Dx0Mark-Sensor: Compare DSLRs by

[Darren Addy]

DxOMark-Sensor
is one of the coolest little things I've seen for a while. It is a useful way to see real differences between a manufacturer's different models and how yours stacks up to other manufacturers in the same price range (or same sensor size, or same price range). See if you REALLY need to upgrade your camera, based upon the IQ criteria that you find important.

Note that this is NOT an overall Camera Buying Tool, but concentrates only on comparing the Image Quality of the RAW images produced. There are other features that may be important to you (For example, Frames Per Second, if you shoot a lot of sports/action, etc.) I recommend reading this MeFi thread to catch up on what Dx0Mark-Sensor is and is not. If you are anything like me you can spend a lot of time with this data.

The DxoMark site has a lot of other cool and informative information, such as: a multi-page article on the Three metrics constitute the DxOMark Sensor scale, how they Normalize the Data (to compare apples and oranges), Analyze your Camera OR Compare two cameras, and an article that suggests that Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise.

Enjoy!

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

That works, D.
Looking up my Canon 400D showed that it isn't even a good camera.
Lacks low light ability, dynamic color, etc, etc...
I guess cameras have a long way to go before that are all of that.
Unless you pay $10k or more. How disappointing!
They're going to milk camera electronics in the same way home PC's were/are done.

Good info though, D

 

[Greg Campbell]

Ooooh! The digi-dweebs will just LOVE this!

Got to admit, the site is a great compendium of interesting data.
Unfortunately, very little of it is means a darn. 'Good' camera specs =/ good photography!!!! IMO, this is just the old Megapixel fixation taken to a new (lower, IMO) level. Now you're supposed to worry about how many bits the A/D spits out, colorspace envelope size, and a host of other straw-man specs. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate precise, noise free data and raw image resolution. I just don't happen to think these things have ANYTHING to do with photography, at least as I define it.

If you're determined to fret over the camera, worry about the user interface, reliability and durability, water resistance (?), etc. These are all FAR more important than raw (RAW?) image quality.

Rob, don't let someone else's sterile judgments steal your Mojo! Get out there and shoot! Make beautiful images!!

-Moo!

 

[James Langford]

. 'Good' camera specs =/ good photography!!!!
-Moo!

Well said. To be honest, I don't get much caught up on the camera OR the lense debate. I use lenses that most folks would consider low quality (i.e. non L), but that work very well when used correctly. My first camera was a Sony F707, and it took amazing pictures if used properly. My Canon 10D still takes cleaner ISO 100 images than most of the newer "low noise" sensors.

I won't say that higher end equipment is not worth it. For some things, it can be very valuable and useful (weather sealing for example). I just believe most people won't ever notice a difference in lower vs higher end equipment. Same with the MP debate.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Thanks for posting the link Darren! There is some interesting info there.

James

 

[Carey Walton]

Here are a couple more reads that are relevant on The Luminous Landscape.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

Many spend way too much time worrying about the numbers and not enough time out shooting!

 

[Darren Addy]

I think this review is pretty balanced and accurate:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/dxomark.shtml

Like any tool, you don't use it for EVERYTHING. (Well, except Duct Tape).