Why does one camera have almost double the low light ability than the other?

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Just an example.

But why does the Nikon D5300 24mp have almost double the low light ability of the Pansonic GX7 16mp on dxxo mark, when apart from the resulution the sensor pitch is almost the same only 4% difference.

I originaly saw this comparison on youtube.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...5300-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___919_901

http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/nikon_d5300-vs-panasonic_lumix-dmc-gx7/

John.

 

[table1349]

Why does Ferrari go faster then a Ford Focus?

Why is Rib-Eye tastier than bottom round?

Why is the D5300 priced almost double that of the GX7?

If everything was the same the whole world would look like this.....

 

[SCraig]

All digital camera sensors are not created equally, and resolution is not all that matters when comparing them.

 

[480sparky38 37]

One can pretty much design and build whatever you want......... as long as the check you write out has enough zero's on it.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Not a lot of difference an 12800 ISO between the D5300 and GX7 on DPREVIEW



Nikon D5300 Review: Digital Photography Review

John.

 

[KmH]

ISO 1338 is a bit less than 1 stop more capable than ISO 718.
A single stop is not a lot. A 1/3 stop difference is barely noticeable, which is why most digital cameras that can have their exposure triad settings adjusted are set by default to 1/3 stop adjustment steps.

The software in a camera's image processor chip has a lot to do with the low-light performance of that camera.

Use Case Scores - DxOMark

Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO

Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.

When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.

The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.

An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits.

A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.

As cameras improve, low-light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open.

Further reading - ISO sensitivity - DxOMark
ISO sensitivity measurement protocol - DxOMark

 

[Derrel]

Just an example.

But why does the Nikon D5300 24mp have almost double the low light ability of the Pansonic GX7 16mp on dxxo mark, when apart from the resulution the sensor pitch is almost the same only 4% difference.

I originaly saw this comparison on youtube.

Nikon D5300 versus Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Nikon D5300 vs. Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 - Sensor Comparison

John.

Sensor pitch is not "all" that counts. According to this article you linked to, a few differences stand out. Nikon D5300 vs. Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 - Sensor Comparison

Each pixel on the Nikon sensor is 8% larger in area. The Nikon has a bigger sensor area, 336 square millimeters as opposed to the Panny's 224 square millimeter sensor size. The Nikon's sensor is 63% larger than the one in the Panny. As in many things, "bigger" can perform "better".

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Below is the youtube video i based this thread on.



John.

 

[Derrel]

"All else being equal" does not exist. The Nikon has 8% bigger pixels. It has 24 million pixels, not 16 megapixels. The Nikon sensor is 63% larger--and 24 MILLION pixels are each, 8% bigger than the Panasonic has. The video above totally ignores pixel well size. Jeebus...one of the KEY factors is not even mentioned! At 6:26 he gets into the difference between Canon's older sensor fabrication tech and the newer sensors made by SOny, Toshiba, and yes, even Nikon. He talks about how his "math" is indisputable, and yet, he forgets pixel well size; he doesn't mention quantum efficiency, he doesn't mention anything about the electronics or the conversion to analogue...just some numbers. He's not the kind of guy you should listen to in regard to high technology topics.

 

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

I think the OP was asking this question with the technical build aspects of the camera in mind, like why does one camera handle low light better, meaning what is built differently into this camera to make it handle low light better? I personally have no idea how cameras are made and what the heart of them is made of. Just know its a big box that intakes light and impressions the light onto film/digital space

 

[Derrel]

Well, one of the problems are videos like the one the OP mentioned, which caused him to create this thread. Videos with incomplete information, and videos that promote old, outdated B.S. myths; like the MYTH that "pixel density" is the most important aspect to sensor performance. YEARS ago, and generations ago, it was though that higher and higher pixel density HURT overall imaging performance. There USED TO BE a time when it was though or theorized that ,"Too many pixels will HURT overall image quality and noise performance," and when Canon crammed 15 million pixels onto the smaller 1.6x size APS-C sensor they used in their 50D, that "theory" seemed to be about dead. Once Sony's newer-generation 16-MP sensors came out a couple years later, and then when the Sony Exmoor 24-MP sensors came out, it was realized--the "facts" we thought we knew about pixel density's role in image quality were...WRONG.

The guy doing the video above is glossing over a number of actual technical facts about sensor performance. I remember when Nikon introduced the D800: there were thousands of web people who proclaimed that its 36-million pixels would perform, "Wayyyyy worse" than the D700's 12 million pixels. Uhhhhh...no....not true. Because NOT ALL THINGS are equal. There is much,much more than pixel density and pixel pitch.