I believe the DXO mark results already take that into account. In other words, the number given is the ISO at which the amount of noise on the whole sensor reaches a given threshold.
I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong, but just clairifying what they are claiming.
Where did your images come from? How were they exposed?
The cropsare from Bryan's reviews, kinda suprisedyou didn't catch it though....[]
I'm not really sure how they get those scores, but DXO has a graph with the signal to noise ration. So I don't know what the ISO score is for....[^o)]
There might be more differances at a sub-pixel level, but just looking atit 100%they look pretty dang close too me....[Y]
John.
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
I could tell they looked the same, but wasn't positive they *were* the same
If I understand correctly, it is the ISO at which noise reaches some threshold level. So the higher the score, the better.
Me, too. That's why I asked about how they were exposed. One should use manual exposure when doing such tests to assure each camera is getting the same amount of light (if you rely on the meter, one camera may leave the shutter open longer at the same iso, thus giving itself more light an an unfair advantage). I *thought* Bryan used manual exposure, but the 7D image says "EV + 1/3" which seems to indicate the meter was used, and furthermore, that the 7D was given 1/3 stop more light, enough to make up the difference reported by DXO.
Anyhow, I'm not sure I could tell such a small difference anyway.
Heck, I think you got me there! I didn't give much thought about that....[:P]
So the 1D III is a littlebitbetter then 7D.
John.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote