DxOMark vs. Reality

[elflord]

You can read at DxO which numbers and factors they use. There are factors they leave out of the evaluation as well and they tell you this. The weight they apply to the three factors they use to arrive at the number score, is arrived at and determined by DxO. Why should we believe that the way they arrive at this average score is correct for how a sensor should be evaulated and scored? Is it because they "claim" to be the leader in sensor testing?

The way they choose to weight those factors is subjective. Therefore it is neither correct, nor incorrect. If you demand hard numbers as opposed to the wishy-washy subjective stuff, you will insist on seeing the measurements. I would feel very differently about DxO if they only showed us their summary numbers and not the underlying measurements.

As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to publish whatever subjective summaries they like, though I don't care for these myself. Ultimately these I see as just another opinion -- well informed of course, but still just an opinion. There are other smart people who will have different opinions. The only opinion I care much for is my own after seeing the data.
 

When I first went to DxO to use the information they provide to compare Canon cameras it was years ago and, Nikon only had few in the top ten.

So I don't understand how they are trying to be "misleading" or what their alleged purpose is.

Then there is the description "landscape" or "sports" they use, rather than calling the test what it is actually for. Why don't they describe the test for what it is, and then imply  this is important for that activity. With landscaping DR is not the only thing that matters, why apply the name landscape to high DR?

I think the full name of the tests are (the parenthetical remarks are part of the name)

portrait (color depth),
landscape (dynamic range),
ports (low-light ISO)

I don't see what the problem is -- those who know what the technical terms mean, you can simply look past the non-technical ones.  For those who don't, omitting the non-technical terms doesn't help a whole lot.

I find DxO's presentation of the data to miss leading. Any time a large company chooses to put out data that on the surface appears to miss lead the general public I think you have to question their motives.

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.

[elflord]

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

No, but I might upgrade my 5DII.

[TheSuede]

Have you seen their new lens scoring thingy?   

Clearly they haven't learnt their lesson. Blinkers? 

I very much do NOT like their new lens score "thingy", and I especially dislike the fact that they removed the underlying base data from public view. But I know how to read MTF / image height and MTF / frequency diagrams - something I (without meaning to sound condescending) honestly believe very few average camera buyers do. I understand why they did it, but I don't like it.

[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