D7000 sensor benchmark results are in!

[mjhoward]

DxOMark - Sensor rankings

Ranks (scores) of those that are probably of interest here:

8. Nikon D700 (80)
10. Nikon D7000 (80)
11. Canon 5DMKII (79)
28. Nikon D300s (70)
35. Nikon D300 (67)
41. Canon 60D (66)
44. Canon 7D (66)

Nikon D7000 had better DR than the D700, but the D700 won in low light. This resulted in an equal score.

Suck it Canon users

 

[Derrel]

DxOMark - Sensor rankings

Ranks (scores) of those that are probably of interest here:

8. Nikon D700 (80)
10. Nikon D7000 (80)
11. Canon 5DMKII (79)
28. Nikon D300s (70)
35. Nikon D300 (67)
41. Canon 60D (66)
44. Canon 7D (66)

Nikon D7000 had better DR than the D700, but the D700 won in low light. This resulted in an equal score.

Suck it Canon users

PENTAX though, takes the crown with its new K 5 and its sensor...the sensor and the electronics in the new Pentax are simply incredible. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/dethrone.html

K5 Low ISO Noise ----- Not! - PentaxForums.com

How to recover a 10 stop underexposed K-5 image. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The new Pentax can easily recover from almost-black underexposures!!!! The read electronics on the new Pentax must be simply incredible!!!

 

[mjhoward]

^ Impressive indeed. I'm not nearly as familiar with Pentax as I am with other manufacturers... how does their support for lenses, flashes, and other accessories compare with others? I'm guessing you could probably recover from an almost-black underexposure about the same on the D7000 as well since there is only a DR difference of 0.2Ev between the two (13.9 and 14.1).

btw everytime I hear Pentax, I think of feminine hygiene products

 

[MrLogic]

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxO Hysteria


Nov 7 (commentary)--Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one--not even DxO--has ever given me a seriously considered argument of how their single number summary applies to my shooting. I regularly shoot with cameras that have numbers ranging from a low of 47 to a high of 88 on the DxOmark scale. Do I care? Not really. Are my photos with the camera that scores a 47 terrible and my photos with the camera that scores an 88 great? No, it doesn't work that way. Not even close. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxOmark's numbering scale is 100% arbitrary. You could use the same underlying data to come up with another scale, which would produce "different" results (i.e. cameras would move relative to one another). But worse, some of the underlying data itself is open to debate. The "dynamic range" (DR) test, for example, I believe defines DR as full well to SN Ratio=1, all derived from a single step wedge test. This doesn't reflect how I use a camera and says nothing about the character of the noise itself. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Don't get me wrong. I've long said that every serious photographer should measure his camera, understand how it produces images, and come up with a strategy for optimizing their shooting using that camera. What I fail to see is how the DxOmark overall number gives me any useful information or method to do just that. Some (and I emphasize some) of their underlying measurements are indeed useful in understanding how a camera captures data from a scene, but you still need to understand what those tests are measuring and how they might apply to your shooting.[/FONT]

Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide

 

[ghache]

lol, as per this, the d90 is rated 4th place, behind the d7000 and k5 equaly with the 3rd place for apc-s sensors,

 

[KmH]

So, the D7000 has 1/2 the maximum ISO performance that the D700 has, and a slight improvement over the D90?

 

[chito beach]

lol, as per this, the d90 is rated 4th place, behind the d7000 and k5 equaly with the 3rd place for aps-c sensors,

You did not mention behind the Sony A55 also in 3rd place

My sister is ordering the K5 to replace her K10D this week

 

[shaunly]

That Pentax K-5 is looking pretty hot. Looks like there's going to be a fierce battle between the K-5 and D7000.

 

[Derrel]

That Pentax K-5 is looking pretty hot. Looks like there's going to be a fierce battle between the K-5 and D7000.

Agreed on the Pentax K 5 looking pretty hot in terms of sensor performance, due to its amazing abilities in terms of recovering underexposed images. It seems that the new Penta K5 has simply **incredible** dynamic range performance and amazingly low-noise electronics. If one looks at the DxO Mark dynamic range tool, one sees that the Pentax K5 has, once again, **incredible** dynamic range rendering capabilities that are significantly, not just marginally, better than basically any other digital I have ever seen tested.

As some Pentax owners have commented in this thead, with some of the other Pentax cameras, if an image is underexposed seriously, there is basically almost no possibility of recovering the image hidden within the RAW data. But the K5 has a sort of new-age capability in terms of allowing recovery of extremely under-exposed images, and I believe this is how the Dynamic Range is made so high,and better than the Nikjon D3x, the former champion. How to recover a 10 stop underexposed K-5 image. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Since the K5 allows extreme under-exposure, the photographer can under-expose to preserve brilliant highlights, and then recover the highlights in post production using the curves adjustment to "pull up" the shadows, and "push up" the highlights to where they belong, all the while enjoying those clean pixels made possible by exemplary, cutting-edge low noise electronics, and a killer image processing pipeline.

Keep in mind, this is how Nikon did it with the D3x: take an image sensel from Sony (the same sensel used in the Sony A900 and A850), and then put massive effort into constructing better ELECTRONICS with lower read-out noise, to blow away the same sensel when it was paired with average electronics with normal levels of read-out noise...

Sony might make the sensels, but the final "sensor" requires the camera makers to design an AA filter array, demosaicing, and read-out system...the "sensel" is what Sony sells Nikon and Pentax...then, the camera makers make them into cameras that THEY engineer and build.

As to Thom Hogan's dismissal of the DxO Mark's "single number": that's a disingenuous, flippant attempt to paint them with a broad brush; DxO Mark actually offers MULTIPLE evaluation numbers that help users see how cameras perform in terms of Dynamic Range, Low-Light/High ISO performance, and Color. He's being a bit fast and loose there in that paragraph. What "some" camera makers have already shown is that it is now possible, with effort, to take a sensel and sink resources into making it much,much more-capable than it might otherwise be, by working on the entire image processing and data-handling pipelines. The best comparison so far had been the D3x vs Sony A900 high-ISO and color-depth comparisons,and it appears that Pentax has seen what could be done, and has done the same basic thing, exceptionally well.

 

[djacobox372]

Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.

I smell journalistic tampering to ensure the manufactures cameras line up correctly on the chart.

 

[shaunly]

Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.

I felt the same way, but I just figure there's more to it than my understanding

 

[KmH]

Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.

I smell journalistic tampering to ensure the manufactures cameras line up correctly on the chart.

DXO indicates the D3 slightly out performs the D700 in:

• SNR 18%
• Dynamic Range
• Tonal Range
• and Color Sensitivity

and all of that, except dynamic range, at the higher ISO levels.

 

[cfusionpm]

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxO Hysteria[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nov 7[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (commentary)--Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one--not even DxO--has ever given me a seriously considered argument of how their single number summary applies to my shooting. I regularly shoot with cameras that have numbers ranging from a low of 47 to a high of 88 on the DxOmark scale. Do I care? Not really. Are my photos with the camera that scores a 47 terrible and my photos with the camera that scores an 88 great? No, it doesn't work that way. Not even close. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxOmark's numbering scale is 100% arbitrary. You could use the same underlying data to come up with another scale, which would produce "different" results (i.e. cameras would move relative to one another). But worse, some of the underlying data itself is open to debate. The "dynamic range" (DR) test, for example, I believe defines DR as full well to SN Ratio=1, all derived from a single step wedge test. This doesn't reflect how I use a camera and says nothing about the character of the noise itself. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don't get me wrong. I've long said that every serious photographer should measure his camera, understand how it produces images, and come up with a strategy for optimizing their shooting using that camera. What I fail to see is how the DxOmark overall number gives me any useful information or method to do just that. Some (and I emphasize some) of their underlying measurements are indeed useful in understanding how a camera captures data from a scene, but you still need to understand what those tests are measuring and how they might apply to your shooting.[/FONT]

Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide

I don't think there's a "thank" button large enough for this post. :thumbup:

 

[GeneralBenson]

The K-5 is, indeed, quite an amazing beast. Not only are the high ISO results very clean, especially for aps-c, but the low ISO results are still tack sharp and have great color. The previous Pentax K-x, which also did very well on the DxO test, had great high ISO, but the low ISO was dull, flat and boring. As compared to the body before the, the K-7, which had incredible low ISO, with some of the best colors, contrast, and IQ of any RAW files I've ever seen, but the high ISO wasn't very great, and the DR was pretty narrow.

The K-5 has managed to best the K-x in terms of DR and high ISO, while still retaining the great look of the lower ISOs. I still slightly prefer the lower ISO of the K-7, and find them to have a bit better color, and are sharper, but the K-5 is still very sharp at 100%. This all works just fine for me, since for the first time, I think Pentax has a system that makes sense as a pro to carry two diferent bodies. When the K-7 replaces the K20d, I felt no need to cary the K20d, besides just as a back up. The sensors were nearly identical, it didn't offer anything different. And the K-x offered better high ISO results, but I just didn't find it up to professional work, and was never really pleased with the files it put out, besides clean 6400. But now, there is enough of a difference between K-7 and K-5, that I see a reason to carry both, not just for the sake of a back up, but because they offer different options. I prefer the lower ISO of the K-7, and appreciate the contrast that comes from it's narrow DR. I think it's a better look than if I take a wider DR shot, then try to crunch it in post. But the high ISO is obviously better with the K-5, so when it gets dark, it's my go to. And then there is the whole 14.1 EV DR, which is just ridiculous. So wide gamut scenes, I'm going for the K-5. But I find the skin tones in particular more harsh with the K-5.

I also think the ergonomics of the K-7 are the best out of everything I've held. And the build and weather-sealing, which I have personally put run the ringer many times, are excellent. So to be able to get a killer spec'd camera, that fits well into a system with the K-7, rather than just replacing and making it obsolete, in the same comfy body... Let's just say I'm a happy shooter!

 

[Derrel]

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxO Hysteria[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nov 7[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (commentary)--Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one--not even DxO--has ever given me a seriously considered argument of how their single number summary applies to my shooting. I regularly shoot with cameras that have numbers ranging from a low of 47 to a high of 88 on the DxOmark scale. Do I care? Not really. Are my photos with the camera that scores a 47 terrible and my photos with the camera that scores an 88 great? No, it doesn't work that way. Not even close. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxOmark's numbering scale is 100% arbitrary. You could use the same underlying data to come up with another scale, which would produce "different" results (i.e. cameras would move relative to one another). But worse, some of the underlying data itself is open to debate. The "dynamic range" (DR) test, for example, I believe defines DR as full well to SN Ratio=1, all derived from a single step wedge test. This doesn't reflect how I use a camera and says nothing about the character of the noise itself. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don't get me wrong. I've long said that every serious photographer should measure his camera, understand how it produces images, and come up with a strategy for optimizing their shooting using that camera. What I fail to see is how the DxOmark overall number gives me any useful information or method to do just that. Some (and I emphasize some) of their underlying measurements are indeed useful in understanding how a camera captures data from a scene, but you still need to understand what those tests are measuring and how they might apply to your shooting.[/FONT]

Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide

I don't think there's a "thank" button large enough for this post. :thumbup:

Here you go. Here's the URL to a super-big thank-you. Everybody is free to use this image. Canon Fan Thank You.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com