DxOMark vs. Reality

[TheSuede]

Isn't trying to use the argument:
-"They're wrong because Canon actually sell quite a lot of cameras"

Actually, the argument is, "They're irrelevant (or at least, not very relevant) because Canon sells quite a lot more cameras than their competitors who score much higher in DxOMark's rankings."

(some stuff of the later part of the quote removed)

Actually (actually x3 now! ) your argument needs to be refined even more... To reduce ambiguity to a level where the sentence actually makes any sense, it needs to be:
-"DxO scores in themselves are almost 100% irrelevant to camera market shares"

And that does not in any way mean that they are irrelevant to camera image quality. Which is what most people writing with a hostile intent towards DxO want it to mean.

[PackLight]

I will se that day  Canon produces a camera with as good or better sensor  measurements than the Sony etc , how will you detractors of DXO look at DXO  measurements then??

The exact same way I have for years. Even before Nikon released all of the recent cameras that scored so high and Canon was on the top. Their method was wrong in the past, it is now and unless they change it will be wrong in the future no matter who's sensor scores a better make believe score.

Will you switch your view of DxO when Canon is on top of the chart?

your answers and statements are not worthy to be treated with a answer
there are plenty  answers already.

Why not? I answered your worthless question with a legitimate response.

[Hobby Shooter]

Isn't trying to use the argument:
-"They're wrong because Canon actually sell quite a lot of cameras"

Actually, the argument is, "They're irrelevant (or at least, not very relevant) because Canon sells quite a lot more cameras than their competitors who score much higher in DxOMark's rankings."

(some stuff of the later part of the quote removed)

Actually (actually x3 now! ) your argument needs to be refined even more... To reduce ambiguity to a level where the sentence actually makes any sense, it needs to be:
-"DxO scores in themselves are almost 100% irrelevant to camera market shares"

And that does not in any way mean that they are irrelevant to camera image quality. Which is what most people writing with a hostile intent towards DxO want it to mean.

I would argue that irrelevant can not be graded in %, it's either relevant or irrelevant, binary. On the other hand something can be more or less relevant, but something can not be more or less irrelevant.

[neuroanatomist]

Actually (actually x3 now! ) your argument needs to be refined even more... To reduce ambiguity to a level where the sentence actually makes any sense, it needs to be:
-"DxO scores in themselves are almost 100% irrelevant to camera market shares"

And that does not in any way mean that they are irrelevant to camera image quality. Which is what most people writing with a hostile intent towards DxO want it to mean.

Perhaps one more refinement: irrelevant to camera sensor image quality.  A camera with a great sensor and lousy AF is likely to deliver poor image quality in many situations.

[PackLight]

I still don't get who they are misleading and what they are trying to get their "victims" to do. So far we don't have a plausible motive for this alleged deception. According to the originator of this thread, no-one is fooled anyway, so not only we don't have a cause, we don't see an effect either. All we have is some grumbling from disgruntled camera fans, and additionally the fact that you take issue with some perceived inaccuracies in the way they summarize their data.

Not everyone researches as in depth as those on Canon Rumors. I know many with DSLR's that wouldn't have a clue how to interpret DxO's information, and they would just take the overall number at face value. What DxO's motive is I wouldn't know, but when ever a public company offers information there is usually a motive and it almost always involves monetary gain. Why do they post this information at all? Really I don't care.

[Duprant]

Not everyone researches as in depth as those on Canon Rumors. I know many with DSLR's that wouldn't have a clue how to interpret DxO's information, and they would just take the overall number at face value. What DxO's motive is I wouldn't know, but when ever a public company offers information there is usually a motive and it almost always involves monetary gain. Why do they post this information at all? Really I don't care.

Their motive is to publicize the DxO brand and sell DxO software. Nothing nefarious here.

[PackLight]

Their motive is to publicize the DxO brand and sell DxO software. Nothing nefarious here.

What?? You don't think Nikon sent a can of Christmas popcorn or a care package over to DxO this year for all of their help?

[elflord]

Perhaps one more refinement: irrelevant to camera sensor image quality.  A camera with a great sensor and lousy AF is likely to deliver poor image quality in many situations.

Well if your point is that the final product depends on aggregate performance of the whole system, that's fine, but what are they to do about it ?

They could aggregate AF performance into an even more subjective and debatable score, but you have repeatedly said that this is precisely what they shouldn't be doing.

Are you simply opposed to them publishing any sensor benchmarks because they expose the technological stagnation of your favourite camera brand ?

[TheSuede]

Perhaps one more refinement: irrelevant to camera sensor image quality.  A camera with a great sensor and lousy AF is likely to deliver poor image quality in many situations.

Hehe... Yup - true.

But when you can 'assume with reasonable confidence' that two cameras have similar AF accuracy and sensitivity, the static image quality metric still rules.
-And you might have noticed that I deliberately MENTIONED the autofocus as being left out of the metric in the first place - so no modification is needed.

Better image quality = better image quality.
No modifier, no disclaimer, no BS sidetracking.

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps one more refinement: irrelevant to camera sensor image quality.  A camera with a great sensor and lousy AF is likely to deliver poor image quality in many situations.

Well if your point is that the final product depends on aggregate performance of the whole system, that's fine, but what are they to do about it ?

They could aggregate AF performance into an even more subjective and debatable score, but you have repeatedly said that this is precisely what they shouldn't be doing.

Are you simply opposed to them publishing any sensor benchmarks because they expose the technological stagnation of your favourite camera brand ?

Sorry, but my reply wasn't directed generally, nor to you specifically. If you read my previous posts, hopefully you'd realize your questions are tangential and I'm saying none of the statements you seem to be expressing on my behalf.

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps one more refinement: irrelevant to camera sensor image quality.  A camera with a great sensor and lousy AF is likely to deliver poor image quality in many situations.

Hehe... Yup - true.

But when you can 'assume with reasonable confidence' that two cameras have similar AF accuracy and sensitivity, the static image quality metric still rules.
-And you might have noticed that I deliberately MENTIONED the autofocus as being left out of the metric in the first place - so no modification is needed.

Better image quality = better image quality.
No modifier, no disclaimer, no BS sidetracking.

Well, perhaps a modifier or disclaimer is in order.      For example, how about better image quality at ISO 12800?  That may be important to some, but not others, and it's not represented in DxOMark's Scores at all.  But that's why I've stated several times that I applaud them for making the measurement data available.  While I feel it's improper to publish Scores without disclosing full details of how those Scores are determined, personally, it doesn't matter to me for my own buying decisions.

[PackLight]

it doesn't matter to me for my own buying decisions.

Obviously, or you would have bought Nikon 

[elflord]

Sorry, but my reply wasn't directed generally, nor to you specifically. If you read my previous posts, hopefully you'd realize your questions are tangential and I'm saying none of the statements you seem to be expressing on my behalf.

After rereading I think I see what you were getting at -- it was just very puzzling on a first reading (and yes I understand that taken literally  it was inconsistent with what you've posted before which is why I found it puzzling)

[bdunbar79]

Well it's like me and basketball.  In HS I couldn't miss in practice from the 3 point arc.  So you could say I was a great 3-point shooter.  However, I never hit a 3 in a game because I never got open and wasn't even quick enough to get open.  So it was actually meaningless.

We here on the forum know that this is just a sensor score.  Howver, consumers don't know that and if they just read the scores they automagically assume it is a better camera.  That's the problem.  It isn't.  Sensor is just ONE measured aspect of a camera and as a scientist, when I read their crap, it comes off to me as rather unscientific.  Whether it is or isn't, it just comes off that way to me.

You can defend it all you want, but it looks like crap to me and I don't use their scores at all.  Each to their own.

[RLPhoto]

How come the 5D2 IQ was impeccable before the D800? I find it still impeccable today. :|