[jsherman999]

Time for Canon to give it up and go with a 3rd-party sensor designer? Their mid-level aps-c sensor has made it to 2008!

.

[Rondec]

You could do the same thing with the D7100 and the K5 -- newer sensor scoring almost equivalent to the 3+ year old sensor in the K5. I just think sensor technology has plateaued. Canon is lagging behind Sony and Toshiba and Aptina, but their cameras are still decent and if I had a stable of Canon glass, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their cameras and wouldn't feel frustrated by the "sensor deficiency."

[jsherman999]

You could do the same thing with the D7100 and the K5 -- newer sensor scoring almost equivalent to the 3+ year old sensor in the K5.

But the K-5 comes from the Sony sensor generation after the D90.

.

... Canon is lagging behind Sony and Toshiba and Aptina, but their cameras are still decent and if I had a stable of Canon glass, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their cameras and wouldn't feel frustrated by the "sensor deficiency."

Man, I would. The most expensive, arguably most important part in that camera is two generations behind it's tier-mates.

But I shoot in low light all the time. Going backwards to my D90's image capability would be incredibly frustrating in light of the other modernities that 70D has. It would be fun to shoot, not so fun to review the images later, for me.

[thechumpen]

Snap sort is interesting. I compared k-r with k-5iiS and it says one of the advantages of K-r is better autofocus. Really?

Pentax K-5 IIs vs K-r - Our Analysis

Sorry, didn't mean to thread hijack. I'll get my coat.

[Rondec]

But the K-5 comes from the Sony sensor generation after the D90.

.


Man, I would. The most expensive, arguably most important part in that camera is two generations behind it's tier-mates.

But I shoot in low light all the time. Going backwards to my D90's image capability would be incredibly frustrating in light of the other modernities that 70D has. It would be fun to shoot, not so fun to review the images later, for me.

But I think low light on the two sensors is equivalent -- a sports score of 977 versus 926, that's the same score. The only difference is in dynamic range. I'd say that as long as the 70D auto focus module is up to it (and you have an equivalent lens), you could shoot in the same light as you could with the D90

[JinDesu]

But I think low light on the two sensors is equivalent -- a sports score of 977 versus 926, that's the same score. The only difference is in dynamic range. I'd say that as long as the 70D auto focus module is up to it (and you have an equivalent lens), you could shoot in the same light as you could with the D90

I think he means having to go back to the D90's weaker high ISO when he is used to the newer Nikon cameras that do well at high ISO.

On the other hand, the k-5 and the D7100 are rated at ISO 1200, which is about 1/3 stop better than the 70D/D90. So that's not a huge amount.
On the other other hand, the k-5 and the D7100 have 24 bit color depth and about 14EV of DR, so the 70D kinda sucks in comparison that way.
On the other other other (other?) hand - I didn't bother checking the ISO/DR performance as you increase the ISO. I know the k-5 performs admirably well in that aspect.

[Rondec]

I think he means having to go back to the D90's weaker high ISO when he is used to the newer Nikon cameras that do well at high ISO.

On the other hand, the k-5 and the D7100 are rated at ISO 1200, which is about 1/3 stop better than the 70D/D90. So that's not a huge amount.
On the other other hand, the k-5 and the D7100 have 24 bit color depth and about 14EV of DR, so the 70D kinda sucks in comparison that way.
On the other other other (other?) hand - I didn't bother checking the ISO/DR performance as you increase the ISO. I know the k-5 performs admirably well in that aspect.

The dynamic range curves are actually odd if you compare the 70D to, say the K5. Much flatter, such that by the time you get iso 800, there is only a half stop difference in dynamic range between the K5 and the 70D (same with the D7100). Nikon fudges some on their iso numbers which makes it a little difficult to compare, but the biggest improvement with Sony sensors is at low iso, not high iso, for what it is worth.

[Nesster]

Just maybe, DxO is irrelevant except in a very generic way, and photographic utility has many more dimensions -- including support, social factors, other camera features and performance areas -- than just focusing on one thing allows. Sure it is nice to be into a camera maker whose sensors score high, it strokes the ego and the mind comes up with loads of reasons why this is a good, a necessary, thing! But it ain't the alpha (sony) or omega (film enlarger) of it

[borno]

Looks like the 645D is a failure, no better than the k5II (if you believe that pablum)

[jsherman999]

Looks like the 645D is a failure, no better than the k5II (if you believe that pablum)

In some real, practical, visible ways, it is worse than the K5II. (but only in some ways.)

[jsherman999]

Just maybe, DxO is irrelevant except in a very generic way, and photographic utility has many more dimensions -- including support, social factors, other camera features and performance areas -- than just focusing on one thing allows. Sure it is nice to be into a camera maker whose sensors score high, it strokes the ego and the mind comes up with loads of reasons why this is a good, a necessary, thing! But it ain't the alpha (sony) or omega (film enlarger) of it

Of course, but image quality is still - at least for me - the most important thing a body delivers. AF is a close second, but IQ is what I pay money for when I buy a body.

[jsherman999]

But I think low light on the two sensors is equivalent -- a sports score of 977 versus 926, that's the same score. The only difference is in dynamic range. I'd say that as long as the 70D auto focus module is up to it (and you have an equivalent lens), you could shoot in the same light as you could with the D90

This is exactly what I'm saying - it's the same (and DR is worse,) and you're comparing a camera that was released in 2008 to a camera released in 2013 in the same tier.

I think Canon may expect the wifi and other bells + whistles to sell this camera in spite of the lackluster sensor, and then the successor to the 70D will induce upgrade urges by replacing the sensor with something that has modern performance. I guess when you're Canon, you can play with your customers like that.

The 70D is born to lose, in other words, but it's typical buyers won't realize that until Canon needs them to.

[dms]

As pointed out by some of the comments--the DXO composite score is not very meaningful (for the specialist/pro any way). If for example one does sports he/she wants a wider DR at iso 1600, and could care less what the DR is at iso 100. A high DXO mark may make a good all around camera but not a camera for the specialist! And the more money you are spending the more likely you need the camera for a niche activity.

[jsherman999]

As pointed out by some of the comments--the DXO composite score is not very meaningful .

Does anyone pay attention to that overall composite score?

[JohnBee]

Time for Canon to give it up and go with a 3rd-party sensor designer? Their mid-level aps-c sensor has made it to 2008!

.

I've always felt bad for Canon in this regard.

Over the years, I couldn't help but feel as though they've been releasing above average bodies with sub-par sensors. Which likely hurt them alot as prosumers and gear heads will inevitably come across the no's along with their product research. ie. when I was in the market for a FF, the Mark III was on the list. Having spent some time with the camera there were many aspects of the kit that made it appealing. However, I simply couldn't get passed the thought that my purchase would result in a downgrade in IQ over my existing APS-C system and so it was scratched off the list as a result of that. Which resulted in my saying: Poor Canon, more than once along the way.