11-10-2014, 08:29 AM
Dear Klaus,
while I do not know about the quality of the 7DII sensor in particular, I suggest you take a more critical approach towards DXO. I beleive their ranking is highly flawed as it does not reassamble the quality one can achieve with a camera in real life. In addition to that, their lens test are quite often flawed from a technical perspective.
Cameras:
Currently I am shooting a 5D III supplemented by a Sony A7. I bought the Sony because of (i) light weight and (ii) higher dynamic range, because I love to push shaodws in post. To be honest, after a year of intense testing I am thoroughly dispappointed with the Sony. The higher dynamic range materializes only below iso 400 and even there only in very few instances. For example: I can easily push the shaowds in my 5D shots with a full 100% in Lightroom and addtionally increase exposure by a stop without any problems in most shots. Only if there are extremly underexposed parts in an image ( or if I did not get the exposure right) the Sony has visibly less colour noise in the shadows. In normal circumstances the Canon's low iso shots are easily just as good as the Sony. At high iso (meaning already ISo 800 above) the Canon has a lot less colour and lumiscence noise than the Sony, yielding sharper shots for bigger prints. In total: the Sony is slightly better at iso 100- iso200, which only shows in about 1 out of 500 of my images, because it requires extreme manipulation to see any of it. The Canon however is much beter than the from iso 800. Thus, unless you are only shooting from a tripod at low iso, or in studio, I think the Canon sendor is the better one. It certainly delivers much more even results throughout the iso range. I wish I could report a different result as this actually negates the point of my purchase of the Sony, which is very unsatisfying to say the least.
My work can be seen here: www.photography-in-style.de
Lenses:
DxO Mark lens test are sometimes so flawed it is actually ridiculous. Take for example their test of the Canon 16-35 /2.8 L II and look at the sharpness field for 16mm. According to that graph the image borders and corners are sharpest at f/2.8 and become less sharp the more you stop the lens down. While I am not a fan of this particular lens, (as it just is not very good at the borders), a result which claims that it actually looses sharpness at 16mm when you stop it down, is plainly wrong (outside the m43 world I do not know any lens which is difrraction limited wide open). If you click through their other lens tests you will find similar questionable results all over the place (regardless of manufacturer).
Thus I would recommmend that you rent a 7DII and try it out for yourself. At least I dont find DXO particularly helpful fro any practical photographer.
Regards
Jens
while I do not know about the quality of the 7DII sensor in particular, I suggest you take a more critical approach towards DXO. I beleive their ranking is highly flawed as it does not reassamble the quality one can achieve with a camera in real life. In addition to that, their lens test are quite often flawed from a technical perspective.
Cameras:
Currently I am shooting a 5D III supplemented by a Sony A7. I bought the Sony because of (i) light weight and (ii) higher dynamic range, because I love to push shaodws in post. To be honest, after a year of intense testing I am thoroughly dispappointed with the Sony. The higher dynamic range materializes only below iso 400 and even there only in very few instances. For example: I can easily push the shaowds in my 5D shots with a full 100% in Lightroom and addtionally increase exposure by a stop without any problems in most shots. Only if there are extremly underexposed parts in an image ( or if I did not get the exposure right) the Sony has visibly less colour noise in the shadows. In normal circumstances the Canon's low iso shots are easily just as good as the Sony. At high iso (meaning already ISo 800 above) the Canon has a lot less colour and lumiscence noise than the Sony, yielding sharper shots for bigger prints. In total: the Sony is slightly better at iso 100- iso200, which only shows in about 1 out of 500 of my images, because it requires extreme manipulation to see any of it. The Canon however is much beter than the from iso 800. Thus, unless you are only shooting from a tripod at low iso, or in studio, I think the Canon sendor is the better one. It certainly delivers much more even results throughout the iso range. I wish I could report a different result as this actually negates the point of my purchase of the Sony, which is very unsatisfying to say the least.
My work can be seen here: www.photography-in-style.de
Lenses:
DxO Mark lens test are sometimes so flawed it is actually ridiculous. Take for example their test of the Canon 16-35 /2.8 L II and look at the sharpness field for 16mm. According to that graph the image borders and corners are sharpest at f/2.8 and become less sharp the more you stop the lens down. While I am not a fan of this particular lens, (as it just is not very good at the borders), a result which claims that it actually looses sharpness at 16mm when you stop it down, is plainly wrong (outside the m43 world I do not know any lens which is difrraction limited wide open). If you click through their other lens tests you will find similar questionable results all over the place (regardless of manufacturer).
Thus I would recommmend that you rent a 7DII and try it out for yourself. At least I dont find DXO particularly helpful fro any practical photographer.
Regards
Jens
Quote:Originally I planned to move to the EOS 7D II but at least over at Dxo Mark the sensor seems to be mediocre at best:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/S...77_953_865
Even the Olympus E-M1 is better (73pts) with its substantially smaller sensor. The 7DII is barely better than the 70D (70 vs 68pts)
This is disappointing regarding its very steep price tag.
Not sure what to do with this ...