Canon adds a new “high resolution” APS-C sensor camera with its new model EOS 500D. For this entry-level camera (in the most competitive category currently), Canon clearly chose to provide the highest resolution available even as pixel size becomes smaller and smaller.
Results for the Canon EOS 500D are comparable to those for the Canon EOS 50D launched a year ago. With a global DxOMark score of 62.5, the EOS 500D ranks 18th on the APS-C ranking (out of 40 cameras), and 37th on the global DxOMark ranking (out of 75 cameras overall, all models).
Key sensor characteristics
The Canon EOS 500D features a 15.5 Mpix CMOS sensor, which is the highest resolution for APS-C sensors currently available. Its pixel pitch (4.7µm) is more comparable to those of 4:3 format sensors than of APS-C.
Key performance factors
The global performance of the Canon remains good even if its ISO measurements are a bit low in comparison with the results of the last several APS-C cameras: Color Depth (21.7, 27th on the APS-C ranking), and Dynamic Range (11.5, 8th on the APS-C ranking). The EOS 500D’s Low-Light ISO performance is a bit on the low side as well (663, 12th on the APS-C ranking).
The autocorrelation function was checked as with every camera on dxomark.com. For each ISO along the EOS D500’s entire dynamic range, the autocorrelation function shows a single peak, which denotes white noise only and no trade-off between resolution and signal-to-noise ratio due to preprocessed RAW signal.
Disclaimer: This dxomark review evaluates only the selected camera’s RAW sensor performance metrics (i.e., Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low-Light ISO), and should not be construed as a review of the camera’s overall performance, as it does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera.
Canon EOS 500D DxOMark review – June 10th, 2009