[er1kksen]

basing from the APS-C dslr DxO marks, probably we should buy ourselves a $300 dollar Canon 40D.

seriously speaking, even if the 40D is an APS-C dslr, I would choose it any day over the higher scoring full-frame Sonys'. the Sonys' are crap at HIGH ISOs. or if I were to get a cheapest full-frame, I'd rather get the 5D MKI, thereby opposing the Sonys' higher DxO marks. if I were to consider the DxO marks and consider the small price differences (somewhere close to each other and some are cheaper over the other) between full frame cameras Sony A850, A900, Canon 5D MK II, and Nikon D700, it is very obvious that the Canon and the Nikon are worth the value and DxO scores as seen in their real-world ISO performances. I don't know why those 2 Sonys are even up there in the first place. by that, the DxO tests are not entirely reliable or should automatically justify real-world use.

the fact that dslrs of the same sensor have varying DxO marks, shows inconsistency in the tests. this should be taken into consideration and should never be overlooked.

true, the DxO can be a useful reference, but it doesn't tell the whole tale of the tape. it is still susceptible to flaws.

I owned a 40D for a while. It's nice and sharp in RAW, and has good colors and decent DR, but it's really pretty average at high ISO. In actual usage the K20D turned out better high ISO results (I limited myself to 1600 with the K20D but 800 for the 40D).

I have no idea where you get the impression that a 40D would outperform the Sony full-frames. They have superior DR, tonal range, color and noise performance *when evaluated at equal output sizes,* regardless of whether the canon might have marginally better performance at pixel level. And that's ignoring the significant resolution gap. Serious users of the sony full-frames have shown them to be, while marginally worse, not that far behind the Canon and Nikon full-frames (again, at equal output sizes. Of course a D3 looks better at pixel level, it's got half the megapixels).

[Pentaxor]

I owned a 40D for a while. It's nice and sharp in RAW, and has good colors and decent DR, but it's really pretty average at high ISO. In actual usage the K20D turned out better high ISO results (I limited myself to 1600 with the K20D but 800 for the 40D).

I have no idea where you get the impression that a 40D would outperform the Sony full-frames. They have superior DR, tonal range, color and noise performance *when evaluated at equal output sizes,* regardless of whether the canon might have marginally better performance at pixel level. And that's ignoring the significant resolution gap. Serious users of the sony full-frames have shown them to be, while marginally worse, not that far behind the Canon and Nikon full-frames (again, at equal output sizes. Of course a D3 looks better at pixel level, it's got half the megapixels).

this is in relation with noise performance at same resolution size, also considered the fact that the 40D is a year early APS-C dslr going up against a year after FF dslr. if the only real advantage of the Sony FF is the DR but have neglected the noise performance, it is rather handicapped and in no way do justice to being a full-frame camera. I was kinda hopeful that the A850 would resolve that shortcoming of the A900, but the fact that it didn't, left me disappointed. it got me disappointed due to the fact that you can get better FF cameras at a much ideal price than what Sony is offering.

concerning the comparison between the 40D versus the K20D, what you said is exactly my point. I was trying to show that the DxO marks don't show the real picture. if you are going to look at the chart, you could see where the 40D is as opposed to the K20D. basing from the graph, it shows that the 40D is better. but the question is, is the 40D really better just because the 40D scored a higher DxO mark? which part of the chart (camera) shows a reliable result that we could base our conclusions? same sensor but different results? if sensor filtering considered and does it affect the DxO marks? or is it independent by the sensor alone as being a RAW product and not the image results which have gone thru different processing within the camera? what are the other camera/sensor parameters that are being considered which affects the DxO marks?

[JohnBee]

I have no idea where you get the impression that a 40D would outperform the Sony full-frames. They have superior DR, tonal range, color and noise performance.

I second this claim.

My wife uses an A900 as a primary for work(replaced an S5 Pro), which she claimed was the closest thing to the fuji colors at the time. However, having tweaked the curves and her workflow over time, she now claims it is quite possibly the closest digital to film she's worked with to date. I also think it's worth saying that a crop sensor(ie. 40D) is nowhere near the league of the A900 IQ, which can work comfortably up to ISO3200 in most conditions(plenty of latency for a FF coupled with good glass).

It's always interesting to see alternate opinions on the effects of FF DR and color reproduction against crop sensors. Though I feel many such opinions are missguided by hearsay rather than personal experience.


by - mviktor

[er1kksen]

I agree with what you are saying about the inconsistency of DxOmark's numeric scores (and the chart derived from them). I have already stated my feelings on the subject earlier in this topic.

I'm still perplexed as to your grudge against the A900/850. Their high-ISO performance is quite good, just slightly behind the best from Canon and Nikon. Just like the K-7 in relation to its current Canikon peers. The Sonys are certainly well ahead of the 40D in regards to high-ISO performance. When you add the other advantages (outstanding DR, resolution, etc.) I just dont see why you even bother making the comparison.

[Class A]

My wife uses an A900 as a primary for work...]

The image from the Sony A900 you posted is just absolutely gorgeous. Just 2die4. First of all it is a wonderfully made portrait but it also showcases what this camera is capable of.

If money were no concern, I'd get a Sony A900 and marry it with the fantastic Zeiss glass available for it.

Was the image done with a Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135 F1.8?

[Pentaxor]

I agree with what you are saying about the inconsistency of DxOmark's numeric scores (and the chart derived from them). I have already stated my feelings on the subject earlier in this topic.

I'm still perplexed as to your grudge against the A900/850. Their high-ISO performance is quite good, just slightly behind the best from Canon and Nikon. Just like the K-7 in relation to its current Canikon peers. The Sonys are certainly well ahead of the 40D in regards to high-ISO performance. When you add the other advantages (outstanding DR, resolution, etc.) I just dont see why you even bother making the comparison.

the highlighted line is the reason exactly why I dislike the Sony FF. for me, the price versus performance of what is called a FF camera fell short of my expectations. such shortcomings for me is not worth it for a FF camera. that's why I said that I'd be better off with a $300 APS-C dslr if that were the case that a FF dslr performs like or no better than an APS-C dslr or isn't at par with their FF counterparts. for me, the premium being paid for those 2 FF are unjustifiable, especially now that the gap between APS-C and FF dlsr High ISO performance had closed down. the thing is, the two FF's are the worst of it's kind in that FF bracket, and yet they are sold at a full cost. oh wait a min, they're not Pentax. that's it !

[Wheatfield]

The image from the Sony A900 you posted is just absolutely gorgeous. Just 2die4. First of all it is a wonderfully made portrait but it also showcases what this camera is capable of.

If money were no concern, I'd get a Sony A900 and marry it with the fantastic Zeiss glass available for it.

Was the image done with a Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135 F1.8?

It's a nice shot, well lit and obviously very heavily and skillfully post processed, but what is it telling you about the capabilities of the camera?
Precisely nothing.

[Class A]

It's a nice shot, well lit and obviously very heavily and skillfully post processed, but what is it telling you about the capabilities of the camera?
Precisely nothing.

Perhaps you want to rewrite that to say "...what is it telling me about the capabilities of the camera?".

I'm not someone who thinks the camera makes the image but I believe that I can spot whether an image comes from a camera with fine colour fidelity (Bayer array+ processing), smooth tonal gradation (partly influenced by noise and processing), detail that looks natural rather than artificial (anti-aliasing filter), etc.

Of course you are right that if an image has been heavily post-processed then one cannot be sure where any of the above came from. I didn't suspect the image to be heavily post processed. Perhaps John can fill us in on the details.

I might be fooling myself but I've yet to see an image from the K-7 that bowls me over because of its ability to effortlessly create a sense of natural beauty like some I've seen from the Sony A900.

EDIT: I realise that the image size, in principle, allows little judgement to be made about the quality of the original and hence by implication about the lens and camera. However, often people use straightforward downsizing methods and I find that many image qualities are still reflected in the downsized versions and that hence downsized versions do not quite have the equalising effect one might expect. That's my impression at least.

[poppyer]

I am looking the TS figure the other way.

What it says is, the best and worst APS-C (and m43) camera nowaday available has less than 1 stop difference in terms of ISO performance (500 to 1000 is 1 stop).
And upgrading to full-frame will give you only another 1 stop ISO up (1000 to 2000),
which makes perfect sense to me.

So, just get any one will do, and take more photos

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps you want to rewrite that to say "...what is it telling me about the capabilities of the camera?".

I'm not someone who thinks the camera makes the image but I believe that I can spot whether an image comes from a camera with fine colour fidelity (Bayer array+ processing), smooth tonal gradation (partly influenced by noise and processing), detail that looks natural rather than artificial (anti-aliasing filter), etc.

Of course you are right that if an image has been heavily post-processed then one cannot be sure where any of the above came from. I didn't suspect the image to be heavily post processed. Perhaps John can fill us in on the details.

I might be fooling myself but I've yet to see an image from the K-7 that bowls me over because of its ability to effortlessly create a sense of natural beauty like some I've seen from the Sony A900.

EDIT: I realise that the image size, in principle, allows little judgement to be made about the quality of the original and hence by implication about the lens and camera. However, often people use straightforward downsizing methods and I find that many image qualities are still reflected in the downsized versions and that hence downsized versions do not quite have the equalising effect one might expect. That's my impression at least.

I'm definitely seeing telltales of what is probably Portrait Professional used on that one.
I don't know if I am up to the same skill as what the Sony user posted, but this came out of a K7....

[Pentaxor]

I am looking the TS figure the other way.

What it says is, the best and worst APS-C (and m43) camera nowaday available has less than 1 stop difference in terms of ISO performance (500 to 1000 is 1 stop).
And upgrading to full-frame will give you only another 1 stop ISO up (1000 to 2000),
which makes perfect sense to me.

So, just get any one will do, and take more photos

the bars can really cause misconceptions. if I were DxO, I would had put in it simple numeric chart comparison rather than a bar graph. like D700 is 3.2 stops over the Km, and so forth and so on. the bar graph would only cause a false sense of security and dissatisfaction to some people instead of using their camera at it's full potential. some people will have the notion of "geez, my camera didn't do so well in the scorecards so that means my photos will surely suck." without even shooting with the camera yet. I really advise people to spend their time shooting and working on their skills rather than waste their time looking for a sorry excuse why his images would look ugly.

but still, some questions are raised regarding the varying DxO results and why such inconsistency? especially if there are cameras which were reported to have the same sensor but have a surprising different result. or some say that they get better results on one cam over the other but surprised to find out that the other camera is way ahead than the one they thought and saw that was better. such first hand experience on some cameras somehow contradicts the DxO marks. or is it the difference is just minute that numbers don't really matter unless the difference are put in a way that shows that a 900 mark is not that really that big of a gap from 500 or simply a 2/3 stop advantage. or a 500 against 600 is negligible for real world use but can be used as a reference for further improving the sensor.

[Pentaxor]

I'm definitely seeing telltales of what is probably Portrait Professional used on that one.
I don't know if I am up to the same skill as what the Sony user posted, but this came out of a K7....

WOW !!!

[Alfisti]

REALLY dumb ass question, are the ISO ratings taking into account the pixel account and using a base image size?

I have owned a K100D with it's super duper low light sensor and a 20D which at 100% crops looks way, way worse at ISO800 or 1600, re-sample to 6mp or upsample the 100D to 14mp and it's a draw.

[Jonson PL]

I'm definitely seeing telltales of what is probably Portrait Professional used on that one.
I don't know if I am up to the same skill as what the Sony user posted, but this came out of a K7....

Lovely shot

[lol101]

I'm definitely seeing telltales of what is probably Portrait Professional used on that one.
I don't know if I am up to the same skill as what the Sony user posted, but this came out of a K7....

Oh my... what has ever become of the "plastic look" being Canon's signature!?

Now it seems everyone can do it... how depressing that must be for the poor Canon engineers...