Author Topic: Is Sony NEX sensor really better than E-Px sensors? (Read 4750 times)

voyager · « **Reply #50 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:30:38 PM »

Indeed. But I find the notion that the D5000 wins that group almost comical.

Panther · « **Reply #51 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:32:59 PM »

Quote from: voyager on July 27, 2010, 07:30:38 PM

Indeed. But I find the notion that the D5000 wins that group almost comical.

Again,
The D5000 is newer than the D90 and D300 (even though they share the same sensor), the newer D5000 firmware is the strongest....

Though both the D90 and D300 autofocus more efficiently than the 5000

voyager · « **Reply #52 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:39:24 PM »

Ah, I do see what you mean there. But for what it's worth, the high ISO noise tests on it don't really stand out.

Panther · « **Reply #53 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:41:26 PM »

Quote from: voyager on July 27, 2010, 07:39:24 PM

Ah, I do see what you mean there. But for what it's worth, the high ISO noise tests on it don't spark any interest in me.

Agreed 100% (it's not for everyone)
However for me, hi ISO performance is a key interest item......

Panther · « **Reply #54 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:54:48 PM »

BTW, just curious....
What color is your K-x...?

voyager · « **Reply #55 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:55:35 PM »

Black. I won it in a contest.

lisandra · « **Reply #56 on:** July 27, 2010, 07:58:15 PM »

Quote from: Panther on July 27, 2010, 07:11:13 PM

Quote from: voyager on July 27, 2010, 07:09:23 PM
And I suppose Pentax even better than Nikon then. The K-x has the absolute best high ISO that I have ever seen on an APS-C camera.

Not according to DXOMark....

LoL but that being said, it's definitely possible that Pentax firmware is also better than Sony....The K-x is very highly rated

DAMN IT!! DXO mark is NOT an image quality rater. It rates sensor potential based on the camera its in. And I'm sorry, but he's right, the kx has the best jpeg output out off any APS C camera ever made, by a lot. I've seen kx ISO 3200 prints that will leave some people seizing on the spot...

Panther · « **Reply #57 on:** July 27, 2010, 08:04:24 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on July 27, 2010, 07:58:15 PM

DAMN IT!! DXO mark is NOT an image quality rater. It rates sensor potential based on the camera its in. And I'm sorry, but he's right, the kx has the best jpeg output out off any APS C camera ever made, by a lot. I've seen kx ISO 3200 prints that will leave some people seizing on the spot...

With my DSLR, I only shoot in RAW format.... That being said, I'm still a fan of the K-x

lisandra · « **Reply #58 on:** July 27, 2010, 08:10:57 PM »

Quote from: Panther on July 27, 2010, 08:04:24 PM

Quote from: lisandra on July 27, 2010, 07:58:15 PM
DAMN IT!! DXO mark is NOT an image quality rater. It rates sensor potential based on the camera its in. And I'm sorry, but he's right, the kx has the best jpeg output out off any APS C camera ever made, by a lot. I've seen kx ISO 3200 prints that will leave some people seizing on the spot...

With my DSLR, I only shoot in RAW format.... That being said, I'm still a fan of the K-x

Ooo, since you were (all of you, not just you) talking about processors I kinda assumed you were talking about jpeg, sorry I got confused, but still, the Kx (to me) is hard to beat, even in RAW.

Panther · « **Reply #59 on:** July 27, 2010, 08:40:35 PM »

Yes,
The K-x is a very capable camera - especially for the price!

cosinaphile · « **Reply #60 on:** July 27, 2010, 08:45:56 PM »

late to the party.... but sensor ratings are but a part of what a given machine delivers in the final analysis,.............. and dp reviews ??

i read them , i look forward to them , once or twice i even agreed with them,
but they are totally and completely biased and always colored by by some agena driven point of view

some of the stuff they print is blatantly transparent
imho

Ian Tindale · « **Reply #61 on:** July 27, 2010, 10:50:11 PM »

Why do people pay so much attention to technical testing that discriminates in imperceptible levels of detail, when the same people often cannot discriminate any difference themselves just by looking at the results. Surely, if you like the results of a piece of kit yourself, then itâ€™s â€œgoodâ€. I know what items of equipment I have in terms of what results they give and whether I like it or not. Paying attention to external tests is a mistake in my opinion. Theyâ€™re not testing the individual instance you yourself have.

As an example. The time in between the theft of my first (white) E-P1 and the purchasing of the second (stainless steel) E-P1, I was in a situation wondering what is going to replace the niche it occupied. I even tried using the D50 with the 50mm lens, and then decided to get the relatively new Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX lens for it. It comes highly rated, highly recommended and highly regarded by all those who own one. I shot on it for nearly a week and returned it as faulty by design and fortunately managed to get a full refund on it. It lasted six days from my original purchasing. It really was a rubbish lens. Intolerable CA, unhelpful barrel distortion, and it was also too fat. Yet all the tests come out positive. The group on flickr all staunchly defended it, saying that I must have a bad one. Well, if theyâ€™re that variable, then thereâ€™s really absolutely no validity in testing just one sample. This is often the case in manufactured items and reviewing (and Iâ€™ve done a fair share of professional reviewing, when I was writing for computer magazines back in the â€™80s, so I know the weaknesses of the system). Look at your own evidence â€” do you like the results? Then itâ€™s good. For you. If you canâ€™t tell the difference, then it honestly doesnâ€™t matter. For you, and probably for anyone else.

travfar · « **Reply #62 on:** July 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM »

Quote from: Ian Tindale on July 27, 2010, 10:50:11 PM

Why do people pay so much attention to technical testing that discriminates in imperceptible levels of detail, when the same people often cannot discriminate any difference themselves just by looking at the results. Surely, if you like the results of a piece of kit yourself, then itâ€™s â€œgoodâ€. I know what items of equipment I have in terms of what results they give and whether I like it or not. Paying attention to external tests is a mistake in my opinion. Theyâ€™re not testing the individual instance you yourself have.

Exactly. That's what swayed me from getting a E-P1 instead of a NEX. Well, that and the fact that the E-P1 was half the price of the NEX. I looked at shots of the same scenes taken with both. The E-P1 shots looked much better. Some people just get caught up in the numbers that can be meaningless. Just because a tractor trailer has more horsepower than a Ferrari, doesn't mean it'll get around the track faster.

adash · « **Reply #63 on:** July 27, 2010, 11:14:00 PM »

I've been whitnessing real "proffesionals" on web forums for a while. In a local forum one got to the point in posting the comparison tables from DXO, whith some indicative price of more than $1000 for E-P1 in it, and yelling around "See, it is BOTH more expensive than NEX, and inferior parameters." Well, I could not say anything more. None of the synthetic tests appreciate the lack of in-body IS or the lack of a hot shoe. Or the lack of AF with all the Sony a lenses. Pathetic, I think.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #64 on:** July 28, 2010, 12:43:44 AM »

pathetic indeed

Panther · « **Reply #65 on:** July 28, 2010, 02:36:07 AM »

Quote from: Ian Tindale on July 27, 2010, 10:50:11 PM

Why do people pay so much attention to technical testing that discriminates in imperceptible levels of detail, when the same people often cannot discriminate any difference themselves just by looking at the results.

Thing is,
The high iso screen shots provided by Imaging-Resource's review clearly show the difference.

Panther · « **Reply #66 on:** July 28, 2010, 03:01:10 AM »

Quote from: adash on July 27, 2010, 11:14:00 PM

None of the synthetic tests appreciate the lack of in-body IS or the lack of a hot shoe. Or the lack of AF with all the Sony a lenses. Pathetic, I think.

Ah...
The SUBJECT/TOPIC of this thread is only the sensor

Panther · « **Reply #67 on:** July 28, 2010, 03:01:57 AM »

And now for my final comment on this subject matter....

Can I agree that the NEX is an OVERALL better camer than the PEN? Sure! Most reviews have pointed out that the menu interface menu on the NEX series of camera is poorly designed & requiring quite a large number of manual inputs to change settings.....

HOWEVER....

If you want me to believe that the PEN performs better than NEX at high ISO settings, then I'm going to have to disagree....Every review that has high ISO screenshots have clearly shown that the NEX series cameras perform better than the PENS at high ISO settings - these are quite easily seen in the screenshots that the reviews have provided.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree....

And now, I give everyone else the final word here....

adash · « **Reply #68 on:** July 28, 2010, 03:08:33 AM »

Sincerely, I do not believe that the PENs can be better high ISO performers then the NEX, since the sensor in PEN is almost half of that in NEX. But I still believe that Sony's solution is suboptimal and if you want it more figuratively speeking - a good sensor in a crappy body. Period.

voyager · « **Reply #69 on:** July 28, 2010, 07:50:40 AM »

Well this thread was a joy to read.

travfar · « **Reply #70 on:** July 28, 2010, 08:23:40 AM »

Quote from: Panther on July 28, 2010, 03:01:57 AM

If you want me to believe that the PEN performs better than NEX at high ISO settings, then I'm going to have to disagree....Every review that has high ISO screenshots have clearly shown that the NEX series cameras perform better than the PENS at high ISO settings - these are quite easily seen in the screenshots that the reviews have provided.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree....

And now, I give everyone else the final word here....

And the same pictures at IR et al show that under less than high ISO, the PENs are sharper and have more detail. So in the end, it's a wash. The two sensors are equivalent. The PEN sensor is sharper, the NEX sensor is better at ISO noise. It's easy to deal with high ISO noise, use a flash. It's not so easy to make your sensor sharper. So arguably, the PEN sensor is better. I feel like were in ground hog day, we just keep going over the same points over and over again.

adash · « **Reply #71 on:** July 28, 2010, 09:31:46 AM »

Quote from: Panther on July 28, 2010, 03:01:10 AM

Quote from: adash on July 27, 2010, 11:14:00 PM
None of the synthetic tests appreciate the lack of in-body IS or the lack of a hot shoe. Or the lack of AF with all the Sony a lenses. Pathetic, I think.

Ah...
The SUBJECT/TOPIC of this thread is only the sensor

Please don't forget that I figured that topic out when splitting it from the "pentax joining m4/3" which you kidnapped recently.
And I still do not sincerely believe that the larger sensor would have a worse high ISO than the PEN. But the difference is less than 1 Âµm per pixel - 4.22 Âµm vs. 5.08 Âµm, or about 20% larger, 40% in area, which does not even count for one stop more! So the exceptionally high ISO performance must come form somewhere, don't you think? Where did it come from.....let me see....hmmmm....ah, it is filtering out the noise! Man, you can filter out noise form any picture, even in-camera in case of PENs.

lisandra · « **Reply #72 on:** July 28, 2010, 11:57:07 AM »

Quote from: Panther on July 28, 2010, 03:01:10 AM

Quote from: adash on July 27, 2010, 11:14:00 PM
None of the synthetic tests appreciate the lack of in-body IS or the lack of a hot shoe. Or the lack of AF with all the Sony a lenses. Pathetic, I think.

Ah...
The SUBJECT/TOPIC of this thread is only the sensor

Then theres no arguing the sony sensor is more than capable.

voyager · « **Reply #73 on:** July 28, 2010, 10:04:07 PM »

The moral of the thread is that both of the sensors have their pluses and their minuses, everyone agree?

cosinaphile · « **Reply #74 on:** July 29, 2010, 07:38:42 AM »

in real world use i would love to see 2 side by side shots at 3200 in dim light

i think the sony would have an small edge IQ wise due to the larger sensor ,

after the 27 button pushes it took to pull up iso 3200 on the nex

Author Topic: Is Sony NEX sensor really better than E-Px sensors? (Read 4750 times)

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Ian Tindale

Panther

Panther

Panther

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery