06-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Their analysis is done at a given output size (in their case, 8MP).
It makes much more sense to compare the IQ at a given output size which it what happens when you look at an image. Whether you use a 6 or 36MP camera, your final image will be printed (or displayed) on a given medium at a fixed size. At the pixel level, a 36MP sensor will give you more noise than a 6MP one (given similar technologies). However, the s/n ratio of the larger image, when downsized, will greatly improve.
A larger number of pixels (at equivalent technologies) is beneficial at low ISO because it gives you more details, while still giving you similar high ISO performance due to the averaging of neighboring pixels. You can see this trend pretty well when comparing graphs from the 16 and 24MP sony sensors you're talking about. Comparison between Nikon's D800 and D4 give you similar figures.
[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1339330114' post='18821']
Right now there're a slew of 16 and 24mp sensor based cameras in the market, with more to follow, like D5200, D400 etc...
Basically they are all Sony sensors.
DXO has reviewed these sensors, and in general, the newer 24mp sensor is found to be better overall, and even in low light performance.
Review sites seem to be on the same page as well.
I find it hard to believe, because i have inspected images from these cameras (A65, D5100, A57, D3200) and found the 16mp images to be cleaner in low light...
I can see noise and grain even in ISO 100 images of 24mp sensors, ISO 400 definitely noisier, and 800 being very noisy. 16mp images also show noise, but 1600 ISO is relatively cleaner.
Don't know what's going on?
Dpreview recently gave same scores to both D800 as well as Mark III...???
sensors are getting better??
[/quote]
It makes much more sense to compare the IQ at a given output size which it what happens when you look at an image. Whether you use a 6 or 36MP camera, your final image will be printed (or displayed) on a given medium at a fixed size. At the pixel level, a 36MP sensor will give you more noise than a 6MP one (given similar technologies). However, the s/n ratio of the larger image, when downsized, will greatly improve.
A larger number of pixels (at equivalent technologies) is beneficial at low ISO because it gives you more details, while still giving you similar high ISO performance due to the averaging of neighboring pixels. You can see this trend pretty well when comparing graphs from the 16 and 24MP sony sensors you're talking about. Comparison between Nikon's D800 and D4 give you similar figures.
[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1339330114' post='18821']
Right now there're a slew of 16 and 24mp sensor based cameras in the market, with more to follow, like D5200, D400 etc...
Basically they are all Sony sensors.
DXO has reviewed these sensors, and in general, the newer 24mp sensor is found to be better overall, and even in low light performance.
Review sites seem to be on the same page as well.
I find it hard to believe, because i have inspected images from these cameras (A65, D5100, A57, D3200) and found the 16mp images to be cleaner in low light...
I can see noise and grain even in ISO 100 images of 24mp sensors, ISO 400 definitely noisier, and 800 being very noisy. 16mp images also show noise, but 1600 ISO is relatively cleaner.
Don't know what's going on?
Dpreview recently gave same scores to both D800 as well as Mark III...???
sensors are getting better??
[/quote]