Most underestimated camera currently available

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

And that's the problem. You get some nice charts about content-less images.

That is not a problem. It measures what it does and you get the information you get.

What this measurement tells is at what light level you get too much noise.

I'm afraid we have to disagree once again.

Well, technically you're right but the kind of data you're getting is useless - some sort of a number.

Much more useful is to look at images, then you can see with your own eyes the quantity and quality of noise.

Do you want more information, you have to do some other measurements.

And suitable complementary measurements do measure e.g. resolution or MTF.

Alex

No - the number is not useless. It tells things about the sensor and the RAW pipeline. And if you combine it with other measurements you will know even more.

It tells that a bigger sensor gives you a better dynamic range. And, if you get a better noise behavior than is physically possible, it tells you that there is some noise reduction going on.

Looking at pictures? There are people that are better at taking pictures. There are different opinions on how a good picture looks. There are subjects that look better or worse.

Sure, you can look at DPReview test images. It is standardized. But, it has happened that the result is sub par, probably due to faulty focus or vibration.

Sure, you can take images carefully and look at them and evaluate them. But., if you take the same images with another camera some days later, you can absolutely not mentally compare them, if there aint something wrong with one of the cameras.

Lenses might be easier to evaluate with images, I assume you easily can spot if it is your 50/1,4 or the classic FA 50/1.4 that is used at F1.4. Put, put both at F8.0. Hmmmmm ... then we need to measure I assume. Some MTF maybe.