The Economist article on mirrorless cameras

Started Jun 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: "A single arbitrary number?"

Jerry Fusselman wrote:

It is not a "single arbitrary number." It is DxOmark's attempt to summarize, as best they can, overall quality of the sensor.

Since you referenced low-light performance, I hoped that you knew where the specific "Sports (low light ISO)" number comes from, not the overall score. And the significance of the difference (less than 1/4 stop in this case). Would the values be relatively different if you used 32dB instead?

Can you do better for a single-number summary?

No, but I also don't think it's worth the effort.

If you truly believe that no index number is possible, then sweeping statements about relatively quality must generally be false due to the infinite number of dimensions of possible comparison.

It was exactly such a sweeping statement that prompted me to respond.  Looking at anything to the right of ISO 1600 in the graphs, does your sweeping statement apply?

One virtue of an index number over tons of numbers is that you are less likely to be accused or guilty of cherry picking.

It means someone else did the dirty work of cherry picking - unless you can explain why 30dB is better than 32dB or 28dB.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow