# Great Video Explanation of 7Dii low DXO scores



## bmwzimmer (Nov 7, 2014)

This helped me understand the numbers better

http://youtu.be/FTuBr0W0Zhw


----------



## Click (Nov 7, 2014)

Interesting point of view. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 7, 2014)

we have our new ken rockwell.. do everything to get some clicks.

first he said he switches to nikon and canon cameras are good enough for amateurs.... now this.

same as rockwell, every week a differnet camera is his favourite to photograph his kids..... :

DXO is all about noise.... to get a good insight view read the luminous landscape article about how DXO measures.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 7, 2014)

Look, there are very few of these online photography experts that I give total respect to and Mr Northrup has put his foot in it a good few times already. 

However, I do like the gist of this video. 

I'm sure some would question his math or his logic but there's a realistic balance to this video that I appreciate. 

I feel like I know the truths about the 7Dii a lot better and you know what? I'm comfortable with that. Tony has balanced the raw measurements as offered by DxO with some common sense. 

For the record, my go-to guy for gear reviews is Brian over at TDP.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 7, 2014)

It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 7, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.



That's been the problem all along with DXO. While their three individual metrics are very insightful, how DXO weighs these metrics against each other to arrive at a single score is one giant mystery. And people are willing to riot over that single overall sensor score


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.
> ...



The Zeiss 24-70 f4 just bested the Canon and Nikon versions, despite the fact that the Nikon outscored the Zeiss in each metric the Zeiss still got an overall score one more than the Nikon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.



Only for lower ISO dynamic range. (of course that can be quite important for some shots)

Not for say shooting at ISO4000. The 7D2 does better than any 4/3rds there.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Can you sme-e-ellllll what the DXO is cooking? Or is that smoking?


----------



## Aglet (Nov 7, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.
> ...



I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO. The Oly's a bit less colorblind too.

EDIT: so the DR plots I'm seeing are a little puzzling considering the SNR chart /edit

Still, I'm getting a 7d2 for the AF system which will undoubtedly blow the Oly into the weeds for anything requiring fast focus with long lenses.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> This helped me understand the numbers better
> 
> http://youtu.be/FTuBr0W0Zhw



overall it was generally reasonable advice and all
although maybe still a little bit off on a few things here and there throughout and it wasn't really all quite right, but it was a decent try and generally nothing too outrageous which is better than most who comment on blogs or the fanboy posts manage


(it would be better to compare percentages based on SNR plot rather than the ISO score as the ISO score factors in stuff like metamerism and color sensitivity in addition to luminance SNR; OTOH since the color sensitivity and noise and metamerism become worse when you cheat the CFA array, using the ISO score maybe overall gives you a better hint at the actual efficiency of the tech itself and he did seem to be going into that a lot, but then he was also talking about it as if it would give the same visual impression as the SNR plot, which isn't really quite true; and when he said Canon was almost caught up to Nikon for sensors he forgot to bring in that they are still far, far behind for lower ISO DR during that section of the video; also it's a bit confusing, since Canon was basically already there for SNR for the most part and high ISO performance in a practical sense (although it is true that if you penalize them for cheating the color filter array which hurts color quality, but such quality isn't great at high ISO anyway, then they were a bit less efficient, blah blah blah) and he did forget to bring up the banding differences at low ISO, like 7D and D7100 have some at low ISO and D6000 and 7D2 not so much so the 7D2 actually does better for effective DR at ISO100 than the 7D blah blah blah although it's certainly world's behind exmor which is also often relatively banding free and with much less late stage read noise; and so on blah blah blah).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO.



Hmm I don't see that at all. The 7D2 plot for SNR is above the OM-10 the entire length ISO100 to the very top. are you sure you plugged in the correct cameras? Even if I use the Screen setting, which you should not do, I still don't see the Oly line above the 7D2 the whole way.




> EDIT: so the DR plots I'm seeing are a little puzzling considering the SNR chart /edit



It makes sense, the Oly line is above the 7D2 at the lowest end and then below it at the mid and upper end. That is because Canon has terrible late stage read noise and good early stage read noise. So at low ISO it gets hit by combined late and early stage read noise in the shadows and does poorly, even worse than a 4/3rds camera. But when you go to higher ISO the amp boosts the signal up higher so the part that is still a usable shadow at higher ISO is now boosted past the point where most of the late stage read noise gets applied so that doesn't come into play much and Canon does well for the high ISO DR.



> Still, I'm getting a 7d2 for the AF system which will undoubtedly blow the Oly into the weeds for anything requiring fast focus with long lenses.



Very likely so.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 7, 2014)

Killer video - thanks for posting!


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 7, 2014)

A well thought out presentation delivered by someone that actually sounds intelligent and believable.

I really liked that he explained the DXO scores and how he compared different makes in a
very honest way.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 7, 2014)

I won't be watching this video. This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 8, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO. The Oly's a bit less colorblind too.



You might want to look at actual RAW files, the DPReview studio comparison tool, or IR's comparometer. The EM10 doesn't win outside of DxOLand.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO. The Oly's a bit less colorblind too.
> ...



It doesn't win in DXOland either, other than for DR at the lowest few ISOs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Yeah, but according to DxO that's a WIN!!

:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

zlatko said:


> I won't be watching this video. This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".



I missed that particular fiasco. I clicked the link when the thread was new, saw it was Northrup, and closed the window. My first and last Northrup infomercial was when he said the 5DIII _might_ be ok for non-pros posting pics on Facebook.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but according to DxO that's a WIN!!
> 
> :



I've discovered how DxO comes up with its overall score.

Color Depth: 10%
Low Light / High ISO: 20%
Low ISO Dynamic Range: 9,001%


----------



## Aglet (Nov 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Hmm I don't see that at all. The 7D2 plot for SNR is above the OM-10 the entire length ISO100 to the very top. are you sure you plugged in the correct cameras?



I'm seeing the 7d2's DR chart exceeding the EM10's above base ISO.

But I'm seeing the EM10's SNR plots exceeding the 7D2's for all ISOs (ani-gif below)

So I'm expecting the APS-C sensor to have a bit more DR than the MFT one, just based on size-physics, but I'm puzzled why it's not reflected in the SNR chart when the 18% gray points on the plot all have the Oly slightly superior.

EDIT - depending on how your browser's set, you may have to click the gif link below to open it in a new window for the animation to compare.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Lest we forget, DXO mark includes sensor performance in lens scores. If you use the A3000 rather than the A7R, the Zeiss turns to crap. 

So not only are there some bizarre undisclosed weightings involved, but DXO isn't even testing bare optics.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 8, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> So not only are there some bizarre undisclosed weightings involved, but DXO isn't even testing bare optics.


To be fair, that is actually useful to know. For example, if I can see than on my camera there is no difference in sharpness between Canons 17-40 f/4 and the new 16-35, well, then I just saved myself $700 if I dont need IS. Whereas if it'll make a noticeable difference, I probably need to start saving up. Last I checked, nobody uses a lens without it being attached to a sensor.

Now, they way they embarrass themselves is by taking 3 fairly useful numbers and combining them into some nonsense number/grade. They should at least be able to explain why one is ranked higher (like Snapsort at least shows how it weights its comparisons and what it considers important).


----------



## sanj (Nov 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I won't be watching this video. This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".
> ...



He actually said that? Grrrrr.


----------



## LSV (Nov 8, 2014)

sanj said:


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



If anyone cares, Northrup defended himself against the alleged quote here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3709126?page=2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

LSV said:


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



Actually, he didn't. He was called out on it, and he chose to respond to the first reference to FB in his infomercial, not the second and far more idiotic one. Another DPR member made that point, quoting from Northrup's concluding remarks in the vid...and Northrup did not respond. 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54158478

I'm sure Northrup would be pleased to see people defending him for his asinine remark, though.


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 8, 2014)

I think it's the closest thing to "doing a Poodle" (Swedish way of speaking, meaning that one flops publicly to the ground, bares the belly and attempts to look humble and beg for forgiveness for earlier idiotic behaviour) that we will ever see from T.N.


----------



## cpsico (Nov 8, 2014)

The 7d II specs out as well as canons 1 d mark III on IQ, Dynamic range, & low ISO IQ with twice the resolution, superior autofocus and metering. I would call it a home run aps-c camera.


----------



## LSV (Nov 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSV said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm nobody and I'm sure Northrup does not care if I defend him or not. You have helpfully
added the link of that debate. But, in the interest of fairness, I hope others will see there's plenty of room for interpretation in that exchange and then make up their own minds without just accepting your conclusion.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 8, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.
> ...



*YEP!!!! x1000*


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2014)

sanj said:


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



Northrup's videos are like the Arias video about sensor size not being important. They just wind people up.

What gets me with the 7D2 is how the boat is so comprehensively missed by gear enthusiasts and camera reviewers. If I'm an action/sports/wildlife/birding shooter, I'd rather nail the shot with a 7D2 _and possibly have 10% less DR or color depth_ than miss the shot altogether due to poor AF, smaller buffer size or limited burst rate. 

Put another way, if Canon gave the world's 7D1 owners a choice of what do with the 7D2 of:

Get one more stop of cleaner high ISO (i.e. a 7D2 shot at 3200 would resemble a 7D1 shot at 1600) and everything else is the same,

OR

Get +2 fps, a bigger buffer, DPAF, and a 1DX-like AF system

I'm guessing those folks would choose the latter. That's why I think the 7D2 is going to be quite successful despite what testers and enthusiasts are heckling the sensor for.

- A


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

ahsanford said:


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



+1, although the Arias video was meant to get people to shoot with what they have and think about it, whilst Tony only wanted to brag about his not really existent technical knowledge. 

I watch his videos, partly for fun, if he says something stupid, partly because from time to time he says something right... And I'm glad he sees the positive points in the camera and doesn't complain about the "lack" of DR, despite being a handicapped Nikon user (the bodies are soooooo much better, but the lenses can't keep up ;D ).


----------



## KacperP (Nov 10, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Put another way, if Canon gave the world's 7D1 owners a choice of what do with the 7D2 of:
> 
> Get one more stop of cleaner high ISO (i.e. a 7D2 shot at 3200 would resemble a 7D1 shot at 1600) and everything else is the same,
> 
> ...


+1
AF performance indeed.
Recently I was invited to a birthday party, that was in fact a surprise wedding party.
Had 60D + Sigma 18-35 1.8 and while I was worried about ISO performance, it was AF in low light that let me down in about 90% of shots  When looking at 7D2 specs and tracking, I suspect the score would be other way around.


----------

