The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format

[EricWHiss]

I dug up an old CCD shot to remind me of why I liked it.

Nice - is that Zion?

[eronald]

The fact that camera manufacturers try hard to develop cameras that sport great megapixels or high iso values and test well in pixelpeepr labs as dxomark is defenitely a horrible childhood desease of digital photography.

I hope that the industry soon goes beyond the teenage bragging and develops cameras in cooperation with artists or have people who don't design by technical charts only. We're living in a time where marketing people have much power due to oversupply of most goods - so the marketing people seems to have an unhealthy influence on camera development.

+1

[Fine_Art]

Nice - is that Zion?

Yes. Magical place, the air is so fresh.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

DxO mark ignores megapixels and high ISO capability. What they measure is signal/noise, colour and tonal reproduction. So you cannot blame neither megapixel race nor high ISO race on DxO-mark.

On the other hand DxO mark includes the ISO at which SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) is acceptable. The three measurements that base DxO-mark are Colour Depth, Dynamic Range and Low Light ISO.

The 8 cameras on top of the DxO mark are not high ISO oriented cameras but cameras with good noise characteristics (7 having Sony Exmoor sensors) and one having CCD (that is the Phase One IQ180). The Phase One IQ obviously leads the megapixel race at 80 MP.

The best Canon comes in at 27-th place. Phase One cameras are placed 7, 12, 16 and 59. Most of the ISO rating in DxO mark is coming from reduction of readout noise.

In colour depth Phase One is ranked 1, 2 and 3, probably more related to sensor size than CFA design.

So DxO mark is more oriented towards low ISO than high ISO as two of the evaluations favour base ISO and ignores megapixels fully.

Best regards
Erik

The fact that camera manufacturers try hard to develop cameras that sport great megapixels or high iso values and test well in pixelpeepr labs as dxomark is defenitely a horrible childhood desease of digital photography.