December 11, 2016, 01:17:49 AM

Author Topic: Why the DxO bashing?  (Read 67836 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5336
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #150 on: February 21, 2014, 10:47:27 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.

It's also a lot clearer that DPRs ratings (which are conveniently percentages, something everyone fully understands) are subjective, based on the reviewers experiences as well as technical tests with the camera.

This is in contrast to some arbitrary number that requires you to go investigating HOW that number is derived, something the very vast majority of DXO viewers DO NOT do. That scalar number is a black box output that does not factor in enough information in order to be truly accurate, and yet it is boldly claimed to be "scientific". It may well indeed be produced via a scientific process, but the number is otherwise utterly meaningless, yet given all to much precedence, by the unwary general public.

That's the danger of DXO...their bold claim to science and yet black box effect.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #150 on: February 21, 2014, 10:47:27 PM »

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #151 on: February 22, 2014, 03:01:47 AM »
..you are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010.

Yes.
The 6D and 70D are noticeably improved for low ISO pattern noise so my gripes are confined to Digic 4 SLR bodies. OTH, Digic 4 PowerShot G11 (& G12?) behave pretty well.


[..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.

If 20+ other Canon bodies (let's not even consider the Exmor sensored bodies), often used the same way, did not produce objectionable FPN when pushed then how can you conclude that's a user fault? The 7D is KNOWN to have stripey shadows with only a small push that you can even do in DPP.  Too bad you don't have yours yet so you could provide a lens cap shot so we could see if it had stripes or not.

e.g.
7D non-pushed
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9770.msg176368#msg176368


..pattern noise has more to do with the general layout of the camera (pcb), the number of readout channels..

very true. I've identified image noise under some circumstances with my old 40D that seems to be directly related to electronic system noise, most likely an onboard voltage regulator. If I could clean that power supply up i'd have more useful 1600 and 3200 iso on that one.
Digic 4 is only fingered as being the processor in the most egregious DSLR FPN culprits, PowerShots G11 & 12 are Digic 4 and cleaner than the SLRs at base ISO.


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..

I don't understand how that is outdated advice.
Keeping highlites just short of clipping is how to retain highlite detail; they're not being exposed as a midtone.
Push the rest up as desired, or even further, as in this example from my 60D which survived just fine with a manually exposed shot to retain cloud detail while pushing the rest up in post.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.msg154889#msg154889


Quote
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."

I haven't forgotten.  when I can make the time I'll prep a file for you to work on.  I'd like to see if you can process the stripes out without losing detail.  Likely will be one of the 7D sunset shots from link above.

Quote
.. 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?

it says nothing conclusive.  I generally shoot difficult scenes in manual exposure to retain highlite detail levels where I want them so how can an unused comsumer camera's AE features possibly matter?


tried it in DxO, selecting "prime" noise reduction mode and the banding vanished completely

I do have DxO 9 but haven't run any of the old stripey files thru it.  I have seen improved results on some of my older hi ISO files that it did a nice job on.  Thanks for letting me know it worked for you; I have some 5d2 files and 7d files I hope it can fix without excess time spent doing so.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3305
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #152 on: February 22, 2014, 03:16:41 AM »
Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
I need to get back to what's important to me in an image.
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

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5336
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #153 on: February 22, 2014, 04:04:59 AM »
[..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.

If 20+ other Canon bodies (let's not even consider the Exmor sensored bodies), often used the same way, did not produce objectionable FPN when pushed then how can you conclude that's a user fault? The 7D is KNOWN to have stripey shadows with only a small push that you can even do in DPP.  Too bad you don't have yours yet so you could provide a lens cap shot so we could see if it had stripes or not.

e.g.
7D non-pushed
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9770.msg176368#msg176368

The 7D is by far at it's weakest at ISO 100. I think Neuro is more like myself in that more often than not, he's shooting at a higher ISO. Past ISO 400, banding is pretty much non-existent, meaning all of the ISO settings between 400 and 3200 are pretty usable. By ISO 3200 itself and again the camera isn't all that usable.

I don't think anyone denies that the 7D has a banding problem at low ISO. That's well known. At ISO 400 sometimes you don't even need to push anything at all, and banding can be a slight problem in the midtones.

The 7D isn't really a landscape or studio camera, though. It's an action camera. It's an ok one, but lacking the very high ISO capabilities of a FF camera, it's limited in it's usable scope in that arena. The 70D has demonstrated some clear improvements in the area that the 7D used to dominate. It definitely has less noise, it's sharper, more usable at ISO 400 and 3200 (even though it actually has slightly more noise, it's less revolting noise). Not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin.

I think in the long run, between the improvements made in the 70D and even more so the improvements made in the 6D, the next DSLRs from canon should be pretty good on the noise front. If there was ever a "biggest complaint" against the 7D, it would be it's poor handling of noise, in general. Second to that would be the perceived softness due to the AA filter. (Ironically, I personally love the 7D's AA filter, as it's a godsend for bird photography...no moire at all, especially with a big white...but most people are limited to smaller/cheaper lenses, so I understand the outcry for a weaker AA filter.)

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3305
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #154 on: February 22, 2014, 05:21:31 AM »
...
I think in the long run, between the improvements made in the 70D and even more so the improvements made in the 6D, the next DSLRs from canon should be pretty good on the noise front.
...

Well for that to happen, Canon would have to not recycle the sensor from both of those cameras into others. Hands up all those that think the sensor in the 70D won't appear elsewhere without modification?
If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?
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

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #155 on: February 22, 2014, 06:19:53 AM »
If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?

Canon has sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Chosenbydestiny

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #156 on: February 22, 2014, 07:28:05 AM »
I think people overthink this stuff. If your client or your audience worked for DXO or are have a serious mental disorder concerning pixels, sure, you may have an issue. But since content still rules all.... As long as you can deliver results to your audience's standards, everything else doesn't matter. If you are your own audience, you are welcome to argue with yourself.  ;D
Nikon electric fan, gas stove, and slippers. Canon Elan 7, 1D Mark III, 5D mark III, and 2x6D. Canon 24mm Samyang/Rokinon, 85L, 135L, and many other lenses. 2x Canon 580ex II, third party speedlites, studio strobes

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #156 on: February 22, 2014, 07:28:05 AM »

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3305
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #157 on: February 22, 2014, 07:42:27 AM »
If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?

Canon has sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors.
Are you suggesting that DxO worshippers are jealous that Canon has "sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors"?  if so, I agree  ;D ... I think they are just jealous that their "oh so superior DR capable" senors aren't flying off store shelves as much as Canon's "recycled" sensors ;D
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 07:44:35 AM by Rienzphotoz »
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

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #158 on: February 22, 2014, 07:57:46 AM »
If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?

Canon has sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors.
Are you suggesting that DxO worshippers are jealous that Canon has "sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors"?  if so, I agree  ;D ... I think they are just jealous that their "oh so superior DR capable" senors aren't flying off store shelves as much as Canon's "recycled" sensors ;D

Mostly I think they're frustrated that tens of millions of people seem to ignore what they perceive as the only important feature of a camera, namely an extra two stops of low ISO DR.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #159 on: February 22, 2014, 09:03:54 AM »
Well if Canon can do that then they'll have a lens that has closer to linear performance with respect to DR along the ISO scale (a linear degradation of DR with ISO is concurrent with theory on the matter.)

Touché.  :)

I'd almost be willing to bet that IQ won't be specifically addressed in the next round of sensors for FF either because Canon will have been focusing R&D efforts on getting DPAF working on FF sensors instead.

If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so.  They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they gained market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR.  Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #160 on: February 22, 2014, 10:08:28 AM »
If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so.  They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they gained market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR.  Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.

One of my co-workers explained to me why he bought a Canon DSLR: his wife liked how the salesman explained the WiFi feature to them.

Sounds like they made the right decision.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3305
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #161 on: February 22, 2014, 10:16:39 AM »
If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so.  They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they gained market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR.  Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.

One of my co-workers explained to me why he bought a Canon DSLR: his wife liked how the salesman explained the WiFi feature to them.
In my office one of my co-workers explained to me why she bought a Nikon D600: because the salesman told her that "all pro photographers use only 24 megapixel full frame cameras" ... she shot less than 1000 images with that camera in the last 15 months, now her awesome DR capable sensor just sits in her house doing nothing, other than ooze oil. I too have plenty of real life silly/childish stories why people bought a Nikon or Sony camera, it proves nothing other than make us look foolish for resorting to rather lame examples to prove our point. ;)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 10:18:29 AM by Rienzphotoz »
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

sdsr

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 895
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #162 on: February 22, 2014, 05:06:35 PM »
Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
I need to get back to what's important to me in an image.

Easy for you to say, now that you have a Sony A7.... :P

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #162 on: February 22, 2014, 05:06:35 PM »

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3305
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #163 on: February 23, 2014, 02:01:48 AM »
Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
I need to get back to what's important to me in an image.

Easy for you to say, now that you have a Sony A7.... :P
;D ... I wish my Sony a7 can solve all my photographic problems, but unfortunately there aren't enough native lenses to take advantage of its sensor (and I'm not too keen on getting FE the 35 / 55 mm prime lenses) ... but I like it bcoz it is very portable, yet full frame, so I carry it with me daily now.
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

Mark D5 TEAM II

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1247
  • Proud N0ink 0wnz0r / crApple iFruitcake H4t3r
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #164 on: February 25, 2014, 05:27:01 AM »
Quote
The McNamara fallacy, named for Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven. (See the example below.)

It refers to McNamara's belief as to what led the United States to defeat in the Vietnam War—specifically, his quantification of success in the war (e.g. in terms of enemy body count), ignoring other variables.

    The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.
    —Daniel Yankelovich "Corporate Priorities: A continuing study of the new demands on business." (1972)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy


Also read this book:

How to Lie with Statistics:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

Quote
Amazon.com Review
"There is terror in numbers," writes Darrell Huff in How to Lie with Statistics. And nowhere does this terror translate to blind acceptance of authority more than in the slippery world of averages, correlations, graphs, and trends. Huff sought to break through "the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind" with this slim volume, first published in 1954. The book remains relevant as a wake-up call for people unaccustomed to examining the endless flow of numbers pouring from Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and everywhere else someone has an axe to grind, a point to prove, or a product to sell. "The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify," warns Huff.

Although many of the examples used in the book are charmingly dated, the cautions are timeless. Statistics are rife with opportunities for misuse, from "gee-whiz graphs" that add nonexistent drama to trends, to "results" detached from their method and meaning, to statistics' ultimate bugaboo--faulty cause-and-effect reasoning. Huff's tone is tolerant and amused, but no-nonsense. Like a lecturing father, he expects you to learn something useful from the book, and start applying it every day. Never be a sucker again, he cries!

    Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is.

Read How to Lie with Statistics. Whether you encounter statistics at work, at school, or in advertising, you'll remember its simple lessons. Don't be terrorized by numbers, Huff implores. "The fact is that, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science." --Therese Littleton
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 05:29:06 AM by Mark D5 TEAM II »
Nikon NSF16 5-Leaf Dual-Blade Industrial Fan ¦ Nikon NTMFI-H1 Dry Heavy Flat Iron ¦ Nikon Tough Mama NTMRC1-2S Rice Cooker “Limited Edition” ¦ Nikon Tough Mama NTMJK18-S Stainless Electric Kettle Plate Type ¦ Nikon NHT 2-in-1 Curling Iron & Straightener in One ¦ Nikon N4004s Decision Master System™

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #164 on: February 25, 2014, 05:27:01 AM »