Help with buying a camera please.

[SkaGoat]

Ok.. but last I checked, all forms of image stabilization are basically useless for a moving object. So OSS is no better IBIS

Those are noticeable differences. You are making a weird argument -- That since 24.4 is only 10% better than 22, the means 22 is better?

Yes, and even the original A77 out-performed that AF system based on professional testing. And while live view AF is faster on the 70D than prior Canon models, it is still MUCH slower than the Sony dSLT cameras.

Imaging-resource measured the AF/shutter time in the 70D live-view mode to be just over 0.5 seconds. Not bad for a traditional dSLR. But still much slower than the A77 -- 0.124 seconds. Four times faster. (400%)




Oh.... a guy blogged about it. Okay... I'll rely on professional reviews from trusted sources. And such sources have not found any resolution penalty for the dSLT mirror. It effect is only light loss, about 1/3rd of a stop usually.




Huh? No.... That's not how DXOMark does their testing. You should read the explanation of their testing. Not sure where you are finding the graphs either. But they test DR and color at base ISO.

In fact, here is what the reviewer from DXOMark commented:

"Although technically the ageing but still hugely capable and popular Canon EOS 7D is the closest to the new Sony, the sensor in the Canon EOS 70D is the latest from the firm. Like others from the firm the Raw data output doesn’t fair that well with rivals in our tests, particularly at base ISO. The Sony has +1.3 improvement in color and a sizeable +2 stops wider dynamic range, however in low-light capabilities the two are evenly matched."

Now, does DXOMark consider those differences to be significant?
This is what DXOMark says about DR:

"A value of 12 EV is excellent, with differences below 0.5 EV usually not noticeable."

So according to DXOMark, the Canon 70D does not reach "excellent" level of DR. While the A77ii breaks the excellent level of 1.5 stops.

For color depth, DXOMark claims:

"A color sensitivity of 22bits is excellent, and differences below 1 bit are barely noticeable."

So according to DXOMark -- Canon 70D barely reaches an excellent level, while the Sony is noticeably better.

Now, I'm not claiming that DXOMark is the sole judge of such criteria. They are but one source. There are other professional testers, using different methodology, which have favored Canon in other ways. (For example, at high ISO, Canon better preserves the dynamic range)

So I've learned with DXOMark to ignore their summaries, because they are almost always slanted to Nikon or Sony.

If you click the measurements tab, when comparing two cameras, it brings up the graphs with all the measurements. So yes, the Sony has more DR at base ISO, but once you increase the ISO the gap narrows, by 200 they are under 1 ev apart, and by ISO 400 it's a dead heat, we the same in colour sensitivity. At ISO 200 they're are 1.4 bits apart, and they stay at about 1 bit apart until 3200 ISO. For noise, after base ISO, 70D and a77 ii are identical.

So yes, at base ISO the Sony has better numbers, but one, they aren't that much better, and once you switch away from base ISO, that goes away.

I'm not a Sony hater, I just don't see any reason to switch, to an SLT. And to live, and die by DXOMark is a mistake, they have a big bias against Canon, even in situations where you can see with your eyes, the photos are noisier, they still say the Nikon is better.... dpreview is much more trust worthy, and uses actual photos for comparison.

 

[havoc315]

So I've learned with DXOMark to ignore their summaries, because they are almost always slanted to Nikon or Sony.

If you click the measurements tab, when comparing two cameras, it brings up the graphs with all the measurements. So yes, the Sony has more DR at base ISO, but once you increase the ISO the gap narrows, by 200 they are under 1 ev apart, and by ISO 400 it's a dead heat, we the same in colour sensitivity. At ISO 200 they're are 1.4 bits apart, and they stay at about 1 bit apart until 3200 ISO. For noise, after base ISO, 70D and a77 ii are identical.

So yes, at base ISO the Sony has better numbers, but one, they aren't that much better, and once you switch away from base ISO, that goes away.

I'm not a Sony hater, I just don't see any reason to switch, to an SLT. And to live, and die by DXOMark is a mistake, they have a big bias against Canon, even in situations where you can see with your eyes, the photos are noisier, they still say the Nikon is better.... dpreview is much more trust worthy, and uses actual photos for comparison.

Sounds more like you ignore dxomark simply because you don't like their conclusions.
There are multiple ways to measure and compare. That's why I read practically everything, including dpreview, imaging-resource, popphoto, and others to better understand photography, and the state of technology.
I don't simply dismiss any reputable objective tester, though I try to put it in perspective with the other information from other reputable sources.

We find that Canon sensor development has stagnated for a few years, while other cameras have advanced. Thus, raw file output is often better as low ISO from other brands. Canon cameras often excel at better jpeg processing. They also tend to preserve more dynamic range at higher ISO. In terms of straight signal to noise ratios of raw files, Nikon and Pentax are the leaders. With Canon and Sony dSLTs basically tied in the next tier. But by some other measures, particularly of jpegs, Canon can appear in a better light.

I do like dpreview, their reviews are detailed and informative. Oh, and if you use their comparison tool -- in terms f the original A77, they found it produced superior RAW image quality to the Canon 7d and 70d, but they gave Canon the edge in jpegs and noise.

 

[Animagic!]

I'm going to stay out of the fray. I must admit I agree with Havoc but I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm not nearly passionate enough or ambitious enough about this to jump into this debate. However, I will throw out there a couple thoughts...

Definitely not going to lure anyone away from the Canon or Nikon systems.

This is not true. I can't speak for everyone but this was not the case with me.

I was in the rare position recently to choose a new camera system. I looked at Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras to weigh their pros and cons. I looked carefully into the Nikon 610 and the Canon 6D. Actually I almost bought the Canon 6D. Ultimately, I spent a few hundred dollars more for the Sony rather than the Nikon or Canon. I choose Sony not because I was already invested in the system but because I actually want the SLT technology. Focus peaking alone is enough to make me choose Sony. Many people don't feel that way but I do. It's important to me. I'm willing to trade some light for the translucent mirror. Besides my a99 has more bells and whistles than I need anyway. And it feels wonderful in my hands. Those are all things that are important to me. My friends and the photographers I look up to the most all are Nikon users. The pull to Nikon was very strong but at the end of the day I wanted what only the Sony a99 could offer me.

Everyone has their individual wants and needs. Between Sony, Canon, and Nikon those wants and needs can be met. It really just depends on the individual.

If I was buying a new APS-C camera I would choose the a77II, with the Pentax K3 at an uncomfortably close second place. If Pentax made full frame digital cameras I would have gone that route actually.

Once last thing about photographers that I have noticed... In watching all the heated debates and arguments on message boards and what not I've notice patterns of behavior (in a general sense) among Canon, Nikon, and Sony users. Canon users hate DXOmark. Given the scores I guess I can understand why they feel that way. (But I also don't think its a conspiracy against Canon) I have also noticed Canon users are the most easily upset (no offense) which is tied up into their strong brand loyalty. I find that understandably annoying but I also think that speaks a lot about Canon's products. Obviously they must be doing something right to instill such brand loyalty in their customers. Sony users seem to look at their cameras with genuine affection but also with the need to convince others that their camera is as good as Canikon. I believe Sony is every bit as good as Canikon and their performance should speak for itself. But as the little redheaded stepchild in the Canikon dominated market, Sony users feel the need to justify why they run with the big dogs because they are trying to break into the pack. I don't think they are annoying or obnoxious about it but they are willing to jump in and defend Sony. Nikon users are the most amusing to me because they don't care. LOL Nikon users always seem off in their own little world of photographing things, blissfully unaware of what the other brands are doing. They seem to know what lenses they want and use them. They don't worry about dynamic range or high ISO capabilities. They know that whatever they want to do photographically they can do with their camera. Hahaha I'm not saying Nikon has magical or special cameras. It just seems Nikon users are the just like "Ehh whatever. Ok." and go about their photography business, content with their gear and unconcerned with what Sony and Canon is doing.

 

[photo_chick]

Animagic! your post is a good example of why all the minutia in the breakdown of specs, pitting camera against camera, isn't all that important. You liked the SLT technology and wanted a camera with that. In the end the features you want matter the most.


As far as DXOmark, and really any other measurement of specs or review based solely on specs and measurements, I think they're a great guide but are in no way a replacement for real world use. I see threads like this and all I can think is get your hands on all of the cameras before you go on about which one is better.

By all rights I should miss focus all the time with my 6D. Seriously, according to the tests and reviews it's got the worst AF ever. Well, at least the worst AF since the 5DmkII and look at the losers who used that camera. I nail the focus 99% of the time and that one percent of the time I'm off it's so insignificant that it doesn't factor much for me. According to all the reviews and tests I should not be able to do this. But in the real world, with the way I shoot, I don't have any problems. Because those reviews and tests are far too controlled to be a complete representation of the camera's performance and they do not take into account a person's personal shooting style. I'm an anticipatory shooter so the 6D is great for me but a spray and pray sports shooter will more than likely hate the camera's AF system. It's one of the many things the numbers can't tell you.

 

[havoc315]

By all rights I should miss focus all the time with my 6D. Seriously, according to the tests and reviews it's got the worst AF ever. Well, at least the worst AF since the 5DmkII and look at the losers who used that camera. I nail the focus 99% of the time and that one percent of the time I'm off it's so insignificant that it doesn't factor much for me. According to all the reviews and tests I should be able to do this. But in the real world, with the way I shoot, I don't have any problems. Because those reviews and tests are far too controlled to be a complete representation of the camera's performance and they do not take into account a person's personal shooting style. I'm an anticipatory shooter so the 6D is great for me but a spray and pray sports shooter will more than likely hate the camera's AF system. It's one of the many things the numbers can't tell you.

That's an excellent point. Truthfully, I don't think there is a "bad" dSLR on the market. Every camera is capable of pretty much equally great shots (within its competitive sensor size, obviously a full frame will beat an APS-C). Though different strengths and weaknesses of different cameras, may require adaptation of shooting style.

The 6D may not have the best all-around AF system in the world, but when used properly, it is fully capable of perfect focus. As one example.
Sony dSLTs may be slightly noisier than rivals, requiring greater care to use lower ISO, or more careful post-processing of high ISO shots.
etc etc

 

[SkaGoat]

First off... I got a little carried away! LOL

I agree with all you above me!

I think I get defensive when anyone brings up DXOMark, because they're purely analytical stats, and in the long run don't really make a difference in your day to day use of a camera.

I've always weighted actual test shots over the numbers and graphs.

I chose my first Canon because of how it felt in my hand (Rebel XS/1000D), when compared to the Nikon D40.

I used that camera until last fall when I decided I wanted something with better ergonomics, better AF, better IQ, and more speed.

I looked into Nikons again, but still wasn't into their ergonomics, tried a buddies A77 for a week, the ergonomics were ok, some of the button placement seemed weird, and the EVF was something I couldn't get used to. It was fast, responsive.

All the cameras I tried had great IQ, and honestly, in a blind test you probably wouldn't have been able to tell them apart.

I tried the 7D in the store, it had good ergonomics, good IQ, great AF, the same control layout as the 5Dmiii, it also was 3 years old at the time, I could go out and find a barely used ones, for hundreds less than a new one.

I like the a99, I think it's in a great spot, it costs a little more than a 6D, or D610 but has a lot more features, and it is about $1000 cheaper than a 5Dmiii or D800e. But full frame is out of my budget right now.

The great thing about the 6D's AF system is that centre point is super precise, and it'll grab focus in really low light.

 

[havoc315]

First off... I got a little carried away! LOL

I agree with all you above me!

I think I get defensive when anyone brings up DXOMark, because they're purely analytical stats, and in the long run don't really make a difference in your day to day use of a camera.

I've always weighted actual test shots over the numbers and graphs.

I chose my first Canon because of how it felt in my hand (Rebel XS/1000D), when compared to the Nikon D40.

I used that camera until last fall when I decided I wanted something with better ergonomics, better AF, better IQ, and more speed.

I looked into Nikons again, but still wasn't into their ergonomics, tried a buddies A77 for a week, the ergonomics were ok, some of the button placement seemed weird, and the EVF was something I couldn't get used to. It was fast, responsive.

All the cameras I tried had great IQ, and honestly, in a blind test you probably wouldn't have been able to tell them apart.

I tried the 7D in the store, it had good ergonomics, good IQ, great AF, the same control layout as the 5Dmiii, it also was 3 years old at the time, I could go out and find a barely used ones, for hundreds less than a new one.

I like the a99, I think it's in a great spot, it costs a little more than a 6D, or D610 but has a lot more features, and it is about $1000 cheaper than a 5Dmiii or D800e. But full frame is out of my budget right now.

The great thing about the 6D's AF system is that centre point is super precise, and it'll grab focus in really low light.

All a great summary.

In very broad generalized strokes...
In these discussions..
You often see Nikon users with a smugness of being the "real photographers".. pretending they aren't interested in technological gadgets.
Sony users have a bit of a chip on their shoulder, getting very defensive about their cameras and refusing to admit that there can be any drawbacks compared to the big brands.
Canon users get a bit presumptive -- since their brand is the most popular, they act with an assumption that it must be the best, and get dismissive of other brands and any criticism of their brand.
Pentax users embrace their minority and wear it as a badge of honor.

These are very very broad generalizations, and I'm not describing every user of the cameras.

 

[photo_chick]

All a great summary.

In very broad generalized strokes...
In these discussions..
You often see Nikon users with a smugness of being the "real photographers".. pretending they aren't interested in technological gadgets.
Sony users have a bit of a chip on their shoulder, getting very defensive about their cameras and refusing to admit that there can be any drawbacks compared to the big brands.
Canon users get a bit presumptive -- since their brand is the most popular, they act with an assumption that it must be the best, and get dismissive of other brands and any criticism of their brand.
Pentax users embrace their minority and wear it as a badge of honor.

These are very very broad generalizations, and I'm not describing every user of the cameras.

What is that saying... The new photographer is all about the settings, the intermediate photographer is all about the gear, the advanced photographer is all about the light.

Brand doesn't matter. Features don't matter. The photographer is the only thing required to make a great image.

 

[fractal]

What is that saying... The new photographer is all about the settings, the intermediate photographer is all about the gear, the advanced photographer is all about the light.

That's a great saying!

 

[havoc315]

What is that saying... The new photographer is all about the settings, the intermediate photographer is all about the gear, the advanced photographer is all about the light.

There definitely is a circle. The total novice photographer is lost even by the features on an entry level dSLR. An advanced model/lenses would be useless for them, as they wouldn't know what to do with a wide aperture, or dual control dials, etc.

The intermediate photographer knows how to utilize gear, post processing, etc... and gets some benefits from all that stuff.

And then the truly master photographer, can get amazing shots without much in terms of gear or post-processing at all.

Feel the same way about RAW shooting. Novices shoot jpeg, and wouldn't get any added benefit from shooting raw. Intermediate photographers get a lot of extra quality out of shooting RAW. But then truly advanced photographers are better at getting exactly what they need in-camera, and therefore can more often get away with just shooting jpeg.

I consider myself an intermediate photographer who needs to shoot raw, and who is definitely helped by more advanced gear.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm not quite all about the light yet. I want to be, but sometimes I use my gear crutch a little too often.

 

[SkaGoat]

I'm not quite all about the light yet. I want to be, but sometimes I use my gear crutch a little too often.

you're preaching to the choir on that one!

 

[Animagic!]

Pentax users embrace their minority and wear it as a badge of honor. QUOTE]

Hahaha this is why I like Pentax users. They all seem to band together to celebrate that they are the minority. I really enjoy using my Pentax K30 and my inexpensive, plastic Pentax 35mm f/2.4 is a fantastic lens! I never even use my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8-4 on the K30 because the Pentax 35mm is so much better. The irony is that Pentax makes mostly full frame lenses and very few APS-C lenses and yet the do not make a full framer digital camera. However I enjoy the way Pentax cameras operate. If they threw a 35mm Sony sensor in a K3 body I would buy that camera in a heartbeat.

I'm glad with the new direction this thread took. Everybody is agreeing with eachother. Hahaha