What exactly in my words makes you think that such is my thinking? You once again try to put some words into my mouth and then you argue with yourself.
Absolutely meaningless in the real world. You are looking hard for differences which in real world results mean nothing. It's like saying that car A which goes 200mph is obviously faster than car B which goes 199.5 mph. Who cares, especially when you never drive over 70mph anyway? Do you get my point? The differences in your samples are so close that they could be the result of very slight differences in lighting or even shot to shot variation. If you could observe the sensor noise continuously you would see that the noise pattern is constantly changing with your shot only being a instant moment in time.
Sure it is! But the problem here is that the a850/a900 set a pretty low standard for S/N ratio at pixel level - they are relatively noisy cams.
Hope you've just had a nice LOL.
It's apparent that I'd be happy with any of these.
(Anything has to be better than my A100! ;-) )Now we get it! Since only Sony DSLRs have a usable LV (no other brand has a usable one), all Sony DSLRs with LV are p&s DSLRs!
Maximum sensor performance is much more than noise pattern at high ISO. This is a very complex issue, with many variables. The A850/900 is perfomance leaders in the low to medium ISO range, and this I would really say is getting the most out of the sensor -- in the area where image quality really matters!
Things like the "print quality" comparison? I think that size/measuring point is a bit arbitrary, but a good decision to have. It makes sense to take size into account when viewing noise.
Agorabasta has posted enough in the past to show that he knows his stuff too, but there are things that I would write off as a difference of opinion or of approach. Here's my thought -- I think DxO probably has a test procedure which tests what they want to test and isn't the same thing that Agorabasta wants to test or thinks is important.
Yes, I would agree, here. My comment was in regard to high ISO noise. As you have stated, however, this is only one piece of the puzzle. All these comparisons are getting to the point where they have become little more than interesting topics of discussion, as sensor technology improves by leaps and bounds. All of the above are doing remarkably well compared to pro DSLRs of a few years ago.
No - but they can be used as such. There is a difference, you know, but too subtle for you to understand.
Not to mention content! An excellent picture will be appreciated for what it is, no matter which of today's digital DSLR's was used to make it.
It sure does have heavy filtering for stray pixels, and it's good. Sony's high ISO NR does the same if set to 'low', but Canon had to invent a better algorithm since the fiasco with the 50D specular highlights (or was it 5DMkII?).
Maybe you're just not 'sensitive' enough?
Given the lack of current alternatives, it is. And it seems to me, Canon has improved their reds somewhat this time...
