Interesting Article on CNET

[Concisus Cognatus]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10...CmoreStories.0

[ldelacruz]

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

[Gambit]

Don't confuse the DxOMark results with a full evaluation of a camera, though; other significant factors include autofocus, in-camera processing, durability, optics, interface, accessories, customer support, and availability of third-party and used lenses.

Heh. I don't think that Nikon is particularly lacking in any of those areas. And I'm a Canon-carrier!

The most significant thing I noticed (other than the price, of couse. )was the "very big notch better in dynamic range." That's going to have a lot of photogs very interested.

[nastytrucker]

Has anyone else noticed the frame rates dropping on cameras? D3 9fps, D3x 5fps, I guess frame rate isnt the current "must have" on the high end pro camera marketing right now. I would say ISO range is the current rage in marketing , what do yall think?

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by nastytrucker

Has anyone else noticed the frame rates dropping on cameras? D3 9fps, D3x 5fps, I guess frame rate isnt the current "must have" on the high end pro camera marketing right now. I would say ISO range is the current rage in marketing , what do yall think?

You are moving a crapload more data on the D3x than on the D3. I think it depends on what your needs are. If frame rate was important enough to go higher than 5FPS, you may not need the 24MP resolution and if you need both, I guess you are hosed until the next gen.

I agree high ISO is the current buzz, but it has been getting better across the board it seems.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by nastytrucker

Has anyone else noticed the frame rates dropping on cameras? D3 9fps, D3x 5fps, I guess frame rate isnt the current "must have" on the high end pro camera marketing right now. I would say ISO range is the current rage in marketing , what do yall think?

Because ISO is a technology that the camera makers basically control directly, but frame rate is dependent on outside electronics technologies (file xfer rates, etc) and the camera makers don't influence that technology as much.

[Tom]

I am not sure I really understand how they test it. The 5D2 and the 1Ds3 have the same sensor, but they got different scores.

Isn't the sensor in the Sony Alpha 900 the same as the D3x?

The Nikon D200 (12-bit RAW, very noisy) tested higher than the 40D (14-bit RAW, much less noise), which tested better than the 50D?

The 50D (62.9 rating) tested virtually equally with the 20D (62.2) while the 30D tested lower at 59.2 - despite having the same sensor as the 20D?

The Canon 350D tested better than the Nikon D2Xs and the Leica M8?

I'm thinking those testers shouldn't be the industry standard.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I am not sure I really understand how they test it. The 5D2 and the 1Ds3 have the same sensor, but they got different scores.

Isn't the sensor in the Sony Alpha 900 the same as the D3x?

The Nikon D200 (12-bit RAW, very noisy) tested higher than the 40D (14-bit RAW, much less noise), which tested better than the 50D?

The 50D (62.9 rating) tested virtually equally with the 20D (62.2) while the 30D tested lower at 59.2 - despite having the same sensor as the 20D?

The Canon 350D tested better than the Nikon D2Xs and the Leica M8?

I'm thinking those testers shouldn't be the industry standard.

Any differences are likely do to the electronics handling the sensors. It seems they leave the sensors in the cameras, so the data handling by the rest of the electroics would make a difference. The A900 and D3x may have the same sensor, but the electronics hooked to them are different.

If they pulled the sensors and could somehow test them on an equal test bed, that would be interesting.

If I could only get the guts from the D3x and use the Sony Zeiss lenses....

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I am not sure I really understand how they test it. The 5D2 and the 1Ds3 have the same sensor, but they got different scores.

Isn't the sensor in the Sony Alpha 900 the same as the D3x?

The Nikon D200 (12-bit RAW, very noisy) tested higher than the 40D (14-bit RAW, much less noise), which tested better than the 50D?

The 50D (62.9 rating) tested virtually equally with the 20D (62.2) while the 30D tested lower at 59.2 - despite having the same sensor as the 20D?

The Canon 350D tested better than the Nikon D2Xs and the Leica M8?

I'm thinking those testers shouldn't be the industry standard.

I had the same thoughts as you. Results in a lot of cases seemed to be counterintuitive, and counter to posted, real-world, results. Not sure that I place a huge amount of stock in it, but I guess it would help ease the sting of an $8000 price tag.

[jeffkohn]

I am not sure I really understand how they test it. The 5D2 and the 1Ds3 have the same sensor, but they got different scores.

"Same sensor" is a vauge term, do you think nothing at all has changed? Canon themselves have stated that they made further optimizations to the sensor for high-ISO with 5D2. If you look at the individual components of the testing, you'll see that the 1Ds3 is ever so slightly better at low ISO's, while the 5D2 is better at high ISO.

Isn't the sensor in the Sony Alpha 900 the same as the D3x?

Seems to be the same sensor, but it's being used over a different ISO range in the D3x, with different CFA, AA filter. and possibly micro-lenses.

As for the other comparisons you mentioned, instead of looking at just the overall sensor score, take a look at the actual test results on other tabs, where you can how the results in each area broken down by ISO. High ISO noise is not the only consideration in a camera's score. For instance the D200 has slightly better DR and color sensitivity at base ISO compared to the 40D, while the 40D pulls ahead at higher ISO's. As for 40D versus 50D, looking at the individual tests I don't find the results surprising.

[phillip ino]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I am not sure I really understand how they test it. The 5D2 and the 1Ds3 have the same sensor, but they got different scores.

Isn't the sensor in the Sony Alpha 900 the same as the D3x?

The Nikon D200 (12-bit RAW, very noisy) tested higher than the 40D (14-bit RAW, much less noise), which tested better than the 50D?

The 50D (62.9 rating) tested virtually equally with the 20D (62.2) while the 30D tested lower at 59.2 - despite having the same sensor as the 20D?

The Canon 350D tested better than the Nikon D2Xs and the Leica M8?

I'm thinking those testers shouldn't be the industry standard.

I spoke to a Nikon rep the other day and, yes the D3x sensor is made by Sony, but specifically for Nikon's specs. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the same exact sensor as what's in the Sony A900. Hence the difference in performance.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by phillip ino

I spoke to a Nikon rep the other day and, yes the D3x sensor is made by Sony, but specifically for Nikon's specs. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the same exact sensor as what's in the Sony A900. Hence the difference in performance.

Isn't that what a Nikon rep would want you to think? I mean, they can't really tell you that their new $8000 camera has the exact same performance, sensor and specs as the $3000 Sony camera.

[phillip ino]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

Isn't that what a Nikon rep would want you to think? I mean, they can't really tell you that their new $8000 camera has the exact same performance, sensor and specs as the $3000 Sony camera.

Sure.....if I was paranoid about such things. Truth is, the difference can be seen in the IQ.