowed and/or produces an undesired result) and see where ISO 100 gets you. In either situation, you might well want more dynamic range than you can get at ISO 3200 or whatever may be needed to get the shot.

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (7 months ago)

Sony NEX-5 -- yes, the original one from 2010 -- 69 DxOMark
Sony NEX-7 -- from 2011 -- 81 DxOMark

Canon has fallen behind Sony on IQ of their sensors (Sony's are used in many of Canon's better competitors, not just Sony bodies). However, I still use my NEX-5 alongside my NEX-7 and I wouldn't reject a 70D based on IQ either. It's the combination of that IQ and a $1200 body-only price tag that bothers me... although I'm sure people will buy it at that price.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

D1N0 is a well known Pentax fanboy. The high iso/low light score is NOT that bad on 70D, according dxomark. Canon 70D scores around 920 and K-5 scores around 1220 That's less than 1/2 stop difference.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

ET2 is a well known troll. I Have scientific and emperical evidence on my side. You have bullying tactics on your side.

0 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (7 months ago)

@D11NO

cant fault him for that. 7d noise is atrocious. Im finding the M- which i like a lot- noisy as all hell too.

0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (7 months ago)

From a movie I think you all know (and possibly like): "Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein!" Cheers! :)

1 upvote
Total comments: 133