I agree that Canon's APS-C sensors haven't really improved much since the original 7D, hence my recommendation.

If the T6i/T6S can't autofocus reliably with quality EF glass, I have a hard time seeing any application for these cameras, other than amateurs who either don't notice focus issues, don't care about focus issues or are satisfied with very low quality EF-S kit lenses.

It may get lumped in these days, that's certainly the easy way to do it, back when I did this sort of stuff (first job after Uni, so a while back as I seem to be middle aged now, not sure how that happened) we didn't do that, as it wasn't a sensor property, but much work has been published since and I/we would never claim to have been following a standard then anyway.

Certainly even people who can't access data directly from the sensor can calculate the sensor read noise to a reasonable approximation, although from the end user point of view it doesn't matter - does the user care the sensor in a Canon 6D has 15.5 stops of Dynamic Range (which it does) if DXO says they can only access a bit over 12 stops (plus DXO normalise it so this could go on and on).

contd...

However some people do still seem to split it off, so I'd say no - I'm personally happy with taking read noise as a sensor property and Canon's ADC noise as something different. (But that's just my opinion and I'm sure people with broader knowledge bases than mine could happily disagree.) E.g. see Roger Clark's work, he takes Canon sensor read noise as the lowest value (with increasing ISO) that still gives 8 stops of pixel-level DR.

I don't think this matters so please don't take it too seriously, I merely discussed it above to show my thinking and explain I may not align with accepted practice but aren't on my own. My original point was more the article linking the DR to sensor development ("small improvements"), when the DR is controlled by off-sensor electronics.

↑ What he said.

Also, yes we're working on some standard workflows for AF, but it's very difficult. We take video through the OVF and Live View as a way of showing subject tracking, and complement that with real-world tests with 100% crops in rollovers. That's the best we can do for now. There's definitely interest in developing motorized rigs that repeat the same motion, but it's very difficult, and also hard to ensure any such repeated test correlates with real-world performance.

But trust me we're trying. :) We'll definitely take some video of the Rebel focusing in Live View, as its subject tracking is actually usable in this mode (not in OVF shooting, though). Which is important for the demographic using this camera (they probably want the camera to worry about focus). I can tell you right now subject tracking is great in Live View (as you'd expect, since it's using the image sensor), but it does hunt significantly more than a dual-pixel camera. T6i doesn't AF-C in Live View.

Yes, it's the T6s that supports continuous AF in Live View.

Oddly, the T6i is always still continuously tracking/focusing, but when you then press the shutter button to take the shot, the camera requires a re-focus - which ends up causing hunting and a significant lag before the shot is taken. At which point your subject has moved. The T6s just takes the shot.

In other words, the T6i is like the 70D/7D Mark II in this regard, which also requires a refocus, making Servo AF of very limited utility. Although, the 7D Mark II does do its refocus much faster, thanks to Dual-Pixel AF.

I don't know why they do this on the 70D/7D2, b/c clearly the cameras are focusing. So your subject is already in focus, so requiring the re-focus just kills Servo AF for stills.

My feeling is it's just an oversight. It's almost as if they were of the opinion that dual-pixel AF is only/mostly for video. Which is a shame, b/c I think dual-pixel AF is a game-changer for stills even.

Also, we haven't really talked about it much in Nikon cameras b/c there just isn't usable AF in Live View, and the performance of CDAF for Live View AF is a known quantity. Hence we don't expend much effort on it.

Especially since OVF subject tracking and AF is so good on the Nikons (and is what one should be using for continuous AF).

We're actually going to emphasize Live View AF more in the Rebel reviews b/c it's a much more usable way of or tracking subjects in continuous AF (subject tracking is as good as unavailable in OVF shooting).

However, you do have a point, and funny enough - we just last week shot a couple videos showing how appalling CDAF is in video/Live View on the D7200 for that camera's review.

But again, not much point actually expending effort 'testing' it, b/c it's a known quantity. We're not going to suddenly take all other CDAF cameras (a7S, some m4/3 cameras, RX100s, etc.) & show them failing/hunting - b/c we all already know they fail in the same manner.

Hi FujicaST605,
D7200 can only do 5 FPS when all else equal similar to 5 FPS of these Rebels.
Check below link. DPR is yet to update their spec sheet with all the details.
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-16-at-9.14.02-AM.png

I think you misunderstood my statement.

Only review the positive parts of Nikon? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying bias?

We show plenty of negative aspects of Nikon cameras, & it's pretty disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In the D5500 review itself we stated: "Live view autofocus isn't as good as what Canon's doing these days with Dual Pixel AF". The D750 review had an entire video of non-cross-type AF points failing. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

My point was that it's a known - we all know that CDAF by definition can't keep up with PDAF. We are already taxed trying to show differences in continuous AF for PDAF implementations; we just wouldn't find it wise to throw CDAF into the mix - given its huge performance gap compared to PDAF. We'd rather expend those efforts testing different PDAF implementations more rigorously, & just stating 'slow AF in Live View' as a con & in the text, as we did w/ D750.

Testing Raw DR is entirely different - that we can actually test so you can see the difference, and see improvements (the 5DS/SR shows improvements over the 5D3, e.g.). There are differences, & progress to show there. It's not even as much of a 'known' as 'CDAF can't continuously focus like PDAF' is. Just like our studio scene shows high ISO performance differences.

For CDAF, all we need is 1 video that shows how CDAF hunts in AF, especially continuous AF, & we could probably just recycle that video from review to review - b/c it's not going to be that different from implementation to implementation.

That said - I do agree that we should at least show it, b/c you're right, a lot of newcomers/beginners might come to our site for this sort of info, & it's definitely important for people to know.

We'll try & make an evergreen example to put in for cameras w/ CDAF. And trust me, it's something we've mentioned to Nikon. If for no other reason than that on-sensor AF is more accurate!

And, yes, of course it's fine for you to open a thread about this! You don't need my permission :)

As for clarification on continuous AF:

70D, 7D2, and T6i do not do continuous AF for stills - they all will continuously AF while tracking your subject in live view, but as soon as you press the shutter button, they all attempt a refocus, which means your shot is taken a whole second or seconds later (here the 70D and 7D2 will be much faster at this final refocus though). The T6S, OTOH, takes the shot (almost) right away.

And that's all just for single shot.

For continuous shooting, only the T6S will even attempt to refocus between shots.

The reason the 70D/7D2 implementations are particularly sad is this: the cameras already have your subject in focus when you press the shutter button, b/c they are continuously focusing. So why Canon demands a refocus, and then focus lock, is completely beyond us and... frankly, entire nonsensical. Could've been so much more powerful...

Apparently you missed my point above - b/c exposure latitude and ISO-invariance tests allow you to see differences. Why do we even test noise at high ISOs, then? So you can see the differences and improvements.

CDAF for continuous AF in most implementations are equally bad. It'd make little sense to show that all CDAF implementations are equally bad at continuous focus.

I just explained this... it's b/c they're not expected outcomes. The 5DS/SR pulling ahead of the 5D Mark III was not exactly an 'expected outcome' after Canon told us the dynamic range was the same as the 5D Mark III (personally, of course, I never believed that, & expected improvements).

We're working on standard workflows, but we're also a very small team, and so we prioritize elements of reviews based on what we think are the most important things to test. Except for the standard lab work - which we simply blow through for every (most) reviews, b/c it's a standardized, repeatable process.

That's until you get to the point where you would like to try some prime action for creativity and portraits sake.. You get an amazing canon 50/1.8 for a little over 100 bucks but you won't find such a deal for a 40mm f/1.4 in m43 mount. (giving you the same fov and dof)
Hell, there isn't even a nice offer for a 50/1.8 on that mount, where glass would be less than a thumbnail in size! (Canon lens covers FX sensor area)

I really like the olympus bodies, but the lens lineup is not suited for ppl on a budget!

yes, it's the same for (almost) all mirror-less manufacturers... they have great lenses and great bodies but on the high price side.
If you are on small budget you get much better with APSC DSLR. If you want ultimate performance and IQ, again you end up better on FF DSLR.

But still the high end mirror-less hits a nice spot, and it is most attractive for enthusiasts and even professionals who don't need ultimate AF speed.

Somehow I'm thinking you're trying to advertise B&H photo...
Just sayin'.

"notice they have higher DxoMarks than Canon for years!"
Their top of the line model is 3 points better than Canons top APS-C 7D Mark II. Wow. - And 9 points worse than 6D.

Besides I give a darn about DxO Mark scores with their shady tests that are neither explained in detail nor shown pictures of. That they give Nikon way higher scores in lowlight high ISO than Canon already renders them unreliable for me.

Similar to Toyota..they had a 4 speed transmission in the Corolla until recently for Pete's sake!

Technical aspects aside, for me most Canon cameras consistently produce high quality images I'm pleased with. The features present allow me to capture that image consistently, Canon glass allows me to resolve those images excellently, and the bodies rarely let me down in a pinch. Subjective? you bet. But then again, once you move into what you're trying to do with a camera, is not photography an art? That implies that a subjective opinion is just as valid as a scientific opinion for the purposes of conversation and observation of the final product. When I consider cameras, I consider the sample outputs I see. That is, by and far, the true test of value.

Richrma, I suppose its because guys like you come here and post....just wondering why if its so bad and dull why bother even coming here....no offense just a genuine question why so many people that obviously don't rate Canon highly actually come here? Surely if one dislikes something so intensely one wouldn't spend one sec posting or even thinking about it...

Canon does have a lot of nice glass, and 3rd party glass, and this sensor does look plenty "good enough". Take an image from this and any other camera, and 99% of people would never be able to tell the difference...in other words, close to half would pick the Canon as being better.

Not sure if d5500 does better video AF other than slow contrast AF. DPR avoided covering it in their d5500 review. They did not mention it anywhere in their review. They typically do video AF test and write a comparison with peers.

Rebels do pretty good in video AF with STM lens. D5500 doesn't even allow full manual control and exposure simulation in live view. Waiting for dpr review comparing rebels video AF with 70d duel pixel tech.

What cheap sensors are you talking about? These vs 5D3? Well take a look at high ISO RAWs then you'll see. Of course for beautiful-weather-JPEG-photographers, both are almost the same.

@HowaboutRAW: So which camera gets outclassed by G7X in your opinion?

Not sure about EOS-M3, but original EOS-M was a joke.

Yea, i don't think people realize this community is the minority. The majority of people that buy rebel cameras only shoot jpg in which case, you only get about 8ev stops of dynamic range in any camera. But canon's seem to have better or more flattering jpg colors which people like. They have lenses like the nifty fifty which aren't too expensive. Movie mode also works well and focuses now.

I think canon actually assessed their target shoppers and addresses all their concern, not really the concerns of people that buy higher end cameras and take photography more seriously.

It's nice to have information available for those with different priorities to makes their assessments and hence their choices. If DR not critical to someone they can evaluate the camera on the basis of those things that matter to them. Those to whom DR is important can do the same.

The thing is, and don't shoot the messenger here, but there are many convenient, low weight, good JPEG quality options out there. In the case of M43, small and lighter. With a great range of lenses too from Oly, Panasonic and 3rd parties, that are also generally smaller than EFS.

Ergonomics is a personal preference as for DPP, it's greatest strength is working with Canon RAW files - which you only really shoot to maximise information such as dynamic range. There are plenty of free photo apps out there that does similar stuff.

As someone that uses Canon, I would like greater DR and they need to sort it to stay competitive. Right now they are behind the curve which is sad as when I started with Canon their sensors were the only game in town.

Some here are knocking Canon, others just want their chosen brand to stay successful, and sensor capabilities are close to the top of the list.

You should download and play around with a nikon file. Or maybe not....You know what they say, once you go NEF you never go back.

Hm.. interesting list.

- color accuracy (color filter array aka CFA is responsible for that, not low pass and not only that, color profile itself is needed)

Okay I care about colors a lot. Probably reason I wouldnt buy anything from Canon today. Last time they had good or even great colors was 1D/s MK3.

- low weight

Nikon or any mirrorless weight same or less

Rest no care, apart ergonomics, thats important for any camera. Compared to cameras of old, most today arent great. Last camera with "ergonomics", was probably A900 from Sony. Everything else is somewhere around okay, or not okay.

Dynamic range is important for everyone, cause it gives bit more room for user error. Whats more important is signal to noise ratio aka SNR, which in Canon case isnt great exactly, especially not in APS-C lineup (FFs are usable mostly).

Anyway.. there isnt anything worth it in Canon APS-C land. 5Ds will be interesting, but thats kinda all there is.

"We dun care about dynamic range. Stop assuming we do. What I care about is:"

That's great, thank you for sharing. Would you like us to now change our entire website/testing to cater to only your desires?

"-FREE SOFTWARE LIKE DPP"

Most cameras come with free Raw converters that emulate most in-camera conversion/features.

'-COLOR ACCURACY (thank you low pass filter)'

Huh? What does the OLPF have to do with color accuracy? Also, your beloved DXO tests color accuracy. I'm sure you think their color accuracy test is biased, though, b/c it tends to be lower for Canons.

Out of curiosity - why do you find it necessary to defend a brand and start threads to try & discredit anyone (DXO) that publishes anything that ends up showing a less-than-ideal score for some aspect of that brand's cameras? You do realize that that same site is soon going to start showing Canon lenses as having the highest resolutions when paired with a 5DS, right? Will they still be biased then?

I spent an afternoon with a d 810. The RAW files are outstanding. They are robust and the dynamic range is fantastic. I had the d800 along with the 14-24 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/4. I sold the system last September when I went into retirement. I liked that system every bit, if not more, than the Hasselblad Hd3 39 II I'd been using since 2008. Unfortunately, I have severe arthritis. The Nikon got to be too much for me to handle. I'm now shooting M43 exclusively. I have an EPL-5 and the EM-5 II. These cameras are light, the lenses are great, the versatility of the EM-5 II is nothing short of amazing. Of all the cameras I've used over the past 40 years, I think the Olys are my favorites, especially the EM-5 II. The premium lenses are affordable, lightweight, fast, and sharp. They render pleasing color and bokeh.

I know what false color is. That's different from 'accurate colors'. No, it doesn't help you get more accurate colors. Where did you get this idea?

'DPP is much more than a simple Raw converter'? Not any more so than the free Raw converters that Nikon and Sony provide.

That covers probably 99% of the entire camera market, that offer free Raw converters.

But that's an advantage of Canon?

nanananananaver gonna give it up, never gonna let it down, never gonna stop running around.... trolling you.

The only reason I am interested in raw, is dr. I just realized that I need it for sunsets. I just pulled shadows on a recent picture and it is full of color noise..

My HS friend gets some paid jobs yet doesn't even shoot raw with his 6D. He shoots indoor concerts - very low lighting, yet I'm not sure if he ever did follow my advise to get a fast prime lens. Another guy at work (engineer) who shoots a lot of nice images also does not shoot saw...he bought the little Canon G7x or whatever (1" sensor) recently. I surmise most Rebel users by far never shoot raw. DPP was a hassle when I used it a few times before getting PS, and most don't have photoshop; etc.

Yea, they do bit better job in compressing DR into JPGs today (still result is 8-bit no matter how you look at that, so its lossy - not so great for printing).

Thing I like about Canon is they have option to create own picture looks, which if you use DPP you can use on RAWs too. So you get benefits from JPG look, while having advantage of RAW processing.

Low pass filter doesnt improve color accuracy, but it can slightly help with color "fidelity", cause moiré isnt nice for this. But with recent cameras like D810 or 5Ds, its much less needed (also NX1 has very little need for low pass).

But no matter what, I wouldnt buy any new APS-C Canon, cause they are simply no improvement over those of old.

nanana....

You have a point about Pentax lens selection, but Pentax has a few very good lenses, and for fewer dollars than Canon.

The K3 shoots DNG, which gets around many of the "software" problems.

To get the body build quality of the K3 from Canon, you'd need purchase 7DII.

The K3 has an excellent Sony sensor.

The 'exposure latitude' is useful on a number of fronts - but really only if you shoot Raw. If you do, then extra base ISO dynamic range allows you to lower your exposure to keep highlights from clipping, & then brighten shadows selectively in post-processing to make them visible again. Or rescue missed exposures (for example, if your camera underexposes a backlit scene, or you wish to correct large amounts of vignetting, etc.). You can read more about noise and how it affects dynamic range here.

Does it matter for most Rebel shooters? Maybe not, if they're just shooting JPEG in Auto mode. But we don't want to make assumptions about the user of any camera (a pro might buy a lower end camera as a 2nd body, for example), so we try and put all cameras through our standard battery of tests.

2nd body for a pro, btw, is also a reason microadjust should be included. Not to mention a given camera should be able to focus a given lens w/out having to send to factory.

Thanks, I do shoot raw. Mostly I shoot landscapes. I am pretty good at getting the exposure right to avoid clipping highlights. I rarely care for the HDR look. I like contrast in my images, but I do use ACR to pull some details out of dark shadow areas.

Yes, I would say high base ISO dynamic range is useful, if not necessary, for such DR modes (ADL, DRO, 'flat' or S-Log2 picture profiles, etc.) to yield good images. Since these modes raise shadows (with ADL purposefully underexposing in order to retain highlights), cameras that add noise to shadows, b/c they have lower dynamic range, will be limited in their ability to provide good results with such modes.

One has to wonder if the lower base ISO dynamic range of Canon DSLRs is a reason for HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) being limited to only 1 EV underexposure and then selective boost. A Nikon-esque 'flat' picture profile would run the risk of exposing noisy shadows.

Interestingly, even the a7S' S-Log2 mode raised the minimal hardware amplification to ~ISO 400-ish levels. I have a pet theory this is b/c ISO 100 shadows on an a7S run the risk of having some noise, b/c of the somewhat lower DR compared to the a7R (but still significantly higher than Canon, mind you). I may be wrong.

Well, ADL is 'active' whereas DRO is more 'passive' in that ADL actually changes focal plane exposure whereas DRO never touches exposure (so you have to yourself dial in negative exposure compensation).

The shadow lifting (tonemapping) algorithms for ADL and DRO may be the same, I don't really know. I think Apical does the ADL algorithm, but not sure who does DRO (Sony itself maybe?).

While ADL is quite nice, I do find it sometimes leads to halo-ing. But on a D4S, it can get you back a rather whopping 1.7 EV of highlight range, which is quite nice. Nikon's free Raw converter can also apply a lot of shadow lifting using high ADL settings in post-processing. ADL tends to preserve more local contrast while reducing global contrast, which makes it a little more usable than 'Flat' picture control (although 'Flat' can make a nice starting point from where you can re-introduce contrast by, say, adding some black clipping or what have you).

Yes, odd Sony called it ISO 3200. Dunno why.

@jrkliny

That is incorrect, among the entry level series line(the rebel) the T6i and T6s have the same sensor. The SL1 has an older sensor, the SL2 will likely get the T series sensor. The t5 and t3 are a much older sensor.

But from what you said, the 70D and the 7D MKII do not have anywhere near the same sensor as the rebel series. They have dual pixel cmos sensors, the 7DMKII has very good high iso performance. So spending more does give you a better sensor.

Yea and if you compare old 40D vs SL1, you might want to cry from all that improvement. :)

By the way, 40D wins per-pixel in every aspect over SL1. :D

Funny part is that 40D is actually better than any today APS-C from Canon. In every aspect, apart mpix count. Also its made from "real stuff" (magnesium alloy mostly). Plus it has very nice colors (even while color accuracy isnt too high). But still beats today Canon colors.

Only improvements in Canon lands are in terms of AF and processing power/speed. Sensors are pretty much worse and while more mpix could help, it doesnt cause most stats for them is simply too low (or too high .. like noise :D).

Also reason why 1D X has only 18 mpix. Cause their tech simply cant make such camera work with more. If they made CPUs, they would be out of business, cause their manufacturing process is from stone era.

I would have loved the 70d...the iso performance was very good, i enjoyed the picture profile. The Af was bad though, so i didnt get to enjoy the camera. one day id like it to replace my workhorse t2i.

@jrkliny

Aparently DXO mark disagrees with you. Owning a full frame, all the APS-C sensors are relatively noisey compared to what i'm used to. I owned a t3i which has similar picture quality to the t5i. THe 70d is vastly better when processing my raws through lightroom. Like night and Day.

Last time I Checked, most Rebel buyers (like our Moms) don't care about ISO invariance.... They just looks at the Out of Camera JPEGs and Canon skin tones and buys it. It also doesn't hurt that when they watch TV/Sports, many photographers they see use Canon. At the end of the day when you look at a picture on your computer or prints at normal viewing resolutions and print sizes, none of the stuff you mentioned really matters that much.

It is true that Canon's sensors lag the competition in dynamic range and ISO invariance. Canon refuses to make improvements to their sensor tech. Do you want to know what is even more appalling in my opinion? The endless recycling of Canon marketing cliches—the REBEL trademark is hopelessly out of date from the Andre Agassi era. How dare you Canon inflict such atrocious marketing cliches on your North American customers? The red REBEL scrawl adorning your rebadged, recycled consumer cameras reminds me of punk poser Billy Idol and his REBEL YELL! The REBEL packaging destroys the consumers unboxing experience with putrified kitsch. Why do you keep the REBEL trade dress? I know Chuckie Westfall needs a reason to keep his title but what about basic human decency. For the love of God, Canon, if you refuse to update your Jurassic sensor tech, please at least END the endless recycling the Andre Agassi REBEL marketing crap!! In the name decency, I entreat you Canon, I BEG!!

@nananananana

You're right, i was watching Tony Northrup on youtube and he showed a chart of various ISO performances between camera lines. It seems that even if canon is the worst, relative to moving up in sensor size, the differences within the same sensor size is negligible. When you look at the photos, it's hard to distinguish high iso noise between the same sensor size unless you're cropping heavily or pixel peeping.

Do you really care, they will say the cameras are bad because of low dynamic range. I don't care one iota about dynamic range, it's a meaningles statistic, but DxOMark weighs it super heavily, which is why they say $400 Nikon 3100 are better than $3000 Canon Mark full frames. Who cares about DxOMark, no one.

@Menneisyys

You assume the target buyer of these camera's even knows what dynamic range is. Jpegs are limited to 8 stops anyways. These cameras will still sell like hotcakes.

But still a very overblown DR problem, unless you are horrible at exposing your pics, then of course you need all the help physics allows, which is NOT even in Sony sensors, you need even MORE help !!

You need to be able to push process +20 stops worth of DR, beyond even human eye ability, that's how bad lousy exposure can be !! ;)

Overblown, just like the fetish that is low ISO DR insufficiency !!

Canon for ppl who can take/expose their photos correctly/well, Sony/Nikon for the less competent photographer with poor skills, and still do not know what 'HDR' stands for !! ;)

Sorry just had to be a bit EVIL, silly repetitive droning of the DR topic !! ;)