DxOMark score for EOS 650D (T4i) Out: same score as the EOS 20D from 2004

Looks like this supposedly "new" sensor performs about the same as Canon's APS-C sensors from almost a decade ago.

DxOMark says:

http://www.dxomark.com …ly-Status-Quo/Measurement

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Well, crap... Where'd that popcorn get off to..?

I don't know how anyone can their results seriously anymore.

I reference DxO a lot, but you have to understand that their rating system is strictly a mathematical one. That probably isn't the most accurate way to describe their system, but my point is that real world use never comes into the equation. It's still a good way to level the playing field when comparing sensors.

Just my opinion.

Simply tragic..

obviously rigged - again

This kinda sucks. I usually don't give a darn to DXO's rating, the trouble is DPreview tested the T4i and experienced the same: a tiny step back in sensor quality regarding noise handling. Now, Popphoto raves, but mainly because they always look at and measure post manufacturer default NR results (i.e. processed images).

I actually ordered a T4i yesterday from Fry's (couldn't resist their current deal). I've had pretty much all the 18mp sensor bodies at one time, currently having 7D and a T3i, and my plan is to sell the T3i.

The order cannot be cancelled now, I guess I'll decide if I'm going to keep it or return it.

Even though it's obvious now that Canon has made virtually no progress in the APS-C sensors for about 3 years now and that the competition has surpassed them (new sony sensors), I've been mostly fine with the current 18mp Canon sensor. However, seeing a small step back in case of the new, modified 18mp sensor is not good.

I wouldn't be too concerned if the DXO score was somehow near the competition, but this is just awful. Canon appears lazy and self-satisfied in sensor development.

IMO, that just proves that what makes the biggest difference is the size of the sensor and not the age (within the same company and withing a reasonable time frame).

Rush87 wrote in post #15117979
IMO, that just proves that what makes the biggest difference is the size of the sensor and not the age (within the same company and withing a reasonable time frame).

I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue.

Yes, your statement may have some truth with regard to Canon, but that is only because Canon has been so stagnant in sensor design. Compare the DXOMark scores of the Nikon D70 and D7000 and you'll instantly see that there is a huge improvement.

Nikon's D70 (APS-C), introduced in 2004, vs. their recent APS-C DSLRs, the D7000 and D3200. You can see a huge improvement in sensor performance:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

996gt2 wrote in post #15118860
I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue.

Yes, your statement may have some truth with regard to Canon, but that is only because Canon has been so stagnant in sensor design. Compare the DXOMark scores of the Nikon D70 and D7000 and you'll instantly see that there is a huge improvement.

Nikon's D70 (APS-C), introduced in 2004, vs. their recent APS-C DSLRs, the D7000 and D3200. You can see a huge improvement in sensor performance:

Canon, on the other hand, was ahead of Nikon in 2004, but they've been largely stagnant since then. In fact, the 650D is a slight step back in terms of sensor performance:

Might be fair to say Nikon's advancement is due to Sony. Who knows, if Nikon had kept using their own sensor, they would still be behind Canon today? Nikon made the decision to use third party sensor probably because they did not have any breakthrough in their own tech. Canon has been too proud to do so, or maybe they have too much belief in their own R&D. Could well cause their own downfall in time to come.

How can the 650D have the same low light score as a camera that maxed out at 1600?

Does the Nikon D3200 appear to have 57% better noise performance in these shots? Does it have 5% better noise performance?

ZachOly wrote in post #15116671
I don't know how anyone can their results seriously anymore.

Funny how other people who actually tests the sensors comes up with *exactly the same results* (with consistent variations depending on the chosen cut-offs of 'acceptable performance').

These guys haven't tested the 600D/650D yet, but, looking at other sensors and the discrepancy between Canon sensors and Nikon/Sony sensors (a few stops of DR at base ISO) you can see that DXOMark are not the only ones.

http://home.comcast.ne​t/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR​.htm

tkbslc wrote in post #15119626
How can the 650D have the same low light score as a camera that maxed out at 1600?

Does the Nikon D3200 appear to have 57% better noise performance in these shots? Does it have 5% better noise performance?

Hosted photo: posted by tkbslc in
./showthread.php?p=151​19626&i=i137181038
forum: Photography Industry News

You're not comparing the same thing there.

DXO's ISO score just tells you the highest ISO setting at which a camera can retain 9 stops of DR, a 30dB SNR and 18 bits of colour depth.

I really hope that Canon are working on a completely new line of sensor technology and in some ways it would explain why nothing of note sensor wise has come along in a few years. Big companies can take ages to get things through R&D.

BTW, I wish people didn't use the D3200 as a good example of Nikon, I have one as a backup and it's virtually impossible to get decent skin tones out of it, it's noisy and a pig to use. The D800 on the other hand....