The guys at Photo Rumors tested the new Canon EOS 7D Mark II and the DxOMark results are a bit haunting for Canon users. In the comparison charts below they found the highly anticipated Canon EOS 7D Mark II tests similar to the five year old Nikon 300s. Has Canon hit a plateau in meaningful updates to push themselves ahead of the rest of the pack? With comparisons to five year old Nikon systems, it could be the case.
Needless to say, having waited long enough for the highly rumored Canon EOS 7D Mark II, I was very excited to get my hands on the new Canon flagship crop sensor to see the major differences. Using the previous model for a few sporting events here locally it was nice to see updates in focus and speed though slight it was an upgrade. Being a Canon shooter from the start it has been a slow go at finding truly innovative jumps in bodies recently. Waiting for the next variation to only find its being compared to older Nikon or Sony bodies is discouraging and has kept me holding on to my older Canon gear even longer.
Below are some of the screen grab comparisons for the Canon EOS 7D Mark II.
On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but that’s not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightly. If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option. - DxOMark Conclusion Statement
What do you think? Have we seen a plateau in updates from Canon or camera bodies in general? Am I alone in thinking companies are taking after the Apple update scheme in releasing slight evolution steps rather than revolutionary steps as they seem to tote each year in marketing plans?
[via Photo Rumors]
I am also a canon shooter. I am jumping ship to shoot sony.
The innovations with focus peaking and using legacy glass means I will have so many more options while saving on weight and tons of $$$
I'm going to wait for the next gen A7r and I'm out canon!
Right, actually looked at Sony cameras back a few years ago when I started to research a camera to get. Now they are blowing the competition away with its lineup. Gotta let me know what you think of the A7r for sure.
What the hell are you talking about? You plan traveling ligh with Full Frame lenses? If you do an serious work you 'll get good glass , usually it weights a lot , and it makes a smaller body imbalanced and thus uncomfortable to use, that kill the whole point of mirrorless systems
I shoot everything on a tripod tethered so weight distribution isn't a problem for me.
I made that jump, exactly, a year ago. I will never go back to big bodies. Sony is a hard ship to follow - thy keep changing everything too quickly, so much that it's irritating. But that A7r - my lord - what a diamond.
Travel light, travel far.
AT
Yea, I think that was my huge hesitation in grabbing a Sony a few years ago. It was the fact they were just starting in that class of camera and knew changes would be coming as they figured it all out. They seem to be on spot with quality and size though. Prices are a little higher than I was expecting but solid still.
The entire methodology is flawed. We already know that Canon has geared performance to be skewed toward higher ISO values. 160 on Canon was the base. Now it seems like the true base of this camera is 800 or so. Beyond that, some of the measurements have becom meaningless to the human senses. Nikon show 24-25 bits of color and 14-15 stops of dynamic range. Both of these values are BEYOND what most humans can perceive. It's a lot like Crayola making a box of 512 crayons. Who is going to realize with the human eye the difference in the four shades of blue-green?
Canon has chosen to put the tech into making it easier to get a higher percentage of keepers is what I am guessing.
I recently switched from Canon to Sony. It is notable to keep in mind that most rental houses don't carry Sony stuff. That turned out to be a bigger problem that I thought.
You know I'm a Nikon shooter and even though this looks bad for Canon I still say if you're a Canon user go shoot and enjoy your Canon. Canon folks love their cameras and enjoy shooting them. If having something familiar means getting the shot then sensor quality is a bit of a second at least for myself. I think this DxO stuff is occupying too many people's time.
I love Nikons and will continue to shoot Nikon because I'm used to and like the controls and also have a lot of great Nikon glass that I particularly like. I'd still shoot them even if they didn't have great sensors..and in fact I do...my D700 is still going strong.
The point is shoot what feels good in your hands and what handles/shoots well. I think the sensor is many times secondary.
Possibly others? Is it so hard to say NIKON
This camera seems more aimed at sports users, and typically those environments are well lit, so I don't think the sensor will bee too much of detriment.
That said, it's been obvious for quite a while that Canon's sensors have been lacking behind the Sony counterparts, and possibly others. They need to concentrate more on this area.
I wish sports environments were well lit - maybe so on the TOP level.
But I often see myself going to to ISO6400 or ISO8000 levels when covering international sports :-)
Curious, what particular sports environments are underlit that you need to go to those ISOs?
For me - quite a few. I tend to cover lots of sports around Europe.
So, Cyprus Cup (women's intl. football), Floorball World Championships, EuroCup basketball (last season in Romania, Belgium), World Cup qualifiers in Slovakia, France, Germany, Volleyball CEV cup games in Germany, France...
The list could go on and on... but just few examples there :-)
But - the thing is that when I cover the games for newspapers, it is fine to go to those ISO levels and I rather have a grainy image of ISO8000, than lower by shutter speed to keep image clean but blur the action.
Perhaps it just happens to be the sports I cover.. so can only speak from my own experience.
Sports shooters will typically be shooting with long lenses, thus be needing a fast shutter speed, so high ISO can really help there too.
I seriously doubt that buying equipment based on a number will improve anyone's photography. If it does, then I am buying one of those Paint by Numbers kits, because I'm not much of a painter.
True, but being in the profession and seeing the obvious limitations every photography reaches; low light situations, load speeds, shutter speed etc. Its tough to not look at the gear as your profession grows and think how can this tool I use be better for me to capture what I am imagining in my head.
Ouch.
I'm still waiting to see evidence that doesn't suggest that DxOMark isn't sponsored by Nikon in some way. They beat out every camera according to their tests, including Sony cameras, who make Nikon's sensors.
Thank you
I've always felt Nikon and Canon are very on-par, or switching back and forth as the new high ends come out. Always had strange feelings toward DxO also. Low end Nikons beating out top-end competitors. Canons scores seeming to get worse and worse every year. Nikon beating Sony while using Sony sensors. I'm sure if there was any actual substance to there scoring Nikon would have a much, much large market share by now, especially in the high end department. More transparency on DxOs methods would be nice because I haven't seen much about that, but then again I stopped going there pretty quickly.
I agree that DxO results sometimes look weird. It also seems wrong to summarize one camera with just one score.
That being said, even though Canon JPEGs are really good straight of the camera, Canon RAWs just don't have the same quantity of information as Nikon/Sony counterparts. You can save Nikon RAWs that are 5 stops underexposed and get very decent results.
Anyway, there's much more to it than just RAW quality.
Canon lenses are gorgeous, they didn't intentionally cripple their camera to force you buy a 6000$ camera, and they listened to their users asking for pro APS body.
Finally, every Canon/Sony/Nikon/Fuji sensor has been good enough for 99.9% of the photographers, for a few years now.
There was an article on Canon Rumors the other day saying Canon are going to continue to use their own sensors in their bodies. Would be interesting to see Canon use a Sony sensor in a upcoming body and how DXO rate it. Then you would know if they're being paid by Nikon.
Canon already has used a Sony sensor with the PowerShot G7 X.
Yeah I know about them using it for the lower end cameras, but I was mainly referring to DSLR's. The high MP body that Canon are supposedly working on is rumoured to be using a Sony sensor.
Quite possible, many of the medium format cameras are now using a Sony sensor.
Ha! Who knows. I used Snapsort? Or something like that when I first started looking for a camera to compare and see price differences in my range. Though the 60D I have and shoot with was beat out by most Nikons I just thought the Canon felt good in the hand and I saw the ease of use was much better to flip through settings in a fast pace environment.
While I don't put a lot of stock in DXOmark, I don't think they're Nikon biased. Sony has one of the top 3 rated sensors, and 4 of the top 10. I think the biggest issue for Sony (until recently) is that they've been using an SLT setup, which is going to rob light from the sensor, which is probably impacting the Alpha line's scores.
Also, every video I've seen that puts the Canon sensors vs Nikon Sensors (even back to the D700) have kinda verified that Canon's DR could use work. The shadows in Canon sensors are pretty weird once you start lifting them.
It also depends on what criteria they use for weighting the scores.
Thanks for being reasonable. It's amazing how many loyalists comments are on this thread. It only reveals how they deal with their insecurities...
Actually the current "low light king" is the Sony A7s according to DXO mark so they don't put Nikon above Sony all the time. I think it boils down to Sony being the leader in sensor technology which helps out Nikon a lot. As far as Canon, they just seem behind the 8 ball with sensor technology but in all honesty it doesn't matter to anyone except the tech obsessed.
Zach, why don't you suggest to Canon to prove that DxOMark test is flawed. Unfortunately, I am confident that Canon will prove you wrong. The DxOMark results are so damaging to Canon that their legal department will take actions if any false claims are made about their products that will adversely impact its sales.
So as an engineer, may I suggest to you that your request for evidence is illogical? If you do not understand my point, then please help me out here. I want you to prove that Canon did not pay you to raise doubts about the DxOMark data.
That is because Nikon has a *lot* more experience with DSLRs in getting the most out of a sensor to finely tune it to the DSLR.
Anyway, the improvement in a Sony sensor in a Nikon body vs a Sony sensor in Sony body is a rather small difference. There is no conspiracy here! lol
I can remember just a few years before how I was so mad at Nikon for being so far behind Canon and I always wanted to make the switch. The moral of the story? None of this matters and be happy with what you have. It's more than good enough.
Soon canon will be back slightly ahead and Nikon users will talk about switching all over again.
Totally agree with you Lee. Grab a camera you can afford and shoot. Making work that's meaningful is more important than camera brand. Of course, I am mainly a Canon shooter.
Exactly!! Just be happy with what you're shooting....this really doesn't matter when all is said and done. I don't begrudge anyone for their equipment choices(well maybe Leica users perhaps :) ) because it's just a comfortable tool to help them accomplish their creative goal.
Yea, I don't think its the issue of being happy with what I shoot. I have a 4 year old body I still shoot with today and its awesome (given I have some quality glass to pair with it) its just the fact we shouldn't have to see 3-5% jumps in ISO each year with a camera body. Considering low light is the number one culprit for most shooters it would be nice to get a larger jump each year. I chalk it up to the company seeing large sales each year either way and they would rather slow roll it for longevity than building something badass from the start. They have it in them as they did with the 5D ii but just haven't seen that as much. With something as long in the tooth as the first 7D I was just expecting more is all.
I'm certainly no expert on Canon sales but demand for Canon DSLRs seems quite high or rather their models are popular despite this. Probably a lot of truth in what you're saying about deliberately stunting growth - computer CPU companies such as Intel have done this for years.
That's because Canon has always had larger market share, which means more people will recommend Canon DSLRs to their moms and uncles, and other beginners, etc...When Christmas rolls around. Then these beginners grow into adept users and keep buying Canon because it's familiar and they're already invested.
Plus Canon has always had spectacular professional support, which is part of the reason why you don't see many Sony cameras at the Olympics or other events (lack of support).
It's not necessarily because people are completely content with Canon products. It has to do a lot with existing market share and things other than the actual products.
I agree and still have my 4 year old Canon body I shoot with today. I picked it up 2 years ago knowing it was a 2 year old body. Not saying what I have isn't good enough to shoot quality work just looking at the future of Canon/Nikon and beyond and eventually my next potential body purchase to progressively move forward. I have been a little disappointed in the minimal updates by these large brands though. If new cameras get compared to 2-4 year old models thats not looking good. Me being someone that has only been shooing a couple years I have not seen the swings in one brand leading against the next, I have always seen Nikon and Canon fairly neck and neck but its not really about that but the anger in not seeing something pushed to the limits. In the end its most likely about money, minimal updates each year shows great sales for them either way so why push it further? Just like cars or any other product. Being a young gun though I am stuck in this tech savvy world where we are making leaps in bounds in some areas but almost standing still in others. Maybe the hype got to me on this one though.
I don't why, but it kind of bothers me when people comment on a 4 year old body. It's almost like saying that anything captured before that wasn't good which we all know to be untrue. It also probably doesn't help that I shoot on a 5d classic, 5dmk2 and 1dsmk2. All of those cameras are at least 5-8 years old and still delivery great images.
Yes, there are rimes that I would like a little more dr in my pictures but I just have to compensate but editing a little bit more. The day that a camera can take pictures and have them look edit right off the bat is the day that we all lose our competitive edge as photographers.
The thing I'm fighting is this feeling that, on a technical note, I'm being hindered in a way by Canon sensors. I mean, yeah, artistically it shouldn't matter, but it's kind of annoying when I have to say "Well, I can't bring up the shadows too much at ISO 100 because Canon sensors have god-awful shadow noise."
The thing about Nikon is that they saw their sensors were struggling and partnered up with Sony to create some spectacular cameras.
Canon on the other-hand, is gonna keep doing what they've been doing, even though it's been comparatively mediocre. Which is why I'm switching to Nikon when I get the chance.
Was a Canon user a few years back till I was given a D700 (50D, 5D). I always post-edit my footages and only when I had the Nikon did I realise how important Dynamic Range can impact any event shoot. Never looked back since. And as a current D800e user, I still wonder why so many still underestimate the power of Dynamic Range and still scoff at it as "just a number"...
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Even if the sensor has basically tech from five years ago, that doesn't mean that your pictures will be bad because of it. Otherwise it would mean that every picture from five years ago is bad. Are they? Yeah, my pics are but that's a different story....
The next point is that you can't fool physics. Five years of development give you about 30% low-light improvement, not much if you ask me. But you can't capture a white image where no light is. I think we're slowly reaching a limit where we need a completely new and different sensor design.
(- a Sony user)
Ha! Captruing white image where there is no light. Nice! I have heard rumors of Canon working on a new sensor but who knows if that is true and when it will ever come out. Considering they have unloaded quite a few cameras this past year or two its tough to tell.
You mean an organic sensor like what Fuji-Panasonic are working on and pattenting?
sudddenly I feel more and more attracted to medium format
Disappointing. I was considering getting the 7Dii because my current bodies don't perform well at high ISOs... Was hoping to see better numbers in that department.
The truth of the matter is that this score means nothing in for the folks who will be using this camera. DR is only better at low ISOs and this camera will mostly be used at 1600 and above where it is actually better at DR than its Nikon counterparts. This camera has usable images at ISO 12,800 and even 16,000. AF is the best of any camera out there and at 10 fps and top of the line weather sealing you can't beat this camera for what it is intended to do. Scott Kelby recently said the almost forgot he wasn't shooting with a 1DX when he was using it at football game. Go switch to sony and take it to a professional football game with your limited selection of top of the line lenses and see if you are not laughed out of the stadium.
I shot an entire season for professional soccer team this summer here in Indianapolis for their inaugural year with my iPhone. Now, given the images were mainly used for promotions via social media like Instagram (where they grew from 1000 to over 5000 in that summer) because of the change in quality of content and overall branding of the team. It was funny to sit next to the guy with his 400mm 1Dx with an iPhone though. Ha!
Lab testing is what is... lab testing... useless, until they can show with practical examples how their research is impacting our daily bread and butter; as not one of us will be using our equipment to shoot charts in a dark lab on a daily basis.
Sony might indeed be making the best sensors right now, lets assume that´s true, but up to this point no one (Dxo labs included) could tell (unless by looking at the exif info) which camera/lens configuration was used to take any given professional photograph.
In my opinion regardless of what the Lab says, when you look at a great photograph Dxo´s charts are the last thing that will cross the viewer’s mind. The same technique is used to sell TV´s, they offer hundreds of billions of colors our human eyes can´t see anyways.