Sony NEX 3 and 5 beats Nikon D90 (High ISO Noise)

Doesn't really tell much with that focal length and DOF. Here is the another crop from different area on the ISO 1600 sample. Obviously, the bigger pic is NEX5. In fact, a fair comparison is to reduce the size of NEX5 to 12Mp.

In fact, I give the nod to the D90, it totally negates the higher mp count, and is cleaner to boot, IMO. now, that is still positive news for Sony, as the d90 has universally acllaimed for its sensor.

sandy b said:

From IR comparometer. Both iso 3200 jpg. you decide which is which:

The Sony has nice features and will be a fine camera, but posting that it beats the nikon is disengenuous at best.

Click to expand...

Not sure which cameras we are looking at in the screenshot above, but if I take a crop from the D90 ISO 3200 shot and the NEX 5 ISO 3200 shot, both at 12MP, we get this:



Far more subtle difference than above, in which different sharpening levels seem to play a role too.

First, about 2., no, 5points is the total error, +_ included, not +-5, but more like +-2.5. But yes, NEX5 and D90 could be seen as tied.

1.: The high ISO score is the ISO so that DR and noise reach certain minimum acceptable values. To compare in terms of stops, for example D90 and NEX5, the difference is 181 points above 796, that's about 0.30 stop difference (one stop difference would be twice the ISO value), thus within 1/3 stop margin of error.

If you look at both D300 and D300s graphs for DR and compare to D90's, you see that the D90's graph has a longer shoulder, starting to fall off later. The D300/s show an almost linear decay, which indicates very little messing with signal, compared to D90's. High ISo performance for a CMOS sensor usually depends on how much local noise control, at the sensor level, is done.

That's not usually all good, some problems may show up, like banding, some other effects. For example, the D3x's sensor, the best for low ISO in all aspects, has a very linear decay in all aspects, meaning Nikon didn't want to improve its High ISo performance. The D3s, on the other hand, shows a very long shoulder in all aspects, implying the signal was optimized for high ISo performance.

AndyHWC said:

1. We are talking about high ISO performance here. So I am looking at the ISO score.

D90 - 977 (unusal high)
D5000 - 868
NEX5- 796
D300S - 787
D300 - 679

So DxO say NEX5 is better than D300s for high ISO.

2. If you are using overall score, NEX5 is only one point below D300S and within 5 points from D90. So are they all tied? If all score are + - 5, DxO got their a$$ covered pretty well

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

no text here

Why use jpegs for visual comparisons? You are seeing converter performance, basically, and makers' options for default settings, incluidng NR.

Now, I'd guess, from DxO Mark scores, that these cameras give same performance, once resized to same value (that's what the scores at DxO Mark use), using equivalent conversion. So, a 3 yo sensor (D90) is still at the state-of-art in performance, not bad (and it's a Sony!).

Let's wait for the D7000, it's rumored to carry a new Nikon sensor, with 25600 ISO setting, likley D3s' technology used.

sandy b said:

In fact, I give the nod to the D90, it totally negates the higher mp count, and is cleaner to boot, IMO. now, that is still positive news for Sony, as the d90 has universally acllaimed for its sensor.

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)