The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
DX0 ratings . . . Didn't the A55 do well
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
Summary:
DxO rates it as the best APS-C sensor (tied with D90), Top 5/6 APS-C sensors are all Sony.
Cheers,
N
M
meilicke
Guest
Stop reminding me, I passed it up in favor of the nex-5! 
douglasf13
New member
I wouldn't worry about it. Most of the ratings for those top cameras are very close and probably within the margin of error.
73 seems far less than a rousing endorsement - OTOH -
Don't put too much credence in this rating.
I shoot a camera with an 89 rating and one with a 53 and both make very nice pictures.
Are Leica M9 owners jumping out of the windows because their favorite camera only scored a 69?
-bob
Don't put too much credence in this rating.
I shoot a camera with an 89 rating and one with a 53 and both make very nice pictures.
Are Leica M9 owners jumping out of the windows because their favorite camera only scored a 69?
-bob
dhsimmonds
New member
Every time I think about this it makes me see double.
-bob
jonoslack
Active member
Actually, to be honest, I'm with Bob and Douglas - never took a great deal of stock of the ratings with respect to the real world.
Comparing the results with M9 results one doesn't really get the impression of a much better sensor:bugeyes:
Still, it feels like good news on a Sony forum - which is why I posted the post.
Comparing the results with M9 results one doesn't really get the impression of a much better sensor:bugeyes:
Still, it feels like good news on a Sony forum - which is why I posted the post.
Amin
Active member
While I realize that DxO meaurements are not the same as real world results, I think they are better than any review site when it comes to predicting real world signal to noise, dynamic range, and tonal range. What they don't give you is the color fidelity, banding, absolute resolution, aliasing tendency, etc.
I did carefully controlled RAW file conversion signal/noise testing of all Micro 4/3 bodies against Samsung NX and Sony NEX. My results were basically identical to what DxO produced for those cameras and in marked contrast to what DPReview published, so I trust the DxO numbers.
The A55 results speak well of that sensor. Especially when the A33-NEX5 comparison suggests that the translucent mirror is associated with a nearly 1/2 stop of light loss.
I did carefully controlled RAW file conversion signal/noise testing of all Micro 4/3 bodies against Samsung NX and Sony NEX. My results were basically identical to what DxO produced for those cameras and in marked contrast to what DPReview published, so I trust the DxO numbers.
The A55 results speak well of that sensor. Especially when the A33-NEX5 comparison suggests that the translucent mirror is associated with a nearly 1/2 stop of light loss.
dhsimmonds
New member
This should auger well for the A580 with optical viewfinder then? Also any further models using developments of this sensor......ie "A780" or equivalent.
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
Both of my cameras scored a 69. I do like them both a lot, but if I thought they were equal, I could just sell the expensive one and put the $$$ in the bank. That is not going to happen because they are not equal IMHO, but I do not usually look at ratings and charts.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Well the big issue with DXO is it does not count for any raw processing software and it is based on raw data before it hits the raw processing which in reality is meaningless. We care what happens after the processing. Too me it is a guide and only a guide
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Thanks Guy for this explanation!
I was always wondering why cameras - which deliver really stunning results - are sometimes at such low score levels. This is true for my D700 (was for D3), Sony A900 as well as H3D39 - all significantly better than they should be compared to DXO tests.
So we see once more that RAW processing is really a key part in the whole chain.
Question remaining
1) what sense do DXO tests then make???
2) and why does DXO not test including (at least) the recommended RAW SW for each camera model ????
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
1) what sense do DXO tests then make???
Well it is a guide on a scientific level of what the sensor can produce but I say at least at the minimum of what it can produce since the raw processing can make corrections for noise, DR and such through it's algorithms. So on a sensor level it's not a bad guide just not a real world guide since some raw processing is tuned to specific sensors and cams. Like your Hassy with Phocus for instance. Obviously you know you can get more off the sensor through your software. Part two is related to this
2) and why does DXO not test including (at least) the recommended RAW SW for each camera model ????
Simply because there are some cams without dedicated software or lets say tuned to a specific sensor and than also there are just to many variables among all the raw converters so almost impossible to get real scientific fact on it.
A lot like MTF charts in a way , great numbers but does not count for any look in the images.
To me these things like MTF charts and DXO are just parts of a big puzzle to evaluate how things will be in final but there is a whole lot of stuff missing in between shooting and final image. One thing I have learned with Phase especially how much the DXO numbers really don't count since the final image is so much better than the raw data in the beginning. Same with other cams and raw processing engines. To me it is the whole chain of events to final IQ and as photographers not scientists we look at our final results to make any real world decisions on how we like things and if it all works.
The interesting thing is we need the science to actually make and produce sensors, software and such but in the end it is the whole chain of events that makes the final IQ. So yes we NEED the science but we also NEED to forget the science as well as shooters.
At least this is i view the whole digital world of photography.
Well it is a guide on a scientific level of what the sensor can produce but I say at least at the minimum of what it can produce since the raw processing can make corrections for noise, DR and such through it's algorithms. So on a sensor level it's not a bad guide just not a real world guide since some raw processing is tuned to specific sensors and cams. Like your Hassy with Phocus for instance. Obviously you know you can get more off the sensor through your software. Part two is related to this
2) and why does DXO not test including (at least) the recommended RAW SW for each camera model ????
Simply because there are some cams without dedicated software or lets say tuned to a specific sensor and than also there are just to many variables among all the raw converters so almost impossible to get real scientific fact on it.
A lot like MTF charts in a way , great numbers but does not count for any look in the images.
To me these things like MTF charts and DXO are just parts of a big puzzle to evaluate how things will be in final but there is a whole lot of stuff missing in between shooting and final image. One thing I have learned with Phase especially how much the DXO numbers really don't count since the final image is so much better than the raw data in the beginning. Same with other cams and raw processing engines. To me it is the whole chain of events to final IQ and as photographers not scientists we look at our final results to make any real world decisions on how we like things and if it all works.
The interesting thing is we need the science to actually make and produce sensors, software and such but in the end it is the whole chain of events that makes the final IQ. So yes we NEED the science but we also NEED to forget the science as well as shooters.
At least this is i view the whole digital world of photography.
douglasf13
New member
I think the good news for me is that we are getting to a point where APS-C, 35mm and MFDB sensors are all producing pretty outstanding images. Noise handling is nearly to a point where I'm not sure that I need it to improve much more (famous last words,) and DR of sensors is getting large enough that lenses are becoming the limiting factor of the camera DR. I'm not printing much more than 13x19 anymore, so my camera options feel limitless (can't wait to try an X100.) I certainly never thought I'd sell the A900 and start shooting what is essentially an APS-C digital back (NEX-5,) but I'm having fun with it, and I THINK that's the point. lol.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Agree and the bottom line is your having fun. Major key point to anything shooting wise, if it makes you get out and shoot than all the other stuff is just flat out BS. But i do also agree with you as someone that has been shooting digital for 20 years the gap is closing as the technology gets better no question.
It's awesome like something like the size of these 4/3rds wonders and NEX cams can be so good these days. Just amazes me
After just finishing the workshop in Yosemite as most where shooting MF stuff we had a member here that shot a G1 and did a ton of pano stitching on the workshop and his images where amazing.
V
Vivek
Guest
Douglas, I am not so sure about the lenses becoming the limiting factors (especially for dynamic range). It depends on the lenses you choose to use.
Specifically, instead of the Cosina 35/1.4, if you would use the Schneider C-Curtagon 35/2.8 (very high resolution lens), you would notice this.
PS: I don't look at DXO site for anything.
Has anybody noticed what the lowly APS-C Pentax K-5 just got on DxO? Not 73. A hint: it starts with an 8 and ends with a 2!
For example Nikon D3 gets 81.
EDIT:
EDIT 2: Sorry to sidetrack this Sony related thread but I think it gives some idea where the APS-C IQ is today according to DxO.
For example Nikon D3 gets 81.
EDIT:
EDIT 2: Sorry to sidetrack this Sony related thread but I think it gives some idea where the APS-C IQ is today according to DxO.
Last edited:
douglasf13
New member
I actually sold the c-Curtagon 35/2.8 a few weeks ago. I'm really enjoying the Contax G 35/2 right now. I must have a good copy.
Regardless, that isn't the point. Iliah Borg can get into the specifics, as he is about the best out there in regards to testing (he co-developed RPP and libraw,)but even the very best primes with simple element designs aren't able to pass more than 11-12 stops of DR, due to internal reflections. There was a really long, cool video lecture that I watched a couple of years ago from Kodak in regards to internal lens reflections, but I don't remember the source.
Regardless, that isn't the point. Iliah Borg can get into the specifics, as he is about the best out there in regards to testing (he co-developed RPP and libraw,)but even the very best primes with simple element designs aren't able to pass more than 11-12 stops of DR, due to internal reflections. There was a really long, cool video lecture that I watched a couple of years ago from Kodak in regards to internal lens reflections, but I don't remember the source.