Somehow the Lance Armstrong episode comes to mind. You know, how he deceived everyone, how fiercely loyal his supporters were and how hard they tried to defend him...

Yes, yes... I know there are some so-called scientific basis for the sensor tests performed by DXOMark. I also know some of those sensor test results agree with other tests performed by independent reviewers. But the way they score the grades... how they pick a particular metric to define their so-called low ISO performance... it's all very fishy... And for all the detailed testing performed on sensors, they can get their lens testing so wrong and so strangely inconsistent with real world performance...

.

Lasse Eriksson wrote:
chez wrote:
dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!


I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

Why should we get past their grades if the tests are well done And why would they rate the D800 as much better than the 1DX for low light sport shooting if the tests where good

My point exactly.
The 1Dx obliterates the D800 as a low light sports camera, yet its out rated by a body with poor AF in comparison(and with issues)at best,no FPS(no buffer),no weather sealing,build etc...and i could go on and on and on.
A rating system based solely on sensor output only to grade cameras is SO flawed as to another forum which say only graded cameras based on AF performance.
Looking at the world through one eye makes it very non 3D that is exactly DXO.
Oh and did i mention the lens tests...

DXO is worth looking at if you dig a bit deeper, purely for comparison between cameras at the lower level data, and always take it with a large pinch of salt.

Their headline numbers are atrocious.

dehowie wrote:
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
chez wrote:
dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!


I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

Why should we get past their grades if the tests are well done And why would they rate the D800 as much better than the 1DX for low light sport shooting if the tests where good

My point exactly.
The 1Dx obliterates the D800 as a low light sports camera, yet its out rated by a body with poor AF in comparison(and with issues)at best,no FPS(no buffer),no weather sealing,build etc...and i could go on and on and on.
A rating system based solely on sensor output only to grade cameras is SO flawed as to another forum which say only graded cameras based on AF performance.
Looking at the world through one eye makes it very non 3D that is exactly DXO.
Oh and did i mention the lens tests...


You are still hung up on their grading system. Throw that aside and dig into the actual tests. Maybe then you'll begin to see some actual useful data. If all you want is a number that somehow sums up a camera...then you get what you ask for. Dig deeper or just disregard. Complexities like cameras and sensors cannot be summed up in 1 number.

Either dig deep or give it a rest.

dehowie wrote:
My point exactly.
A rating system based solely on sensor output only to grade cameras is SO flawed as to another forum which say only graded cameras based on AF performance.

The sad part is the 1DX sensor by their own measurements is the better low light sports sensor when compared to the D800. How they came to the conclusion that the D800 was better is beyond me and really speaks to a questionable methodology.

ggreene wrote:
dehowie wrote:
My point exactly.
A rating system based solely on sensor output only to grade cameras is SO flawed as to another forum which say only graded cameras based on AF performance.

The sad part is the 1DX sensor by their own measurements is the better low light sports sensor when compared to the D800. How they came to the conclusion that the D800 was better is beyond me and really speaks to a questionable methodology.

It's based on the color sensitivity and selectivity differences of the sensors, which relate to the amount of color noise that would be present in the images at equal saturations. I describe their methodology in detail here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41265241

snapsy wrote:
It's based on the color sensitivity and selectivity differences of the sensors, which relate to the amount of color noise that would be present in the images at equal saturations. I describe their methodology in detail here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41265241

Your DPReview post referred to 5D3 vs D800.

At ISO 3200:
- DR of 1DX and D800 are 10.7 eV and 10.09 respectively
- color sensitivity of 1DX and D800 are 18.3 and 18.9 respectively
- SNR18% of 1DX and D800 are 30.7 and 31.3 respectively
- DXOMark-defined ISO of 1DX and D800 are 2423 and 2211 respectively

While the 1DX may have very slightly more color noise than D800 based on their test results, it makes up for that with a lot more DR at high ISO.

thw2 wrote:
snapsy wrote:
It's based on the color sensitivity and selectivity differences of the sensors, which relate to the amount of color noise that would be present in the images at equal saturations. I describe their methodology in detail here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41265241

Your DPReview post referred to 5D3 vs D800.

At ISO 3200:
- DR of 1DX and D800 are 10.7 eV and 10.09 respectively
- color sensitivity of 1DX and D800 are 18.3 and 18.9 respectively
- SNR18% of 1DX and D800 are 30.7 and 31.3 respectively
- DXOMark-defined ISO of 1DX and D800 are 2423 and 2211 respectively

While the 1DX may have very slightly more color noise than D800 based on their test results, it makes up for that with a lot more DR at high ISO.

Yep, agreed. Their sports low-light ISO scores are almost identical; D800 2853 vs 1DX 2786. As indicated in my dpreview post, I don't necessarily agree with DxO's weightings for their composite low-light score. It's pretty clear that 1DX produces more usable High ISO images than the D800, particularly at levels above 3200.

snapsy wrote:
Yep, agreed. Their sports low-light ISO scores are almost identical; D800 2853 vs 1DX 2786. As indicated in my dpreview post, I don't necessarily agree with DxO's weightings for their composite low-light score. It's pretty clear that 1DX produces more usable High ISO images than the D800, particularly at levels above 3200.

Low light ISO is just one of them. It gets worse with their other scores. This is why DXOMark results are highly questionable. Sometimes, one wonders if they are purposefully biased.

thw2 wrote:
Low light ISO is just one of them. It gets worse with their other scores. This is why DXOMark results are highly questionable. Sometimes, one wonders if they are purposefully biased.

All their composite scores including the Low Light ISO involve a necessarily subjective weighting formula that by definition will give preference to some metrics over others, in their attempt to represent what they believe to be typical shooting scenarios. Such subjective weighting will always be right for some situations and wrong for others and I generally ignore them myself. However their individual measurements, including SNR, DR, and color depth, have been independently verified by others to within a reasonable margin of error. Those measurements can be used by informed individuals to make decisions about how the sensor will perform for their own shooting needs.

snapsy wrote:
thw2 wrote:
snapsy wrote:
It's based on the color sensitivity and selectivity differences of the sensors, which relate to the amount of color noise that would be present in the images at equal saturations. I describe their methodology in detail here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41265241

Your DPReview post referred to 5D3 vs D800.

At ISO 3200:
- DR of 1DX and D800 are 10.7 eV and 10.09 respectively
- color sensitivity of 1DX and D800 are 18.3 and 18.9 respectively
- SNR18% of 1DX and D800 are 30.7 and 31.3 respectively
- DXOMark-defined ISO of 1DX and D800 are 2423 and 2211 respectively

While the 1DX may have very slightly more color noise than D800 based on their test results, it makes up for that with a lot more DR at high ISO.

Yep, agreed. Their sports low-light ISO scores are almost identical; D800 2853 vs 1DX 2786. As indicated in my dpreview post, I don't necessarily agree with DxO's weightings for their composite low-light score. It's pretty clear that 1DX produces more usable High ISO images than the D800, particularly at levels above 3200.

Does that mean D800 perform twice as much of 1DX since it has twice as much resolution

mttran wrote:
Does that mean D800 perform twice as much of 1DX since it has twice as much resolution

The above scores are derived by down-sampling all images to 8 MP (print mode).

We might get the same test result between 1D3 (10x1.3x1.3 Mp) and 1DX (17Mp) which is about three generation apart. If we put everything in that order then ...must be a long long wait to see the same 36Mp performance from canon. I hoped DXOMark was wrong too

Just saw the dpreview review of 6D and it shows worse DR than for 5D III? That surprises me. I know it's jpg DR, but 5D III has greater DR at both ends.

Hi Chez
I agree they DO some useful tests on sensors highlighting weaknesses and strengths etc at different ISO's etc.
Fully agree.

What they do with the results is wrong.
How they assess the results is wrong.
How they grade cameras is wrong.
How they test lenses is so so so wrong...

As you shoot base it seems only for landscape the results they rate by would be quite accurate.
But i shoot at every ISO from 109-6400 and sometimes up tom10000 so the results are skewed and innaccurate.
If you listen to them Nikon is king look around the boards the anti Canon lack of DR etc.
Well when im out shooting in the dark at 3200-6400 the Canon camera is THE BEST DR camera on the market and by a margin.
Given many if not most sports shooters spend a lot of time at 3200-6400 Canon has clear market lead in DR at hi ISO yet read the forums and you would think its a one sided race with Canon having terrible DR.
With better AF,better DR and better hi ISO noise control you would think the boards would at least reflect that but no.
All because DXO only score cameras at base.
If they want to be taken seriously then a rated average at 100 1600 and 6400 would be at least better balanced. Far from perfect or maybe two score..low and hi ISO say 6400..

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Just saw the dpreview review of 6D and it shows worse DR than for 5D III? That surprises me. I know it's jpg DR, but 5D III has greater DR at both ends.

I guess they use a punchier tone curve. Anyway I haven't paid any attention to DPR DR results in years.
I believe the 6D does offer better DR than the 5D3 (although I never did measure the full well capacity on the 6D).

Main problem with DxOmark is that most people dont know how they measure stuff and how to understand that stuff. Which isnt DxOmark fault.

Their stuff is quite handy, if you know what you want to know. Otherwise, I just recommend DPreview or some other guy with reviews or some friend which does take pictures too.

6D seems quite ok, except all pics Ive seen so far have tiny bit of yellowy-magenta tint and not exactly broad range of colors and shades. But as most people wont notice that, I wouldnt care for that much. I guess it has something to do with that lowest-ever metamerism index.. Tho still better than all-greenish 1Ds. (original one)

skibum5 wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Just saw the dpreview review of 6D and it shows worse DR than for 5D III? That surprises me. I know it's jpg DR, but 5D III has greater DR at both ends.

I guess they use a punchier tone curve. Anyway I haven't paid any attention to DPR DR results in years.
I believe the 6D does offer better DR than the 5D3 (although I never did measure the full well capacity on the 6D).


I think that the 6D is targeted more to a different audience than 5D III and it's uses a more consumer oriented tone curve and slightly more sharpening SOOC. As you move up the food chain Canon tends to apply less aggressive settings to it's jpgs.

Lasse Eriksson wrote:
chez wrote:
dehowie wrote:
As for lenses the Canon 400/2.8 II and Nikon 400/2.8 are rated worse than most consumer zooms..
Yep that makes sense!
The words ridiculous,rubbish and garbage come to mind..and im not talking about the lenses!


I don't look at their lens tests, but their sensor tests are done very well. Get past looking at their grade and look at the actual tests. They make perfect sense and the results line up with what is being experienced in actual images.

Why should we get past their grades if the tests are well done And why would they rate the D800 as much better than the 1DX for low light sport shooting if the tests where good

well let us agree that Nikon / Sonys sensor kick the a... of Canon sensors regarding DR at base iso.
and that d800 is not meant to be a high iso camera but the sensor's qualities has made the D800 also a good high iso camera.