Loading Profile...
Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
SnaoSort information is VERY MISLEADING!!!!!!!!!
As a core member of Photography.StackExchange.Com, I am astonished how frequently I come across questions about camera gear that are based on the SERIOUSLY FLAWED information that can be found here on SnapSort. The comparison of the 7D to the D7000, for example, is about as misleading as it gets, and the use of the terms "much" and "significant" are completely bogus. The difference in color depth, for example, is minuscule and can only be measured by the very precise tools that DXOLabs has...and plays ZERO role in actual real-world photography. The IQ comparison of 80 vs. 66 is also another entirely bogus differentiation, and is again based in purely technological analysis of images that has nothing to do with real world performance (just take a look at some of the shots from both cameras at 500px.com....ZERO difference in the PHOTOGRAPHY...which is what gear is all about anyway.) This site makes very rogue use of the terms "much" and "significant" to refer to MINUSCULE differences FAR TOO FREQUENTLY. The blatant misuse of terms and a radical misunderstanding of data from DXOLabs, not to mention the complete lack of any real-world visual examples of the photographs produced from each camera or lens, makes SnapSort not only largely useless, but it is driving many potential buyers to buy something they do not need or that is too expensive...or even needlessly switch brands entirely. The differences between modern DSLR brands for any given grade of gear are IMPERCEPTIBLE to 99% of buyers, and the only meaningful differences exist between major grades of gear...consumer vs. prosumer vs. pro. You, SnapSort, REALLY need to fix your numbers, stop using the terms "much" and "significant" to refer to minuscule and imperceptible differences. You need to find a less low-level, hyper-technical source of data than DXOLabs for comparable statistics. SHAME, SnapSort...for your disturbing form of camera comparison...and for the way you are driving consumers to make bad choices with misunderstandings about camera capabilities or quality.
-
Hi Jon, thanks for checking out Snapsort. We're definitely fans of stackexchange, particularily StackOverflow, but I'm also a member at photography.stackexchange.com, though its probably been a while since I was over there!
You know you're absolutely right, I think we're definitely emphasizing the the color depth differences in particular way too much. We're planning to do an update next week to improve somethings, we'll get this improved too. I think we tried to be too fancy with color depth, converting the bits to # of colors (e.g. 2^n) which probably compounded the problem.
The terms much and significant get chosen based on statistics, e.g. if the range of DSLRs get scores from 50-80, then a difference between 50 and 51 would probably get called insigificant, but a difference of 10 would be called significant.
I'm not sure I 100% agree with your complete discounting of DXOMark's measurements. I find their low light measurements to be fairly representitive of how good a camera's performance is at high ISO. I think this is particularily important for two reasons:
1) Cameras tend to perform badly in low light, hence the constant drive for faster lenses, better sensors, etc
2) As you pointed out there isn't often much else to distinguish between good DSLRs. For example I have shot with the Nikon D70, D200, D3, D700 and D2xs, and there really isn't much difference in image quality apart from the high ISO performance.
So say in our next update we adjust the comparison of color depth, and probably decrease the importance of both it and dynamic range, do you think that would be a step in the right direction?
thanks again,
- Alex Black -
EMPLOYEE
http://snapsort.com/learn/sensor/true...