Believing in scores - or not

[xps]

DXO posted it´s sensor score on the 1DX III.

Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Sensor review

The new Canon EOS-D1 X Mark III sensor achieves an overall DXOMARK score of 83, which puts it 67th place overall in our database of full-frame and MF sensors (but in 47th place among full-frames).

www.dxomark.com

For my friends, who own this new body, the score is rubbish. They report the III is better than the II in low light situations and noise too.
So, believe in this score - or not.

My personal experience with the Sony 7R mk IV (that is scored around 99) is not that good. A lot of noise about 400 ISO. There my 8 points lower scored 5 D IV has lesser noise - on the same lenses and situations. So, this score is nice, but in real life meaningless.

 

[Ozarker]

If we are turning to charts and scorecards to figure out whether or not what we already have is any good or not, then we are sidetracked and persnickety over nothing. Go out and shoot. Dang it. All modern digital cameras are pretty darn good. If our photos suck, the camera isn't the problem. "My sex life is bad. The problem must be the sheets."

I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm just saying that there seems to be an over emphasis on scores and reviews these days and an under-emphasis on technique and developing skill. I see page after page after page about DR, sensor readout, noise, blah blah blah... and scant little on proper lighting, how to hold the camera, composition, etc.

Who cares what DXO scores a camera at?

 

[AlanF]

Read their summary:
"Sports journalism is a highly competitive field and requires a camera that can keep pace with the action unfolding in front of the lens. The Canon EOS-1D X Mark III has been designed with that one goal in mind. Although we at DXOMARK test only sensor performance and no other features, at face value it’s an incredibly fast DSLR with not only blazing AF speed, incredible continuous shooting rates and a prodigious buffer, but also an equally impressive sensor. Admittedly, it’s not quite at the cutting edge in our metrics for sensor performance, but there’s far more to it than that."

Come on, you can't complain about that? They are saying there is more to it than their metrics.

 

[xps]

Read their summary:
"Sports journalism is a highly competitive field and requires a camera that can keep pace with the action unfolding in front of the lens. The Canon EOS-1D X Mark III has been designed with that one goal in mind. Although we at DXOMARK test only sensor performance and no other features, at face value it’s an incredibly fast DSLR with not only blazing AF speed, incredible continuous shooting rates and a prodigious buffer, but also an equally impressive sensor. Admittedly, it’s not quite at the cutting edge in our metrics for sensor performance, but there’s far more to it than that."

Come on, you can't complain about that? They are saying there is more to it than their metrics.

Of course, I tried to mention that with "So, this score is nice, but in real life meaningless."
But nevertheless, that the Score is lower than the MK II version - is that - as an coming buyer - I want to see? Really not.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The method for calculating DXO scores is kept a secret. That means it is set to weigh heavily on whatever represents their values. There are test results and the testing method is given, so go to the base data and see the underlying data to produce your own score.

 

[Michael Clark]

The method for calculating DXO scores is kept a secret. That means it is set to weigh heavily on whatever represents their values. There are test results and the testing method is given, so go to the base data and see the underlying data to produce your own score.

Or go to other highly reputable testing sources that are more open about what and how they measure.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm (hint: lower is "better")

 

[Michael Clark]

Here's the basic explanation for why the 1D X Mark III's score is lower, relatively speaking:

For whatever reason, DxO found that the 1D X Mark III is amplifying the signal at each ISO setting more than one stop brighter than previous cameras. Cameras which to underamplify to protect highlights tend to score better at DxO Mark.

 

[Aussie shooter]

If we are turning to charts and scorecards to figure out whether or not what we already have is any good or not, then we are sidetracked and persnickety over nothing. Go out and shoot. Dang it. All modern digital cameras are pretty darn good. If our photos suck, the camera isn't the problem. "My sex life is bad. The problem must be the sheets."

I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm just saying that there seems to be an over emphasis on scores and reviews these days and an under-emphasis on technique and developing skill. I see page after page after page about DR, sensor readout, noise, blah blah blah... and scant little on proper lighting, how to hold the camera, composition, etc.

Who cares what DXO scores a camera at?

Its true. I have some amazing photos from a 7d2 which is universally panned on its sensor performance. Of course it does not have as much latitude as newer FF sensors but if you know how to use it the results can be amazing

 

[stevelee]

Its true. I have some amazing photos from a 7d2 which is universally panned on its sensor performance. Of course it does not have as much latitude as newer FF sensors but if you know how to use it the results can be amazing

I have not figured out the point of underexposing by 3 or more stops, which must be in fashion from what I read. Is it to avoid blowing out highlights? I find that highlight recovery in ACR is good enough if that is a risk. There is not that much color information in the brightest levels anyway, so not much to lose when the recovery uses just a channel or two.

For more extreme circumstances, there are bracketing and HDR mergers. I find those work well even in my G cameras for, say, shooting dark cathedral interiors and keeping the color in the stained glass windows.

Most of the time, I'm not interested in the insignificant details such as spider webs in the corner or washed out stuff in distant reflections.

 

[BillB]

Here's the basic explanation for why the 1D X Mark III's score is lower, relatively speaking:

For whatever reason, DxO found that the 1D X Mark III is amplifying the signal at each ISO setting more than one stop brighter than previous cameras. Cameras which to underamplify to protect highlights tend to score better at DxO Mark.

View attachment 191004

So, if you set the camera to underexpose by a stop, the DxO score should go up. Amazing!

 

[Maximilian]

...
So, believe in [...] score - or not.
...

I believe in a tool, that I have in my hand and that I can use.
I believe in the output, that results in my skills to use this tool and in creativity.

If you take a closer look at such numerical "scores" you might find that they differ by less than 5%. Sometimes maybe more.
If you then compare this with your own eyes, you might be not able to see this 5% in test chart comparisons.
If you then think about how much % is left in your skills, creativity and patience to improve your output, maybe you come to the same conclusion as I did:
"It's me! It's me that can improve the image quality much more than some new gear."
And:
"Even if that piece of gear is 5 to 10% better, I still have to have the ability to squeeze that out of that better tool!"


So forget about charts and scores, go out enjoy the gear that you have and the pics you take with it, and if you feel limited by it and have the money, spend it...