Liquidstone wrote: brainiac wrote: And here\'s DPR\'s noise test among 1DS3, D3 and 5D, note the similar performance of the 5D and the 1DS3 at high ISOs:
DPR\'s method of noise assessment is entirely broken since crops are shown at different magnification. A fair noise comparison can only be done by comparing crops from images which have been resized to the same number of megapixels. DPR\'s reviewers lack sufficient technical knowledge to understand why their comparison is radically flawed. A real comparison between the 1Ds3 and D3/D700 at high iso looks like this:
Using the 5D and 1Ds3 side by side I have consistently found that the 1Ds3 has a 1 stop noise advantage over the 5D. Consequently we can expect the 5DmkII to have at least a 1 stop advantage over the 5d also. Reports which contradict this almost certainly derive from people making the error of looking at 5D2 files at 100%, and forgetting that the file is significantly more magnified than the 13 megapixel 5D file at 100%, i.e. precisely the same error DPR has made. Ignore those reports since they are based on a simple mistake.
I get your point, though IMHO there is neither generally correct nor generally wrong method between \"pixel-to-pixel\" and \"frame-to-frame\" comparisons to present noise tests.
For shooters who intend to use the whole frame most of the time (landscapes, etc.), your \"frame-to-frame\" comparison should be the preferred method.
For shooters (like birders) who often crop their output most of the time, DPR\'s \"pixel-to-pixel\" comparo makes sense.
Well, you could be right in your thesis as far as you are concerned.
But personally, I prefer the \"pixel-to-pixel\" comparison, and I just compensate for differing sensor and pixel sizes depending on the application. As long as the test parameters are well defined and described, I can easily interprete the test results from varying viewpoints.
Use whatever method works for you, I\'m not keen on belaboring this point.
Nov 20, 2008 at 08:51 AM
Previous versions of Liquidstone's message #6401310 « Romy's amazing ISO 3200 5D II shot »
