December 18, 2017, 05:41:35 PM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 96122 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21849
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2014, 10:35:39 PM »
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......

I actually really doubt there's any collusion between Nikon and DxO.  Their Scores are biased, but there's a logic to that bias (still...bias is bias, and they don't make it obvious).  I also take issue with their 'black box' formulas. 

As for the specs issues, the Nikon ones are copies straight from Nikon's website, as are the Canon drive mode spec (yes, DxO really should have listed comparable specs including fps).  The AF mode DxO lists for the 1D X differs from the Canon USA spec, likely they took it from the EU site.  Good thing, though - Canon USA says the 1D X also has AI Focus, and it doesn't...a typographical error on Canon's part.

Of course, DxO could have made 'honest errors' but as I said, their history argues against them.  For example, when called on their mistake of stating the 70-200/2.8L IS II was not as good as the MkI lens it replaced, they defended their conclusion and explicitly stated no mistake was made...then a year later, they silently replaced the original data with new data supporting the opposite (and correct) conclusion.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2014, 10:35:39 PM »

dgatwood

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2014, 10:38:52 PM »

I'm pretty sure they would have to have permission from Canon to display their logo in this situation; I don't think it falls under fair use of the trademark.  Not every company is willing to give that permission.  Canon's absence from that list likely means very little other than that Canon is protective of their logo.  :)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21849
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2014, 10:46:24 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.

Well, their Lens Scores are an even larger, stinkier pile of steaming BS than their Sensor Scores.  Even the name itself is intentionally misleading, since the primary determinants of the Lens Score are the T-stop of the lens and the low light performance of the camera body on which the lens is tested.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

zlatko

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 617
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2014, 12:26:28 AM »
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.

Well, their Lens Scores are an even larger, stinkier pile of steaming BS than their Sensor Scores.  Even the name itself is intentionally misleading, since the primary determinants of the Lens Score are the T-stop of the lens and the low light performance of the camera body on which the lens is tested.

Last time I checked DxOMark, the very best lens that Canon makes was the EF 100mm f/2.  Yes, the famous $499 100mm f/2 known by professional photographers all over the world as the very best lens that Canon makes ... not.  That lens is from 1991.

Now that honor has gone to the EF 35mm f/2 IS.  Yes, the $599 lens is better than ANY other lens that Canon makes ... according to DxOMark ... and no one else.

P.S.  Nothing against either of those lenses (both excellent), but giving them the highest scores of all lenses in the entire Canon EF system is pretty much proof that the DxOMark scoring is faulty.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 12:53:48 AM by zlatko »

MacroBug

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2014, 01:10:22 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

sagittariansrock

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1689
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2014, 04:29:04 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

I think he is quite good at writing short baited posts, and provoking people to respond with lengthy explanations as to why his arguments make no sense.
For all I know, he might not even have an opinion about DxO and DR, just writes those posts for a nice laugh ;)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

StudentOfLight

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1443
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2014, 11:47:04 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.

Well, their Lens Scores are an even larger, stinkier pile of steaming BS than their Sensor Scores.  Even the name itself is intentionally misleading, since the primary determinants of the Lens Score are the T-stop of the lens and the low light performance of the camera body on which the lens is tested.
Yes, their lens scores really are a questionable. (See attached 300mm f/2.8 comparison)

Bearing in mind that the Nikon D600 has higher resolution than the 5D-III (24.49Mpx vs 23.38Mpx), it's clear that while both are excellent lenses the Canon lens is superior. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L II IS USM  equals or betters the Nikon lens in every metric in DxO summary. Even when looking through the field map diagrams, the Canon is clearly superior but somehow earns the same score.

A wise man once said: "WTF!?"  ???
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2014, 11:47:04 PM »

traingineer

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2014, 12:18:32 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

Much LESS enjoyable*  ;D

And come on Jrista/Neuro, no need to be so harsh to the Mighty gods of dXo. After all, only dXo can defend us pixel peepers and sharpness lovers from those dreaded photographers non-believers!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 12:39:57 AM by traingineer »

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1080
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2014, 12:27:42 AM »
Despite all of the negativity, I've yet to be convinced that the "vibe" of their scores is noticeably wrong.  Even in the example above, sure, the Canon lens would seem to be the better lens and might deserve a better ranking than the Nikon lens.  But I think that's largely irrelevant.  All I would want to find out is their view on the Canon lens - and they think it is pretty good.  If I was in the market to buy one, their good testing results would be a positive factor in that decision.

Putting all petty Canon vs Nikon squabbling aside, can anyone actually point to a Canon camera sensor or lens that we all consider is excellent, but which DxO trashes?  I struggle to find one.
Camera Obscura

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21849
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2014, 06:58:55 AM »
Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?

I don't need a community college to teach me when someone makes an allegation that is wrong.

Quote
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?

Why do you think that DxO is more accommodating towards Nikon?

Since I stated the opposite, you've proven my point that you have difficulty comprehending what you read. 


I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

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.

...and true to form, you delivered the expected copout response.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ewg963

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 337
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2014, 07:36:27 AM »
I will continue to go out and shoot improve my skills with my outdated 5d Mark III & II camera. Oh DXO you sealed my faith I'm doomed ::)
1DX, 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 16-35mm f/4L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 24-105mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/2.8L , 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mmf/4.0-5.6L, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L, f 135mm f/2L, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21849
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2014, 09:30:57 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

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?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

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 theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6305
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2014, 09:32:24 AM »
I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

Let me put it to you a different way: why should I or anyone else care whether Canon is listed or not?
What difference will listing Canon there make to you?

I am sitting in a duck blind at the end of the yard, waiting for some mergansers to wander closer for pictures, enjoying a cup of tea, and looking at CR on a laptop (gotta love wifi) while I wait. Canon being listed by DXO makes no difference to me.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2014, 09:32:24 AM »

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2918
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2014, 10:15:35 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

It is bit extreme to stop anyone from posting their viewpoints.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21849
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »