I realize that.
But whoever wrote that DxO article is a geek behind a desk, not someone who's ever been outdoors trying to take nature or wildlife photography. You rarely use "base ISO" for that. The article was written from the perspective of a guy who doesn't even know what a camera is FOR ...
DxOMark's sensor tests are just that - sensor tests. They are not tests of camera systems or camera X or camera Z works in some conditions.
If you are not interested in such tests, why read them? Why care about them?
If he had the first clue about what a crop camera is for it is REACH
Actually it's the
pixel pitch together with the quality of the lens which defines the "reach",
not the crop factor.
... and if the Canon 7D Mark II has better low ISO performance than all the others
Actually
it only has similar high ISO performance to that of the competition, and worse low
and medium ISO performance.. The difference to one way or the other is insignificant.
There is one area of sensor image quality performance which DxO unfortunately does not measure and that is the nature of sensor generated noise, i.e. pattern noises. Traditionally this has also been more an issue with Canons, though not as much at high ISOs and less an issue lately. Don't know how 7DII performs regarding that though.
and better ergonomics, AF, functionality, etc. ... then it eclipses the competition pretty much on every level, as a wildlife/sports camera.
This is your subjective optinion, not a statement of facts. Unless you provide evidence it will only remain as such no matter how many times you repeat it.
A person who actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this.
DxOMark doesn't do such testing - it's not their niche. If you don't like their findings, please criticize them within the context of their niche instead of blaming them for bad review because they don't test the things you consider important.
Wow, I keep having to repeat myself: people who actually use cameras for sports and wildlife photography don't really care about "base ISO," as they almost never use this.
I certainly do use low and medium ISO for wildlife - and lots. To disprove you I went to
flickr, searched to
bird flight and took a note of the used ISO value in the first 12 pictures which showed it - here is the list of them:
- 200
- 1600
- 100
- 100
- 160
- 320
- 400
- 400
- 1600
- 400
- 500
- 200
This does not support your hypothesis at all.
The EOS 7D II is a more fully-functional camera, on pretty much every level ... and surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs.
This is of course again just your subjective opinion not backed with evidence. DxOMark doesn't measure them. It is not the point of what they do.
For wildlife and fast-action, it is very compelling camera all the way around, including its sensor.
Sure. I don't think many, including DxOMark claims otherwise. It's image sensor has some weaknessess compared to other contemporary sensors - that's what DxOMark is about. If you're not interested in that, then why complain?
I am not sure this is a fact.
(was about colour separation - for some reason the editor didn't quoe it.)
It is a fact. DxOMark measures this and provides the hard evidence. Why not just check it yourself? You need to go to the individual camera measurements though as the comparison mode doesn't allow for checking this data.
I have heard Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon, etc.
Now, this is hard evidence if anything
I may sound repetetive, but DxOMark measures the sensors (including the colour filter array), not how certain JPG-engines, raw-convertersion software of individuals convert the data the sensor gets into images.
Fact is that the CFA of Canon does a weak separation - this allow for less accurate colour representation than the competition. How this potential is used by individuals like you and me is irrelevant.
Most of the really great macro I have seen comes from Canon.
Most of the keen sports photography comes from Canon.
More hard evidence, right?
Most of the really great macro shots I've seen comes from a quite random distribution of cameras, most from Canons and Nikons simply because there are more of them than anything else, especilly in the hand of advanced users (and for this there are many reasons).
For sports the above also applies, but even more heavily weighted to Canon & Nikon due to their pro support programs and availability of suitable lenses.
Anyhow, none of the above has anything to do with the context of the DxOMark review.
Interesting facts, thanks. But, again, high ISO is what matters most to wildlife/sports photographers,
You're welcome. But, again, unless high ISO starts from ISO 200, that's not the case as proven with the random sample of the flickr-images.
so if that is where Canon excels ... and if its ergonomics, frame rate, and functionality also at the top of the food chain, then this merely confirms its position as THE best camera of the lot of them for this purpose.
DxOMark doesn't measure what is the "best camera" - simply defining what "best" is in the context you use is impossible.
DxOMark measures image sensor performance.
7DII has strengths and weaknessess, just like any other camera. How these play out for oneself is a very personal and subjective thing. It is obvious that you like that camera very much, but that doesn't mean that it's superior to some other camera if we consider facts objectively. A good example is "ergonomics" (or rather the usability/comfort) - what you consider to be comfortable and easy to use, someone else may find to be hideous and vice versa.
Whatever they're doing now, they already have the best all-around wildlife and sports camera available. If they do what you suggest to their next FF camera, the would be nice, but already what they have is nice.
This is your subjective opinion. I don't agree when it comes to the performance of the image sensor, not even when we consider the relevant ISOs. But it certainly is better action camera (wildlife or other) than my Sony A7.
Speak for yourself: I am a natural light macro shooter.
I do use a tripod, but I almost never use flash, because I prefer the rendering of natural light.
Because of this, I am invariably at a mid-to-high ISO.
So maybe for you this is just the camera you want, but that doesn't mean that it's the same for others.
I know some awesome super telephoto wildlife photographers, and have seen scores of their images, and almost none are at base ISO ... so I think you're just making this up in your head, and don't actually try to capture wildlife photography yourself with such lenses.
I think you're repeating yourself a lot now: none of what you say is objective evidence.
The super telephoto wildlife shoots I've encountered or witnessed have almost always used a tripod, occasionally a monopod. With tripod you only need a shutter speed high enough to stop the motion. Unless the light is very low, there is no reason go pump up the ISO (and with many non-Canon sensored cameras one might want to stay at base ISO regardless to save possible highlights if any exist)
I said "High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO." and you responded:
I am not sure what you mean by this.
For most use scenatios the low ISOs are much more important than high ISO. In the niche you describe low ISO is still very important, but the (low)middle ISOs are probably the most used ones. High ISO is not, at least not if we check out exifs from images in publick sources and do a statistical analysis.
Don't know what to say about this, nor what fantacizing about the future has to do with the present subject: the Canon 7D II right now a full complement of superior features to the competition and possesses a sensor which is equal to/better, at higher ISOs, where it matters to people who actually use their cameras.
This is your opinion, not a statement of fact. Also the high-ISO thingie is not really right. Any current full frame eats it alive while Sony and Toshiba APS-C equal it at high ISO. The new Samsung NX1 is likely to be the best APS-C in low light (due to the backside illuminated image sensor).
But I am sure it's a good camera, especially in a certain very narrow niche.
And cameras are all about being used for a purpose, not just having one, isolated aspect sensor performance evaluated by bespectacled geeks who don't actually use cameras.
If you're not interested in sensor performance, then why do you participate in a thread which is all about it?And, for the purpose of wildlife photography & sports photography, which usually involve REACH, higher ISOs, and the ability to nail "a moment" before it's gone, the EOS 7D II delivers.
So do many or most other cameras.
You come out very defensive of the Canon 7DII - I wonder why? Has it been rubbished in some way? It's a fine camera, but that's not what DxOMark measures, nor does it measure AF, usability, weather sealing, size of the shutter release button or anything like that.
I think you should consider the context of DxOMark.
In conclusion I'd like to quote the DxOMark review you attacked so strongly:
On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but that’s not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightlyThe underines were added by me to emphasize things. I don't think you've got any reason to be so vocal.
Chin up mate, Abe!
