DxOMark is in: Sony RX100 has more dynamic range than Canon 5D MkII

It's not the first time that i've seen very counter-intuitive results comes out of the DxO mark tests and I'm willing to bet that someone that understands the technical aspects of those tests, which I don't, would be able to explain why the RX100 doesn't really have more DR than a 5D Mk II despite having scored higher.

EDIT: Looking at the results, the DR is only higher at ISO 80 and 100. Still hard to believe but a little more plausible.
 
Not, it really isn't. But, even if there was no difference at all, it would've been unthinkable a few months back. If these results are true, my hat's off to sony. That's a 12.4EV dynamic range at the lowest iso from that tiny camera!

jsrockit said:
Is the difference in score a lot in reality? Doesn't seem so to me.
Click to expand...
 
RedLion said:
At low ISO, the Sony RX 100 has more dynamic range than the Canon 5D Mk II.

Comparison here.

Joe
Click to expand...

11 stops of dynamic range is very low for a FF camera. For example Panasonic LX3 P&S has an 11 stop of dynamic range. 12 stops for RX100 is normal for current compacts.

For actual use pixel size and resolution of a full frame camera makes all the difference.
 
fstops said:
11 stops of dynamic range is very low for a FF camera. For example Panasonic LX3 P&S has an 11 stop of dynamic range. 12 stops for RX100 is normal for current compacts.

For actual use pixel size and resolution of a full frame camera makes all the difference.
Click to expand...

According to DXO (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...2)/Canon/(appareil3)/567|0/(brand3)/Panasonic), the RX100 is 12.4, the 5DII 11.9, and the LX3 10.8. Your rounding of the numbers is misrepresentative.
 
v_roma said:
Not, it really isn't. But, even if there was no difference at all, it would've been unthinkable a few months back. If these results are true, my hat's off to sony. That's a 12.4EV dynamic range at the lowest iso from that tiny camera!
Click to expand...

Agreed, although looking at DXO, the Hasselblad H39 clocks in at 12.5 - is that right for medium format digital? (Not proclaiming, just asking..)
 
It does not really surprise me, digital cameras are computers, and computers advance pretty quick. Yesterday's top end workstation is soon bested by today's £500 laptop. It's just a fact of life when dealing with that type of technology IMHO.
 
Impressive but the 5D II is relatively old in terms of the technology timeline. A better comparison would be vs the 5D III...but it beats that, too, at low ISO. Kinda cool, as I usually shoot the RX at 100.
 
with DXOmark you can only compare cameras with same sensor size, I read of it somewhere.

you can't compare the test results of a full frame camera with the ones of a little sensor.

they should have a similar pixel density too.
 
Yes, I think that is the key to looking at and comparing these results.

luuca said:
with DXOmark you can only compare cameras with same sensor size, I read of it somewhere.

you can't compare the test results of a full frame camera with the ones of a little sensor.

they should have a similar pixel density too.
Click to expand...
 
Trouble is you need to judge the whole camera not just one aspect of it. My ixus is smaller than my D80 but that is only one aspect it also has more MPs than my old D1h but that still doesn't make it better a better camera. The RX100 won't do many things the 5DmkII will do so look at the whole camera and decide if the camera is what you need. Also look at real world pictures taken in situations similar to what you would normally shoot in.
 
honestly, regardless of number of factors judged or the rapid nature of technological advancement, i cannot imagine these two cameras sensors being competitive in any way. any camera with that sized sensor cannot match up qualitatively in any respect with a major FF flagship camera. imo, and again risking the 'luddite' label, i simply refuse to believe that this 'study' is anything more than intellectual masturbation. to me it proves the old addage that common sense is anything but common.
 
It may be true at base ISO ... big deal!

This is a little like saying the latest Hyundai is smoother over shopping centre speed bumps than an AMG Mercedes. The real comparison happens when you take the RX sensor out of its comfort zone and up the ISO and watch the dynamic range disappear like the leaves in autumn.

While I was there I was looking at their test results for the Nikon D4 ... that was impressive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom