A website that compares cameras by image quality? Any significance

[falcon7]

<p>I've found a website that does comparative analyses of any two cameras. It's <strong>snapsort.com</strong>.</p>

<p>One of the attributes is 'image quality.' To experiment I compared a Nikon D40 to a Nikon D5300. The 'image quality rating for the d40 was "56". The image quality for the D5300 was 85. The site's evaluation was that the d5300 has nearly twice as high a rating as the other. <br>

This sort of comparison can be done for any two cameras. But what does it mean? How could image quality judged? It doesn't explain this on the website. There are so many factors that go into 'image quality.' I don't know how anyone could come up with some sort of formula. Do these numbers have any significance? </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Kahn]

<blockquote>

<p> Do these numbers have any significance?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Probably not, unless there's an explanation on the site for how the numbers are determined (I couldn't find one.) Also, you're right about the variety of factors that affect "image quality", including individual photographer's preference, which can't be analyzed mathematically...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I looked at the site, not much information that I could find on how any of their "numbers" are achieved.<br /> Here's one statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Problems We’re Solving<br /><br /> Aggregating all the data necessary to make informed decisions<br /> Allowing users to discover the right product without being an expert<br /> Making all the data understandable<br /> Turning all the data into objective measurements<br /> Personalizing the whole experience to the user<br /><br />- See more at: http://snapsort.com/blog/about/#sthash.M5GFUAKx.dpuf</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, lots of subjective wiggle-room and unstated agendas.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do these numbers have any significance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know, but I would guess the answer is somewhere between "no" and "very little".</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Their comparisons of noise at high ISO is taken directly from DXO's sensor ISO measurements, and some other measurements look suspiciously like they come from the DXO web site as well.</p>

<p>Their measurements of shutter delay seem way off. They report, for example, huge shutter delays for the D7100, about a quarter of a second, which I have never experienced. The shutter delay is affected by autofocus speed, which can depend on the lens used. They may have used results from a test with a very slow focusing lens, such as the original Nikon push-pull zooming 80-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>That said, their overall ratings for camera bodies I know agrees with my own perception: a D7100 is better than a D7000, which is better than a d90 which is better than a D50.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I find snapsort pretty useless, as it just compares values, without any context. Smaller and lighter is by definition better, for example - which I do not find that accurate a statement at all. Indeed the crown jewel is "image quality".<br>

"Image Quality" in itself is already wide open to discussion what it means, so any numeric value assigned to it has no meaning whatsoever. So, if you really want to know about two cameras, snapsort isn't the place to go.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I've tried snapsort a few times. The information is potentially useful for folks who have no idea where to begin looking for a camera. But the database is often incorrect and the comparison criteria are often irrelevant. In its current form it's a bit superficial, although better than most retailer website comparison tables.</p>

<p>For example, I just compared a couple of cameras I've used, the Nikon V1 and Fuji X-A1 - two totally different cameras but useful for automated comparisons that lack heuristics. The appropriate top response would have been: "Why are you comparing these two cameras? One is a rocket and built like a brick. The other has amazing image quality in a plastic box. They're comparable in the same sense that horse racing and dressage are comparable. Do you need to go quick, or look good while riding?"</p>

<p>Lacking heuristics, Snapsort randomly chooses "best" features:</p>

<ul>

<li>Snapsort favored the Fuji because it has lens based image stabilization. So does the Nikon with 10-30 kit zoom, but that data was absent.</li>

<li>Snapsort listed the Fuji's quick start up time as a significant factor. The Nikon's startup time is quicker, if you don't count unlocking and physically turning the lens ring. In actual use I leave the lens unlocked and use the top on/off button.</li>

<li>Snapsort says the V1 has much quicker frame rates, up to 60 fps. That's true, but only in electronic shutter and with AF tracking disabled. When comparing mechanical shutters the Nikon and Fuji framerates are about the same.</li>

<li>Both models have auto sensor cleaning - Snapsort omits this info for the Fuji.</li>

<li>Snapsort seems to regard both the Fuji and Nikon as equal in terms of external flash use because both can use external flash. But the V1 has a proprietary shoe that works only with Nikon's proprietary flash units.</li>

</ul>

<p>It also lacks usability factors that come from personal experience. I'm not sure whether these can be incorporated into this type of comparison.</p>

<ul>

<li>Fuji has a pop up flash but most of it is blocked by the 16-50 kit zoom barrel and hood - which also blocks the AF assist lamp in normal use.</li>

<li>The V1's shutter release button feels much better, with better differentiation between the two-stage takeup for AF and exposure, and final pressure to take the photo.</li>

<li>The V1's AF is better all around. All around the Nikon is a more responsive camera for candid photos.</li>

<li>The Fuji's screen is much quicker to navigate to review, edit and/or delete photos.</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't know how anyone could come up with some sort of formula. Do these numbers have any significance?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's futile to rely on DxO data without any context or real understanding of what the data means and whether it even matters. The problem with DxO data is that measurable does not always equal significant or discernible to the eye. Most of the folks citing DxO sound like two kids comparing how much money they have in their pockets: "You have only 99 cents? I have a whole dollar! I'm rich! You're poor!"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 'image quality rating for the d40 was "56". The image quality for the D5300 was 85."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To stretch the kids with money analogy again...<br>

Li'l Ansel's allowance is 85 cents a week. Li'l Ansel only takes one or two photos a week. He likes big prints. His allowance will buy two sheets of 8x10 film.<br>

Li'l Garry's allowance is 56 cents a week. He likes to take lots of photos and never prints larger than 11x14. His allowance will buy three rolls of 36 exposure film.<br>

Both Li'l photographers are happy with their allowances and choices.<br>

</p>

[William Kahn]

<blockquote>

<p>Both Li'l photographers are happy with their allowances and choices.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But only because Li'l Garry doesn't know that Li'l Ansel gets 29 cents more per week than he does... ;-)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>Google the camera(s) you want to know about and put "dpreview.com" and the camera brand and model in the search string. When the camera review comes up on dpreview.com, go to the "Image Q" page on the menu and compare the images for quality yourself. These tests are not definitive, but they are a good place to start.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Addendum:<br>

Learning that the 'numbers' are apparently from DxO does not really make me more confident that they mean something -- all the less so in isolation of any kind of context.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"But only because Li'l Garry doesn't know that Li'l Ansel gets 29 cents more per week than he does... ;-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only that, Li'l Ansel's toy piano has real black keys, unlike Schroeder's painted on black keys. But the closest Li'l Schroeder gets to takin' pitchers is when he catches for Charlie Brown.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>Li'l Andreas has a big huge camera and gets $4.3 million.<br>

Seriously, though, the website sounds bogus. I think you would need to follow the money to figure out what they're really all about.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I usually use snapsort as a way to quickly access DXO mark's ratings. It is true that some of the factors they use to rate their cameras are laughable, popularity rating highly for no apparent reason and as has been said, lightness is considered good. Do you know anyone who has ever said "I bought X camera instead of Y because the build quality is lower"? If you're comparing an XE2 to a D7100, I think you <em>know</em> the MILC is lighter. It is a blunt instrument, but if you know what you're about, you can sort through the guff.<br>

www.camerasize.com is a good resource I learned about from this site.</p>