December 17, 2017, 10:37:27 PM

Author Topic: Why the DxO bashing?  (Read 90372 times)

2n10

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #135 on: February 10, 2014, 12:17:06 AM »

Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)

OK  ;D






I thought I would throw in a Chipmonk and Jackrabbit to add variety for more sanity. :P

It was clearly established (quite some time ago) that Squirrels are indecent folk ;D ... but I like the Jack Rabbit ... very nice image.
[/quote]

LOL, thanks
Canon EOS 7D Mark II and EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 100 Macro, EF 50 1.4, EF 100-400L Mk II, Tamron 150-600

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #135 on: February 10, 2014, 12:17:06 AM »

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1611
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #136 on: February 21, 2014, 02:23:06 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

out of the following Canon cameras i've owned & used
  • 3x 350
  • 4x 400
  • 2x 450
  • 2x 1000
  • 1x 40
  • 2x 60
  • 1x 7
  • 1x 5d2
  • 8x G series
  • 9x various PnS

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.
7D's metering was good, tho occasionally clipped highlites a bit much.
5D2's metering would, on occasion, just be wildly out, usually underexposing, not that it mattered most of the time.
No complaints about the other 22 "raw generators."
Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #137 on: February 21, 2014, 04:50:16 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

out of the following Canon cameras i've owned & used
  • 3x 350
  • 4x 400
  • 2x 450
  • 2x 1000
  • 1x 40
  • 2x 60
  • 1x 7
  • 1x 5d2
  • 8x G series
  • 9x various PnS

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.
7D's metering was good, tho occasionally clipped highlites a bit much.
5D2's metering would, on occasion, just be wildly out, usually underexposing, not that it mattered most of the time.
No complaints about the other 22 "raw generators."
Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.
I see, so you are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010. 
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3473
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #138 on: February 21, 2014, 07:15:22 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

out of the following Canon cameras i've owned & used
  • 3x 350
  • 4x 400
  • 2x 450
  • 2x 1000
  • 1x 40
  • 2x 60
  • 1x 7
  • 1x 5d2
  • 8x G series
  • 9x various PnS

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.
7D's metering was good, tho occasionally clipped highlites a bit much.
5D2's metering would, on occasion, just be wildly out, usually underexposing, not that it mattered most of the time.
No complaints about the other 22 "raw generators."
Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.

I know I and others should just ignore this post, but I'm going to reply because you may give the impression to someone reading it that the 5D digic 4 cameras are in some way inferior to the others, and this is just not the case.

It is true that if you lift zero data ( ie total black) from the 5D II there is more FPN than with the digic 2 and 5 camera. ( I don't have a digic 3 camera). I do I know this ? I have compared them after reading the

No, I can't be bothered. In normal photography it just doesn't have any relevance.

Orangutan

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1899
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #139 on: February 21, 2014, 08:41:27 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.

But other people don't seem to have this problem in their final-output photos.  How do they avoid they it?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21843
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2014, 09:17:08 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.

Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.

I owned both the 7D and the 5DII, and in tens of thousands of shots I didn't have a single one ruined by FPN (note: none were shots with the lens cap on).  Your cameras may have been defective, or I had cameras with magic FPN-proof sensors, or I just exposed and processed my images properly.  The first is possible, the second pretty implausible, the third is most likely.

Specifically regarding the 7D, Roger Clark stated, "Thye 7D camera has lower fixed pattern noise at ISOs less than 800 than many other Canon cameras tested, including the Canon 1DX."  Maybe Roger has a 7D with one of those magic sensors, too?  Not that I have any issues with my 1D X, either... 

But you can keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6316
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2014, 09:21:42 AM »
t ignore this post, but I'm going to reply because you may give the impression to someone reading it that the 5D digic 4 cameras are in some way inferior to the others, and this is just not the case.

I know I should also ignore this post :-p but reading this people might think it's about the digic processor, but afaik the pattern noise has more to do with the general layout of the camera (pcb), the number of readout channels and how fast the data is read. Canon seems to have concentrated on improving this problem though, at least from what I can tell using 60d->6d.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2014, 09:21:42 AM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6595
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2014, 09:34:57 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

I think, as always, you are the one aiming for dramatic effect, after all you have taken Neuro's quote completely out of context, which was, a badly exposed image, something we know you are prone to.

People who found the fpn from the 5D MkII and 7D to be particularly problematic are the ones who tended to underexpose, which is outdated advice originally intended to preserve highlights from clipping, and who then who didn't take any time at all in working out the best way to process those underexposed files.

Remember when you said "I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained."

Well my reply still stands "Send me some RAW files, 7D and/or 5D MkII, I don't care, I'll even do another video on what I did to them."

You didn't get the results you wanted because you didn't take the time to learn to use them. We could turn your comment "Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch." 180ยบ, have you noticed the cameras you get better results with are the ones programmed to look after people who don't know what they are doing? The bodies where user input is far more important you can't get results from. Now what does that say?
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

sdsr

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 901
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #143 on: February 21, 2014, 10:51:44 AM »

I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained.

[....]

And yes, I'm no Photoshop guru, but neither should I have to be.  Far quicker and better for future-proofing to just choose better tools that don't require me to fix such things in post.

Since this is a thread about DxO (albeit a different branch of it) I though I would mention the improved "prime" (I think that's what they call it - I don't have it here in my office) noise reduction component of the latest version of their software.  The other day I ended up with a badly underexposed photo of one of our cats, who was posing in a rather dramatic way - I inadvertently took the first shot, with bounce flash, before I was in the same room as he was in, so of course it bounced in the wrong place, missed him altogether and I ended up with a rather dark image.  I rather liked the result nevertheless, but also thought I would see what would happen if I tried to brighten it.  As I had taken it with my 5DIII rather than 6D, there was a little visible banding in the noise which I couldn't quite remove in LR (not that I tried terribly hard).  I then tried it in DxO, selecting "prime" noise reduction mode and the banding vanished completely, and automatically, with no further tweaking on my part.  Whether that would help with the banding you're complaining about I have no idea (I've never used a 7D, and have no idea how underexposed your problem photos are, let alone how much you want to brighten them), but what it did for me certainly didn't require guru status.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21843
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2014, 11:02:25 AM »
The other day I ended up with a badly underexposed photo of one of our cats...

Dammit, man, you can't just say that and then not post your cat photo on the Internet!!  :o
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

gruhl28

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Canon 70D
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #145 on: February 21, 2014, 11:16:10 AM »
Perhaps this thread should be put out of its misery - well, after the cat picture is posted.  :)  This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.

Orangutan

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1899
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #146 on: February 21, 2014, 11:52:46 AM »
This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.

I see you're new around here.   :D

Welcome to the forums!

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2918
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #147 on: February 21, 2014, 12:37:58 PM »
This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.

I see you're new around here.   :D

Welcome to the forums!

hahahha

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #147 on: February 21, 2014, 12:37:58 PM »

JumboShrimp

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #148 on: February 21, 2014, 06:28:29 PM »
Original Poster (OP) is back and thank you all for the (sometimes) informative, but always entertaining, discussions. I know I'm bucking the trend, but I sort of like a single numerical equipment rating. Bottom line evaluation, so to speak.

There was little or no comparison to what the folks do at DPReview, though. Seems to me that DxO and DPReview basically have the same procedural rating system. DxO gives a number, whereas DPReview gives a percentage and an award, such as 89% Gold Award. My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.

Any opinions/comments comparing methodology and results between DxO and DPReview?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21843
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2014, 07:32:32 PM »
My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.

Any opinions/comments comparing methodology and results between DxO and DPReview?

The big difference is that DPR's % score attempts to rank the camera (build, ergonomics, IQ, AF, etc.), whereas DxOMark's score is for the sensor and only the sensor.  Pair a great sensor with poor autofocus, you get great DR and low noise...and a blurry image.  DxO doesn't care, to them it's still great.  DPR would mark down the overall score due to the poor AF.

Since people buy cameras, and not bare silicon sensors, DPR's single number score is a bit less useless than DxOMark's sensor score.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2014, 07:32:32 PM »