# DXO calls the D7200 "Super awesome greatness with frosting on top"



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2015)

File under "Did they really need to test the camera to write this?":

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D7200-The-new-APS-C-champ/Comparison-2-Nikon-D7200-vs-Canon-7D-Mark-II-vs-Sony-A77-II

:

- A


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 10, 2015)

Fantastic performance! Same result as Sony A7S! 
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Sony-A7S___1020_949

:


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 10, 2015)

Nikon deserves one DxOMark Trophies:

The RAW file more properly cooked inside the camera






Yet D7200 is a great camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2015)

And once again, it is a test of the sensor, not the camera.....

This makes as much sense as testing the motors in a Lamborghini and a F350 pickup truck and concluding that the Lamborghini will do a better job pulling a hay wagon out of a muddy field because it has a better engine.

The test here shows that the Nikon has the better sensor, so LABEL THE STORY AS "NIKON SENSOR IS BETTER"!, not that it is a better camera because that was not tested....


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> And once again, it is a test of the sensor, not the camera.....
> 
> This makes as much sense as testing the motors in a Lamborghini and a F350 pickup truck and concluding that the Lamborghini will do a better job pulling a hay wagon out of a muddy field because it has a better engine.
> 
> The test here shows that the Nikon has the better sensor, so LABEL THE STORY AS "NIKON SENSOR IS BETTER"!, not that it is a better camera because that was not tested....



We're all making fun of DXO here -- you understand that, right? I thought my thread title was a bit of a giveaway.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And once again, it is a test of the sensor, not the camera.....
> ...


sometimes I have a hard time seeing the obvious


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> This makes as much sense as testing the motors in a Lamborghini and a F350 pickup truck and concluding that the Lamborghini will do a better job pulling a hay wagon...



Well, maybe not a hay wagon...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This makes as much sense as testing the motors in a Lamborghini and a F350 pickup truck and concluding that the Lamborghini will do a better job pulling a hay wagon...
> ...


and you can't put two canoes on the roof, gear and food for two weeks in the back, pick up three passengers, and head down a rough dirt road to the river.....


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2015)

Hmm, that car looks familiar - I think I saw it on South Beach one time - good to see he parks better with a trailer attached 

EDIT: my mistake, this is another similar car, just like Nikon's many many models that all appear to be almost the same ;D


----------



## TeT (Apr 10, 2015)

Look at the results, the Nikon clearly wins.

Looking at the chart they obviously pencil whipped the results as evidenced by the fact that they never even removed the Nikon's body cap.

Apparently we need to have Jackie Chan oversee the next round of testing...


----------



## lintoni (Apr 10, 2015)

Damn, and DPReview have just proclaimed the Samsung NX1 as the ultimate mega APS king with whipped cream and cherries on top, despite the fact that the AF struggles in poor light... or unless you're using one of two lenses... or...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=reviews-latest-widget&utm_medium=image&ref=reviews-latest-widget


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Damn, and DPReview have just proclaimed the Samsung NX1 as the ultimate mega APS king with whipped cream and cherries on top, despite the fact that the AF struggles in poor light... or unless you're using one of two lenses... or...
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=reviews-latest-widget&utm_medium=image&ref=reviews-latest-widget


Are you saying the sum of the parts isn't greater than the whole? How dare you question them? Just because you can't use the camera in a lot of situations and it's performance is lacking in others, doesn't mean it's not the greatest camera ever. DR at ISO 100 is all that matters!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> DR at ISO 100 is all that matters!



Nice to see that you finally *get it*.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, and DPReview have just proclaimed the Samsung NX1 as the ultimate mega APS king with whipped cream and cherries on top, despite the fact that the AF struggles in poor light... or unless you're using one of two lenses... or...
> ...


The sun shines out of the backside of that camera! (At least, that's my understanding of BSI)


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2015)

lintoni said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...


Great one!!!


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 10, 2015)

Wow, an overall score of 87, that's fantastic!

Just be sure to tell that to the moose and bald eagle next time you see one, and surely they'll line up to have their pictures taken.
Unless the moose is wearing tight plaid, then he probably wants a film camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2015)

If you give him a film camera, he'll want a darkroom to go with it.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 11, 2015)

*The point that really needs to sink in is the d7200 is now 13.8 stops of measured EV AT SCREEN RESOLUTION*
That's pretty much the theoretical limit.
So this leaves room for 16 bit ADCs next
While *Canon is still providing, uhm, let's see.... Oh my, 11.1* with the 7d2 :-[

*Canon's better at hi ISO?*.... 
*nope!*
iso 6400 has the d7200 beating the 7d2 by 0.6 EV  (and at every other point on the chart)

What else you ask?..
Yes, the D7200 also has 2/3 stop better color (metamerism) response as well.

Bwah hahaha! ;D sorry, couldn't resist. I don't have a d7200 but I'll consider it as an upgrade next time I need a new Nikon crop body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

Nice to see there are a few members of the 'only the sensor matters' crew still around. DxOMark rulez. Rock on lens cap shooters!!


----------



## Aglet (Apr 11, 2015)

Ya! 
Well, if anyone's suggesting that the very impressive sensor measurements of the d7200 are a distraction to a camera that's, somehow, overall lacking in capability, they can go ahead and point out what might be lacking from the rest of the product to support that insinuation.

Here, I'll start;
- dang, it only shoots 6 fps so I'm less likely to be able to catch a bird in flight with it's wings in _exactly_ the right position. 
OTOH, you'll be able to shoot a blackbird flying away from you, into a sunset, and still lift the dark portions in post enough to make out its vent.  worthwhile tradeoff?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 11, 2015)

Canon / 7D II is more than fortunate that Nikon is dumb enough to not stick that D7200 Sensor also into a kick-ass D400 camera. Absolutely unbelievably stupid of them. 



Aglet said:


> Ya!
> Well, if anyone's suggesting that the very impressive sensor measurements of the d7200 are a distraction to a camera that's, somehow, overall lacking in capability, they can go ahead and point out what might be lacking from the rest of the product to support that insinuation.
> 
> Here, I'll start;
> ...


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2015)

Looks like an intriguing APS-C camera to me. If you look beyond the DxO scoring, which still is a bit of a mystery to me, the sensor clearly is a high quality sensor. I have looked at some other tests and they seem to confirm that part of it. Would I have liked to see this sensor performance in the 7DII? A definite Yes!

The AF system is a bit behind the 7DII, but it still looks quite potent and going to -3EV is not a bad thing. If I´m not mistaken, the only Canon body that can do that is the 6D.

6fps is less than 10 fps, but it is probably more of an all-round camera, than a more specialised action/wildlife camera, like the 7DII. We have lots of happy 5DIII owners here, which somehow manage with the fps delivered there.

The absolute show-stopper for the D7100 was the buffer, which went into coma after about 3 raw images. The new spec says 100 jpegs and 27 raw. If that turns out to be true, then that show-stopper is gone.

Skimming through the rest of the functionality, it seems to deliver the majority of things I would look for. On top of that it is cheaper than the 7DII. If it had a Canon label up front, I believe we would have read quite a bit of praise for this camera.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Canon / 7D II is more than fortunate that Nikon is dumb enough to not stick that D7200 Sensor also into a kick-ass D400 camera. Absolutely unbelievably stupid of them.



Yes, I have to agree that, beyond the 3k & 5k series, they've done some odd things to their lineup.
Decent products but questionable market placement. I've got nothing to complain about, I find the gear fits my purposes very well but I can understand those who are disappointed that something like the D700 was not truly updated.
OTOH, I've been salivating for so long for what could be possible for a D4x, sensor-wise at least, that my mouth has dried up.
.. 54MP worth of d7200 level+ IQ. GIMME!


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 11, 2015)

Aglet said:


> ...worthwhile tradeoff?



For me it's all about that extra thumb lever. If the 5D4 has 15 stops of DR at 30MP and shoots 10 fps but doesn't have that lever I'm still going to have to think long and hard about which camera is better.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 11, 2015)

As the man who started this thread -- in jest, I might add -- it turns my stomach to see fans of the D7200 actually show up and say nice things. This was supposed to be a DXO Bashing Club meeting.

That said -- now that you brought it up -- the D7200 is a *peach* of a camera. 

When I miss shots because of the slow burst rate or dodgy AF system, it's _amazing_. My misses have all the rich detail and color depth that I paid for. After all, I demand best-in-class missed shots, people. I want people to come to my home and see my enlargements of the eagle two frames _after_ it ate the fish but _I've really only printed it out to show how well I can push the shadows_.

- A


----------



## charlesa (Apr 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> As the man who started this thread -- in jest, I might add -- it turns my stomach to see fans of the D7200 actually show up and say nice things. This was supposed to be a DXO Bashing Club meeting.
> 
> That said -- now that you brought it up -- the D7200 is a *peach* of a camera.
> 
> ...



Hilarious  +1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> When I miss shots because of the slow burst rate or dodgy AF system, it's _amazing_. My misses have all the rich detail and color depth that I paid for. After all, I demand best-in-class missed shots, people. I want people to come to my home and see my enlargements of the eagle two frames _after_ it ate the fish but _I've really only printed it out to show how well I can push the shadows_.



I trust you were using Nikon's affordable high-IQ 400mm f/5.6 lens when you missed peak action with that eagle. But at least you could push the shadows, because as we all know the sensor is all that matters...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The AF system is a bit behind the 7DII, but it still looks quite potent and going to -3EV is not a bad thing. If I´m not mistaken, the only Canon body that can do that is the 6D.



So 51-pts with 15 cross-type points clustered in the center is just 'a bit' behind 65-pts all cross-type spread wide across the frame with a central high-precision f/2.8 dual-cross point?

Incidentally, the 7DII also has AF sensitivity down to -3 EV.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> If it had a Canon label up front, I believe we would have read quite a bit of praise for this camera.


_As a 7D Mk II "Lite"_, maybe. In reality it's nowhere near the Canon.


----------



## jblake (Apr 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The AF system is a bit behind the 7DII, but it still looks quite potent and going to -3EV is not a bad thing. If I´m not mistaken, the only Canon body that can do that is the 6D.
> ...


Yes, but only the center cross-type AF point on the 7D II, has that ability. The D7200 has 15 cross-type AF points that are all -3 EV.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The AF system is a bit behind the 7DII, but it still looks quite potent and going to -3EV is not a bad thing. If I´m not mistaken, the only Canon body that can do that is the 6D.
> ...


Yupp, as I said, it is a bit behind the 7DII. I had actually forgotten that the 7DII also go to -3EV. 

In general, I believe the 7DII beats the D7200 in everything, but the sensor, at a $400/30% price premium. The D7200 price is actually closer to the 70D than the 7DII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2015)

jblake said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



It's incidental - I pointed it out only to correct the facts. An example of -3 EV is 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 51200. I'm not sure if ISO 51200 is even available on either camera, but if so I am sure it's utterly useless.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > If it had a Canon label up front, I believe we would have read quite a bit of praise for this camera.
> ...


The 7DII is 30%/$400 more expensive, so it should also be better. The sensor in the D7200 is still better though. A more reasonable comparison is actually the 70D, which is only $200 cheaper.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's incidental - I pointed it out only to correct the facts. An example of -3 EV is 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 51200. I'm not sure if ISO 51200 is even available on either camera, but if so I am sure it's utterly useless.



then a more appropriate example would be 4 min @ f/5.6 at base ISO for a moonlight landscape

d7200's center AF is also f/8 capable, so slap those tele-converters on a long lens and carry on, low-cost.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 12, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


70D is almost 2 years old camera. Canon dumps lot of them for $799. Some of us even got for this price with 18-135 kit lens. Looks like finally Nikon matched with 70d in terms of buffer and fps. d7100 should be this d7200 if not for Nikon being stingy with buffer and fps. I really doubt there is any noticeable difference between d7100 and d7200. is there any AF tracking in video for Nikon like dual pixel tech? How do they match with 70d/7d2 in terms of video capability and stm lens.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 12, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Damn, and DPReview have just proclaimed the Samsung NX1 as the ultimate mega APS king with whipped cream and cherries on top, despite the fact that the AF struggles in poor light... or unless you're using one of two lenses... or...
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=reviews-latest-widget&utm_medium=image&ref=reviews-latest-widget


I am really surprised with their rating. Camera designed for fast action shooting struggles in low light and get their gold rating. 7d2 which exactly does this, gets their silver rating. Samsung video capabilities might be another reason. But dpr always recommended d7100 over 70d, 7d2 and Sony in their best buys articles.
Samsung makes nice stuff but they go great lengths in marketing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's incidental - I pointed it out only to correct the facts. An example of -3 EV is 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 51200. I'm not sure if ISO 51200 is even available on either camera, but if so I am sure it's utterly useless.
> ...



So you're on a tripod for a long night exposure, but you're going to use dedicated PDAF? Perhaps you would, given Nikon's crappy Live View implementation. I'd just use Live View AF on a Canon body, as I've done frequently. 




Aglet said:


> d7200's center AF is also f/8 capable, so slap those tele-converters on a long lens and carry on, low-cost.



As is the 7DII. Which low cost long lens did you plan to use with the TC on the Nikon? The 80-400mm costing $2700? The Canon 400/5.6L is less than half the price, and does very well with a 1.4x TC on a 7DII with AF. 

You really should quit before you fall even further behind... :


----------



## candc (Apr 12, 2015)

Remember that competition is a good thing for all of us. Other manufacturers making technological advances and keeping prices reasonable puts pressure on canon to step on the development pedal and do the same. Seems to me that canon has come out with some really great gear lately and there is more to come.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> ..I really doubt there is any noticeable difference between d7100 and d7200. is there any AF tracking in video for Nikon like dual pixel tech? How do they match with 70d/7d2 in terms of video capability and stm lens.



I don't know about video (don't care) but the d7200 had actually made huge improvements in sensor metrics over the d7100. (Sony vs Toshiba sensor?)


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're on a tripod for a long night exposure, but you're going to use dedicated PDAF? Perhaps you would, given Nikon's crappy Live View implementation. I'd just use Live View AF on a Canon body, as I've done frequently.



well, it can PDAF in moonlight.
or it can be focused in other ways as any experienced camera user may know
Yes, Canon's FF live-view in low light has been quite handy and one of the first things I missed when I bought my d800s. But I quickly got over missing that minor shortcoming. ;D



neuroanatomist said:


> As is the 7DII. Which low cost long lens did you plan to use with the TC on the Nikon? The 80-400mm costing $2700? The Canon 400/5.6L is less than half the price, and does very well with a 1.4x TC on a 7DII with AF.




no specific lens was mentioned.
I'm merely stating you can multiply your FL comfortably knowing the center AF point can handle it.

But, since you're pressing the issue, and how unlike you to proffer the tiny 400mm prime instead of waving oversized barrels of white paint around with misplaced machismo, I'd likely hoist the heavy Sigma 150-600 Sport for max versatility.




neuroanatomist said:


> You really should quit before you fall even further behind... :



The only "behind" here is that arse-inine comment. 

Golly, wouldn't it kinda suck to own an expensive 1dx when a much cheaper Nikon crop has a vastly superior sensor combined with a perfectly adequate AF system? Geez, ya know, when I look at the color and SNR numbers, even the old d5100's sensor outperforms the 1dx at low iso. I mean, that's gotta be embarrassing if you can't wave that thing around with pride until 800iso or more.
Maybe you can tell us about those few niche applications where the 1dx can actually excel? I'm sure someone will find it useful to know when a $5k camera can do better than a $400 one. 

Well, just pokin' you back, Neuro. But feel free to take the bait and answer those last questions. ;D


----------



## syder (Apr 12, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As is the 7DII. Which low cost long lens did you plan to use with the TC on the Nikon? The 80-400mm costing $2700? The Canon 400/5.6L is less than half the price, and does very well with a 1.4x TC on a 7DII with AF.
> ...



You're going to stick teleconverters on an f6.3 lens and use AF at f8? I guess Nikon teleconverters must not lose light unlike the crappy Canon ones


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

syder said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I guess I should've been more clear, no need for teleconverter with a 600mm on a crop body.
Or a 1.4x at most and the darn thing would likely still AF with that combo in decent light.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 12, 2015)

candc said:


> Remember that competition is a good thing for all of us. Other manufacturers making technological advances and keeping prices reasonable puts pressure on canon to step on the development pedal and do the same ...


I could not agree more. As I have stated numerous times before, I find it absolutely amazing that, instead of cheering for technology advances amongst the various suppliers out there, because it will/should result in better products also from Canon, we have the continuous tirades of why any improvement not originating from Canon is a useless feature. An example in this thread is the -3EV AF. When Canon provided -3EV on the centre point of the 6D and later the 7DII, it was a great feature. When Nikon offers -3EV at all 15 centre points, it´s actually quite useless ... :

Every time someone is making a point of a feature on a Sony or Nikon camera, that objectively is superior to what Canon offers, most notably sensors, we end up in a bashing for all the things that was not pointed out and all the features Canon has that Sony and Nikon does not have. Instead of demanding the same performance from Canon, on the specific area pointed out, we get a tirade of Canon-please-don´t-change-anything-we´re-so-happy arguments. 

Ill repeat myself (I); It looks stupid ...

I´ll repeat myself (II): I do NOT want a Sony or Nikon camera, because there are numerous things I don´t like. But I expect Canon to provide the same or better performance in specific areas as Nikon and Sony (or any other supplier) offers, most notably sensors.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 12, 2015)

Eldar said:


> In general, I believe the 7DII beats the D7200 in everything, but the sensor, at a $400/30% price premium. The D7200 price is actually closer to the 70D than the 7DII.



Correct, and let's see about d7200 street prices. As in the times when I had to decide between 60d and the then d7100, I find that Nikon is very, very competetive in the xxd segment and you really have to actively look for reasons to buy Canon when going "above Rebel, but below premium 7d2".

Lucky us that all these are all excellent cameras by now in any case, so probably there is no "bad" choice but just shades of "good".



Eldar said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that competition is a good thing for all of us. Other manufacturers making technological advances and keeping prices reasonable puts pressure on canon to step on the development pedal and do the same ...
> ...



I couldn't agree more, too!

I do sympathize for the notion that after having invested thousands of €€€ into some brand you are reluctant to ack the competition advancing ... and you feel attached to it after decades of shooting with the specific ergonomics. But senseless fanboisim only demonstrates that there really might be a problem for Canon here, or the reactions would be much calmer than people trawling the forum and crushing everyone who happens to mention usage cases of the Sonikon sensors.

Personally, I'm happy for whatever Sonikon does because without them, there would be no 6d at all and the 5d3 would still be at €3500+ ... now if they'd only build radio flashes, we might even see a 440ex-rt.

_General rules of CR fanboism:
1. If you don't like Canon, go away and buy Sonikon, or at least don't voice your opinion in public.
2. If you don't own Canon (anymore), go away, too, you have no business commenting on it.
3. If rule 2 shouldn't apply, see rule 1 :->_


----------



## lintoni (Apr 12, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, and DPReview have just proclaimed the Samsung NX1 as the ultimate mega APS king with whipped cream and cherries on top, despite the fact that the AF struggles in poor light... or unless you're using one of two lenses... or...
> ...


It is certainly a very interesting camera and once Samsung get a decent lens lineup to go with the body, I can see them providing a decent system. But they're not there yet. DPR seem to have rated the camera solely on its potential, not on its actual usability now. They reckon that any problems will be fixed with firmware updates and are therefore not worth taking into account. Likewise future lens availability.

There's no doubt that Samsung have massive potential... I can see them being a major, major player in the camera market in the near future - more problems for Sony ahead, I feel. I suspect that DPR see the same thing and that there is a bit of politicking in their review - get in Samsung's good books now for future exclusives later on down the line.


----------



## msm (Apr 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Couldn't agree more with both of you, and this thread is perhaps the most pathetic I've seen on this forum.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > In general, I believe the 7DII beats the D7200 in everything, but the sensor, at a $400/30% price premium. The D7200 price is actually closer to the 70D than the 7DII.
> ...


I agree with all of this.

My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....

The point being, this is only one aspect of a cameras worth. For some, it is the most important aspect, for others it is secondary. It's importance is a personal thing.

Those who fixate on it as "the true measure of a camera" are delusional. Those who dismiss it are equally delusional. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reality is that all the aspects matter and that all manufactures are striving to improve, and whatever choice you make now is a fine camera.

And to really put things in perspective, the lens you choose will have far more impact on your photography that the camera you choose....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

Eldar said:


> An example in this thread is the -3EV AF. When Canon provided -3EV on the centre point of the 6D and later the 7DII, it was a great feature. When Nikon offers -3EV at all 15 centre points, it´s actually quite useless ... :



Well, since I'm the only one who pointed out some realities of the practical utility of -3 EV AF (following your own initial erroneous reference to it), it appears you're referring to me. So, please point out where I've ever touted it as a great feature. I think I've been quite consistent in my disdain. Of course, some people like to use revisionist history to support specious arguments. 




Eldar said:


> Every time someone is making a point of a feature on a Sony or Nikon camera, that objectively is superior to what Canon offers, most notably sensors, we end up in a bashing for all the things that was not pointed out and all the features Canon has that Sony and Nikon does not have. Instead of demanding the same performance from Canon, on the specific area pointed out, we get a tirade of Canon-please-don´t-change-anything-we´re-so-happy arguments.



Every time a new Canon camera comes out or is even mentioned, we get a tirade of DRoning. Some people just have difficulty accepting that their own personal needs/wants/priorities aren't necessarily representative of others'. 




Marsu42 said:


> ... there really might be a problem for Canon here, or the reactions would be much calmer than people trawling the forum and crushing everyone who happens to mention usage cases of the Sonikon sensors.



Some people also seem to think their views represent the views of the majority of Canon's market, and that's what is truly ridiculous. Still, they continue to state that Canon 'has a problem' and _must_ impove low ISO DR, or else. Or else what? Exactly. There are some people who've been making those statements here for years. I wonder...do they expect a different result from Canon? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result...that's one definition of insanity. 




Don Haines said:


> My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....
> 
> The point being, this is only one aspect of a cameras worth. For some, it is the most important aspect, for others it is secondary. It's importance is a personal thing.
> 
> ...



+1

I'll add that while I don't see anyone dismissing low ISO DR, I do see plenty of people dismissing everything else.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > An example in this thread is the -3EV AF. When Canon provided -3EV on the centre point of the 6D and later the 7DII, it was a great feature. When Nikon offers -3EV at all 15 centre points, it´s actually quite useless ... :
> ...



-1
your example was the first one in this topic, and a rather poor and unlikely example at that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



You're just supporting my point - there aren't any good and likely examples of the utility of phase detect AF at -3 EV. Period. Which makes the whole idea of touting it as an advantage a red herring.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 12, 2015)

I regard -3 EV capable AF systems (or at least Some AF sensors) pretty much the same way as cars that can do 250 kph. While thT capability may have little practical use in itself, i do expect such a car to run smoother and better at 130 kph than a car with a top speed of 140 kph. 
And -3 EV AF sensors are hopefully performibg really well at +3 EV where lesser AF systems may already start to struggle.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This makes as much sense as testing the motors in a Lamborghini and a F350 pickup truck and concluding that the Lamborghini will do a better job pulling a hay wagon...
> ...



I know I'm late to this party, but didn't Lamborghini start out making tractors and other farm equipment? 











PS: Don, I totally agree with the point you're making. Couldn't resist the tractor angle and pulling hay wagons.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're just supporting my point



not THIS point! 



neuroanatomist said:


> - there aren't any good and likely examples of the utility of phase detect AF at -3 EV. Period.



AF system performance is usually sped'd at the dark end using a particular lens, often a 50/1.4. 
I don't see what lens Nikon spec'd for this measurement in this case so let's presume that 50/1.4 is implied so that means AF performance under a full moon. Great, that comes in handy. 
It can also be a similar light level to an interior room in the evening without any direct lighting (sleeping baby picture anyone?)

Slap a small prime or slower zoom on that camera and now it's handicapped by 1, 2, even 3 or more EV of minimum AF light level. That -3EV AF rating opens up a lot more low, natural-light type shooting options using PDAF where it's actually still possible to hand-hold a hi-iso shot and get a usable image or quickly achieve focus while using a tripod.

Dismissing it as a "red herring" is simply unfounded.
You otta know there's plenty of other people shooting under plenty of different conditions than the ones you might engage in.
-3EV or better low light AF ability is a very welcome feature on _any_ camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2015)

-3 EV is just like DR. You don't need it a lot, but when you do, you REALLY do! 

And look at the alternative.... Is there anyone arguing for less sensitivity? 

Canon does some things better than Nikon. Nikon does some things better than Canon. When anyone makes an improvement, they are raising the bar and eventually the others will follow. Rejoice in the improvements, not ridicule them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I regard -3 EV capable AF systems (or at least Some AF sensors) pretty much the same way as cars that can do 250 kph. While thT capability may have little practical use in itself, i do expect such a car to run smoother and better at 130 kph than a car with a top speed of 140 kph.



You can regard it however you want, but without any data to support such an assertion in the case of AF sensors, it really doesn't matter. 

By the way, do you often use mechanical systems as a model for performance of solid state electronics? :


----------



## Eldar (Apr 12, 2015)

Just to reduce your post to a couple of points;



neuroanatomist said:


> Well, since I'm the only one who pointed out some realities of the practical utility of -3 EV AF (following your own initial erroneous reference to it), it appears you're referring to me. So, please point out where I've ever touted it as a great feature. I think I've been quite consistent in my disdain. Of course, some people like to use revisionist history to support specious arguments.
> 
> Every time a new Canon camera comes out or is even mentioned, we get a tirade of DRoning. Some people just have difficulty accepting that their own personal needs/wants/priorities aren't necessarily representative of others'.
> 
> Some people also seem to think their views represent the views of the majority of Canon's market, and that's what is truly ridiculous.


My only reference to -3EV at that point was that it only came in the 6D, with a "if I´m not mistaken" attached, which you corrected. Thank you. I don´t believe that is an "erroneous reference". But since you bring it up; In your world -3EV is apparently a red herring. It is not in mine and probably not in a few others amongst us in the minority, especially if I could get 15 focusing points instead of just one. I see lots of low light, slow shutter speed, low ISO situations, maybe even with a tripod, where that can be very handy. But then again, I am just one of the peripheral photographers, living on the side of the famous majority. 

No, the problem when a new Canon camera comes out or is mentioned is not tirades of DRoning, which in most cases are statements of disappointment that Canon keep on releasing cameras with sensor performance lagging behind the competition. The problem is the condescending, insulting and repetitive sand box bashing from a few low DR defenders, turning it into a war on anything but DR.

Who are the majority and who are the minorities? Interesting question. What Canon should be concerned with is that the market is shrinking. In a situation like that, it is a very peculiar strategy, unless it is lack of ability, to release products that does not beat the competition in every department possible, especially in the higher priority areas, like the sensor. Canon is good at a lot of things, but they are behind on sensors. 

By the way, this will be my last post on this thread. Have a good night!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 12, 2015)

msm said:


> Couldn't agree more with both of you, and this thread is perhaps the most pathetic I've seen on this forum.



Well, I guess there is brand attachment all over the net, and I find CR (apart from the usual trashy Sonikon vs. Canon threads) very reasonable as at the end of the day, 99% of users agree it's about the right tool for the individual requirements. Differences seem to be about how/where to voice these preferences.



neuroanatomist said:


> Some people also seem to think their views represent the views of the majority of Canon's market, and that's what is truly ridiculous.



Sure, I absolutely agree - it's a common human fallacy to think the rest of the world thinks the same, a lot of psychological phenomena can be explained that way.

It's just that the reverse conclusion imho is equally invalid - just because Canon is the market leader doesn't mean people (even Canon users) don't want or "need" features unavailable to them. Example: You shot with movement has blown whites even when properly exposed, this means you "need" more dr, though it's a matter of preference how vital it is.

Last not least, another human fallacy is to prefer things that we have more information about - from a psychological perspective the grass is *not* greener on the other side. For this very reason alone a bias towards Canon should be substracted from posts in a Canon forum, i.e. long time Canon users taking the pain to talk about shortcomings don't chose the easy, but the hard way out.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Apr 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I regard -3 EV capable AF systems (or at least Some AF sensors) pretty much the same way as cars that can do 250 kph. While thT capability may have little practical use in itself, i do expect such a car to run smoother and better at 130 kph than a car with a top speed of 140 kph.


You're equating top speed with high speed stability. Anyone who has had enough experience with sports cars would tell you that the one is not necessarily an indicator of the other any more than frame rate or ergonomics is an indicator of high IQ, DR, or noise levels.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 12, 2015)

Not everyone shoots with ambient only. -3Ev can be useful for flash photography in a dark environment. Subject can be completely flash-lit but ambient light is very low. (e.g. you shoot with ST-E3 on camera triggering off camera flashes.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2015)

Eldar said:


> My only reference to -3EV at that point was that it only came in the 6D, with a "if I´m not mistaken" attached, which you corrected. Thank you. I don´t believe that is an "erroneous reference".



You're right - my apologies for ignoring your uncertainty. 




Eldar said:


> But since you bring it up; In your world -3EV is apparently a red herring. It is not in mine and probably not in a few others amongst us in the minority, especially if I could get 15 focusing points instead of just one. I see lots of low light, slow shutter speed, low ISO situations, maybe even with a tripod, where that can be very handy. But then again, I am just one of the peripheral photographers, living on the side of the famous majority.



Again, consider what -3 EV means in terms of absolute light levels. Consider further your statement, "_...lots of low light, slow shutter speed, low ISO situations, maybe even with a tripod,"_ relative to the example I gave of f/2.8, 1/15 s, ISO 51200 which is -3 EV. Say you shoot at f/1.4, your ISO is 12800. Is that low? Maybe ISO 1600 is low, so that's a 1/2 s exposure. Are those common use cases for you?




Eldar said:


> No, the problem when a new Canon camera comes out or is mentioned is not tirades of DRoning, which in most cases are statements of disappointment that Canon keep on releasing cameras with sensor performance lagging behind the competition. The problem is the condescending, insulting and repetitive sand box bashing from a few low DR defenders, turning it into a war on anything but DR.



Expressing disappointment is perfectly acceptable...if only it were the norm to stop there. But it is almost universally followed by predictions of doom for Canon...claims which are patently nonsensical. 

By the way, who are these 'low DR defenders' you mention? I hope you can appreciate the difference between explaining the reality of the situation (cold, hard sales numbers - which is what drives business decisions) and personal desires.

Personally, I'd love more DR. And higher frame rates. Sharper lenses. Lower costs. Less noise. More MP. The list goes on. But I have to live in the real world, as do we all - even those lost in the pipe dream of having their cake and eating it, too. 




Eldar said:


> Who are the majority and who are the minorities? Interesting question. What Canon should be concerned with is that the market is shrinking. In a situation like that, it is a very peculiar strategy, unless it is lack of ability, to release products that does not beat the competition in every department possible, especially in the higher priority areas, like the sensor.



You run a business. If your market was shrinking dramatically, what would you do about it? What _could _ you do about it? Is your R&D budget unlimited? Canon's is not. I don't think it's lack of ability, rather it's about prioritization of finite resources. It seems that their prioritization choices don't match yours, but then again...it's not your money. 




Eldar said:


> Canon is good at a lot of things, but they are behind on sensors.



Absolutely true on both counts. But being behind doesn't mean being poor quality. It's apparent that good enough in one metric and class-leading in many others is a recipe for leading the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Not everyone shoots with ambient only. -3Ev can be useful for flash photography in a dark environment. Subject can be completely flash-lit but ambient light is very low. (e.g. you shoot with ST-E3 on camera triggering off camera flashes.)



That's a reasonable use case, but again... -3 EV is _really_ dark. A fireplace at the end of the room as the sole illumination, for example. How common are situations like that? More importantly, how common are situations like that where a strobe (or a group of them) going off won't kill the mood or be outright forbidden?


----------



## unfocused (Apr 13, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....
> 
> The point being, this is only one aspect of a cameras worth...
> 
> Those who fixate on it as "the true measure of a camera" are delusional. Those who dismiss it are equally delusional. The truth is somewhere in the middle...



I agree and would add a few additional points (most of which are also covered by Neuro):

I have participated in this forum for many years and too many of those who complain are goal-post movers. Through several generations of cameras I have seen some of these same people insist that some metric or another where Canon happened to be different from Nikon or Sony was a sure sign that Canon was a failure and their cameras were virtually worthless.

That was even the case where Canon was ahead on a metric. For example, when Canon consistently offered higher megapixel sensors than their competitors, these people complained that Canon was putting too many megapixels into its cameras at the expense of high ISO noise control. Then, when Canon elected to emphasize high ISO performance over pixel density, these same voices began complaining about how Canon was "behind" in megapixels. That's just one of many examples where the Canon critics moved the goal posts as soon as Canon neared the goal line.

I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it. If a product were truly "crippled" (which frankly is an insensitive and bigoted term by the way) it wouldn't deliver what it promises. But, every DSLR made today delivers far more than any SLR with film ever delivered – and still, most of the great photographs of the world were taken with those cameras. Yet, we have people complaining because their low-cost camera doesn't contain every feature they want at no price premium. 

Sure, everyone wants a bit more dynamic range. But I have to say, for me it doesn't even make the top 10 on my personal wish list. There are a lot of features I would love to see that would help me do my job better and faster and more dynamic range is quite low on that list. 

Canon does respond. Go back and look at what the complainers were talking about in previous generations of cameras and then compare what the current generations offer. Three obvious examples: 

5DII owners howled about its autofocus system and swore that Canon would NEVER offer as good of an autofocus system in the 5DIII as in the 7D -- guess what, they put a better autofocus system in.

When the 60D came out, you would have thought the world was ending because it didn't have AFMA and again, people swore Canon would not include it in the 70D (along with a better autofocus system) -- guess what, we got both.

7D critics acted as though it was virtually impossible to take a decent picture with the 18mp sensor because it was "too noisy." From all accounts and reviews, the 7DII sensor is pretty stellar except OMG!!! it doesn't have enough dynamic range!

And, with each generation of criticism people have sworn that unless Canon met their personal desires the company was ******* to failure. And, then, when those desires are met, many of these same people continue to insist the company is ******* because they aren't meeting some new, obscure metric that the small minority of complainers has determined is THE MOST IMPORTANT METRIC IN THE WORLD!

So yes, improvements are always nice and I look forward to future improvements, but excuse me if I don't get worked up about minor metrics that shift with each new generation of cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....
> ...



+1

My 7D2 does EVERYTHING better than my 60D did.....
My 60D does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 620 did.....
My Olympus 620 does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 510 did.....
My Olympus 510 does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 300 did.....

and whatever camera I get next, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever, I expect it to be far superior to my current camera.... and that is why I think that this morbid fascination over the "feature of the moment" is just noise and shall fade away....


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself....



Who has said that? I don't recall anybody here ever saying more DR is not a good thing, only that it isn't as important as some other things we, as Canon shooters, do have over the competition.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it.



I agree with what you have said, and would even have agreed with the above quoted paragraph until recently.

After getting the 6D to go with my 5DII my biggest complain was the softness of the controls, especially the rear command wheel, which feel 'mushy', cheap and imprecise. The wheel and eight way controller looks identical to the one on the 60D, a substantially cheaper camera. I had always _assumed_ that the wheel on the 60D must feel the same, until Marsu42, who has both camera bodies, pointed out that the wheel on the 60D is smooth and positively click stopped, unlike the 6D. 

So what on earth is going on here ? Canon had exactly the same wheel / eight way controller assembly that they were going to fit into the 6D from a much cheaper model, yet they went to the trouble of modifying it to feel inferior. The difference between the now 1D series quality of the rear command wheel on the 5DIII + joystick arrangement was not enough differentiation: Canon wanted to make damn sure the control interface felt inferior, _despite_ the fact that a model costing half the price had exactly the same module of greater quality. 

Now when I buy a 6D that is much cheaper than a 5DIII I don't expect to get the same AF, shooting speeds, buffer, build quality etc, but to have the most important control purposely made inferior to exactly the same thing on a model costing half the amount is, to me, infuriating and unneccesary. 

However from Canon's point of view it has probably worked. I've bought a 6D but when the 5DIV comes out I will probably change it for that if that new model has an interchangeable screen, which I thinking it may well have as Canon have reverted to putting an interchangeable screen into the 7DII.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it.
> ...



The problem of course is that we'll never know the reasons why Canon do whatever they do, there are always multiple possible explanations. 

However, I do think Canon has a tendency for rather aggressive upselling by putting annoyances into minor models. I call this * "crippling" when it doesn't fit the interior consistency of a model*, otherwise it's just model policy like the fact that the 6d has a cheap build and is probably designed to be able to drop a lot in price and still generate profit.

Clear examples of "crippling is" I can think of right now and have personally I experienced are:
* Removal of afma from 60d
* Inability to save hdr source files on 6d
* Cut options for button allocation (like fec on SET) on 6d
* Video length limit (not Canon's fault, but b/c of import taxes)

Arguably other crippling is:
* braindead information like "wifi" on minor model's top lcd instead of more useful values
* completely unreachable dof preview button on 6d
* only single-funtion layout of top buttons (like iso)
* only 1or 2 c modes on minor models

Probably "model policy is"
* just 180/x x-sync, 1/4k shutter on 6d (which basically is a "5d2b")
* No 100% vf except on premium models
* No at all sealing on non-L lenses, even expensive ones


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2015)

Canon does cripple, hobble, inhibit cameras, actively refusing to make them NOT as good as they could be - even when it does not involve additional R&D, engineering or manufacturing costs. I will always call them (Nikon is equally bad on this!) out for it, even it makes fanbois and political correctness zealots' heads explode.

In addition to Marsu's list the subpar Auto-ISO implementation on most EOS models immediately comes to mind. Crippling, nothing else. Algorithms and parameters are known. No problem to put those parameters into any EOS. But no ...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Canon does cripple, hobble, inhibit cameras, actively refusing to make them NOT as good as they could be - even when it does not involve additional R&D, engineering or manufacturing costs. I will always call them (Nikon is equally bad on this!) out for it, even it makes fanbois and political correctness zealots' heads explode.
> 
> In addition to Marsu's list the subpar Auto-ISO implementation on most EOS models immediately comes to mind. Crippling, nothing else. Algorithms and parameters are known. No problem to put those parameters into any EOS. But no ...


I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"



Yes, that was one of the most blatant cripplings ever in Canon history. But the list of evil crippling, underdelivering, holding back functionality just to make customers buy a whole new camera ... is long. ANd Canon is one of the global "masters of iteration".


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"
> ...


Canon is curiously a company that often gives entry level products more advanced features/technology than their high end products - at least well ahead of the top end products if for no reason other than longer development timelines. Reference iFCL, DPAF, transmissive LCD, etc.

And speaking of Nikon - one only needs to look to the screw vs. ultrasonic AF compatibility. That was one of the biggest reasons I went for a Canon when I went digital with SLRs.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"



Whatever...I really don't care. If it makes people feel better to call product differentiation crippling, so be it. 

But, for the record: For several years Canon actively discouraged AFMA. I suspect, but do not know, that they felt it was more hassle than it was worth for amateur bodies. They may have seen an uptick in bodies sent in for service from people screwing with the settings and decided to just take it out. I know they took a lot of crap for dropping it from the 60D and put it back in the 70D, so apparently they had a change of heart.

No one knows the business reason why they did this.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"
> ...


FINALLY! Someone got the point!

Odds are they had a good reason to take it out. Look at the number of people who screw up AFMA... It sounds so simple to do, but unless you take great pains with the setup and lighting, you may well be making things worse.... and you really do need software like Focal to do it right.

It's like "Why don't they support video recording at 4K and 60fps..... Some people say that they are deliberately crippling the camera, yet the odds are that they are trying to keep it from overheating and burning out components.... If they could do it reliably without harming the camera, they would, and we would be sick and tired of Canon's marketing people shouting 4K 4K 4K at us....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > No one knows the business reason why they did this.
> ...



Indeed. AFMA debuted in the 1DIII. The 50D got it, but at that time there were no xD 1.6x crop bodies. The 7D was a step up closer to 'pro' from the 50D, while the 60D sent the other way...and the cost followed suit. That matters because lower cost bodies tend to sell more, and more sales mean more support (including in warranty service). The Canon manuals warn that AFMA can result in missed focus, potentially resulting in more loss-generating warranty service for a 'consumer' camera. 

But...haters gonna hate and whiners gonna whine.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> No one knows the business reason why they did this.



For the afma occasion, it isn't very difficult to figure out: They needed a reason to push the more expensive 7d1 while the newer 60d had a bit better sensor. Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup. 

Esp. the afma issue is funny as some people switch from arguing that FoCal is the magic bullet for all focus problems to stating that afma shouldn't be in sub-$2k cameras because you could get it all wrong and harass poor Canon with service requests. Alas, there are no ends of 7d2 "softness" threads even w/o anyone playing around with afma :->

Of course fanbois will be fanbois - but even if everyone voicing a critical opinion is wrong and the silent majority adores Canon, I don't believe Canon doesn't care at all about the widespread reservations in popular reviews like in dpreview on the 6d which sums it up nicely. At least the 7d2 shows they might change their ways a bit, let's see about upcoming releases:



> _Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that’s become the company’s hallmark. It’s still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be._


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Of course fanbois will be fanbois – but even if everyone voicing a critical opinion is wrong and the silent majority adores Canon...



Seriously??? I thought you were better than this Marsu. When people have to resort to name-calling they've lost the argument. No one has suggested either a) voicing a critical opinion is wrong or b) that the silent majority adores Canon. (Although those that vote with their wallet appear to prefer Canon and I imagine that's the group that Canon cares the most about.)



Marsu42 said:


> Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup.



No reason except build quality, features and pricing. I think it's pretty well accepted that Canon deliberately chose to move the 60D down-market, just as it's pretty apparent they decided to move the 70D back up a notch and then move the 7D up even more (while maintaining the same price for the 7DII).



Marsu42 said:


> Esp. the afma issue is funny as some people switch from arguing that FoCal is the magic bullet for all focus problems to stating that afma shouldn't be in sub-$2k cameras because you could get it all wrong and harass poor Canon with service requests.



Not sure what point you are trying to make here. I see no inconsistency between those who use AFMA and recommend FoCal as their preferred software and also pointing out that Canon has never been wildly enthusiastic about AFMA for the average consumer. 

No one is feeling sorry for "poor Canon." Instead, simply pointing out that from a business standpoint, they don't necessarily want to encourage customers to fiddle with adjustments that are beyond the capacity of many users.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> For the afma occasion, it isn't very difficult to figure out: They needed a reason to push the more expensive 7d1 while the newer 60d had a bit better sensor. Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup.



Here's what Canon has to say about AFMA:

[quote author=5DIII Instruction Manual]
Normally, this adjustment is not required. Do this adjustment only if necessary. Note that doing this adjustment may prevent correct focusing from being achieved.
[/quote]

So...it's your contention that Canon was using a 'feature' they say should not be needed and may screw up your focus as a way to upsell people from the 60D to the 7D, and they needed to do so because the 18 MP APS-C sensor in the 60D is better than the identically-spec'd 18 MP APS-C sensor in the 7D?? I guess frame rate, AF performance, build quality, etc., just weren't enough, 'eh? 

Please properly calibrate your logic circuit using the Auto Fallacy Mind Adjustment feature in your brain.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 14, 2015)

All these verbal acrobatics di not change a bit about the facts. Canon is actively crippling many of their products. And the sole reason is "marketing differentiation". While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.

Thats why i stricrly and staunchly see things as a paying canon customer. It is my prerogative to demand the very best for my money. And to criticize Canon as much as i want if they deliver less than that. If a critical mass of clients do that, it will inflicht a cost on Canon (lost goodwill, lost brand value, lost sales) - and if that cost exceeds any gains that Canon gets from marketing differentiation (extolling more money from us than we want by forcing us to buy higher up models 5d iii vs 6d for example just to get one or two more features we really want) then canon will cease and desist from that type of crippling.

I am more than happy to contribute to "marketing differentiation sanitizing". I consider it my duty as market participant on the demand side of things. Canon is a mere supplier and acts like one. And we are the kings and call the shots - provided we dont just seallow whatever our suppliers want to stuff down our throats but rather act as ... Our own, well informed and critical procurement managers.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> All these verbal acrobatics di not change a bit about the facts. Canon is actively crippling many of their products. And the sole reason is "marketing differentiation". While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.



I believe market differentiation is a good thing for the consumer. Not sure about calling it "crippling", Canon (and Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) are offering different products with different features at different price points. What is wrong with that? You can disagree with their choice of which features to include in the mid to low price options, but you should buy the product that meets your budget and personal selection criteria. 

If manufacturers didn't "cripple" as you call it, Canon would only offer the 1DX and Nikon would only offer the D3X. Personally, I'm glad Canon offers the 1DX, 5DIII, 6D, 7DII, 70D, etc. and Nikon and the other manufacturers offer a line up of different models, so I have a choice.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.


Market share.



> It is my prerogative to demand the very best for my money. And to criticize Canon as much as i want if they deliver less than that.


Sure. You could also criticize economy car manufacturers for limiting features on the low-end budget models.



> If a critical mass of clients do that


I think the verdict is in and and all appeals are exhausted: it's not happening until the other manufacturers catch up to Canon's advantages (even if you consider marketing to be one of those)



> And we are the kings and call the shots


FP!!  

AvTvM, when you criticize Canon for these few failings, you're really criticizing the other manufacturers for failing to use their advantages to gain market share and profit. What would you have Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others do to move ahead of Canon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> What would you have Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others do to move ahead of Canon?



I think going from 14-stops to 16-stops of low ISO DR is just the ticket.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's what Canon has to say about AFMA:
> 
> 
> 5DIII Instruction Manual]
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> n equal example is crippling the 70d by cutting the spot af ... probably a simple software "#define CUT_FEATURE_TO_UPSELL_POOR_SUCKERS" in the fw, too, as - my guess - they're re-using the same hardware af system of the 7d1.



In the one and only Tony Northrup infomercial I watched, he bashed the 5DIII's hit rate in AI Servo (which was in the 60% range and way lower than one would expect). Turns out that 'expert' was using Spot AF in Servo mode, another thing the manual recommends against. 

But you're right, there can't possibly be any rational justification for these decisions other than Canon stickin' it to us hapless consumers to force us all to buy more expensive cameras. :

I guess I'm just a sucker because I went and bought a 1D X. *stamping my feet* Damn Canon for trying to downsell me to the 6D to get in-camera HDR and AI Focus mode. Clearly they're eliminating key features from their flagship camera with simple software that would cost nothing to implement. Those greedy bastards... : : :


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tony Northrup .... 'expert' was using Spot AF in Servo mode ...


LOL!!! I don't know about you, but I keep wondering if Tony is just the YouTube / paperback persona of Ken Rockwell. If they really are two people, then I'm frightened for all of us!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> But you're right, there can't possibly be any rational justification for these decisions other than Canon stickin' it to us hapless consumers to force us all to buy more expensive cameras. :



If you have a look down to earth from premium product heaven, you'll recognize I do differentiate a lot between last minute (mostly software) crippling and legit product policy or commercial interest - see my post above in this very same thread.

Alas, vice versa it seems some very enthusiastic enthusiasts simply refuse to accept critic notions towards our favorite brand could be valid - Canon being the market leader and all. If Canon would cut the shutter button from the next model, I'm positive explanations would be found why this is just fine the way it is, as people could be confused by taking pictures ;-p


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But you're right, there can't possibly be any rational justification for these decisions other than Canon stickin' it to us hapless consumers to force us all to buy more expensive cameras. :
> ...



Oh, I see. Because it's software and last minute, the only reason is 'crippling' and upselling. Couldn't be feedback from early field testers or anything else. 

If you have a look up, you'll see that I do criticize Canon where warranted. I'm just doing so from a balanced viewpoint, considering both my needs/wants and relevant business and use case drivers. Alas, vice versa it seems there is a disenfranchised demographic who would prefer to complain that Canon is not giving them what _they personally_ want, and their dissatisfaction leads them to ignore legitimate reasons for it. 

Regardless, it's patently pointless to prolong this prosaic prattle. I'm out.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, it's patently pointless to prolong this prosaic prattle. I'm out.



#alliterationsnap


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2015)

The 60D is a bit of a red herring isn't it ? I though the camera was purposely taken a little down market by Canon to get a lower price tag. Wasn't the 60D about $300 cheaper than the 50D was at introduction ? A lower price at the expense of losing features isn't that devious. However it would seem that it didn't go according to plan one way or another because the 70D went back up again, both in features and price. Perhaps because of what was to be the forthcoming 7DII. 

The down-grading of the 60D's rear wheel when fitted to the (much) more expensive 6D: now that's another thing altogether !


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, it's patently pointless to prolong this prosaic prattle. I'm out.



My thought exactly, let's keep agreeing we disagree.



Sporgon said:


> The 60D is a bit of a red herring isn't it ? I though the camera was purposely taken a little down market by Canon to get a lower price tag. Wasn't the 60D about $300 cheaper than the 50D was at introduction ?



Might be, but you have to compare that to the whole dslr range becoming cheaper in these days across the board. Probably the cheaper build quality accounts for a lot of the 50d/60d difference.



Sporgon said:


> The down-grading of the 60D's rear wheel when fitted to the (much) more expensive 6D: now that's another thing altogether !



Indeed, but other than you think: This is a hardware feature, so Canon is probably saving money to make a more affordable product to benefit of all us Canon fans.

In contrast, software crippling (6d no save hdr sources, 60d afma, 70d spot af) could just be lifted with a fw update. There's no further cost involved for Canon, other than fear of support costs ("My 6d can save hdr souce files, please help me!") and less upselling to the nextest and bestest model.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But you're right, there can't possibly be any rational justification for these decisions other than Canon stickin' it to us hapless consumers to force us all to buy more expensive cameras. :
> ...




I get that we all see cool stuff happening on other systems and want to see the best system in the world be the best in every way, but acting like the few advantages of the competition are equal to the advantages Canon has over the competition is really nothing more than posturing. A futile exercise considering the situation.
I've told more than a few people now that if they're not happy with Canon the only reasonable thing to do is go get the stuff from the competition.
It's really just foolish sitting here complaining about what isn't, daydreaming about what may never be.


----------



## joejohnbear (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, it's patently pointless to prolong this prosaic prattle. I'm out.



Not sure if anyone ever acknowledges this stuff out in camera forums, but that was some beautiful alliteration there.


----------



## joejohnbear (Apr 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone shoots with ambient only. -3Ev can be useful for flash photography in a dark environment. Subject can be completely flash-lit but ambient light is very low. (e.g. you shoot with ST-E3 on camera triggering off camera flashes.)
> ...



I think the main use scenario would be using off-camera flashes in a dark or low-contrast (contrejour/backlit) scene without having to use a 600EXRT to paint contrast lines and to use servo for moving subjects in those lighting conditions. Rare, I know, but better focusing would be nice in those situations. For now, though, I know the solution is the 600EXRT in one-shot focus mode, but it is additional weight and I do wish that there was something lighter weight to get the same shot. I'm sure they'll add it when the 5DIV comes out.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> In contrast, software crippling (6d no save hdr sources, 60d afma, 70d spot af) could just be lifted with a fw update. There's no further cost involved for Canon, other than fear of support costs ("My 6d can save hdr souce files, please help me!") and less upselling to the nextest and bestest model.



+1. The very definition of crippled product is when the hardware's there but they've decided to rem-out the software that allows it to be used to its potential.
Kinda like the original 7D and its end of life firmware upgrade that finally un-crippled its buffer abilities.

But back to the main topic... Nikon sure doesn't seem like they've crippled the d7200's image quality vs, well, the chronically crippled images from Canon that firmware aint ever gonna fix. 

*D7200 achievements need repeating*: 

13.8 stops of DR at base, 
superior color discrimination, 
better hi ISO performance. 


*That's the imaging trifecta!*


----------



## joejohnbear (Apr 14, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > In contrast, software crippling (6d no save hdr sources, 60d afma, 70d spot af) could just be lifted with a fw update. There's no further cost involved for Canon, other than fear of support costs ("My 6d can save hdr souce files, please help me!") and less upselling to the nextest and bestest model.
> ...



Ok, so the Intel Core i7 5300 ($400) vs the 4700 ($250) "cripples" the lower-tier model with lower L3 cache. Other models "cripple" lower tier ones by not allowing you to overclock them. The LX100 and A6000 don't have headphone jacks or wide DR picture profiles (simple software, right?) and they come with lower bit rates and crappier compression than the GH4 and A7S/FS700. The D7200 removes top LCD screen features from the D7100 and doesn't have an AF-ON button like the D300, D700 and D810. Are those called crippling or product differentiation? 

If I owned a D7100, as many people do on the Nikonrumors page where the D7200 was announced, I wouldn't upgrade to the D7200 simply because of IQ. Give me my top LCD display and white balance information back! Crippled, my ***. Many Nikonians complained the the D7200 was just what the D7100 should have been (minus the screen), as they did about the D610 vs D600.

The grass is always greener where you don't live.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> The grass is always greener where you don't live.



It is? Who thinks so (I certainly don't)? The issue was someone writing that there is no withholding of features, never, ever, nowhere, that could possibly qualify as as "crippling", and I disagree. This certainly doesn't stop with Canon products, btw:



unfocused said:


> I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it.



Btw, listen up, all Canon fanbois what Rock Kennwell writes on Canon (7d2) vs Nikon, no matter the sensor. Do we love him now again  ? ... http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7200.htm



> _If you're comparing to Canon, *the 7D Mark II is a completely revolutionary camera years ahead of any Nikon DX camera*. If you aren't already invested in the Nikon system, I greatly prefer the 7D Mk II, which is almost twice as fast for sports and way smarter than the D7200 could ever be. It costs 40% more, but it's twice as good._


----------



## Aglet (Apr 15, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> Ok, so the Intel Core i7 5300 ($400) vs the 4700 ($250) "cripples" the lower-tier model with lower L3 cache.



is the whole cache on the die but not being accessed, then it's crippled
if the cache is just plain smaller then it's a differentiated product



> The LX100 and A6000 don't have headphone jacks



real hardware differentiation..



> ..wide DR picture profiles (simple software, right?)


this is software, crippled, unless there's not enough RAM



> and they come with lower bit rates and crappier compression than the GH4 and A7S/FS700.


that could be hardware based depending on the processor used for price purposes, if not, then crippled




> The D7200 removes top LCD screen features from the D7100...


has a pretty big top display, what's missing exactly?



> and doesn't have an AF-ON button like the D300, D700 and D810.



does it have a programmable function button that can be assigned that purpose? If so, then not necessarily crippled, just somewhat inconvenienced
Looks to me like you could program the AE-L/AF-L button the way you like.




> If I owned a D7100, as many people do on the Nikonrumors page where the D7200 was announced, I wouldn't upgrade to the D7200 simply because of IQ. Give me my top LCD display and white balance information back!



Really?!? the IQ is going to be noticeably better. Again, what's missing from the display and how often do you have to muck around with WB?!? I rarely need to touch that and when I do It's no big deal to menu it if needed. Shoot raw?




> Crippled, my ***. Many Nikonians complained the the D7200 was just what the D7100 should have been (minus the screen), as they did about the D610 vs D600.



well, they're certainly entitled to vent their frustrations too.
I don't have a d7x00 because I find the ergonomics, like the d6x0, sucks. I don't hear me complaining about it too much tho. For me, d5x00 and d800s fit just fine.
If you want really horrible ergonomics, try a Canon G10/11/12.

I certainly wasn't complaining that the D810 is what the d800 should have been. The d800 was a massive leap ahead for my shooting vs anything I had from Canon. Now the 810's tweaked and added a lot of features to make it even better. Well, except the ergo's, I prefer the 800 body's grip over the 810's; the 810 needs me to hold it with my thumb.




> The grass is always greener where you don't live.



my grass is pretty darn green right now. 
and if the d7200's ergos have improved, then maybe downright verdent!


----------



## joejohnbear (Apr 15, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > In contrast, software crippling (6d no save hdr sources, 60d afma, 70d spot af) could just be lifted with a fw update. There's no further cost involved for Canon, other than fear of support costs ("My 6d can save hdr souce files, please help me!") and less upselling to the nextest and bestest model.
> ...



The new top LCD "simplifies" things and removes items like white balance, etc. That's a step backwards. Arbitrary definition of crippled vs. product differentiation being hardware vs. software from a manufacturer standpoint, but whatever. The camranger is $300 but the only difference is software from the $30 tplink router it's installed on. Is the tp-link crippled? Sheesh. Why is my gripe with the ae/af button all the way on the left side instead of the af on button in the right position an "inconvenience" while your other features are "crippled"? Completely arbitrary based on YOUR needs. Over and out, signing off.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> The new top LCD "simplifies" things and removes items like white balance, etc. That's a step backwards.



Learning from Canon is learning to succeed - that's exactly what they do, for example on the 6d  ... the d7200 might be Nikon's 6d, i.e. superior iq with the manufacturer trying not to cannibalize the more expensive cameras because the minor model is "good enough".


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Learning from Canon is learning to succeed...the d7200 might be Nikon's 6d, i.e. superior iq with the manufacturer trying not to cannibalize the more expensive cameras



I realize that was ironic humor, but maybe this is what Nikon needs to be more financially successful. With a bit more cash they can improve the non-sensor elements of the Nikon system so they can compete with Canon.

Competition is good for consumers...until it forces a competitor out of business.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 15, 2015)

I still have a hard time seeing any significant differences from any of these new cameras when I compare the results I STILL get from my 7D and 5DII. The advances are really so minor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2015)

pdirestajr said:


> I still have a hard time seeing any significant differences from any of these new cameras when I compare the results I STILL get from my 7D and 5DII. The advances are really so minor.



'Ain't that the truth! 

For most people most of the time any camera from the last five to seven years has the IQ to do anything they want. 

Meanwhile the Canon lens division is clearly on some kind of Happy Dance medication with an amazing array of across the board killer lenses from the EF-S 24 pancake to the 100L Macro, the 16-35 f4 IS to the 11-24, the 200-400 with 1.4 to the 100-400 MkII, an absolutely amazing collection of world class optics!

I had been worried that too much lens development had been going into the cine line, I was wrong. With the current lenses, and probable future upgrades (the 45 and 90 TS-E's) I can't see me ever changing brand, but then I probably only have ten or so years of productive professional work ahead of me at which point I can retire with that same kit and take any image my heart desires. No other system offers me that, and don't for one second suggest a Sony and metabones is any kind of solution for most shooting situations.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2015)

pdirestajr said:


> I still have a hard time seeing any significant differences from any of these new cameras when I compare the results I STILL get from my 7D and 5DII. The advances are really so minor.


I would agree with the exception of the 1D X at ISO 3200+. It's a huge increase in performance. That said, my old Rebel XSi files shot at ISO 800 and below hold up pretty well in comparison to the newest bodies.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 15, 2015)

pdirestajr said:


> I still have a hard time seeing any significant differences from any of these new cameras when I compare the results I STILL get from my 7D and 5DII. The advances are really so minor.


It makes sense. The image quality Canon cameras has improved little in the last seven years, it was already very good at that time.

Moreover, Nikon had a major improvement with EXMOR sensors. By the year 2008, Nikon cameras had rather poor image quality at high ISO, and the improvements are obvious.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 15, 2015)

Even with a new superior performing sensor, @ nikonrumors so many complain about the unicorn d400 release and talk about the 7D2.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 16, 2015)

pdirestajr said:


> I still have a hard time seeing any significant differences from any of these new cameras when I compare the results I STILL get from my 7D and 5DII. The advances are really so minor.



well, in the Canon camp that's been true for a decade. At least until the 70D/7d2 which have finally removed pattern noise that came in in a bad way with the 50D.
If you look at SoNikon, they have noticeable progression as models get updated and they've leapfrogged Canon's IQ back when the Nikon D90 came out and Canon's been trying to keep up ever since.. and falling behind IMO.



joejohnbear said:


> The new top LCD "simplifies" things and removes items like white balance, etc. That's a step backwards. Arbitrary definition of crippled vs. product differentiation being hardware vs. software from a manufacturer standpoint, but whatever. The camranger is $300 but the only difference is software from the $30 tplink router it's installed on. Is the tp-link crippled? Sheesh. Why is my gripe with the ae/af button all the way on the left side instead of the af on button in the right position an "inconvenience" while your other features are "crippled"? Completely arbitrary based on YOUR needs. Over and out, signing off.



Canon did a similar thing with the 60D by dropping top display features and button functions.
The only thing that really bothered me about that was the mushy buttons vs the 40/50D I used before that.

My bigger gripe is how some mfrs keep rearranging the buttons instead of staying more consistent from model to model.



RLPhoto said:


> Even with a new superior performing sensor, @ nikonrumors so many complain about the unicorn d400 release and talk about the 7D2.



the lack of a d400 has certainly irked a lot of longtime Nikon shooters and I can understand why. OTOH, D7x00 provides the IQ and is "good enough" I think they've learned that trick from Canon.


----------



## K (May 4, 2015)

The D7200 and 7D2 aren't direct competitors.

Nikon abandoned the high performance APS-C camera concept. This will remain true until they come out with a D400 or whatever. I very much doubt that will happen as too many years have passed. As the 7D2's sale price and gray market price plummeted to $1,200 - the market for high end APS-C is dead.

For over $1,300 - people want FF. I'm in the same camp. Who really wants to spend $1,800 for crop? The 7D2 at $1,200 - $1,400 is more reasonable, and a big part of that is the high FPS and AF system. At least it gives something for that premium.


Now, if you have to compare the two cameras.

On IQ, they are very close. 

On build quality, the D7200 is a turd compared to the pro-quality 7D2. The D7100/D7200 is like a toy in comparison.

On features and performance - the 7D2 is way, way ahead. 

There is really nothing about the D7200 that can justify it as a better camera than the 7D2. The advantage was the lower price, but the 7D2 is creeping down there...thus becoming sort of a competitor in price.

The D7200 is Nikon's way of providing semi-pro-ish controls to their DX users. There are actual buttons for various settings. It is very different than the D3300 and D5500 in this regard. Otherwise, the IQ and much of the rest is the same. The D7200 is essentially a D3300 with real controls.


----------



## 9VIII (May 4, 2015)

Just because the 7D2 is dropping price on the grey marked doesn't mean there's no market.
If another recent thread pointing out mirrorless photographers doing pro-level work has anything to say, the 7D2 should be more popular than ever (FF is being ignored longer than you might expect).
Rather than the 7D2 being too expensive, at only double the price I actually can't justify buying a Rebel because of the 7D2.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 4, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Crippling the 60d by cutting afma wasn't necessary at all as there was enough distance to the 7d. But obviously they wanted to make really, really sure.



You throw around the word "obviously" very loosely. Is it possible they disabled user-AFMA to differentiate between one model and another? Maybe. But it's certainly not obvious. 

Maybe they don't want the majority of their user base, a vast mob of untrained individuals, intentionally or accidentally impacting camera performance (and likely complaining about it on the internets). Maybe they want more people sending cameras and lenses to service centers for matching adjustments. 

One thing is certain: without a leaked document stating the reason some cameras have it and other don't, you're just guessing.


----------



## aj1575 (May 6, 2015)

I just have one question. Does DXOMark explain somewhere how they calculate their mark. There must be some formula how they calculate this all defining number from all the measurments they make.

I also look at their test often, but they are not as helpful as I hoped them to be. For Camera sensors it might still be okay, their is some usefull information you can get out of their measurements; it is just difficult to translate this into real world effects. DPReview does a better here with their comparison tool.
But for lenses it is even harder. At first I thought, well this is a nice tool, and compared some lenses. The measurments might be correct, but what does a difference of 1Mp in sharpness mean, and how does their field map with different colors from green to red translate in real world resolution.
For example, I compared the EF 70-200 f4 L IS to the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS; with just looking at DXOMark, I thought well, the 70-300 lags only a little bit behind the 70-200 in IQ but I like the longer reach. I then went over to The-Digital-Picture and compared the lenses with the tool there. I was surprised that the small difference in numbers on DXO translated into such a big difference in IQ.

What I learned, it is not enough to judge a sensor or a lens just by a few numbers on a webpage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2015)

aj1575 said:


> I just have one question. Does DXOMark explain somewhere how they calculate their mark. There must be some formula how they calculate this all defining number from all the measurments they make.



They don't, it's a black box 'weighted' calculation where the weightings aren't disclosed and may change from camera to camera. 

Peter van den Hamer posted an article on Luminous Landscape a while back, where he described some of the problems with DxO's sensor analyses, such as the *low ISO bias* of the sensor score (one reason I call them Biased Scores = BS), the fact that measuring color depth (i.e. chroma noise) at low ISO is basically meaningless (and yet it's a major factor in the Sensor Score), their confusing nomenclature for the subscores (e.g. Sports Score), etc.

He also took issue with DxO's refusal to divulge the way they calculate the overall score. He has come up with an approximation which he suggests is usually to accurate to within 1-2 points: DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2. He also states, "My guess is that the actual formula is non-linear and may use (under some conditions) coefficients of 5/5/5 rather than 4.3/3.4/4.4." His suggestion that the 'master formula' which DxO uses may be modified under some conditions further supports the claim that DxO's scoring is *biased*.


----------



## NancyP (May 6, 2015)

The main users of AFMA are those who have very fast or very long lenses, where tiny differences in product dimensions and other parameters may matter. If you are shooting at 50mm f/8, AFMA is pointless. If you have average luck, and get an "average" 60D and an "average" example of a given lens, and aren't shooting at f/1.4 or at 600mm f/4, you ought to get reasonable AF accuracy without needing AFMA. I have been happy with the 400mm f/5.6L and 60D combo, it does fine with birds in flight, so either both the camera and lens are "average" or the camera and lens vary in the same direction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Bias is bias, period. It should be avoided where possible, and in this case it is certainly possible. 

By your flawed logic, evaluations of lens performance should be based on an aperture 2-3 stops narrower than wide open, because that's where the lens produces its best IQ.


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think the principal issue here is the arrogance of a 'score' rating system. I honestly believe that if DXO just reported data, were transparent in their methods (and probably stopped writing any opinions whatsoever) we'd all use them like we use TDP, Lens Tip, PhotoZone, Roger Cicala's data, etc.

But _putting a score to a piece of technology_ will inevitably bring about an inquest as to how that was done. We're having one right now. 

- A


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 6, 2015)

You only need to know two past examples. The first was when they scored the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L I IS higher than the II. Only later they then rescored the II higher.

Then the classic 500mm lens comparison (Nikon vs. Canon). They got equal scores because of the "superior DR of the D800" used in the testing.

That's really all you need to know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I honestly believe that if DXO just reported data, were transparent in their methods (and probably stopped writing any opinions whatsoever) we'd all use them like we use TDP, Lens Tip, PhotoZone, Roger Cicala's data, etc.



PZ gives a score (of sorts, a star rating system), and tags a 'highly recommended' rating on some lenses...and it doesn't raise hackles. The thing is, PZ's scored are derived from optical performance, and PZ's ratings are both internally and externally consistent...whereas DxO fails to meet those criteria. It's not really the _what_, it's the _how_.


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly believe that if DXO just reported data, were transparent in their methods (and probably stopped writing any opinions whatsoever) we'd all use them like we use TDP, Lens Tip, PhotoZone, Roger Cicala's data, etc.
> ...



Fair, neuro, that's fair. 

Even TDP has a star rating system now, which is silly because he rates almost all Canon gear 4-5 stars. I simply disregard it and appreciate his writing and user experience much, much more. I love the weird little stuff you only find from proper heavy use. His writing is terrific.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well then why don't you post your own equation for determining a sensor score?



((DR at ISO 1600 / noise at ISO 4000) – (DR at ISO 100)-1) * average lens MTF) + # of unique lenses

;D


----------



## Lawliet (May 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well then why don't you post your own equation for determining a sensor score?



It's easier on system level:
budget-(equipment cost+(staff+post processing time required to make up for equipment compromises)*hourly rates)
Tends to cause hissy fits in certain circles...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> It's easier on system level:
> budget-(equipment cost+(staff+post processing time required to make up for equipment compromises)*hourly rates)
> Tends to cause hissy fits in certain circles...



Indeed. I remember when I used Nikon to shoot architecture, and I had to have a team of architects and four construction crews relocate a building to make up for the compromise of not having an ultrawide PC-E lens. After that I switched to Canon. 

True story.


----------



## Lawliet (May 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > It's easier on system level:
> ...


A smart person would have used a Hblad & the TS-adapter, the better IQ would have been thrown in for free...


----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> You only need to know two past examples. The first was when they scored the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L I IS higher than the II. Only later they then rescored the II higher.
> 
> Then the classic 500mm lens comparison (Nikon vs. Canon). They got equal scores because of the "superior DR of the D800" used in the testing.
> 
> That's really all you need to know.


and a third thing....
The Canon 50F1.8 rates as a superior lens to the 600F4 version 2....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2015)




----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2015)

time for the squirrels....


----------



## Aglet (May 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



It already is when price is the dominant decision factor.


----------



## aj1575 (May 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well then why don't you post your own equation for determining a sensor score?


I would not make one, because it is impossible to tell with one single score how good a complicated thing like a sensor is.

A star rating system is better because there you a less "accurate" rating, something like, this is among the best available, this is very good, this is okay and so on.

The other problem with DXOMark is, that it is a highly synthetic way of analysis, and rating. They do a lot of measurments, and give the result in an abstract number, and a standardizied picture you can look at, that say, this is about how it could look. Sure some measurments are important, because it takes away the tiresome task to compare dozens of pictures; but on the other hand, the human eye works different than a measuring instrument, and something that should be very good according to a measurment, can still look about the same as something that should be worse, according to the measurment. Noise is a typical example for that, an instrument or analysing tool will calculate a number for noise in a synthetic picture. But to the human eye, the noise pattern is as important as the the amount of noise, but it is very difficult to analyse and quantify the pattern. So even if DXO scores a sensor better in niose, it does not mean that the pictures of this camera will better to the human eye.

And this brings me back to the beginning. It is actually impossible to score a sensore with a single number.


----------



## Aglet (May 9, 2015)

aj1575 said:


> ..noise pattern is as important as the the amount of noise, but it is very difficult to analyse and quantify the pattern.


actually, it can be quantified for pattern noise to provide another number or 2 that would be relevant to some of use.
An RMS sort of average noise level could be specified as some count or percentage of noise (already in DxOmark's numbers in some form)
And a peak-to-peak absolute noise value could be specified, along with a spatial frequency, and this would relate to the pattern noise; H & V would have to be specified as well.

DxO's full SNR data plots are very useful but having a peak-to-peak number would quickly show what sensors systems are adding pattern noise to the image file.


----------



## Jtavares (Aug 26, 2015)

*Nikon 800 sony a7rii canon 5d mark xxxviii. Bla bla bla*

Guys please don't take it the wrong way and this comes from a guy who in the past bought all sorts of gear based on what others said. 
I earn a living from image films for a few years now and what I came to the realization is that before I was so hung up on gear. Obsessed thinking that having the best gear would make me a better shooter. Although the dynamic range was better and I could color correct a bit more I still didn't see an improvement in telling a story with more passion, clarity and artistically. I had spent all my time fiddling with the gear and little dedication to the message. Then I got to participate in the Zacuto Shootout showing in hamburg Germany and while all these camera men were TRYIG to prove they knew which camera was which I realized that it didn't really matter. Granted that you may have less banding and more dynamic range or better highlights but the truth is that if you know what your camera is capable of then help it in where it's not. Scene is too contrasty? Use or make a softbox. Shooting in just available light and you can't do high ISO ? Compromise in shooting more stable and drop the shutter speed or borrow faster lenses. 
My point is that we get hung up on gear when we should think about the story and how to tell it. To explore and give your own touch to it like a painter. 
What are your thoughts on it? And by any means I don't mean to dis or rant. Just sharing my opinion so people won't make the same mistakes I made. 
If you want some really good interviews from DPs n directors let me know I've seen some really good ones on YouTube.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2015)

*Re: Nikon 800 sony a7rii canon 5d mark xxxviii. Bla bla bla*



Jtavares said:


> Guys please don't take it the wrong way and this comes from a guy who in the past bought all sorts of gear based on what others said.
> I earn a living from image films for a few years now and what I came to the realization is that before I was so hung up on gear. Obsessed thinking that having the best gear would make me a better shooter. Although the dynamic range was better and I could color correct a bit more I still didn't see an improvement in telling a story with more passion, clarity and artistically. I had spent all my time fiddling with the gear and little dedication to the message. Then I got to participate in the Zacuto Shootout showing in hamburg Germany and while all these camera men were TRYIG to prove they knew which camera was which I realized that it didn't really matter. Granted that you may have less banding and more dynamic range or better highlights but the truth is that if you know what your camera is capable of then help it in where it's not. Scene is too contrasty? Use or make a softbox. Shooting in just available light and you can't do high ISO ? Compromise in shooting more stable and drop the shutter speed or borrow faster lenses.
> My point is that we get hung up on gear when we should think about the story and how to tell it. To explore and give your own touch to it like a painter.
> *What are your thoughts on it? And by any means I don't mean to dis or rant. Just sharing my opinion so people won't make the same mistakes I made. *
> If you want some really good interviews from DPs n directors let me know I've seen some really good ones on YouTube.


My opinion is that it you can take great pictures with ANY modern DSLR... they are all capable of great pictures.


----------



## Jtavares (Aug 27, 2015)

to Don . Thank you for reading and thinking the same.


----------

