5DS and 5DS R Sensor Scores at DXO

[Dylan777]

And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D

DxO for the WIN!!!!!

Rumor has it that Sony A7s is the best sports camera for shooting midnight snail races ;D

BIF with 28mm next ;D

AF speed is fast, just need to time it guys. It does great job indoor and much smaller/lighter to carry around. We plan to visit our little condo in Maui this summer. The ONLY camera I'm going to bring is A7s + full backpack of battery ;D

 

[Neutral]

And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D

DxO for the WIN!!!!!

Rumor has it that Sony A7s is the best sports camera for shooting midnight snail races ;D

BIF with 28mm next ;D

AF speed is fast, just need to time it guys. It does great job indoor and much smaller/lighter to carry around. We plan to visit our little condo in Maui this summer. The ONLY camera I'm going to bring is A7s + full backpack of battery ;D

Good examples for those who judge a7s without possibly never trying it but reading from internet. This makes me smile ))
What is interesting that though continious AF on a7s is not so fast as AF on1dx but a7s can track objects all across the frame (corner to corner) which 1Dx can not do.
I found one interesting aspect of this a7s capability.
Lock on AF allows use continious AF for focusing on something quickly using center focus area and then recompose frame with focus being kept on the main subject.
Much more convinent than moving focus point around the frame. This could be done to some extent with 1dx but less convinient as 1dx does not show AF lock area moving accross frame and size of focus area is not so flexible as on A7S. Focus area (box) in focus lock mode actually adjusting itself to the size of the tracked object and aways visible while following the object.
This is very convinient.
On a7s and other a7 bodies there are 8 custom programmable handles (buttons and dials) and when set from defaul settings to what is actually required this makes the body is very convinent.
After done that I found my a7s to be much more convinient for many things than 1DX.
Also face recognition and focus on eye by pressing set button features are so handy, do not know how i was doing without that before. Just single press of button and focus locked on person eye. I wish I would have that on my 1DX. Many things would be much more easy and faster

 

[3kramd5]

Of course it has pretty decent tracking (almost certainly better than my A7R), but that's not the point.

The standard should be "would those who publish the rankings choose according?" If whomever is in charge of the DXO ranking algorithm was offered any two cameras for the upcoming Olympics and selected anything other than the a7s and Nikon df, the ranking scheme is flawed. Any guesses as to what he/she would pick?

 

[Sporgon]

Of course it has pretty decent tracking (almost certainly better than my A7R), but that's not the point.

The standard should be "would those who publish the rankings choose according?" If whomever is in charge of the DXO ranking algorithm was offered any two cameras for the upcoming Olympics and selected anything other than the a7s and Nikon df, the ranking scheme is flawed. Any guesses as to what he/she would pick?

Which ever it was someone would have to show them which end to point at the subject.

 

[bdunbar79]

The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.

 

[Dylan777]

And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D

DxO for the WIN!!!!!

Rumor has it that Sony A7s is the best sports camera for shooting midnight snail races ;D

BIF with 28mm next ;D

AF speed is fast, just need to time it guys. It does great job indoor and much smaller/lighter to carry around. We plan to visit our little condo in Maui this summer. The ONLY camera I'm going to bring is A7s + full backpack of battery ;D

Good examples for those who judge a7s without possibly never trying it but reading from internet. This makes me smile ))
What is interesting that though continious AF on a7s is not so fast as AF on1dx but a7s can track objects all across the frame (corner to corner) which 1Dx can not do.
I found one interesting aspect of this a7s capability.
Lock on AF allows use continious AF for focusing on something quickly using center focus area and then recompose frame with focus being kept on the main subject.
Much more convinent than moving focus point around the frame. This could be done to some extent with 1dx but less convinient as 1dx does not show AF lock area moving accross frame and size of focus area is not so flexible as on A7S. Focus area (box) in focus lock mode actually adjusting itself to the size of the tracked object and aways visible while following the object.
This is very convinient.
On a7s and other a7 bodies there are 8 custom programmable handles (buttons and dials) and when set from defaul settings to what is actually required this makes the body is very convinent.
After done that I found my a7s to be much more convinient for many things than 1DX.
Also face recognition and focus on eye by pressing set button features are so handy, do not know how i was doing without that before. Just single press of button and focus locked on person eye. I wish I would have that on my 1DX. Many things would be much more easy and faster

You just opened up the A7 secret... ;D I do get missed focus shots with that.

On the other side, the Eye Focus is excellent. Shooting with FE55 @ f1.8, I can say my rate is 99.9%. Can't wait to hand on the new Batis 85mm and 25mm.

1Dx has Face focus feature in LiveView, but much slower than Eye Focus in A7.

There is no perfect camera. I would care less what others have to say about mirrorless. I enjoy open my camera closet and pick out proper tool for my shooting. In another words, why not enjoy the best from both worlds

 

[Don Haines]

DXO is always right.... after all, they rate the 7D2 as superior to the 1DX in low light..... and the 50F1.8 is a much better lens than the 600F4.....

No, they dont rate 7dmk2 as superior to 1DX at higher iso
and 50/1,8 may well considered better than 600mm in terms of the criteria DXO has presented

Not sensor ranking.... CAMERA ranking.....

 

[3kramd5]

If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.

 

[Don Haines]

If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.

I have said it before and it bears repeating....

Any attempt to reduce a complex system being used by diverse users under diverse conditions to achieve diverse goals, into a single metric, is doomed to failure.

The problem is not how DXO achieves their rating metric, it is the delusional belief that a single rating metric can either be achieved, or that it is of any merit.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Interesting! According to DXO, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM resolves 20.5mp mounted to a Canon 6D!! The sensor is only 20.2mp, so I guess it manages to increase the camera's resolution somehow...seems legit.

 

[3kramd5]

If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.

Seems to back up the group thinking here where everyone desires faster lenses over slower lenses.

Not sure why you consider a common desire to be groupthink, or why you think a preference for fast lenses is unique to this community ("here"), but no one rational prioritizes aperture above all.

Nobody who requires 600mm will buy a 24/1.4 or 50/1.2 instead for the same purpose because the latter are faster than the supertele (which would be the required outcome to indicate groupthink). Rather, those two don't even belong in the trade study.

Lumping all lenses together, regardless of purpose, and writing a single number to determine which is better than the others, is beyond ridiculous. It is however likely a confident way to get eyeballs on the screen which would ordinarily be put off by the constituent data.

 

[benperrin]

Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.

Start a thread about the 16-35 f2.8 II vs the 16-35 f4 IS and the f4 quite often comes on top. Sometimes speed is a priority and sometimes it isn't.

 

[Neutral]

The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.

Do you really want to tell that 1dx or any other DSLR servo AF is able to track objects on the frame area where there is no focusing points ? If so then how it is done in the frame corner where here is no focusing points ?
Or you want to tell that 1DX has focusing points area covering the whole frame?
That all above (that it is possible to focus without focusing points) is really interesting and if true then this would be real revolution for DSLR focusing in normal mode ))) .
This would be dream for many people.
I am not talking about live view on 1DX which I find so much inconvenient and cubesome compared to a7s and a7r. Never use live view on 1DX. I am talking about normal DSLR shooting mode using mirror and separate AF sensor.
I have both Canon1DX and Sony a7 and can compare both and use each one for which it is suited better.
1DX and a7 complement each other very well for different situations.

 

[Loswr]

Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.

Right, because...there's no difference in image quality between those two lenses, none at all. Even if there is, no one cares about that, only the faster aperture matters. At least, that's true in dilbertland.

 

[Don Haines]

Three photographers walk into a bar.... a wedding photographer, an astrophotographer, and a sports photographer..... The walk up to the bar together and sit down on three stools, and the bartender says "what brings you three in here"

The wedding photographer says, "I went looking for a car that was elegant so it would not look out of place at weddings". The astrophotographer said "I was looking for something small and nimble with four wheel drive to get to the observatory at the top of the mountain" The sports photographer said "I was looking for something that could carry my gear and I could park under the stadium".

Then the wedding photographer said "we all understand that horsepower is the most important metric to consider when buying a vehicle, so we based our decisions on that"..... and the sports photographer said "so we all bought mega-sized mining dumptrucks and once we realized what we had done, came in here to drink ourselves silly"

The bartender said "GET OUT!"

The moral of the story: Don't fixate on a single metric.

 

[Don Haines]

Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.

Start a thread about the 16-35 f2.8 II vs the 16-35 f4 IS and the f4 quite often comes on top. Sometimes speed is a priority and sometimes it isn't.

and the 70-200F4IS is a lot easier to backpack (and afford) than the F2.8 version......

 

[jeffa4444]

Faster aperture obviously has it purpose in low light or desired minimum depth of field etc. but in certain photography has limited benefits like in Landscape. Whats interesting as sensors provide greater DR the use of these lenses is unchanged even though sensors like the ones made by Sony in the Nikon D810 or their own A7R provide better low light sensitivity. Many fast lenses are poorer with even field illumination than their slower counter-parts and still need to be stopped down to attain good overall sharpness or less chromatic abberations and tend to be heavier due to larger light gathering glass which in itself significantly increases the cost.

 

[jeffa4444]

If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.

Seems to back up the group thinking here where everyone desires faster lenses over slower lenses.

Not sure why you consider a common desire to be groupthink, or why you think a preference for fast lenses is unique to this community ("here"), but no one rational prioritizes aperture above all.

Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.

In Cinematography thats always the case, in photography it very much depends on "what" your principle subject is. For me I want the best lens for even field illumination and overall edge to edge sharpness for Landscape and faster lenses on average are worse and moreover not needed because greater DOF is more important for most subjects.

 

[bdunbar79]

The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.

Do you really want to tell that 1dx or any other DSLR servo AF is able to track objects on the frame area where there is no focusing points ? If so then how it is done in the frame corner where here is no focusing points ?
Or you want to tell that 1DX has focusing points area covering the whole frame?
That all above (that it is possible to focus without focusing points) is really interesting and if true then this would be real revolution for DSLR focusing in normal mode ))) .
This would be dream for many people.
I am not talking about live view on 1DX which I find so much inconvenient and cubesome compared to a7s and a7r. Never use live view on 1DX. I am talking about normal DSLR shooting mode using mirror and separate AF sensor.
I have both Canon1DX and Sony a7 and can compare both and use each one for which it is suited better.
1DX and a7 complement each other very well for different situations.

It depends on what you mean by "no focusing points area." The actual AF sensor is much larger than the rectangle you see, so I have grabbed subjects well to the left or right of the outer points.

But if you mean in a true sense, true edge to true edge, then I can be on board with that. I would appreciate coverage out farther to the edge of the frame.

 

[3kramd5]

If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.

Seems to back up the group thinking here where everyone desires faster lenses over slower lenses.

Not sure why you consider a common desire to be groupthink, or why you think a preference for fast lenses is unique to this community ("here"), but no one rational prioritizes aperture above all.

Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.

Perhaps that would be the result and even the reasoning. It wouldn't apply to this discussion however. The proper thread to show your assertion would be about whether to get the EF600mm f/4LII or the EF50mm f/1.8II. If you are indeed correct about a groupthink mentality here, the conclusion will be get the 50mm because it's faster.

I assume the real conclusion would be: those two lenses are used for completely different things, but since adding the 50 to the order will be in the noise cost-wise, if you can afford the 600, get both.

For lenses with a smaller price difference, I assume the real conclusion would be dependent on purpose. Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home; nobody would suggest the 50 for distant birds in flight.