DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...

[KeithR]

I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have significant consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things certainly can matter.

As far as DxO goes, its all about credibility: if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong, which I think is the OP's position too - and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means.

And if they can't properly QA their prose, why should I automatically trust their numbers?

This is a perfectly legitimate perspective, whether or not you agree with it.

[thepancakeman]

*sigh* 

[Janco]

First, they are french, aren't they? French people don't like the english language very much. I don't want to offend anyone, it's just a feeling I sometimes have. The english word expandable could be translated to extensible in french. I see it happen very quickly that they write expendable. Considering that they are french, it's very very good writing (not that particular word, but else). I bet there is almost no company based on english language that would be able to write articles in french without a good interpreter. And I think everyone who read that article AND realised there was a mistake was educated enough to realise what word there should be.

Now this article was free, right? Did you (OP and others that complain) pay for that? Even if you're customer of DxO (DxO optics pro or some services) please feel free to complain if there happen to be mistakes that lead to misinformation or wrong conversion of your image or whatever. But please, I really don't understand a discussion about typos or writing mistakes.

And now please smite me to death if I made a typo or grammatical error myself. I'm swiss.

Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. 

[3kramd5]

I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have significant consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things certainly can matter.

I work in a technical role in the aerospace industry. If misspellings mattered in technical documentation, airplanes would be falling out of the sky.

I don't think this wrong word says anything about the accuracy of DXO's measurements, nor do I believe that DXO's measurements hold a heck of a lot of import for photographic equipment consumers.

Much ado about nothing.

[nitsujwalker]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons

This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO.  Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion.  I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal?  Is it worth mentioning?  WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this butchering of a simple word, and then no follow up or quality control on their website (which gets how many millions of hits) to correct that mistake.  All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process. 

Anyway, I just thought some folks would think it interesting...

They hang the DXO scores?  Where do they hang them?  Do you mean they hang on every word that the company publishes?  Don't complain about typos in a post and then make typos yourself.

[Northstar]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons

This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO.  Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion.  I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal?  Is it worth mentioning?  WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang on the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this butchering of a simple word, and then no follow up or quality control on their website (which gets how many millions of hits) to correct that mistake.  All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process. 

Anyway, I just thought some folks would think it interesting...

They hang the DXO scores?  Where do they hang them?  Do you mean they hang on every word that the company publishes?  Don't complain about typos in a post and then make typos yourself.

nisujwalker....funny, you got me on that one!   But, I have corrected the mistake....it's called follow up.  Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business)  If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no.  BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.

Anyway..like some have said, I've "expanded" too much energy on this now.  I better get back to my new 5d3 and test out that expendable ISO....I hear it really expends well, especially when you expend it up to 25,600. 

[K-amps]

Not to give my age away , but this reminds me of the Audio Review mags of the 70's/80's.

Stereo Review would rate audio components based on THD Total Harmonic distortion and IM etc. Slowly manufacturers found ways to reduce this mathmatically arrived at number by increasing feedback in the audio circuits (for amplifiers) and get Stereo Review to arrive at better "numbers"... but the Audio began to sound too sterlie and clinical.... Then came the Subjectivists; who did not measure the Audio signal by numbers, but by actual listening tests and AB comparisons. they found that the Tubes of the good old days with 3%-10% THD sounded better than newer transistor designs with THD numbers below 0.01%.

Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely used as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models.

And one sad day Stereo Review found itself out of Business...

DxO numbers seem to me to be the Stereo Review of the 2000's.... Already people talk about the amazing Flesh tones the 5D can dish out despite having sensor numbers that are a pale comparison to the D800. So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

It does not translate into wonderful Audio or mersmerising photos.


PS: I am not saying DxO will go out of Business, just saying don't take their numbers so seriously. And no, you don't have to win every Peeing contest against the Nikon boys... just beat them with your Photography Skills  :-)

 

[thepancakeman]

Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business)  If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Yeah, it is.  Have you ever read the manual for a TV or DVD players.  Many of them are completely incomprehensible, and yet magically the TV/DVD player works just fine.  How could that possible be???

And you mean "that big OF a leap."  "Big a leap" makes aboslutely zero grammatical sense.

[Janco]

Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no.  BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.

Oh, those shiny things on the internet are to be taken with a grain of salt?    And I always thought.....

Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely uses as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models [.......]

So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

+1
I guess that's what it basically comes down to...

[atvinyard]

Did you send them an e-mail to let them know about their typo? That would be the appropriate thing to do.

Proper grammer and attention to detail are important when it comes to maintaining reputation, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time. 

Let he who never ever makes a spelling error be the one to cast the first stone.

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO.  Seems we also shouldn't turst the New York Times, Buffalo's NPR station, and we should beleive that Mitt Romney supports shooting one's family.  Ok, fine.  Tim to moved on. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

error myself. I'm swiss.

Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. 

That capability is coming soon

[zim]

'Tim to move on' LOL very god 

[zim]

Oh wait!!! You mean Tim worked at DXO and he’s been made redundant over this? poor Tim, he’s got a wife and kids too…






…. I liked Tim






Your all rotten getting him fired

[Northstar]

Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business)  If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Yeah, it is.  Have you ever read the manual for a TV or DVD players.  Many of them are completely incomprehensible, and yet magically the TV/DVD player works just fine.  How could that possible be???

And you mean "that big OF a leap."  "Big a leap" makes aboslutely zero grammatical sense.

you're right about the grammatical sense....you're wrong in your analogy.  a tv maker's goal is to make a tv that works well, not a manual that works well.

dxomark's goal here is to present information....the information is their product.  in this case, they have three product errors in one line of information.