Photoclubalpha

Marks for the D600 are in and its scores a nice 94. I would think the a99 which shares the same sensor will be close to that. From what I can see and compared to my D800 I think somewhere around 92-94 would be about right. I am a firm believer in DXO marks. I know some that discount them.

I've no problems with DxO, but it needs to be taken in context (ie I prefer to look at the real world shots)
I have found in the past their scoring can be a bit open to debate too.

On the A99 I would expect it to score well, but below the D600 esp regarding the low light score. Not hugely below but not as good

Scores are up (for those who care)
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Public ... omparisons

About as expected but the low light score is quite a bit lower than the D600

Old thread but didn't spot this on DxO
Gary Friedman did though he's saying the A99 is almost a stop under the declared ISO value.

http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.ie/201 ... erent.html

This is a bit like the OM-D where they overstated the ISO values by about a stop we assume to make folks think the low light performance was better.

bfitzgerald wrote:Old thread but didn't spot this on DxO
Gary Friedman did though he's saying the A99 is almost a stop under the declared ISO value.

http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.ie/201 ... erent.html

This is a bit like the OM-D where they overstated the ISO values by about a stop we assume to make folks think the low light performance was better.

You have made similar statements before. Rather than repeat myself I will just post links to earlier responses:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... eat#p74207

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... eat#p74275

It's not my statement it's Gary Friedman's post I'm pointing to.
I personally don't understand why there is such a variation the very name ISO has a meaning an international standard, so bar a very slight difference there shouldn't be much variation here.

It is misleading to a buyer no doubts about that.

bfitzgerald wrote:It's not my statement it's Gary Friedman's post I'm pointing to.
I personally don't understand why there is such a variation the very name ISO has a meaning an international standard, so bar a very slight difference there shouldn't be much variation here.

It is misleading to a buyer no doubts about that.

I didn't see any mention in your link of the Olympus OM-D EM-5. So I was responding to what you wrote. People can take a look at my posts if they want. In my case I haven't seen any practical significance about what decisions are made deep in the bowels of the camera. Of course, I can't comment about these new Sony cameras.

Perhaps I'm understanding this wrong, but the difference actually seems to be the interpretation in RAW isn't it? @bakubo with which RAW-Converter did you do your tests? If it is Adobe Camera RAW, then it is likely that the RAWs get normalized to deliver on a result that looks like it should when exposed for the given ISO. Without this normalization the RAW set to a particular (camera set) ISO on the A99 would actually be underexposed and needs to be pushed to be properly exposed. When using camera jpegs or RAW converters which know the A99 you will not see a difference in exposure. If the noise in the result is still on par or better than what another camera delivers on that camera set ISO - it would be clear who is the winner - regardless of "manufacturer ISO" being lower.