I agree. For instance, the D60 does better than the D200 as far as the sensor goes, but the D200 is a lot more camera. I suppose this is a metric of sensor performance on a normalized scale, but I'll have to read more how they keep bias out of it.
Interesting, but there's a lot of "play" in their numbers. I am not a fanboy of either camp, so don't attack me for saying that. The 20D and 30D have exactly the same sensor and digital processor, yet the 20D ranks 2.5 points higher in their tests.
It appears the D90 beat out the D300. Not sure how they arrive at that. I do see that the D90 appears to have slightly better low light performance and a higher number for DR.
The D300 is a lot more camera than the D90... what am I missing here...
Interesting.... and sorta ironic to see the newly released 50D is way down on their rankings....
pascal03 wrote:
It appears the D90 beat out the D300. Not sure how they arrive at that. I do see that the D90 appears to have slightly better low light performance and a higher number for DR.
The D300 is a lot more camera than the D90... what am I missing here...
Interesting.... and sorta ironic to see the newly released 50D is way down on their rankings....
The 50D is just a little worse than the 40D, which is actually what I would expect. 50% more pixels in the same form factor doesn't come without a price, even if the microlenses are larger.
Mark Kenfield wrote:
That was the first thing that struck me.
Yes after looking at it there's something seriously wrong with that value compared to the other cameras.
Perhaps being able to set it to 6400 is skewing the results. But it's rating should be more comparable to the 5D and at least better than the 1D MkII unless there's some really weird non-real world application way they're testing it.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Yes after looking at it there's something seriously wrong with that value compared to the other cameras.
Perhaps being able to set it to 6400 is skewing the results. But it's rating should be more comparable to the 5D and at least better than the 1D MkII unless there's some really weird non-real world application way they're testing it.
From the testing explanations.
"The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
An SNR value of 30dB reflects an excellent image quality. Low-Light ISO is then the highest ISO setting for the camera such that the SNR reaches this 30dB value while keeping a good dynamic range of 9EVs. As cameras improve, the Low-Light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open."
It seems logical to me that starting at a base ISO of 200 and extending all the way up to ISO 6400 on a 1.5 crop 12 MP sensor that the D300 would hit this 30dB value at a lower ISO than other sensors.
