D7000 sensor benchmark results are in!

[Sw1tchFX]

DxO scores mean nothing. If a camera scores 80, does that mean the camera that scores 40 won't shoot a picture? Worthless scores that are "ranked" way outta whack.

 

[Light Artisan]

I'm suprised at some of the responses here, I usually have found them to resemble my own experiences with the cameras I've owned.

Where do the results show photos weren't possible with cameras with scores not as high as others? As technology improves, the numbers should go up.

I'd much rather shoot with the D90 than the D80, that doesn't mean I didn't get great results with the D80, or D40 for that matter. Same goes (in general) with the D200 and D300s, however the D200 simply rocks at ISO 100/200.

 

[mjhoward]

I'm suprised at some of the responses here, I usually have found them to resemble my own experiences with the cameras I've owned.

Where do the results show photos weren't possible with cameras with scores not as high as others? As technology improves, the numbers should go up.

Canon owners whom are not happy about the ranks of their bodies. If it were Canon at the top and Nikon at the bottom, those same people would all be proclaiming how objective DxO is and how well their testing takes out subjective opinions. Funny thing is the Thom Hogan 'opinion' that was posted and 'thanked' and quoted by all the Canon users... yet his testing procedure and results seem far more subjective than DxO... unless you ask a Canon shooter

 

[Derrel]

DxO scores mean nothing. If a camera scores 80, does that mean the camera that scores 40 won't shoot a picture? Worthless scores that are "ranked" way outta whack.

Well, you own a Nikon D70, and I own a Nikon D70. The D70 scores a 50, overall.

You also own a Nikon D700, which scores an 80 overall.

How would you contextualize the D70's score of 50 as opposed to the D700's score of 80? I have seen your outstanding night-time images of stars over Mt. Hood, and recently read your post on how to compute night-time exposures, in which you gave great importance to your D700's outstanding performance at HIGH ISO values, like ISO 6,400.

Would you be willing to trade me my D70 for your D700, and a lens, perhaps?

 

[cfusionpm]

Childish antics aside, I'm surprised myself to agree so whole-heartedly with such a purist Nikon man like Thom Hogan! I mean, being such a blind fanboy of Canon, I should clearly just disagree with everything on principle.

Also, it's amazing what fun stuff you can find in 20 seconds using the search function and typing in "dxo":

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ucts-news-reviews/186599-dxo-7d-vs-d5000.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ts-news-reviews/207734-new-dxo-mark-info.html

And one of the links from one of those posts is another article talking about DXO Mark: Eyes vs. Numbers

I guess Thom's not the only one who thinks that!

 

[Derrel]

This must really,really chap your hide, eh Matt? A cheap Nikon with a better sensor than your current love, the 7D??

Or is the reason you linked to that comparison because when the folks at DxO Mark put up the original comparison, they had the frame rate of one of the cameras listed wrong? As mjhoward said, it SEEMS that Canon users are pretty upset because now that Nikon,and Pentax, and Sony are making better and better cameras, the old mid-2000's era tactic that Canon users loved to use, namely the technique of pointing to scientific testing and objective results on web sites, today shows that Canon's marketing department's emphasis on ever-expanding megapixel counts has cost Canon dearly in terms of High-ISO performance, color depth, and dynamic range...

Look at the sheer pixel SIZE advantage the D5000 has over the Canon 7D...it's about pixel well capacity, not megapixel count!!! Get a clue...there's no free lunch...a 12-bit capture versus a 14 bit capture, and the bigger pixels still win on 2 of 3 measures, by decisive amounts. Marketing versus Image Quality.

I would like to point out that the OP of this thread proclaimed how the Nikon D7000 was so good--and I was the one that pointed out that PENTAX has the APS-C crown now....not Nikon, and certainly not Canon. Your childish antics are forgiven.

 

[mjhoward]

I would like to point out that the OP of this thread proclaimed how the Nikon D7000 was so good--and I was the one that pointed out that PENTAX has the APS-C crown now....not Nikon, and certainly not Canon.

And I would like to point out, as the OP and an owner of the D7000, that I agreed that the Pentax was quite impressive. For the record, the main reason I had bolded the three that I did, and gave no mention to the Pentax, was due to the many comparisons/questions of the D7000 agiainst the 60D and 7D i've seen pop up over the past month. I also decided to throw the two main FF pro-sumer bodies that are discussed here in the mix.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, mjhoward, you have been very cool and objective. Here are graphic representations of the DxO Mark test results for the Canon 7D, the Nikon D7000, and the Pentax K-5. Look at the color depth, and the Dynamic Range statistics, as well as the pixel pitch. And then note that the Nikon and the Pentax are just over one full year newer than the 7D.

 

[shaunly]

I don't think Dxo testing is here to say that this xx camera can not take good pictures or what not... you guys are missing.

 

[cfusionpm]

This must really,really chap your hide, eh Matt? A cheap Nikon with a better sensor than your current love, the 7D??

Not really. I would gladly argue that it's still a better whole package in the 7D. And I would argue that final images taken with either would be virtually indistinquishable from eachother, even in a 300 dpi print.

Or is the reason you linked to that comparison because when the folks at DxO Mark put up the original comparison, they had the frame rate of one of the cameras listed wrong?

Actually, no. I did however find a lovely old comment that you seemed to out-right ignore when referring to DXO rating the Canon 50mm 1.8 as better than the 1.4. As usuall you run off on some irrelevant tangant and completely dodge answering my question. Here's the post, in case you forgot. :thumbup:

As mjhoward said, it SEEMS that Canon users are pretty upset because now that Nikon,and Pentax, and Sony are making better and better cameras, the old mid-2000's era tactic that Canon users loved to use, namely the technique of pointing to scientific testing and objective results on web sites, today shows that Canon's marketing department's emphasis on ever-expanding megapixel counts has cost Canon dearly in terms of High-ISO performance, color depth, and dynamic range...

I hope that's not directed at me! All I was messing around with at that time were Sony Cybershot point and shoots. I finally picked up my first DSLR for a photography class in fall 2006.

Your childish antics are forgiven.

What antics? Posting a giant, silly text image?

 

[JerrfyLube]

This must really,really chap your hide, eh Matt? A cheap Nikon with a better sensor than your current love, the 7D??

Not really. I would gladly argue that it's still a better whole package in the 7D. And I would argue that final images taken with either would be virtually indistinquishable from eachother, even in a 300 dpi print.

Or is the reason you linked to that comparison because when the folks at DxO Mark put up the original comparison, they had the frame rate of one of the cameras listed wrong?

Actually, no. I did however find a lovely old comment that you seemed to out-right ignore when referring to DXO rating the Canon 50mm 1.8 as better than the 1.4. As usuall you run off on some irrelevant tangant and completely dodge answering my question. Here's the post, in case you forgot. :thumbup:

As mjhoward said, it SEEMS that Canon users are pretty upset because now that Nikon,and Pentax, and Sony are making better and better cameras, the old mid-2000's era tactic that Canon users loved to use, namely the technique of pointing to scientific testing and objective results on web sites, today shows that Canon's marketing department's emphasis on ever-expanding megapixel counts has cost Canon dearly in terms of High-ISO performance, color depth, and dynamic range...

I hope that's not directed at me! All I was messing around with at that time were Sony Cybershot point and shoots. I finally picked up my first DSLR for a photography class in fall 2006.

Your childish antics are forgiven.

What antics? Posting a giant, silly text image?

Save your breath Matt...

You wont win a war against gear whores you play the "my camera scores higher on such and such website" game. :er: The end result is in the images and some just don't put out...

 

[Dao]

Personally, I stop worry about this type camera reviews based on sensor performance. I understand fact is fact and there is no doubt about it. However, I strongly believe it was not the sensor in my Canon 40D that stop me from producing breathtaking photos.

Until then, I will worry about other things such as why someone who use a Nikon D40/D50 can produce better image than me.

 

[cfusionpm]

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

 

[PhotoXopher]

The D90 vs D300s doesn't suprise me at all, looks very accurate actually.

 

[chito beach]

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

Why?