On 08/02/2012 17:24, RussellMc wrote:
> The "truth" will pop up here soonish.
> This is the "sports" part of the rankings which is what I mot care
> about. Roughly ~=3D  base on SNR (signal to noise ratio) at given ISO.
>=20
>              http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratin=
gs/(type)/usecase_sports

Interesting how the equivalent ISO "range" of cameras has increased
massively over the last ~10 years but the scores haven't actually
increased so much.

For example the Canon 1Ds, the sports DSLR of choice for many years,
still scores very well compared to cameras released 6 years later.
(Yes, I know these have been downsampled so it's not quite comparing
apples for apples).

> These have been adjusted for the effects of downsampling to an 8 MP
> image for comparison ~=3D 12" x 8" print at 300 dpi.
> You can take that at face value and trust them OR start the wading in her=
e
>=20
>           http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-S=
cores
>=20
> I feel there is something wrong in subjective result in that more MP
> seems to help a dog to rank better.

Comes straight back to the fact that one person can potentially create
amazing images with a pinhole camera and others couldn't take a decent
picture with a $5000 DSLR/lens.  Hugely interesting if you're a camera
geek or doing science, not so much if you are taking pictures of sport.

David
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.