Toronto Photography Meetup Group

love the Aussie sense of humour. Good stuff.



Just maybe. We're jackals but we're not bad jackals 'round here.

I'm deeply saddened to find out that the 5d2 sucks so bad.

Anyone want to buy either of my 5d2's?

I'm glad i still have my 7 year old digital rebel here.

otherwise all these L lenses would be useless!

How did I miss this thread. I feel less adequate now that all my 5D2 images are all useless due to sh!tty AF. Why didn't anyone tell me sooner! The horror! This thread needs more cat pics!!

I'll admit, the 5D2 AF kinda blows in very low light.

Haha donkey balls

How are the salty donkey balls?

Killer .. rofl.

Finally sold my GH2 for a very good price. As for the new camera, I can`t see it making sense to buy 6 year old tech like the 5D II right now.

I think D600 is the best choice right now with its excellent feature set for the money. Based on sensor performance, it`s ranked 3rd on DXOmark, next only to the D800 and D800E.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

Heck, the D600 even beats the 5D Mk3 in all practical areas, except AF performance (not that the D600 AF is bad). Considering the price of the D600, that is pretty amazing.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/834%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/795%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

The only reason to buy a 5D II now is if someone is heavily invested in Canon gear, or if they think the 24-105 lens is worth it when bundled in the price. Amazing deals to be had with the D600 right now if you look in the right places.

I will come back with more cat pictures, no doubt

Be careful using dxomark for anything beyond Nikon masturbation. No question it's a great camera but asking them that is like asking Ronald McDonald if the Big Mac is good.

Enjoy your D600 but I'd wait for a fix on the sensor dust and there has to be something up with the rear screen - some find it performs fine and others find it complete crap.

The rear screen looks just fine, but I do think that mine has some dust on the sensor. I am not too worried about it though, because warranty will cover the repairs if there are any required. I would have waited, but it was hard to pass up on the price.

Why do you think DxoMark is biased towards Nikon? They test a sensor, that's it. They don't review cameras.

Full disclosure, I post this as a Canon user that thinks the current Nikony sensors (and bodies in some cases to a degree) out spec Canon's considerably.

One can create a test that makes one group look better than another. The metrics used can be biased. Analogy: what if we rated people out of 100? Blondes get 40 points to start. Or fastest runners? Or the fastest runner with a particular gait. Why that particular gait? Good question. I think it's more than sour grapes (though there are lots of those to be found) and I don't wish to fall into saying the phrase "real world," cause it's icky for many reasons, yet, their results do not pan out there nearly as concretely as their results would suggest. Perhaps there are more measures, or different ways to make those measures? My analogies are a little shallow but there are myriad examples and studies in the field of Science and Technology Studies that say there is no such thing as raw neutral data. Many of them make very valid points.

I can respond with some "evidence" later, but they're going to be subjective/speculative as there's no other way. For now, I did a quick search and here's one interesting nugget I found at fstoppers:



Without seeing sample images or even touching the camera I was able to predict the Dx0 marks for the latest Nikon and Canon releases. I predict an 82 for the 6D - why do I think it will be above the 5D3(81)? Cause I think/have a hunch they'll be poo disturbers about it. DPReview has overall come to very similar conclusions in the last rash of releases but has done so in a much more balanced manner. I have time for them but none for Dx0.

Wouldn't the graphs be calculated based on the amount of noise found at 1:1 magnification? Meaning that you can't really compare a 22mpx image to a 36mpx image based on this graph alone? You would need to bring the images to the same resolution before comparing? I'm just guessing here, I have never looked into their rating system. When I first started using the D800 I always noticed more noise than on my D700, but when I exported an ISO3200 image out of lightroom at 15mpx as opposed to 36, I was blown away at how much cleaner it was compared to my 12mpx D700 images.

Sure. There are probably legitimate arguments for doing it a few different ways. I'm not out to argue for one or another, only suggesting that the measuring of things isn't always apolitical.

I just googled it, I think you're right, something fishy is going on there. Either way, I definitely agree DxO scores shouldn't be taken too seriously when looking for a camera. After all, as you pointed out, what good is a good sensor when it's got dirt all over it after a few hundred frames .

Yeah, that one is a little unfortunate unless Nikon has figured out how to do a cleaning with a firmware update. It's a shame too, it's a nicely specked camera priced well. Regardless, good on them. They're pushing a lot harder than Canon is right now, at least body wise, and perhaps the occasional hiccup, such as focus issues on one side of the frame and a sloppy grease application (my speculation) are par for that course.

I've never looked at Dx0's lens ratings but I thought I'd take a peak to see if Nikon was consistently scoring higher there too. My assumption was they would be. Now, I only made a few comparisons and a few of them weren't possible because reviews hadn't been done yet. But, here's what I found:

Between the 24-70s they like Canon's better. Between using my copy and Ashley's I have found hers is sharper but I prefer the bokeh of mine. Which seemed fair enough considering the Nikon design is a bit newer and has fancy coatings the Canon does not. Mine could need adjusting too. Completely scientific comparison of course. It's been my observation that most will tip the Nikon as being better but only very slightly. The MkII Canon has not yet been tested but I suspect that to be very well rated.

Dx0 Scores:
21/40 for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
14/40 for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

I then checked the macro/micro & and a makro for good measure. My empirical comparisons between my 100L and Ashley's 105 have really just started. I thought the consensus was that the 100L was slightly better than the Nikon in IQ and image stabilization but not by a whole lot. Certainly not by the margin Dx0 is listing. The Zeiss does very well, of course, but I think it's worth nothing that the Zeiss is also manual only, no stabilization and requires extension tubes to get 1:1 magnification. Those three things eliminated it as a viable lens for me, and yes I realize macro is often manual blah blah blah, the point is the specs don't always point to the best choice for the buyer. Of those three lenses it'd be my third choice.

Dx0 Scores:
17/40 for the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
25/40 for the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

I was really curious to see how the 70-200 MkIIs would compare. Surprisingly, they haven't tested the Nikon yet.

I'm offering no interpretation of the scores beyond what I've found etc. Anyway, I dunno what to say. My assumption was the Nikons would be favoured. They're not in these two cases. Maybe there's a Canon bias in the lenses? A different guy runs it? I picked the only two lenses where Canon is rated higher? Seems odd that if there were a bias it wouldn't be throughout. Especially since they're more of a company that deals with optics than sensors... Assuming this pattern continues (if all the Canon's are better there's another problem) it makes bias arguments harder to maintain. Nonetheless, I'm sticking with DPreview as my standard for reviews. Who doesn't like colour charts and coins?

I'll also get on my soapbox and say: bodies come and go, good glass lasts!

I would be surprised if a company like DxO would build a reputation on optics and optic testing only to sell out or create a biased test. I would think the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. They could be taking something into account that other sites like DPReview does not. I'm pretty sure there tests are fairly scientific and independent of what we see in the images with our naked eye. BUT at the end of the day, whats more important; a test score some computer comes up with or the clarity, sharpness and noise we see with our naked eye? That's why these tests are not the be all and end all.

DXO mark measures: resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission and chromatic aberration.
When it comes to 2 good lenses from different manufacturers the measurements even if accurate does not tell you which lens will give you the best images under real operating conditions. For example the "best" legendary portrait lens will draw better have a more 3d rendering yet would get a poor rating because of some of those tests. Some lenses might have worse transmission but better flare control or better contrast or better colour rendering ...

The test are useful to spot the proverbial dog but not good enough to discriminate between 2 good lenses or for that matter 2 different camera bodies.

If they only tested the sensor than the bias would have to be towards Sony....as the "internet" says Sony makes the D600 sensor.

DX0 Releases 6D score: 82



Not necessarily. They test output, Nikons have different output than Sonys do.

In case your guys missed it - dpreview has partnered with dxo to test all their lenses for reviews. I find this a strange company since dpreview gave the 70-200L is usm ii a very high rating while dxo gave it a very low rating - worst than v.i - although in commentary dxo states that it is a great lens.

One reason I switched from Nikon to Canon is because Canon has sealed lenses. A Nikon lens I bought years ago had dirt inside the lens. When I finally discovered that it was inside the lens, Nikon told me it does not warranty lens dust because the lens is not sealed. But this was not even dust, it was large chunks of debris from manufacturing.

Another problem with DXO ratings is that DXO has rated the Canon 70-200L is usm ii lower than the Nikon equivalent based on their measurements. But users of the Nikon zoom have noted that at short focusing distances, the Nikon zoom is about equivalent to a 70 - 150 or 180 zoom. There is a lost of magnification. You can find this by comparing Nikon and Canon specs. So would you want a zoom lens that doesn't always do what its suppose to do?

As far as I know that would also make Dx0 the only multi-platform reviewer that rates the Nikon 70-200 II above the Canon 70-200 II. Both are awesome but I think it's commonly agreed the Canon is best lens in that range right now. They're either corrupt or incompetent. I have no use for them.

Sold my D600. It felt like a huge waste of money even though the image quality is much better. In many ways, I still think my gripped 40D is more than enough for a DSLR. It hasn't stopped taking great photos.

I did, however, pick up a used Fuji X100, which I am enjoying immensely at the moment! Actually, I am enjoying it more than any other camera I've had before.

I just took at peak at DXO labs rating on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. Looks like they've changed their minds. They've significantly lowered the rating for Nikon and has now raised the Canon lens MkII to be over the Canon lens MKI. Now what made them change their minds so significantly I wonder.