# D7000 sensor benchmark results are in!



## mjhoward (Nov 8, 2010)

DxOMark - Sensor rankings

Ranks (scores) of those that are probably of interest here:

8. Nikon D700 (80)*
10. Nikon D7000* *(80)*
11. Canon 5DMKII (79)
28. Nikon D300s (70)
35. Nikon D300 (67)
*41. Canon 60D (66)
44. Canon 7D* *(66)*

Nikon D7000 had better DR than the D700, but the D700 won in low light.  This resulted in an equal score.

Suck it Canon users


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2010)

mjhoward said:


> DxOMark - Sensor rankings
> 
> Ranks (scores) of those that are probably of interest here:
> 
> ...



PENTAX though, takes the crown with its new K 5 and its sensor...the sensor and the electronics in the new Pentax are simply incredible. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/dethrone.html

K5 Low ISO Noise ----- Not! - PentaxForums.com

How to recover a 10 stop underexposed K-5 image. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The new Pentax can easily recover from almost-black underexposures!!!! The read electronics on the new Pentax must be simply incredible!!!


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 8, 2010)

^ Impressive indeed.  I'm not nearly as familiar with Pentax as I am with other manufacturers... how does their support for lenses, flashes, and other accessories compare with others?  I'm guessing you could probably recover from an almost-black underexposure about the same on the D7000 as well since there is only a DR difference of 0.2Ev between the two (13.9 and 14.1).

btw everytime I hear Pentax, I think of feminine hygiene products


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 8, 2010)

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:



> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_*DxO Hysteria*__
> 
> 
> Nov 7_ _(__commentary)--_Now  that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty  interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But  let me  introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's  number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to  you. [/FONT]
> ...


Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide


----------



## ghache (Nov 8, 2010)

lol, as per this, the d90 is rated 4th place, behind the d7000 and k5 equaly with the 3rd place for apc-s sensors,


----------



## KmH (Nov 8, 2010)

So, the D7000 has 1/2 the maximum ISO performance that the D700 has, and a slight improvement over the D90?


----------



## chito beach (Nov 8, 2010)

ghache said:


> lol, as per this, the d90 is rated 4th place, behind the d7000 and k5 equaly with the 3rd place for aps-c sensors,




You did not mention behind the Sony A55 also in 3rd place

My sister is ordering the K5 to replace her K10D this week


----------



## shaunly (Nov 8, 2010)

That Pentax K-5 is looking pretty hot. Looks like there's going to be a fierce battle between the K-5 and D7000.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2010)

shaunly said:


> That Pentax K-5 is looking pretty hot. Looks like there's going to be a fierce battle between the K-5 and D7000.




Agreed on the Pentax K 5 looking pretty hot in terms of sensor performance, due to its amazing abilities in terms of recovering underexposed images. It seems that the new Penta K5 has simply **incredible** dynamic range performance and amazingly low-noise electronics. If one looks at the DxO Mark dynamic range tool, one sees that the Pentax K5 has, once again, **incredible** dynamic range rendering capabilities that are significantly, not just marginally, better than basically any other digital I have ever seen tested.

As some Pentax owners have commented in this thead, with some of the other Pentax cameras, if an image is underexposed seriously, there is basically almost no possibility of recovering the image hidden within the RAW data. But the K5 has a sort of new-age capability in terms of allowing recovery of extremely under-exposed images, and I believe this is how the Dynamic Range is made so high,and better than the Nikjon D3x, the former champion.  How to recover a 10 stop underexposed K-5 image. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Since the K5 allows extreme under-exposure, the photographer can under-expose to preserve brilliant highlights, and then recover the highlights in post production using the curves adjustment to "pull up" the shadows, and "push up" the highlights to where they belong, all the while enjoying those clean pixels made possible by exemplary, cutting-edge low noise electronics, and a killer image processing pipeline.

Keep in mind, this is how Nikon did it with the D3x: take an image sensel from Sony (the same sensel used in the Sony A900 and A850), and then put massive effort into constructing better ELECTRONICS with lower read-out noise, to blow away the same sensel when it was paired with average electronics with normal levels of read-out noise...

Sony might make the sensels, but the final "sensor" requires the camera makers to design an AA filter array, demosaicing, and read-out system...the "sensel" is what Sony sells Nikon and Pentax...then, the camera makers make them into cameras that THEY engineer and build.

As to Thom Hogan's dismissal of the DxO Mark's "single number": that's a disingenuous, flippant attempt to paint them with a broad brush; DxO Mark actually offers MULTIPLE evaluation numbers that help users see how cameras perform in terms of Dynamic Range, Low-Light/High ISO performance, and Color. He's being a bit fast and loose there in that paragraph. What "some" camera makers have already shown is that it is now possible, with effort, to take a sensel and sink resources into making it much,much more-capable than it might otherwise be, by working on the entire image processing and data-handling pipelines. The best comparison so far had been the D3x vs Sony A900 high-ISO and color-depth comparisons,and it appears that Pentax has seen what could be done, and has done the same basic thing, exceptionally well.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 8, 2010)

Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.

I smell journalistic tampering to ensure the manufactures cameras line up correctly on the chart.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 8, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.



I felt the same way, but I just figure there's more to it than my understanding


----------



## KmH (Nov 8, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Strange that the D3 rated slightly higher then the d700, considering they have the exact same sensor and processor; and the d700 has newer software. Heck, if you look at the individual scores the d700 beat the d3, yet they gave the d3 sensor the higher "overall" score.
> 
> I smell journalistic tampering to ensure the manufactures cameras line up correctly on the chart.


DXO indicates the D3 slightly out performs the D700 in:

SNR 18%
Dynamic Range
Tonal Range
and Color Sensitivity
and all of that, except dynamic range, at the higher ISO levels.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 8, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't think there's a "thank" button large enough for this post. :thumbup:


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 8, 2010)

The K-5 is, indeed, quite an amazing beast. Not only are the high ISO results very clean, especially for aps-c, but the low ISO results are still tack sharp and have great color. The previous Pentax K-x, which also did very well on the DxO test, had great high ISO, but the low ISO was dull, flat and boring. As compared to the body before the, the K-7, which had incredible low ISO, with some of the best colors, contrast, and IQ of any RAW files I've ever seen, but the high ISO wasn't very great, and the DR was pretty narrow. 

The K-5 has managed to best the K-x in terms of DR and high ISO, while still retaining the great look of the lower ISOs. I still slightly prefer the lower ISO of the K-7, and find them to have a bit better color, and are sharper, but the K-5 is still very sharp at 100%. This all works just fine for me, since for the first time, I think Pentax has a system that makes sense as a pro to carry two diferent bodies. When the K-7 replaces the K20d, I felt no need to cary the K20d, besides just as a back up. The sensors were nearly identical, it didn't offer anything different. And the K-x offered better high ISO results, but I just didn't find it up to professional work, and was never really pleased with the files it put out, besides clean 6400. But now, there is enough of a difference between K-7 and K-5, that I see a reason to carry both, not just for the sake of a back up, but because they offer different options. I prefer the lower ISO of the K-7, and appreciate the contrast that comes from it's narrow DR. I think it's a better look than if I take a wider DR shot, then try to crunch it in post. But the high ISO is obviously better with the K-5, so when it gets dark, it's my go to. And then there is the whole 14.1 EV DR, which is just ridiculous.  So wide gamut scenes, I'm going for the K-5. But I find the skin tones in particular more harsh with the K-5. 

I also think the ergonomics of the K-7 are the best out of everything I've held. And the build and weather-sealing, which I have personally put run the ringer many times, are excellent. So to be able to get a killer spec'd camera, that fits well into a system with the K-7, rather than just replacing and making it obsolete, in the same comfy body... Let's just say I'm a happy shooter!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:
> ...



Here you go. Here's the URL to a super-big thank-you. Everybody is free to use this image. Canon Fan Thank You.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

Light Artisan said:


> 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 (Nov 8, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> 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 (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

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 (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


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



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 (Nov 9, 2010)

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 (Nov 9, 2010)

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 9, 2010)

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


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Here's another one to scratch your heads over:



Why?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2010)

Why??? Nikon has tried to make its "serious enthusiast's camera" as good as it can possibly be. I've been shooting Nikon's since the early 1980's...the Nikon FE and FE-2 were more-advanced in some aspects than the professional Nikon's of that time frame. The Nikon FE-2 for example, had a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER flash synch speed (1/250) than the Nikon F3 (1/80), which was the longest-running Nikon camera ever made, for around 20+ years of continuous production. Many professionals, and serious amateurs, used the "hobbyist" Nikon models FM, FM-2,FE,and FE-2 in preference to the "professional" Nikon F2A and F3 models. So, the Nikon "serious enthusiast" cameras have, for decades, been very feature-rich and loaded with lots of body/metering features that other companies have neglected.

In the case of the D300s...the framing rate of 7 frames per second. Better viewfinder system, and better body controls of the "semi-pro" D300s are higher concerns to people who need that type of camera than the "enthusiasts", who can get by with a lower-powered, lower-specified autofocus system. More money spent on the body and sub-systems than the D90, which has lower-end sub-systems and lower-end body, and frankly, probably lower electronic noise due to its much slower read-out speeds.

Nikon builds and has built cameras based on engineering first, marketing hype second. For decades. They build what they determine is the best camera, for its target price, and for its target market, and they tend to run the models for a long period of time, until such time as they can make a SIGNIFICANT,and MEANINGFUL, advancement to a model. For the D300s user, the criteria Nikon determined were most essential were a professional-level 51-point AF system, metering with the Ai and Ai-S MF lenses that go back to 1977, wireless flash commander system, and the ability to write files to the card at 7 frames per second, plus solid build, and a professional-like set of body controls, so that the D300s fits right in with the D3 series bodies. D300 users expect a "serious enthusiast's" camera when they buy a D300 or D300s...D90 users want "good pictures" at lower cost.

Of course, to somebody that bought his first-ever d-slr camera in 2006,and has never owned a Nikon camera...this probably would not make much sense. And, to a mom or dad buying a D90, they do not need money allocated to a 51-point, professional AF system, no to a secondary Ai-S metering interface that leverages 30 million pre-2010 lenses made over parts of four decades.

The D90 is one of Nikon 's biggest sellers, ever. GREAT sensor performance, but lacking in backward compatibility, and possessed of a consumer-level AF system. A better imager than a Canon 40D or 50D, at lower cost. But not a "semi-pro" body like a D300s.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Why??? Nikon has tried to make its "serious enthusiast's camera" as good as it can possibly be. I've been shooting Nikon's since the early 1980's...the Nikon FE and FE-2 were more-advanced in some aspects than the professional Nikon's of that time frame. The Nikon FE-2 for example, had a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER flash synch speed (1/250) than the Nikon F3 (1/80), which was the longest-running Nikon camera ever made, for around 20+ years of continuous production. Many professionals, and serious amateurs, used the "hobbyist" Nikon models FM, FM-2,FE,and FE-2 in preference to the "professional" Nikon F2A and F3 models. So, the Nikon "serious enthusiast" cameras have, for decades, been very feature-rich and loaded with lots of body/metering features that other companies have neglected.
> 
> In the case of the D300s...the framing rate of 7 frames per second. Better viewfinder system, and better body controls of the "semi-pro" D300s are higher concerns to people who need that type of camera than the "enthusiasts", who can get by with a lower-powered, lower-specified autofocus system. More money spent on the body and sub-systems than the D90, which has lower-end sub-systems and lower-end body, and frankly, probably lower electronic noise due to its much slower read-out speeds.
> 
> ...



I learned on a Nikon F1 and F2 back in the the day.......

Remember these are sensor performance ratings not camera ratings  

One really can not compare the performance of my a55 to the D90 in any aspect but sensor performance.  

you can wipe the froth off of you face now.......

settle

settle

LOL


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2010)

Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging? 

Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?

"Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?
> 
> Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?
> 
> "Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...





Most of us do not need to prove what we know in every thread we write in.   

Some like you, need to spew forth mountains of drivel in order to try to add substance  to a simple concept. 

Again what did your mountain of Nikon History have to do with sensor performance?  Or can you not handle a simple question?


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 9, 2010)

chito beach said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another one to scratch your heads over:
> ...



The D300s is newer and has a similar sensor - and yet... the sensor rating is lower. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But it seems to be consistent with actual performance. PhotoXopher is not the first one to notice it. If so... Nikon ****ed up, not DxO. Or DxO got it right by accident. Or...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2010)

chito beach said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?
> ...



It's a pretty well-thought out answer to a question posed by a newcomer to photography who picked up his first-ever d-slr in 2006,and who has no background in cameras beyond this decade...

If you want 10-word answers, go back to the tavern. For a guy who has been here less than two weeks, I find you quite abrasive, and would say you're not fitting in here too well. It is a simple concept, but obviously, too advanced for you to follow...my answer was detailed, and thorough. If you want to communicate with grunts and gestures, by all means, feel free to continue. If you want grade-school-level discourse, maybe you ought to join a forum where that's the norm.

Until you can actually CONTRIBUTE some knowledge here, or experience, I think maybe, just maybe, you ought to go back to lurking...because in your very,very short time with us, you've contributed ZERO...except for smart-assed remarks...


----------



## shaunly (Nov 9, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> chito beach said:
> 
> 
> > cfusionpm said:
> ...



D300s has the same sensor performance as the D300, which is older than the D90. The D90 has been proven to have better ISO performance than the D300 (not just on DxO).... just barely though.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> chito beach said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




Another put down answer from a man who has to prove his worth by insulting others :thumbup:  

Go back to your Nikon corner and if you can actually answer a question without an  insult Ill be waiting. 

you crack me up.    

Your answers are proof that time on a board and number of posts has little if anything to do with worth


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2010)

My Nikon corner? I have a nice Canon system. Two bodies, eight lenses. It's really some nice stuff. 

Your ability to understand the dynamics at work here is obviously due to you just showing up in the last couple of weeks. Your lack of understanding of the camera business is also quite telling. cfusionpm has been grinding the DxO Mark axe for months, simply because his favorite camera tests out so poorly (in the mid-60's). But, as a newcomer, you probably do not really understand who you're relating to,or what their hidden biases are. You sound like a Canon fanboi to me...

...so, what have you contributed to the Nikon D7000 benchmarks thread? Anything??????????? Any insights, comparisons, theories? Anything?

Seriously...contribute a little. Write something. Do a screen cap. Answer some questions. Contribute a bit. Or go back to lurking.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> My Nikon corner? I have a nice Canon system. Two bodies, eight lenses. It's really some nice stuff.
> 
> Your ability to understand the dynamics at work here is obviously due to you just showing up in the last couple of weeks. Your lack of understanding of the camera business is also quite telling. cfusionpm has been grinding the DxO Mark axe for months, simply because his favorite camera tests out so poorly (in the mid-60's). But, as a newcomer, you probably do not really understand who you're relating to,or what their hidden biases are. You sound like a Canon fanboi to me...
> 
> ...



So still no answer?  LOL   typical.  Im done in this one.  LOL


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 9, 2010)

chito beach said:


> So still no answer? LOL  typical. Im done in this one. LOL


I'm still waiting for an answer to this one from back in June (linked earlier in this thread). :thumbup:


----------



## kundalini (Nov 9, 2010)

Should we start a thread for the two of you?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/186104-unofficial-derrel-intempus-thread.html


----------



## emh (Nov 9, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.

Can a camera with a low score take good pictures? Absolutely. It's just that  a camera with a higher score can take good pictures in a wider range of situations. 



chito beach said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another one to scratch your heads over:
> ...



My guess is that the D90 has a more accurate 12b A-to-D converter than the 14b one in the D300s.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

emh said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:
> ...



How much effect does the higher pixel pitch on the D90 have?  It has to contribute to the higher score also


----------



## emh (Nov 9, 2010)

chito beach said:


> How much effect does the higher pixel pitch on the D90 have?  It has to contribute to the higher score also



In general, pixel pitch is a factor. All else being equal, more spaced apart pixels will give better low-light performance. 

But it's probably not much of a factor here. The difference in pixel pitch between the D90 and D300s is about 1% while the difference in low light performance is close to 25%. So there has to be a bigger factor in play and my money is on the A-to-Ds.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> cfusionpm has been grinding the DxO Mark axe for months, simply because his favorite camera tests out so poorly (in the mid-60's). But, as a newcomer, you probably do not really understand who you're relating to,or what their hidden biases are. You sound like a Canon fanboi to me...


 
chito beach, what Derrel neglects to mention are all the times I would say things like how great the higher end Nikon cameras are. And how much I wish Canon would release a full frame speed/sports camera like the D700 and D3/s. The only reason I'm with Canon is because that's where I'm invested and it doesn't really make sense to switch. Right now, I would absolutely love to have a D700/D7000 combo instead of 7D/50D (or theoretical 7D/5DII). These "hidden biases" are fabrications Derrel likes to make to fluff off and ignore anything I have to say; even when he agrees with me! :thumbup:



emh said:


> I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.


This is also a good point. But as this article points out, it takes a difference of 5 full points to make a difference of 1/3 of a stop.

To quote them: 





> "But eventually I stopped relying on it because I was finding a growing disconnect between the results that I was _seeing_ from some equipment and the numbers being generated by Optics Pro. Eventually I returned to doing subjective reviews, which I have continued ever since. Nevertheless since then quite a few organizations have adopted the DxO Optics Pro testing system, including _Popular Photography_ magazine in the US and _Chasseur d'Image_ in France.
> 
> When the company's DxOMark pages first went online last November I was positive about it because I felt that the engineers and scientists at DxO really know their stuff, and that the industry could use an impartial technical yardstick by which to measure digital camera performance.
> 
> ...


So very large differences can be useful in evaluating a camera, but it seems more often than not, the differences are so small that the human eye wouldn't even tell a difference. Factor in post production (which is done on pretty much all images, to some degree) and it's even less important. What can be more useful, especially for real world applications, are visual image examples. It's something DxO lacks entirely and has been the point I'd been arguing all along.


----------



## chito beach (Nov 9, 2010)

emh said:


> chito beach said:
> 
> 
> > How much effect does the higher pixel pitch on the D90 have?  It has to contribute to the higher score also
> ...



thanks that is the answer Ive been looking for since the start


----------



## shaunly (Nov 9, 2010)

This has become another one of those Digital VS Analog case. It'll never end. Just be happy with what you have and let your final product be the judge.


----------



## emh (Nov 9, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> What can be more useful, especially for real world applications, are visual image examples. It's something DxO lacks entirely and has been the point I'd been arguing all along.



DxO mark is a benchmark. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's not meant to replace visual evaluations. But it does provide useful information.

In an ideal world, we should compare images from different cameras of the same subject taken by the same photographer under the exact same lighting. For every camera we are interested in. Under all circumstances of interest to us. Is that practical? Not for most of us. So in the non-ideal world we live in, benchmarks can be used to draw inferences on what to expect.

Think of it like the 0-60 time of a car. No one buys a car purely for the purpose of repeatedly going from 0-60 mph and nothing else. But the 0-60 time does give useful information about the car's capabilities and what you could expect in some real-life situations. And it's an easily repeatable experiment that can be compared across different models without subjective influence from the person doing the testing. 

If my car takes longer to go from 0-60 than a Ferrari 599, it doesn't mean my car is useless. It also doesn't mean I should take to the streets bashing 0-60 time as a benchmark. Same with the DxO mark. If your camera has a low DxO mark score, think of it as a hint to the manufacturer to improve that aspect the next time around. Instead of bashing the benchmark, you should be demanding the manufacturer to improve so that your next camera can be even better than the one you have and love today.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 9, 2010)

emh said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > What can be more useful, especially for real world applications, are visual image examples. It's something DxO lacks entirely and has been the point I'd been arguing all along.
> ...



well said :thumbup:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2010)

mjhoward said:


> DxOMark - Sensor rankings
> 
> Ranks (scores) of those that are probably of interest here:
> 
> ...



Please you Canon fans....go BACK to the ORIGINAL POST, quoted above...and then tell me why you're even HERE...seriously Matty, I'd loooove to hear why you are in this thread....and you too chito beach.
Seriously...I pointed out that PENTAX is the actual champion of the APS-C category. Is it that the beloved 7D is in 44th place that stings so much? Or what? You guys are pretty amusing.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 9, 2010)

emh said:


> In an ideal world, we should compare images from different cameras of the same subject taken by the same photographer under the exact same lighting. For every camera we are interested in. Under all circumstances of interest to us. Is that practical? Not for most of us. So in the non-ideal world we live in, benchmarks can be used to draw inferences on what to expect.


If I had the money, I would happily undertake this endeavor. I know The Digital Picture has a fantastic database for lenses, though the bodies are generally whatever he uses (usually the top representative at the time of testing for each sensor type). It looks like he is slowly expanding to cover Nikon things as well. 



> Think of it like the 0-60 time of a car. No one buys a car purely for the purpose of repeatedly going from 0-60 mph and nothing else. But the 0-60 time does give useful information about the car's capabilities and what you could expect in some real-life situations. And it's an easily repeatable experiment that can be compared across different models without subjective influence from the person doing the testing.


Being a car enthusiast myself, I think a better metaphor would be stats like horsepower, torque, or even curb weight. 0-60 is an application of all the elements of the car; a real world test with recordable results. Stats like that on the other hand, are calculated numbers (similar to DxO's calculations of RAW data), giving you only a small piece of what it's like to drive that car. 

Saying a car has 240hp, 150ft/lbs torque, and weighs 2800lbs can give you an _idea_ of how it accelerates, but looking at 0-60, 1/4 mile time + trap speed, slalom speeds, or lap times compared to other cars all together will give you a much better and clearer picture of that car's performance. 

My point isn't that I'm bitter about something scoring higher or lower than another, its that the system itself isn't really that useful. Just like hp/tq numbers, they are just a single element among way too many other variables. Great for pissing matches, advertising, and giving you somewhat of a rough idea about things, but way too many other factors exist in producing an image.

I would also like to say that I appreciate your ability to discuss this friendly spirited manner, and I think we actually agree for the most part. We are just approaching it with different viewpoints.



Derrel said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark - Sensor rankings
> ...


Still waiting on this one.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> For a guy who has been here less than two weeks, I find you quite abrasive, and would say you're not fitting in here too well.



What does time spent here have to do with anything?  I find you obnoxious, irritating(I know im not alone in those thoughts either!) and arrogant... but apparently my opinion doesn't mean squat because I have been here even less time than him.

You have 6000+ posts in a little over a year...jeez man, get out and live life a little.  Go put all that crap you spill out to use...take some pictures and "wow" us or something.


----------



## Light Artisan (Nov 9, 2010)

For what it's worth, I've found his posts to be quite informative and well written - so much so that I've looked back at his previous posts in other threads to which he's contributed a lot of material and knowledge to the site.

Time spent on a site doesn't necessarily make you better than anyone else, however it does help you understand other members e-titude and manuerisms. Obviously there's something here that stems back before my time, and yours.

I usually weed through the BS and get what relevant information I can out of threads, this one could be interesting if there was more logical debate than finger pointing however.


----------



## emh (Nov 9, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.
> ...



Isn't that article referring to the overall number, which I agreed wasn't the useful part of DxO mark results? Besides, if a 5-point difference implies a 1/3 f-stop improvement wouldn't a difference of, say 14, be worth paying attention to?



cfusionpm said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> > In an ideal world, we should compare images from different cameras of the same subject taken by the same photographer under the exact same lighting. For every camera we are interested in. Under all circumstances of interest to us. Is that practical? Not for most of us. So in the non-ideal world we live in, benchmarks can be used to draw inferences on what to expect.
> ...



The key operative word here being "if", which is precisely the difference between the ideal world and the real world I was referring to.



> > Think of it like the 0-60 time of a car. No one buys a car purely for the purpose of repeatedly going from 0-60 mph and nothing else. But the 0-60 time does give useful information about the car's capabilities and what you could expect in some real-life situations. And it's an easily repeatable experiment that can be compared across different models without subjective influence from the person doing the testing.
> 
> 
> Being a car enthusiast myself, I think a better *metaphor *would be stats like horsepower, torque, or even curb weight. 0-60 is an application of all the elements of the car; a real world test with recordable results. Stats like that on the other hand, are calculated numbers (similar to DxO's calculations of RAW data), giving you only a small piece of what it's like to drive that car.
> ...



First of all, I wasn't using a metaphor. It was an analogy. 

Second, my original analogy is exactly the right one. DxO mark scores are measured results based on RAW images, just like the 0-60 or the quarter mile or the slalom. And much like those automotive measurements, the DxO mark is measured in a controlled, repeatable environment.

The power (hp) and torque (lb/ft) ratings, weight etc. are the specs provided by the manufacturer. In the camera world, these are the number of megapixels or the bits per pixel or the ISO range printed in the specifications page of your manual.


----------



## LightSpeed (Nov 9, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > For a guy who has been here less than two weeks, I find you quite abrasive, and would say you're not fitting in here too well.
> ...



As messages on forums go, they don't get much more uselessly dismal than this one. As abrasiveness goes, in time, you'll find that Derrel is mild in comparison and more often than not, knows what he's talking about. I haven't been here long either, yet I've been here long enough to at least see this. Having 6000 posts equates to being a contributor here. Is there something wrong with that? Why are you here? You on the other hand have contributed that your opinion doesn't mean squat. I believe you. (I know I'm not alone in those thoughts either!)


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 9, 2010)

emh said:


> I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.



This seems a bit contradicting to me.  Just because the DxO mark number is unitless, doesn't make it meaningless (e.g. f-stop).  You stated yourself that all of the measurements effecting the overall number have meaning, so wouldn't it make sense that the overall rating itself also has meaning?



cfusionpm said:


> Saying a car has 240hp, 150ft/lbs torque, and weighs 2800lbs can give you an _idea_ of how it accelerates, but looking at 0-60, 1/4 mile time + trap speed, slalom speeds, or lap times compared to other cars all together will give you a much better and clearer picture of that car's performance.
> 
> My point isn't that I'm bitter about something scoring higher or lower than another, its that the system itself isn't really that useful. Just like hp/tq numbers, they are just a single element among way too many other variables. Great for pissing matches, advertising, and giving you somewhat of a rough idea about things, but way too many other factors exist in producing an image.



What really sucks is when you've spent money on a car that, at the time, seemed to have great horsepower, torque, and low weight.  Then someone rolls up in their brand new car a year later that not only has more horsepower, higher torque, and weighs less... but it cost them about 30% less to get!

BTW, I wouldn't consider the ability to shoot in lower light and achieve higher DR something to bring to a pissing match or an advertising gimic, but instead are truly useful attributes to a camera.


----------



## emh (Nov 9, 2010)

mjhoward said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.
> ...



What I meant by "meaningless" is that it's hard to reason about the overall number. Two cameras that have the same overall score can have different characteristics (e.g. one can have better dynamic range while the other can have better low-light performance). 

The components of the score, on the other hand, clearly show the characteristics of each camera. They are also more meaningful from a usage point of view. If you do low-light photography, you may care more about the high ISO measurement. If you do mostly studio stuff, you may care more about color depth etc.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 10, 2010)

emh said:


> Second, my original analogy is exactly the right one. DxO mark scores are measured results based on RAW images, just like the 0-60 or the quarter mile or the slalom. And much like those automotive measurements, the DxO mark is measured in a controlled, repeatable environment.
> 
> The power (hp) and torque (lb/ft) ratings, weight etc. are the specs provided by the manufacturer. In the camera world, these are the number of megapixels or the bits per pixel or the ISO range printed in the specifications page of your manual.


OK, so let's ret-con my original post to assume that the hp and tq curves were pulled off a dyno run (a measured, repeatable test to generate numeric values). Now, my main point is that seeing a power curve is interesting and can be useful in certain specific situations, but in no way is it going to tell you a car's lap time. The only way to get the full picture, IMO, is to run it around a circuit against its rivals and compare times (in addition to 0-60, 1/4 mi/trap, or a plethora of other subjective and objective tests auto reviewers use). Each part is not a sole decider, but rather a piece that plays a role in defining the whole. I think my personal frustration with this kind of rationale comes from hearing arguments like "car X is faster than car Y because it has more hp" which is akin to "camera X takes better pictures than camera Y because it has a higher DxO rank."

So like I said earlier, I think we mostly agree with the fact that DxO tests _can_ provide (semi-)useful information, but is not the main factor in final image quality. I think where we differ is just how big of a part it does play. Well that, and analogies.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 10, 2010)

shaunly said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > chito beach said:
> ...



Looks like DxOMark.com is off-line (I wonder why  ), but from what I recall, the D300s sensor is a tweaked D300 sensor with somewhat better performance. The sensors are not identical.


----------



## emh (Nov 10, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> > Second, my original analogy is exactly the right one. DxO mark scores are measured results based on RAW images, just like the 0-60 or the quarter mile or the slalom. And much like those automotive measurements, the DxO mark is measured in a controlled, repeatable environment.
> ...



I agree that times around a track is more useful, but only if all cars are driven around the same track by the same driver. See my original post on this -- that's exactly what I said we would have in an ideal world -- same subject, same lighting, same photographer. And it would be the kind of photography we would care about. We don't have that in most cases.

In the absence of that ideal comparison, benchmarks provide important and useful information for making buying decisions. Heck of a lot better than comparing the number of megapixels or the advertised color depth or the maximum ISO range, which is what a lot of people do go by. 

Like you said, we can agree to disagree on the importance of benchmarks. After all, Canon wouldn't spend all that money on marketing if it didn't brainwash at least some people  But there can be no disagreement about what's a metaphor and what's an analogy. We are talking analogies here :greenpbl:


----------



## j-dogg (Nov 10, 2010)

Awww my Digital Rebel XTi placed 67th 

I still love him :hug:: he beat out the Leica M8 and the Canon 1Ds :thumbup:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 10, 2010)

Okay, back to some comments about the ACTUAL SUBJECT OF THE ORIGINAL POST, the D7000 sensor benchmark results, and interpreting those results. With, if you can believe it, some actually RELEVANT introduction and analysis of the Thom Hogan line of B.S.-derailment that one particular Canon-user brought in to bolster his arguments that the benchmarks are irrelevant.

FIRST, a Thom Hogan news article from his site: 2010 Nikon News and Comments by Thom Hogan

Nikon IS a Hardware Company&#8232;Oct 29 (commentary)--I know many of you are dying to hear what I've got to say about all the new Nikon products that have appeared since I headed off into the African wild, so I'll give you a little tease:
bballD7000a.jpg
bballD7000b.jpg
The top image is a 100% view of a straight Capture NX2 conversion of a D7000 NEF taken in my test gym. ISO 3200, no noise reduction, default sharpening, all the usual parameters for my test shots. The bottom is the same file processed via ACR 6.3 Beta about as best as I could come up with using Adobe's sharpening and noise reduction controls plus a bit of other adjustment to make up for the deliberate slight underexpose I set in my tests (curiously, the camera wanted to set something close to my underexposure as its actual exposure, but that's a different story for a different day and is easily explained). Yes, there's some noise reduction smudging going on (the camera actually does slightly better in JPEGs than this).

Still, this is the best cropped sensor low light results I've seen to date (and yes, I've tested Sony and Canon cameras in this environment). Remember, we've got a lot of pixels here (16mp). For the 12mp cameras we've been seeing about this much of the scene at 100% view (image shown below is resized D7000):
bballd7000c.jpg

So you're wondering if the D7000 performs decently in low light? Yes, it does. But don't believe all the bull you see on some Internet forums: this is not D700 let alone D3s level of performance. It's quite good performance, though, enough to bring DX shooters into the low light. In particular, if I were shooting a basketball game with a D90 and D7000 side by side and displaying the resulting images at the same size, the D7000 wins hands down. It's got cleaner color, more detail, and less noise when I clean both up and print them. To refresh your memory, here's the D90 (this isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison--remember these are frequency based lights, and there's some slightly misleading resizing going on here --but it's close enough to give you an idea of what to expect [note the loss of color in the ball, especially on the shadow side]):
bballd7000d.jpg
So, Nikon? Please leave software to others (see next story). But please continue making hardware.
    -30-
end of Thom Hogan commentary.

Okay, DxO Haters...so...what can we extract from his testing of many different cameras over a period of several years in the gymnasium where he plays basketball AND tests cameras for indoor, low-light, and high-ISO performance? 1)First, the new D7000 is the best APS-C sensor Nikon, Sony, and Canon camera that he has tested in the same location using his now standard basketball rim/net/basketball test shot method. 2) While good, this new Nikon with APS-C sensor is not as good as a full-frame D700, and of course, not as good as the king of High ISO, the Nikon D3s body. and 3) compared with the Nikon D90, the D7000 wins, as he puts it, "hands down".

Okay...so, back to the DxO Mark overall sensor scores. Hogan says, "this is the best cropped sensor low light results I've seen to date." DxO Mark High ISO score for the D7000 is 1,167. The D90 has a DxO Mark High ISO score of 977. Hogan states that, "if I were shooting a basketball game with a D90 and D7000 side by side and displaying the resulting images at the same size, the D7000 wins hands down. It's got cleaner color, more detail, and less noise when I clean both up and print them." Okay, so DxO Mark's score at High ISO seems to relate DIRECTLY, as in side-by-side, same event, BETTER images from the D7000, the higher-rated camera. Hogan also states that although the D7000 is excellent for a small-sensor camera, that the full-frame D700 and D3s are better performers in low light: the DxO mark score for the D700's sensor at High ISO is a whopping 2,303. Which is over DOUBLE the score for the D7000.

So...it seems that the DxO mark scores for High ISO directly correlate to the end results that Hogan's own tests have shown. The D7000 is "hands down" better than a D90, shot side by side at ISO 3,200. But not nearly as good as a D700, or a D3s full-frame. Huh...EXACTLY what could be interpreted by looking at the DxO Mark scores. it seems that on one hand, Hogan says their single, cumulative score is worthless, but that SOME of their individual measurements are valid and useful, and in the case of High ISO tests under identical testing situations, the DxO Mark scores correlate with his empirical results.






I would postulate that the reason the D7000 beats the D90 "hands down" at ISO 3,200 in indoor basketball has more to do with the new camera's exceptionally low noise electronics and wider dynamic range potential of 13.9 EV, plus 14-bit capture in NEF mode, and higher MP count, even despite having a minutely smaller sensor area (1.53x on the D7000 vs 1.50x for the D90). As some of you know, most D-slr cameras have very good, wide Dynamic Range at their baseline ISO values of 100 or 200, but the Dynamic Range and color saturation drops off VERY badly at ISO 1600 and 3200. It's typical for a camera that might have a 12-stop Dynamic Range at ISO 100 to have somewhere in the range of 6.5 to 7.0 stops' worth of DR at ISO 3,200. As you might know, the noise goes up, and the color goes to hell, once the ISOs get into the 1,600 to 6,400 range with most all small-sensor d-slrs.

Looking here DxOMark - Compare sensors
the Nikon D700 full-frame camera's signal to noise ratio is CLEARLY evident, with a commanding, substantial and across the board superior performance to either crop-body camera. And that is what is to be expected from a full-frame sensor with pixel wells that are around TWICE as large as those found in the two crop-frame camera sensors. Imagine a Chevy 350 cubic inch V-8 engine producing over twice the horsepower of a 2.2 litre 4-cylinder engine! Whoda' thunk it, right! (snort) If a person is not smart enough to use the DxO Web Site and its multi-compare feature and its multiple measurements, graphs, and charts, it basically shows that that person is incapable of understanding scientific testing measurement concepts, and metrics. If you can balance your checkbook, or read an annual report, you're probably okay using DxO Mark results to get a feel for how various cameras perform in multiple imaging tests. If you can barely read the TV listings on-line, then stick to what friends tell you.


----------

