October 21, 2014, 05:45:40 PM

Author Topic: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...  (Read 10240 times)

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2012, 06:06:30 PM »
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. 
Well you seemed to work out from the context that "expendable" meant "expandable". The planet is populated by intelligent people who no doubt will also make this gigantic cognitive leap just as you did.

Just be thankful there is someone as thorough as DXO to provide pixel peepers with the research data they generate.

A typo? OMG. Fire the secretary! Call in the National guard! Cancel everything! Or just chill.....

Paul Wright

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2012, 06:06:30 PM »

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2002
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2012, 06:12:55 PM »
Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO. 

Well that settles it... never really trusted DxO anyways so this puts the nail in the coffin... =)  hahaha...  Cant speak for DxO, but i've seen people get fired for a typo like this gone public, literally, but dont know or really care about DxO's firing practices, how nit picky they are, and the tenure and prior reputation of the person who was responsible.  Personally I dont trust the site but for other reasons than a type. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

agierke

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2012, 06:46:22 PM »
i have never really understood  the fanaticism over DxO's ratings whether it be in favor of or against their findings. any review should never be "trusted". its foolish to make decisions about your own livelihood solely based upon the opinion of someone else (and i do believe that DxO results are quite simply an opinion).

reviews are meant to be a guide to HELP inform an audience, not make a decision for said audience. i read alot of reviews about gear, and then i make up my own mind ONLY after i have had hands on experience using the said piece of equipment under real world circumstances.

that being said, a typo or misinformation coming from DxO is entirely inconsequential in my opinion.

forgive me if i misspeled anything...     
5D3, 5D2, 5DC, s15mm Fish, 24mm TSE, 35mm F1.4L, 50mm F1.2L, 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2.8L, 24-70mm F2.8L, 70-200mm F2.8L, 580EX, 580EX2, 600EXRT

meli

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2012, 06:52:01 PM »
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.

yes perfectly legitimate perspective,

for example if i would buy a 550d and the 18-55 kit lens turns out to be decentered, i mean its a 50$ piece of lens but hey, " if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong," right?  "and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means" so Canon is definitely cr*p right? i mean this is what you're claiming there right?

You get the ridiculousness of yours and Northstar's statement or?

Positron

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2012, 08:05:38 PM »
Okay, it's a spelling error. Someone who wasn't a native English speaker mistook the words expandable and expendable (a very understandable mistake).

Compared to native English speakers who write there instead of their and they're (and note how the reverse almost never happens), your instead of you're (same as before), and my absolute favorite, "lense", it's trivial. "Expendable" is a result of English containing two decently difficult words that happen to be quite similar in both spelling and pronunciation. The latter examples are not spelling errors, they're understanding errors which prove that the writer has a fundamental lack of understanding of the very words, and by extansion, ideas, which they aim to convey.

YoukY63

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2012, 10:29:37 PM »
The first time I saw the first post of that topic, I was wondering if it was a joke or a new rant to DxO (kind of vendetta  ;D).
Now we understood it was not a joke and I think everybody agree on the total non-sense of such topic. Come on, are we really discussing for an English typo on a French website since 3 pages? A typo about the iso range of the body? Seriously???  :o  ::)

Admins, don't you think it is time now to close it here?
Canon 5D MkII + 24-105mm f/4L + 70-200mm f/4L IS + 35mm f/1.4L + 85mm f/1.2L + 135mm f/2L + Sigma 50mm f/1.4EX + Samyang 14mm f/2.8

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2012, 02:26:40 AM »
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.

Two examples might be:

5D classic - I found the images particularly good

1DS3 - skin tones are just superb to my eye - stunning with the 135/f2, 200 f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2012, 02:26:40 AM »

Wrathwilde

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
    • Anarchy Photography
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2012, 04:08:33 AM »
the information is their product.

It isn't. The "reviews" and "published results" are just a happy byproduct of the testing they do for their real business, their software business, and DxO Optics Pro is some kick ass software. They also create embedded software, silicon architectures and optical designs for still and video image real time processing, as well as image quality evaluation, measurement tools, and methodologies. To equate the fact that their web staff may accidentally confuse one english word for another on a site that is merely a free public service (that originates in french, no less), or that the tech writer who occasionally quotes the wrong number is somehow indicative of the quality of their science and engineering staff is laughable. If you were translating your view point into french, would you recognize the difference between "conneries" and a "connard" at a glance? It's like knowing the difference between your argument and yourself.

IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!

DxoMark.com is separate from the main DxO.com site. DxOMark isn't in the business of testing, that would be DxOLabs. If you think the lab techs are the ones writing the reviews... and plugging the information into the DxOMark site, you are wonderfully naive. Do you think the engineers at GM or Ford are wasting their time plugging in performance numbers on their companies respective websites, or that they double check the websites to make sure the published numbers matched what they tested on the bench, or that they personally make sure that the foreign GM/Ford sites are properly translated? Of course not. DxOLab's technicians have better things to do, and real work to accomplish, like making sure the data they collected translates into real world improvements in their software.

At the end of the day DxOMark is nothing more than a public forum and service that DxOLabs is under no real obligation to provide information to. The fact that they translate their pages as well as they do is amazing, and better than 99% of foreign sites I've visited. The fact is... accidentally getting a number wrong in a product review is pretty meaningless, they aren't selling the products they review, if they were... that would be a completely different matter.

Ever read an auto magazine? They are constantly doing tests, collecting data, etc. I often find that the written article will have at least one discrepancy from the data table. Does that make the people who review the cars idiots? Does that mean that we shouldn't trust them when they say that the 2012 Camaro out performs the 2012 Mustang, that it rides nicer and is more forgiving in corners? Of course not, and although the person writing the (car) article was probably present during the testing... he probably wasn't the one setting up the testing equipment or verifying the numbers. 

Jobs get delegated, if you're in the legal field, or advertising, sure, the wrong word or number might get you fired... as there is often a great deal of money riding on it. The same can't be said for DxOMark, which is just a free service that was born out of DxOLabs legitimate business, they have no need to strive for excellence in their web translations, their current incarnation is just fine, occasional errors and all.

they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison.

The 5D3's ISO sensitivity for 50 and 100 is exactly the same (tested at an actual ISO 80). The raw files get flagged for Canon's software to process differently, but the way DxO tests the raw files there is probably no difference between the two. Canon software pulls it down a partial stop. Basically Canon's ISO 50 is a software cheat, so who gives a damn. In reality the 5D3 really does only go down to it's 100 setting, which is effectively ISO 80. Long story short, that quote of the 5D3 going down to ISO 100 could have been a mistake, or it could have been deliberate... since the raw files are identical except for some flagging that tells Canon's software how to process the "ISO 50" file.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 05:09:20 AM by Wrathwilde »

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2012, 06:13:44 AM »
What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo?  What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.   

Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

YoukY63

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2012, 06:51:38 AM »
What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo?  What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?
Then I would have prompted several typos and incorrect informations from other highly respected websites such as DPReview or PhotoZone. Because yes, I already found some (especially incorrect infos) on these websites too. Even in American or British websites. About characteristics that can matters to people, not a stupid mispelling. But who cares, they are just few mistakes as everybody on earth can do.


The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.
Since it did not happened, as you pointed out, do you plan to apologize to DxO people for trying to make them look like fool and stupid?  ::)
Canon 5D MkII + 24-105mm f/4L + 70-200mm f/4L IS + 35mm f/1.4L + 85mm f/1.2L + 135mm f/2L + Sigma 50mm f/1.4EX + Samyang 14mm f/2.8

Wrathwilde

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
    • Anarchy Photography
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2012, 10:06:33 AM »
What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo?  What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.

(And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.)

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures. See quotes below...

All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process. 
they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50

As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother... when the best course of action would be to share them on the DxOMark forum, where the mods can actually see the issues being brought up about their articles and reviews, research them to find out if they actually are mistakes or not, and correct them if necessary.

I can tell you right now that if DxOLab's testing procedures were as worthless or as suspect as people like you, and some others on this forum, make them out to be... then the software they use that compiled data for, namely DxO Optics Pro, would be absolutely worthless... instead of the kickass software it is. You may disagree with their numbers and testing procedures, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and that is reflected in the ability of their software to maximize image quality for the Camera's and Lenses they have run through their testing procedures. If their tests weren't exceedingly accurate, their software would suffer horribly... something I don't think most of the people here complaining about DxO's testing procedures seem to grasp. If their testing is worthless... then their software would be too, that's obviously not the case.

Which isn't to say that their overall camera score isn't biased toward certain sensor attributes, just that the actual measurements from their testing has to be exceedingly accurate to generate the results DxO Optics Pro is capable of.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde


« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 05:12:31 PM by Wrathwilde »

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2012, 07:32:17 PM »
Quote
Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures


yes..still feel that way.  but not just from a two typos and an error.  It's an accumulation of what I consider many "head scratching" reviews/tests they have made.  As one example, I mentioned their crazy 70-200 2.8 is ii review where they give it a dxo score 10%-40% lower than OLDER model sigma, nikon, and sony 70-200's....even though the newest canon is widely considered one of the best ever by most others.

also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors. 

also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon.  I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses.  another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.

I have others but I'll stop there..


Quote
As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother.


because there are people on CR that might be interested.

also...  you said their product is not the information, but their software.... yes, I obviously know that.  my point is that when they present information in a review or from a test, then their product becomes the information...and the info(product) should be accurate and typo free.

some have said, give them a break, everyone makes mistakes....yep, I get that too.  BUT, as an almost 15 year veteran of corporate america, I can tell you that most professionals that are very good at their job, and produce presentations or reports for a client or their boss, don't typically make multiple mistakes on one page   Some professionals that are average at their job or don't pay much attention to detail probably would make this type of error....and there you have it.

also...yes, I'm writing in "quick mode" so don't take the easy shot at my writing/grammar
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 07:40:12 PM by Northstar »
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14711
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 07:52:20 PM »
also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors. 

also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon.  I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses.  another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.

No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores:

Quote from: DxOMark
The DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.
The Optical Metric Scores consider the classical or standard measurements used to rate the performance of a lens, such as resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission and chromatic aberration.

The lens score is dependent on the camera used. Nikon sensors score higher, ergo Nikon lenses score higher. Simple.

Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon.

Personally, I find the DxO Measurements quite useful, and their Scores rather useless.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2012, 07:52:20 PM »

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2012, 10:11:29 PM »
Quote
  No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores: DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.

yes...I understand.  But, to post a "score" for the old nikon 70-200 paired with the a 5dx at 27, and the current canon 70-200 is ii with a 5d2 scores an 18, would imply that the nikon lens (the old model) is roughly 50% better than the new canon.  this is where I take issue...the scoring for lenses and cameras isn't accurate, and implies a significant advantage to nikon which is just not the case....simple.


Quote
Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon

good point

Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2012, 10:11:29 PM »