December 08, 2016, 09:48:54 AM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 70564 times)

Ivan Muller

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 02:52:50 AM »
whether DXO and the D810 is flawed or not...I sure wish Canon brought out something with those megapixel numbers....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 02:52:50 AM »

Antono Refa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2014, 03:06:44 AM »
Their scale goes up to 11...

You mean their scale goes up to ∞! ∞ is to 11 as 11 is to 10 in this case. :P MOAR!!

That ∞ is Aleph naught, which is just the lowest infinitely high score DxO will score Nikon sensors.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 03:10:23 AM by Antono Refa »

9VIII

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1459
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2014, 03:50:54 AM »
Congrats to Nikon for another world class sensor.

You mean Sonikon?

Maybe once both of them have sunk enough they'll merge and we'll actually get decent lenses for Sony cameras (best of both worlds).

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20035
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2014, 04:04:41 AM »
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.

True.  DxO is a service provider, and as the saying goes, the customer is always right.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20035
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2014, 04:06:30 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

StudentOfLight

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1328
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2014, 05:32:55 AM »
Admin lock this one down please, it's scaring my children!  :'(
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  18-28mm f/2, 28-85mm f/2, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

horshack

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 06:42:45 AM »
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip. Plus, all this really means, particularly the new 14.8 stops Print DR number, is that Nikon is cooking their RAW files EVEN MORE. Nikon/Sony's biggest "cheat" is the fact that they clip to black point, instead of offsetting to black point. Nikon cameras just throw away a lot of low-level signal information. The Sony Exmor sensor gives them more room to do that, for sure, but they are still throwing away information.

Clipping the back point does not affect the DR measurements because DxO's methodology (and other testers whose independent results match DxO's) account for the clipping. Also, Nikon stopped clipping blacks starting with the Sony Exmor in the D5300 (see here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52493166).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 06:42:45 AM »

Kathode-Ray

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
  • Shoot, shoot, shoot!
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2014, 06:54:35 AM »

Read the quote on DxO's web page:

"Here is a sample of some of our clients."

It doesn't say that those listed are DxO's only customers. It also doesn't say those listed are the top ten DSC manufacturers. It just says that they are *some* of DxO's customers. So Canon could well be a customer of DxO and if they were, then the statement on DxO's webpage is still true.

This is sooo sad...
6D | M || M 18-55 | 24-85 3.5-4.5 | M 22 2.0 || AT-X 16-28 2.8 | 24-70 2.8 VC | 24-105 4.0L | 70-200 4.0L IS || SY 14 2.8 | 35 2.0 IS | 45 1.8 VC | 100 2.0 | 100 2.8L Macro | Fujinon 135 2.5 || Metz 58 AF-2 | Røde Videomic Pro | Magic Lantern

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20035
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2014, 07:52:21 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.

Read the quote on DxO's web page:

"Here is a sample of some of our clients."

It doesn't say that those listed are DxO's only customers. It also doesn't say those listed are the top ten DSC manufacturers. It just says that they are *some* of DxO's customers. So Canon could well be a customer of DxO and if they were, then the statement on DxO's webpage is still true.

Yes, I can read and comprehend, a skill some lack.  Perhaps you should read my post again to confirm for yourself that I did not indicate that DxO's statement is false, only that it could be...  You might also note that I listed that possibility second, not first.

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to them, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20035
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2014, 10:46:57 AM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort, and given their history and "black box" methods, questioning their statements and veracity is certainly within reason.  DxO has been guilty of a variety of falsehoods on their website.  They have corrected (without acknowledging their errors), others remain.

You seem to be going out of your way to argue the point, are you suggesting that DxO is infallible?
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2014, 11:22:10 AM »
They have corrected (without acknowledging their errors), others remain.
Like this one - 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. 17-40 f/4L - I'm very curious to see how the new 16-35 f/4L IS comes out - they'll probably say it's worse like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS vs. II
CPS Score: 111 points

jebrady03

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 468
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2014, 11:30:22 AM »
Wow... You kids ever heard of "private messaging"? Maybe a phone call? Good gracious... Get your squabble out of the public eye. It's pathetic.

All others, carry on with the same ol' DxO bashing/defending and enjoy your day!
Gear: 5D Mark III, 135L, 85LII, 100L, 70-300L, 200/2.8L II, 85/1.8, 16-35/4L IS, 35/2 IS, Sigma 50mm Art, 430 EXII

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20035
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2014, 09:31:03 PM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort
...

So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?

Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?  You really might want to consider taking one.  Honestly, I'm not trying to be insulting (although I admit it could be taken as such).  You really seem to have difficulty grasping the meaning of written statements, not just mine but those of many people on these forums. 

To clarify...and read carefully, please.   DxO does not include Canon's logo among their 'sample of clients' which include 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers'.  Given Canon's status in the industry (#1 dSLR manufacturer for >10 years, and one of the top 10 compact camera makers), it would be a foolish business decision to not display Canon's logo if they were able to do so.  I assume DxO are not fools, so what are the other possible reasons to exclude Canon's logo?  The most likely (and therefore, first-listed) reason is that Canon did not give them permission to display their logo.  That's a reasonably common practice - I work for a Fortune 100 company, many small vendors request permission to include our logo on their list of clients, and for the most part we deny those requests.  The other possible reason is that DxO is making a misleading statement on their website.  Are they 'lying'?  It's shades of gray.  They state "all of the top ten DSC manufacturers" but don't specify what they mean by 'top ten'.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on DxOMark Sensor Scores' and maybe Canon is not on that list.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on sales in France' and maybe Canon is not on that list. 

Regardless, my statement which you call out, "I know nothing of the sort," immediately followed and was mainly in reference to your final statement: "...you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't."  As I stated, DxO has a history of 'being false on their website'...they have been guilty of that many times, so it's a reasonable possibility that it may be the case with this particular issue. 

Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way (any relevant way, e.g. global sales, would place Canon on that list), but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand (link) among their list of clients.   What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions? 

Actually, I expect your response to be something pithy like 'we can't know' or 'it doesn't matter,' – both of which are copouts to which you've resorted in the past.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2014, 09:31:03 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5447
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2014, 10:11:17 PM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort
...

So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?

Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?  You really might want to consider taking one.  Honestly, I'm not trying to be insulting (although I admit it could be taken as such).  You really seem to have difficulty grasping the meaning of written statements, not just mine but those of many people on these forums. 

To clarify...and read carefully, please.   DxO does not include Canon's logo among their 'sample of clients' which include 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers'.  Given Canon's status in the industry (#1 dSLR manufacturer for >10 years, and one of the top 10 compact camera makers), it would be a foolish business decision to not display Canon's logo if they were able to do so.  I assume DxO are not fools, so what are the other possible reasons to exclude Canon's logo?  The most likely (and therefore, first-listed) reason is that Canon did not give them permission to display their logo.  That's a reasonably common practice - I work for a Fortune 100 company, many small vendors request permission to include our logo on their list of clients, and for the most part we deny those requests.  The other possible reason is that DxO is making a misleading statement on their website.  Are they 'lying'?  It's shades of gray.  They state "all of the top ten DSC manufacturers" but don't specify what they mean by 'top ten'.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on DxOMark Sensor Scores' and maybe Canon is not on that list.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on sales in France' and maybe Canon is not on that list. 

Regardless, my statement which you call out, "I know nothing of the sort," immediately followed and was mainly in reference to your final statement: "...you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't."  As I stated, DxO has a history of 'being false on their website'...they have been guilty of that many times, so it's a reasonable possibility that it may be the case with this particular issue. 

Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way (any relevant way, e.g. global sales, would place Canon on that list), but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand (link) among their list of clients.   What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions? 

Actually, I expect your response to be something pithy like 'we can't know' or 'it doesn't matter,' – both of which are copouts to which you've resorted in the past.
I have wondered for a while about the possibilities that DXO and Nikon are tied at the hips. It looks like the ratings are heavily skewed towards what Nikon is good at and completely ignores what Canon is good at. After all, a Nikon 7100 beats a Canon 1DX in the sensor ratings..... yet in the real world, how many people are going to upgrade a 1DX with a 7100?

when you look at the specs for the two cameras on DXO, and you look at autofocus (the place where Canon really shines) you find that the Nikon 7100 has "Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); Continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A); predictive focus tracking activated automatically according to subject status. Manual focus (MF): Electronic rangefinder can be used " while the Canon 1DX has "One Shot AI Servo ".

And drive modes.... the Nikon does 6 frames per second and the 1DX does 12.... so what does DXO say?
Nikon 7100 - Continuous low-speed [CL] mode; 1-6 frames per second Continuous high-speed [CH] mode; 6 frames per second Interval timer photography supported Mirror-up [Mup] mode Quiet Shutter Release Self-timer mode Single-frame mode
Canon 1DX - Single, Continuous L, Continuous H, Self timer (2s+remote, 10s+remote), Silent single shooting

Tell me that isn't biased......
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 10:18:32 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3111
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2014, 10:25:03 PM »
I'm going to use this example again:

When the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens came to the market and was tested, it got a lower score than the version I lens.  Later, DxO mark used a different CAMERA to test them, then the v2 finally scored higher.

 
2 x 1DX
B1G, MAC, GLIAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2014, 10:25:03 PM »