Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

[bdeutsch]

i guess for some the reputation of the DXOmark has just become a bit better.   

 
I think this is the first time admin put Canon's DXO mark on the front page

Yeah, I thought he said earlier this year that he was never going to post anything dxomark-related on the front page ever again because their sensor scores were meaningless.

Edit:

I know people love to debate the numbers from DXOMark.

Ahh, I guess he's simply realized how great they are for generating page views

I heard a rumor that CanonRumors is posting DXO rumors just to generate page views.  Since the source is this forum, I'll rate it CR3, since it has to be true.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photography

[Mooose]

I'm only buying the 1DX if it scores a 91 or better.

[neuroanatomist]

Well, the low-light ISO scores are 3296, 2293, and 1815, for the 1D X, 5D3, and 5D2, respectively.

The difference between the 1D X and 5D3 is 1003, and the difference between the 5D3 and 5D2 is 478.  So, the difference between the former is ~2x as much as the latter.

Or am I missing something here?

The fact that ISO sensitivity scale progression is not linear, perhaps?   

[kapanak]

Well, if the numbers have any credence, then the 1D X just became the new low-light king (according to DxOMark), beating the old low-light monster, the Nikon D3s. That's something, right? 

Seriously though, who cares about DxOMark? >_>

[Marsu42]

Seriously though, who cares about DxOMark?

We do if a Canon beats Nikon :-p ... not so much if it's the other way around.

[infared]

DXO has no credibility.  I always look elsewhere for credible, thoughtful reviews that are backed up with examples and facts. DXO is a joke.
...hey...I just had a thought...does Ken Rockwell do the testing at DXO??? 

[jthomson]

...hey...I just had a thought...does Ken Rockwell do the testing at DXO??? 

No, Ken thinks the 5D3 is great, despite its low DxO score. 

[Fishnose]

DXO has no credibility.  I always look elsewhere for credible, thoughtful reviews that are backed up with examples and facts. DXO is a joke.
...hey...I just had a thought...does Ken Rockwell do the testing at DXO??? 

'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT.
Ferchrissake, their test results are just a way to create a buzz around them. They are a software development company who need to test all the bodies and lenses EXACTLY so as to include profiles for them in their software. That's what they do.
And the test results are a byproduct.

Whatever.

Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.
And it does that better than any other camera ever constructed.

[thepancakeman]

It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.

Silly me; I would think that high scores would be indicative of "fantastic results".  In fact maybe that's what some of these folks are saying is the problem with DXO scores.

[FunkyCamera]

I guess Nikon's money ran out and they're finally giving proper scores too other sensors.

I wonder if they'll have the courage to go back and put the 5D3 score up to where everyone knows it should be, or if this frightened Nikon enough to get some more Nikon cash in dxo's pockets?

[Chewy734]

Well, the low-light ISO scores are 3296, 2293, and 1815, for the 1D X, 5D3, and 5D2, respectively.

The difference between the 1D X and 5D3 is 1003, and the difference between the 5D3 and 5D2 is 478.  So, the difference between the former is ~2x as much as the latter.

Or am I missing something here?

The fact that ISO sensitivity scale progression is not linear, perhaps?   

yeah yeah yeah Neuro...  I just figured it wasn't actually ISO numbers, just some random metric they made up (hence the assumption of a linear scale).

[Wrathwilde]

They are a software development company who need to test all the bodies and lenses EXACTLY so as to include profiles for them in their software. That's what they do.
And the test results are a byproduct.

Exactly, I may not agree with their using print DR, or their overall score methodology, but their testing is very exacting, and their raw numbers are probably more accurate than anything else you're likely to find on the web.

If their testing was as bad, or inaccurate as the haters here claim, the DxO Optics Pro software would be a steaming pile of dung that couldn't do anything but degrade the original image. It's not. It's an amazing piece of kit that owes its impressive performance to the fact that DxO's testing is exceedingly accurate. Like it or not, the raw numbers don't lie... although the scoring definitely seems to favor Nikon's strengths.

[Tayvin]

Seriously though, who cares about DxOMark?

We do if a Canon beats Nikon :-p ... not so much if it's the other way around.

LOL  So true.

[funkboy]

I think there's so much noise stirred up around DXOMark (no pun intended) because most people don't take the time to read what they're measuring & what the numbers mean.  Also few folks use the "screen" button (the default is "print") to see what the raw output of the camera is capable of.

Shame about Canon's consistently lower DR figures; that's the primary thing keeping Canon's scores lower than Nikon over the years.

Lucky for us, they're all great cameras though :-)

[Woody]

'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT...
 
Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.

I hope you see the obvious self-contradiction in what you wrote