uday029 wrote in post #17244973
This might have been asked before multiple times but I haven't found a solid answer in any of the previous forums. I started my research and read a lot about different Canon models and almost decided to buy a Canon 70D. As a final step, I did a quick Canon 70D vs "competition" search on youtube to see how it compares to other cameras. Many of the videos were mainly comparing it to Nikon D7100. Both of them came neck to neck in terms of features but I still liked 70D for its amazing auto focus system, other bells and whistles such as swiveling screen, wifi etc etc. But many people started comparing the "sensor quality" --> "photo quality" and Nikon came out on top.
I mainly use my camera for taking landscapes (just an enthusiast) and travel pictures. Nikon D7100 seemed to be better than Canon for landscapes (according to reviewers). Many youtubers quoted DXOMark scores to back it up. I went on their website to do a comparison of sensors to find out that Nikon D7100 scored more than 70D in every category. Ofcourse, these scores do not take into consideration the features like the new auto focus system etc., but they looked only at sensor quality.
My question is how real are these scores? So purely from image quality perspective, Nikon D7100 is better than 70D? Here is the link comparing these two cameras:http://www.dxomark.com …sus-Nikon-D7100___895_865
Also, the ratings are higher for 3rd party lenses. For example Sigma 18-35 has higher ratings for D7100 compared to 70D (although the difference is very less).
Is it recommended to go by these values to make a final decision?
"Real and relevant" might be a better question.
The emphasis some place on DXOmark resembles the personal computer world of twenty years ago, when manufacturers competed for the best scores on PC Magazine's benchmark tests. At a time when personal computer performance was expected to improve from year to year as much of the industry advanced from the i386 through the i486, those benchmark scores were vitally important.
Eventually, some computer manufacturers were found to have set up their machines solely for big benchmark test scores. Later, as dramatic computer improvement became incremental and computer magazines retreated from the newsstands, the importance of benchmark tests also faded.
With the annual improvement of DSLR performance also fading from major changes to the addition of features, there's also a serious question of whether or not DXOmark numbers are useful to anyone who is interested in pictures more than statistics.
The days, barely 15 years ago, when Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape caused a major controversy when he declared that images from Canon's first homegrown DSLR, the D30, were as good as images from 35mm film, have faded.
There are hints that even apparently large differences in DXOmark scores are functionally invisible, and a photographer's skill and technique make a larger difference than the test scores.
There's evidence of that in the selection of Reuters' best photographs of last year, where an entry-level Canon T3 was used to create one of those images, and both Nikon and Canon cameras seem to be equally distributed in being employed to make images that depended more on initiative and courage than on equipment.