Understanding dxo Sl2 low light score

Lightgreen wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Lightgreen wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

DongaMogudu wrote:

Thanks for the information. Their DR scores from PDR website gives edge to SL2. I downgraded from 80D to SL2 for size. I checked out Brian ISO comparison and felt that I am not missing anything in terms of noise performance with SL2.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1044&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1141&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

Another factor that might allow for a minor difference between the 80D and SL2 sensor performance is that the image processor for the 80D is a generation older than the SL2 (i.e. Digic 6 versus Digic 7).

Actually, if you drill down on the measurements, the 200D is getting substantially more DR at base ISO... 13.39EV vs the M100's 12.85EV (comparing a DIGIC7 vs DIGIC7, 24MP APS-C vs 24MP APS-C). The 200D also eeks out the M100 at base ISO for color sensitivity, but it's within testing replication tolerance IE luck of the draw, temperature, which way the sun is shining, etc.

Perhaps, just a theory, Canon is fine tuning their ADC? That's expected, and frankly appreciated. A half stop of DR improvement at base ISO, where it counts, is pretty big improvement for folks that shoot daylight. They may refine the ADC further to have their cake and eat it too, that is retain their low-light ISO advantage and keep their daylight DR advantage, where if you look at the measurements, the 200D departs from the M100 at ISO6400+ that's where the color sensitivity, tonal range and dynamic range pick up traction for the M100 over the 200D.

When you throw the 80D in the mix, the 80D follows a similar pattern, both the 80D and 200D outperform the M100 in daylight, but, when you go into low-light, the M100 wins.

I think it's more then copy variance / environmental, I think Canon may be tweaking the sensor a wee bit.

DXO scores are weighted by the way, for example, from ISO 800-1600, all three cameras are about the same. How DXO chomps their end of the day scores is a mystery still to everyone I believe. Don't put too much stalk into their end of the day scores, just like I wouldn't on DPR's either, no offense to em. Do, look at the measurements, just in the same way, do take DPR's observations, both are accurate, but both, have skewed ways they come to their end of the day scoring.

It is most likely due to sensor temperature. An MILC has to constantly read the sensor for AF, exposure etc. and this causes the sensor to warm. A DSLR using the OVF doesn't read the sensor until the shot is taken so it stays cooler. A cooler sensor gives better performance. Also, there might be better thermal dissipation in a DSLR body since it is less compact.

The DSLR should outperform the EOS M5, M6, and M100 then at low light... The opposite is happening.

I know what you're saying, it's well documented by even Canon and they have built-in mechanisms to reduce the sensor heat issue by putting the sensor to sleep / refresh it after X amount of activity to mitigate it (not entirely obviously).

Your logic says you should flip the results, the DSLR with the larger heat sink should outperform the EOS M's in ISO, that's not happening here. Also, heat, usually doesn't impact DR, especially at base ISO, once again, another 1+1=3. It's (heat) a very ISO-centric phenomena.

I am not an imaging sensor expert but maybe heat effects sensor performance more in some areas over others.