Camera Rankings Table - DXOMark - Some interesting results

DJ_Switch · 31 Jan 2010 at 15:31

I'm not sure whether this has been posted before although it's been quite interesting sifting through some of the results here. Perhaps the biggest surprise was how badly the Canon 7D seems to have done. Only marginally better than the D60? :eek:

mera rankings

Listed below are the DxOMark Sensor scale results for all the digital camera bodies that we have currently evaluated, along with their key specifications. The list is ranked from highest to lowest (left to right, top to bottom) on the DxOMark Sensor scale. The results for all the constituent metrics of the DxOMark Sensor scale are also shown. You can filter the ranked list by brand, resolution, sensor size, date, and price categories.
Just click on any product sheet to view all the measurements used to determine the camera ranking on DxOMark Sensor scale.
All data have been measured at DxO Labs using our Image Quality Evaluation tool, DxO Analyzer. To find out more about all the image quality measurement definition and a description of the testing protocols, click here
Essentials about the DxOMark Sensor scale:

1. DxOMark Sensor measures only the RAW image quality of a digital camera; therefore, DxOMark Sensor is NOT an evaluation of overall camera image quality or performance.
2. DxO Mark Sensor is a logarithmic scale in which a 5-point increase corresponds to a sensitivity gain of 1/3 of a stop.
3. Resolution is NOT factored into the DxOMark Sensor ranking.

Read more

CAMERA RANKINGS TABLE HERE

mcc49 · 31 Jan 2010 at 15:47

7th

Not surprising really when you are packing so many mp into a crop sensor. I felt that 15mp on the 500D and 50D were pretty much on the limit as pixel density goes on a crop sensor.

Personally shocked at the D700's low light ISO, is it really that good? I felt the 5D MK2 were pretty damn good up to 3200 but judging by numbers the D700 is on a league on it's own!

DJ_Switch · 31 Jan 2010 at 15:59

Likewise, with regards to the low light performance of the D700. I was under the impression that the D3 range was miles ahead in that department. It would have been interesting to see what the results of the D3s would have been and how the D700 compared to it.

Trick · 31 Jan 2010 at 16:07

Poor little 450d, right down in 55th

^^Gord^^ · 31 Jan 2010 at 16:19

So, my 1D Mark II should be giving me better quality RAW shots than my 7D?

Okkkkkkkkkay.

DJ_Switch · 31 Jan 2010 at 16:23

Trick said:
Poor little 450d, right down in 55th

I'd be happy with 55th place. My D70s has had its final kick in the teeth with 78th place and even the D50 coming in ahead of it.LOL

FreeStream · 31 Jan 2010 at 16:28

^^Gord^^ said:
So, my 1D Mark II should be giving me better quality RAW shots than my 7D?

Okkkkkkkkkay.

hahaha.

I thought some of the placements were abit weird.

Don't buy that chart by much tbh. Apparently my 40D sensor/IQ is only 6% better than a 350D.

hahahahahahahaha, I don't even need to get RAW shots out to know its WAY better.

Ah well, I'll still be buying a 7D at some point

olv · 31 Jan 2010 at 17:40

Concorde Rules said:
Apparently my 40D sensor/IQ is only 6% better than a 350D.

Why would you expect it to be significantly better? Given the same subject in good light with the same lens there is no way you could tell the difference between the 350D and 40D.

What that chart illustrates is just how similar dSLR performance is across the spectrum. Sure, some of them will excel in low light but given good shooting conditions at low ISO it doesn't matter what camera you have.

MikeHunt79 · 31 Jan 2010 at 17:49

DJ_Switch said:
Perhaps the biggest surprise was how badly the Canon 7D seems to have done. Only marginally better than the D60?

I would say this is not because the 7D is bad, but because the D60 is good.

ichabod crane · 31 Jan 2010 at 18:04

The 350D is one up on the 30D! 59th :eek:

Derek W · 31 Jan 2010 at 18:20

bit confused by this as the listed fps for the 7D is listed as 3 where as all the literature I've seen is 8fps?

FreeStream · 31 Jan 2010 at 19:00

olv said:
Why would you expect it to be significantly better? Given the same subject in good light with the same lens there is no way you could tell the difference between the 350D and 40D.

What that chart illustrates is just how similar dSLR performance is across the spectrum. Sure, some of them will excel in low light but given good shooting conditions at low ISO it doesn't matter what camera you have.

Its 2 and a half years newer...

Thats a hell of a long time in technology circles!

khimbar · 31 Jan 2010 at 20:01

49th'll do me. I know that my camera is capable of way more than me anyway.

beermonster · 31 Jan 2010 at 20:42

A 20D is above 400D, 1000D, a D80, 450D 350D and strangly a 30D.

In fairness all great cameras and only seperated by 3 points.

olv · 31 Jan 2010 at 21:00

Concorde Rules said:
Its 2 and a half years newer...

Thats a hell of a long time in technology circles!

My 10D produces raw files of identical quality to my 30D and there's probably 4 years between them.

There hasn't really been much to improve upon with image quality at low ISO in the last 5 years unless you get a physically larger sensor. The improvements have been to the speed of the cameras and additional features. Not outright image quality.