What sensor does the 100D actually use?

[Lumixdude]

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works. The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment? It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.


This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

 

[Lumixdude]

This is interesting where cannon says it's new http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_100d_dslr_unveiled.do . If it were new it would be the first break from the same sensor in about 4 years for the Rebel range.

Interesting but not good for Canon "you might as well keep your T3i"

 

[Lumixdude]

 

[brightcolours]

Lumixdude wrote:

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works.

Are you trolling, or being serious?

The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

What do you think is important, the nonsense figures DXO publishes, or actual images? If it is the latter, just look at images and let them tell you how good or bad Canon sensors are.

If you care about quite nonsensical DXO stuff, then go buy yourself a Nikon.

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment?

Of course not. Look at images made by Canons.

It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.

This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

 

[brightcolours]

Lumixdude wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51467773

 

[Lumixdude]

Interesting... Thank You. I didn't get a chance to look at the RAWs the guy was talking about. It looks like the 100D is back on the table and is actually an improvement. I wasn't trying to troll, just trying to get to the bottom of the new sensor in the 100D.

 

[photonius]

Lumixdude wrote:

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

No, not exactly

It's still the "same" 18MP sensor since the 7D and 550D. But it is a new "product", since it has more of the individual pixels that do phase detect focusing directly on the sensor itself. This allows for continuous focusing in video and faster live view focusing. Because these special pixels cover a larger area, it is a new sensor compared to the 700D or EOS-M, and that's why it's call Hybrid CMOS AF II (Notice the II).

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

yes.

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works. The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment?

You cannot take these DXO scores seriously, the reduce the sensor performance to a single number in a questionable way. Rather look at the shots here on dpreview to compare cameras.

It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.

This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

Another thing to consider is handling etc. Canon seems to have the edge there based on user reports.

 

[ArtMar]

I wonder why Canon would put a more (presumably) advanced sensor in the 100D than in the 700D?

Any speculations on the rationale for that?

It will be interesting to see a comparison regarding the performance of these two sensors for still images.

photonius wrote:

Lumixdude wrote:

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

No, not exactly

It's still the "same" 18MP sensor since the 7D and 550D. But it is a new "product", since it has more of the individual pixels that do phase detect focusing directly on the sensor itself. This allows for continuous focusing in video and faster live view focusing. Because these special pixels cover a larger area, it is a new sensor compared to the 700D or EOS-M, and that's why it's call Hybrid CMOS AF II (Notice the II).

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

yes.

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works. The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment?

You cannot take these DXO scores seriously, the reduce the sensor performance to a single number in a questionable way. Rather look at the shots here on dpreview to compare cameras.

It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.

This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

Another thing to consider is handling etc. Canon seems to have the edge there based on user reports.

--
*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

 

[Lumixdude]

I think it comes with the fact that they had to put a new sensor into the 100D in order to actually fit a sensor into the camera. That's to say the T4i sensor would not fit into the 100D as it's too thick. It will be interesting when some more tests begin to come out over the next few months based on retail model cameras rather than previews to see what it actually going on.

On the issue of handling the 100D I loved it when I picked it up. It felt like a camera I could carry without even a wrist strap WITH the kit lens attached, it almost feels like a go anywhere camera like my DMC-LX7, but I'll have to remind myself it is a DSLR. I am from an era of buttons and dials though, so on a drawback the touch screen will take some getting used to.

As for the DXO tests, someone on another forum raised these results and it made me query things because I know Canon has been a little behind in terms of its sensor technology but reading the other thread here has reassured me.

 

[ArtMar]

Yes, agree, we'll have to wait for the tests.

Regarding image quality of Canon sensors, I haven't seen a single post, anywhere, in which someone showed one of their photos that was less than satisfactory solely because of the somewhat smaller dynamic range of the Canon sensor compared to a Nikon sensor. Admittedly, there are so many variables involved, it would be difficult to "prove" that the unsatisfactory result was strictly due to sensor limitations, but one might think that with all the complaints about the lack of Canon sensor development over the years, that someone would have shown something to demonstrate how it negatively affected their real world photography. But not a single one! Very odd.

Lumixdude wrote:

I think it comes with the fact that they had to put a new sensor into the 100D in order to actually fit a sensor into the camera. That's to say the T4i sensor would not fit into the 100D as it's too thick. It will be interesting when some more tests begin to come out over the next few months based on retail model cameras rather than previews to see what it actually going on.

On the issue of handling the 100D I loved it when I picked it up. It felt like a camera I could carry without even a wrist strap WITH the kit lens attached, it almost feels like a go anywhere camera like my DMC-LX7, but I'll have to remind myself it is a DSLR. I am from an era of buttons and dials though, so on a drawback the touch screen will take some getting used to.

As for the DXO tests, someone on another forum raised these results and it made me query things because I know Canon has been a little behind in terms of its sensor technology but reading the other thread here has reassured me.

 

[DSHAPK]

If Canon sensors were as bad "as all that", don't you think there would be a "for sale" sign on their corporate headquarters?

The one thing you don't want is buyers remorse. If you place a lot of stock in Dxo scores or you will worry if you buy a Canon your photography will be subpar, buy a Nikon. If you want to practice the art of photography without worrying , get a Canon.

 

[Lumixdude]

I don't put a lot of stock in DXO, I come from other areas such as graphics cards where artificial benchmarks are prevalent and people put way too much stock in them, so I know exactly what they are.However I'd also been reading some bad rap both here and elsewhere about the lack of sensor updates from Canon in recent years. I got a bit ahead of myself, especially with another person saying the OM-D gets better DXO scores. Maybe it does, I'll put more stock in people who are actually using the camera... It seems generally they are more favorable to it and that review I found was nothing more than nonsense .

I love the ergonomics of the 100D, I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a lemon, which the people who actually own it don't seem to suggest it is. I mean if we're to judge lemons its definately not a lemon in the sense that the EOS-M actually is anyway.

 

[DSHAPK]

Sometimes it tough to differentiate credible talk from troll talk or measurebator talk.

I bought my t4i sight unseen, without worrying about dxo, benchmarks, online forums. It takes great pictures, but I instantly felt comfortable with it.

Camera equipment is a lot of money and I know there are people who stretch to buy the equipment they own. However, between Canon and Nikon you can't buy a bad camera. It's a trade off of features.

Unless you are in the small percentage of the population where their lively hood depends on a specific feature, buy what you want without worrying about what you *didn't* get, instead of what you got.

 

[dbledsoe]

Are you really that good a photographer that you think an indiscernible bit of sensor difference is going to be the breaking point as to good or bad with regards to your photos? Good grief! Get a grip Dude. Buy the cheapest camera that works for you, buy some lenses for it, and take a lot of photos then talk to us.

You've never owned a DSLR yet below are your concerns i.e., all technical BS? Get over it. Buy any camera, shoot lots of pics, evaluate them, then reconsider your question.

Don

Lumixdude wrote:

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works. The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment? It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.

This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

 

[Lumixdude]

Now where did I say I haven't shot with DSLRs, there seems to be an extremely large jump in logic here. Don't let that get in the way of a good troll however.

 

[photonius]

dbledsoe wrote:

Are you really that good a photographer that you think an indiscernible bit of sensor difference is going to be the breaking point as to good or bad with regards to your photos? Good grief! Get a grip Dude. Buy the cheapest camera that works for you, buy some lenses for it, and take a lot of photos then talk to us.

You've never owned a DSLR yet below are your concerns i.e., all technical BS? Get over it. Buy any camera, shoot lots of pics, evaluate them, then reconsider your question.

actually, no need to respond like that. Even if the OP has never shot with a dSLR, he is coming here to ask, and obviously he has done quite a bit of reading. With the information overload the the Web these days, it's not possible to know how "serious" these Dxo scores should be taken. The original Dxo data are actually a lot more in line with what others report (e.g. dpreview etc.), but their final single score sure has to be taken with a large grain of salt. Even if the Nikon 800D gets top scores, people have sold it again, because they had issues with it that are not reported in that single Dxo score.

Don

Lumixdude wrote:

I've read the reports that the 100D uses a thinner sensor, so the question is

1) Is it really the same as the 700D?

and

2) Is it a Canon Sensor?

Based on size and the fact I like to go hiking in my local area I was all ready to go out and buy a 100D but the sensor issues canon are having throw a spanner in the works. The Oly OM-D has the 16mp Sony sensor and is roughly the same size but is $300 more expensive. The Nikon D5200 has a better sensor than the T4i (650D) for the same price as the 100D but where does the 100D actually sit in all of this?

DXO mark shows this:
650D - 62
OM-D - 71
D5200 - 84

Are canon sensors really that bad at the moment? It makes the D5200 look tempting, but I don't hold that much weight in any form of artificial benchmark. The issue is one of size though really. The crop factor of an APS-C is also nice without having to go to a micro four third and not being able to upgrade to a full frame body later on.

This will be my first DSLR so brand isn't imperative as I'm not locked in with lenses.

 

[Lumixdude]

Thank you.

 

[Midwest]

Lumixdude wrote:

Interesting... Thank You. I didn't get a chance to look at the RAWs the guy was talking about. It looks like the 100D is back on the table and is actually an improvement. I wasn't trying to troll, just trying to get to the bottom of the new sensor in the 100D.

I don't think that the 100D's sensor is a totally new one but your comment that Canon is having 'sensor issues' is way off target. Canon is having 'sensor worrier dxo-chart fretter' issues with their sensors. There is nothing wrong with Canon's sensors. Yes, they are due for an upgrade but they were very well as they are.

Other brands are having oil spots on the sensor issues and shutter dust on the sensor issues. Is that better? And they don't like to talk about Canon's electronic shutter curtain providing a better IQ result when shooting in live view, and they only wish they had Magic Lantern available for their cameras. (Available for many, probably most Canon dSLR's.)

Don't agonize over dxo's scores. Canon is only having 'sensor issues' for the people who worship charts. Surprisingly few of those people have anything in their gallery for us to see how badly they need the very, very best dxo sensor test numbers.

--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

 

[Midwest]

DSHAPK wrote:

The one thing you don't want is buyers remorse. If you place a lot of stock in Dxo scores or you will worry if you buy a Canon your photography will be subpar, buy a Nikon.

Until Canon turns the situation around - they do from time to time - and then Nikon's dxo scores will be lower instead. Don't be a slave to numbers on a chart. Canon's sensors are just fine, and a camera is more than just a sensor with a lens.

If you want to practice the art of photography without worrying , get a Canon.

Canon does seem to do a better job of releasing cameras that don't have as many 'bugs' as some other brands lately.

 

[dbledsoe]

Lumixdude wrote:

Now where did I say I haven't shot with DSLRs, there seems to be an extremely large jump in logic here. Don't let that get in the way of a good troll however.

Granted you didn't specifically say you haven't shot with a DSLR but from your quote, "This will be my first DSLR..." it is clearly implied.

Your logic is missed here. It is you who is the troll baiter implying that Canon sensors are lacking because you read something somewhere then chose to repeat it here without bothering to do your homework. DXO is about as reliable as you are.

Don