5DS scores at DXO **now posted**

[Sporgon]

The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).

In the past, I've defended DxO against claims of direct brand bias. Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.

Maybe if Aglet asks them nicely, they'll fix that mistake, too. I guess he didn't notice them staunchly defending their initial 70-200/2.8 L IS vs MkII results that they changed a year later, probably he was too busy cursing at his inability to use his 5DII.

A photographer is professional or unprofessional. A camera is simply the tool that can make the photographer's life easier or more difficult. A camera does not make the photographer more or less professional. Digitalrev's pro-photographer/cheap-camera challenge shows how the creative and technically proficient photographer can still produce surprisingly good images from really meager equipment.

In summary, a camera is a tool when working properly just does what it is programmed to do.

p.s. Sometimes photographers are also tools but that's another discussion entirely

Au contraire ! It has been conclusively proved here on CR that the 6D is not professional. It doesn't have two card slots and specifically doesn't come with a guarantee of reliability when shooting weddings in the rain.

 

[Maximilian]

...
It may be that the results of some of DxO's sub-tests (for want of a better description) provide useful info, but the fact is DxO promotes its camera scores and lens scores as an important part of its test results. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion.

And that is life.

When you watch olympians compete in gymnastics, do they get one score out of 10 or do they get multiple scores for each aspect of their performance? Answer, one score out of ten.

I think you should go watching gymnastics a little bit more often, because the scoring system has changed a while ago
It is the same as with figureskating:
They don't get just one score anymore but a summary of multiple points and factors for individual parts of thier exercise, because there was too much cheating in the background. The scoring system was restructured and laid open for all to see because of that.

And that is life, too.

 

[Treblid]

The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).

In the past, I've defended DxO against claims of direct brand bias. Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.

Maybe if Aglet asks them nicely, they'll fix that mistake, too. I guess he didn't notice them staunchly defending their initial 70-200/2.8 L IS vs MkII results that they changed a year later, probably he was too busy cursing at his inability to use his 5DII.

A photographer is professional or unprofessional. A camera is simply the tool that can make the photographer's life easier or more difficult. A camera does not make the photographer more or less professional. Digitalrev's pro-photographer/cheap-camera challenge shows how the creative and technically proficient photographer can still produce surprisingly good images from really meager equipment.

In summary, a camera is a tool when working properly just does what it is programmed to do.

p.s. Sometimes photographers are also tools but that's another discussion entirely

Au contraire ! It has been conclusively proved here on CR that the 6D is not professional. It doesn't have two card slots and specifically doesn't come with a guarantee of reliability when shooting weddings in the rain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

To me a professional service provider takes full responsibility for delivering on the spec required and taking all reasonable steps to mitigate risks.

So a 6D was not able to work in certain situations. Have 1D-X and 5D-III bodies never failed? In every case was the camera at fault or was the photographer not adequately prepared for the situation(s).

Jerry Ghionis shot a wedding with an iPhone, which placed 4th in a major competition but this was only possible because of his expert knowledge on lighting, posing and people skills, and the fact that he was prepared for the
situations that the event entailed. When someone needs wedding pics they hire a photographer, not a fancy camera with attached monkey to push button.

A certain well known photographer tripped and fell when walking through a stream while hand-holding his 500L and 5D-III. The 500L was okay but the 5D-III's lens mount was ripped out due to the impact. Was the 5D-III "not professional" enough or did the photographer not exercise necessary caution to mitigate risks of falling and damaging his equipment?

Cameras are not professional or unprofessional they have more-features or less-features, which can make a photographer's life easier or more difficult. A photographer can be professional or unprofessional in the way they conduct themselves and how they treat clients/co-workers and in the speed and quality of the work they deliver.

 

[benperrin]

Jerry Ghionis shot a wedding with an iPhone, which placed 4th in a major competition but this was only possible because of his expert knowledge on lighting, posing and people skills, and the fact that he was prepared for the
situations that the event entailed. When someone needs wedding pics they hire a photographer, not a fancy camera with attached monkey to push button.

Jerry didn't shot a wedding with an iPhone, he took a couple of images on the iPhone after he had captured the shot with his usual gear. But yes the photographer is the most important part of the equation in general but there are times where gear certainly does help.

 

[Maximilian]

...
The scoring system was restructured and laid open for all to see because of that.
...

And the individual scores are there for everyone to see on DxO. The "portrait" score, the "landscape" score, the "low light score." Unfortunately they're not all on the same scale of 1-10 so it is harder for DxO to aggregate them.

And harder for us to understand because their system is NOT laid open and inconsistencies are sometimes too much obvious (and already discussed to end).

Does anyone want to say that the 5DS deserves a better score than the D810?

Again it depends to the weighting of that unknown scoring system.
I am surely not saying that the Canon sensor is better. And I am the last to say they should not improve.
Maybe I'd prefer other parts of the design to be improved than you.
But I am also not the one saying that ISO 100 to 400 is "normal" as you do. It was in the film days, as higher ISO films were much worse compared to high ISO on sensors. But I shoot a lot above ISO 800, so it is not normal to me - anymore.
And then it comes to the system argument: A Camera is not only the sensor.

And as long as DxO does not reveal their scoring methods, as long as they measure lenses by including the sensor performance, as long as they keep producing inconsistencies their reputation will not become better to me. Maybe they should just concentrate on makeing outstanding software and stop publishing scoring tables.

 

[Sporgon]

The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).

In the past, I've defended DxO against claims of direct brand bias. Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.

Maybe if Aglet asks them nicely, they'll fix that mistake, too. I guess he didn't notice them staunchly defending their initial 70-200/2.8 L IS vs MkII results that they changed a year later, probably he was too busy cursing at his inability to use his 5DII.

A photographer is professional or unprofessional. A camera is simply the tool that can make the photographer's life easier or more difficult. A camera does not make the photographer more or less professional. Digitalrev's pro-photographer/cheap-camera challenge shows how the creative and technically proficient photographer can still produce surprisingly good images from really meager equipment.

In summary, a camera is a tool when working properly just does what it is programmed to do.

p.s. Sometimes photographers are also tools but that's another discussion entirely

Au contraire ! It has been conclusively proved here on CR that the 6D is not professional. It doesn't have two card slots and specifically doesn't come with a guarantee of reliability when shooting weddings in the rain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

To me a professional service provider takes full responsibility for delivering on the spec required and taking all reasonable steps to mitigate risks.

So a 6D was not able to work in certain situations. Have 1D-X and 5D-III bodies never failed? In every case was the camera at fault or was the photographer not adequately prepared for the situation(s).

Jerry Ghionis shot a wedding with an iPhone, which placed 4th in a major competition but this was only possible because of his expert knowledge on lighting, posing and people skills, and the fact that he was prepared for the
situations that the event entailed. When someone needs wedding pics they hire a photographer, not a fancy camera with attached monkey to push button.

A certain well known photographer tripped and fell when walking through a stream while hand-holding his 500L and 5D-III. The 500L was okay but the 5D-III's lens mount was ripped out due to the impact. Was the 5D-III "not professional" enough or did the photographer not exercise necessary caution to mitigate risks of falling and damaging his equipment?

Cameras are not professional or unprofessional they have more-features or less-features, which can make a photographer's life easier or more difficult. A photographer can be professional or unprofessional in the way they conduct themselves and how they treat clients/co-workers and in the speed and quality of the work they deliver.

I was joking.

Of course the 6D is professional when used in a 'professional' way.

 

[Loswr]

The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).

In the past, I've defended DxO against claims of direct brand bias. Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.

Maybe if Aglet asks them nicely, they'll fix that mistake, too. I guess he didn't notice them staunchly defending their initial 70-200/2.8 L IS vs MkII results that they changed a year later, probably he was too busy cursing at his inability to use his 5DII.

A photographer is professional or unprofessional. A camera is simply the tool that can make the photographer's life easier or more difficult. A camera does not make the photographer more or less professional. Digitalrev's pro-photographer/cheap-camera challenge shows how the creative and technically proficient photographer can still produce surprisingly good images from really meager equipment.

In summary, a camera is a tool when working properly just does what it is programmed to do.

p.s. Sometimes photographers are also tools but that's another discussion entirely

I agree with the sentiment (both of them, actually ).

The issue is not in the labels, but in the lack of logic and likely bias behind them. Shall we declare the 1D X a Pro camera, and the D4S as 'Semi-pro'? Clearly not.

To the extent that people use DxOMark as a research tool, it's an issue (and I suspect many do because reducing camera performance to a single number makes it easy for them, and yes I used 'camera' intentionally there). Given the state of professional photography, I suspect there are more D810s and 5DIIIs in the hands of amateurs than professionals. For some, that 'professional' label influences purchasing decisions.

The problem is broader than that, though. It's obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that like the D4S and 1D X, the D810 and 5DIII/5Ds belong in the same category (whether that category is pro or semi-pro). Nikon Europe places the D810 in the professional category, likewise Canon Europe places the 5DIII/5Ds in the professional category. Nikon Europe doesn't categorize the D750. Yet DxO made the conscious, intentional decision to categorize the D810 and D750 as 'pro' and the 5DIII and now the 5Ds/R as 'semi-pro'. When a supposedly 'independent' (which implies impartial) organization displays that kind of brand-specific bias in one area, that suggests a corporate culture that tolerates such bias...and may allow it to spill over into other areas. Their entrée into selling cameras and their artificial inflation of their own product's ranking in their own black box scoring system belies their independence and impartiality, and further erodes their credibility.

 

[Loswr]

And that is life.

When you watch olympians compete in gymnastics, do they get one score out of 10 or do they get multiple scores for each aspect of their performance? Answer, one score out of ten.

Answer: wrong.

And that is life in dilbertland.

 

[Don Haines]

A pro will use the right tool for the job... based on several factors, including affordability. That might mean getting a 1DX, a rebel, or a GoPro.... How DXO chooses to label a device does not matter.

 

[scyrene]

My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.

If you couldn't use the 5d2 either you were trying to shoot fast moving objects or the problem was you. Having owned that camera since it came out I can say it is a fantastic camera capable of amazing images. I certainly wouldn't curse it.

My 5d2 was, IMO, a large chuck of photographic fecal material with inconsistent metering, lots of noise and banding from shadows to midtone, and only worked reasonably well in full manual mode. My 7d was similarly loathsome for IQ altho it had a wonderfully capable AF system and pretty quick handling. They both paled in comparison to my 40D and older Rebels in the usable IQ department, so ya, I couldn't use it.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinions vary. But given how widely the 5DII has been praised, I have to place your experience as an outlier.

 

[Sporgon]

My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.

If you couldn't use the 5d2 either you were trying to shoot fast moving objects or the problem was you. Having owned that camera since it came out I can say it is a fantastic camera capable of amazing images. I certainly wouldn't curse it.

My 5d2 was, IMO, a large chuck of photographic fecal material with inconsistent metering, lots of noise and banding from shadows to midtone, and only worked reasonably well in full manual mode. My 7d was similarly loathsome for IQ altho it had a wonderfully capable AF system and pretty quick handling. They both paled in comparison to my 40D and older Rebels in the usable IQ department, so ya, I couldn't use it.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinions vary. But given how widely the 5DII has been praised, I have to place your experience as an outlier.

Yes, Aglets's relationship with the 5DII might raise some eyebrows. I've used one since 2009, the 5D alongside it and on its own since 2005. I now use a 6D as well. I just don't know where he's coming from in this 'banding in skies' which he has often referred to, many 'noise and banding in mid tones'.

However I do think it's fair to say the 5DII isn't particularly forgiving of incompetent operation when compared with some other cameras. Read into that what you will.

 

[Viggo]

My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.

If you couldn't use the 5d2 either you were trying to shoot fast moving objects or the problem was you. Having owned that camera since it came out I can say it is a fantastic camera capable of amazing images. I certainly wouldn't curse it.

My 5d2 was, IMO, a large chuck of photographic fecal material with inconsistent metering, lots of noise and banding from shadows to midtone, and only worked reasonably well in full manual mode. My 7d was similarly loathsome for IQ altho it had a wonderfully capable AF system and pretty quick handling. They both paled in comparison to my 40D and older Rebels in the usable IQ department, so ya, I couldn't use it.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinions vary. But given how widely the 5DII has been praised, I have to place your experience as an outlier.

I like a lot about the 5d2, but the metering and the AF is pretty useless for everything I use a camera for. But the IQ, handling, functions and everything else is veryvery good.

 

[mskrystalmeth]

Poor Canon Spinners.

I must remind the Canon Fan Boys.

When DXO reviewed the ever new Canon Duo's ...They were tested against...the Ever Old Sony 36.3mp Sensors from a few years back...NOT...the new Sony 42.2MP....So, if Canon cannot beat the old testing and ratings...Give up CANON! lol It is so true to the real photographers out there...That Canon Produces, old dusty sensors. Canon has always lag'd behind the Sony Sensors in their own products and Nikons.

 

[erjlphoto]

Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)

...
DXO may be the name for sensor scores, but they are outright batsh-- crazy with lens testing. Their lens findings are inane, contradictory, and eye-rolling. Plastic fantastics outperforming big whites, ...
...

Again, there is no reason why a plastic fantastic cannot outperform a big white.

If I make the perfect 50mm/1.4 lens and put it in a plastic case, why shouldn't it outscore a big white lens that is very good but not perfect?
He
Price and size has nothing to do with how good a lens is at drawing an image.

Understand your point, but Canon does not make a big white 50mm f/1.4 lens for comparison. I own the old 50 f/1.4 and that would not be hard for ANY other lens to beat

 

[ahsanford]

Poor Canon Spinners.

I must remind the Canon Fan Boys.

When DXO reviewed the ever new Canon Duo's ...They were tested against...the Ever Old Sony 36.3mp Sensors from a few years back...NOT...the new Sony 42.2MP....So, if Canon cannot beat the old testing and ratings...Give up CANON! lol It is so true to the real photographers out there...That Canon Produces, old dusty sensors. Canon has always lag'd behind the Sony Sensors in their own products and Nikons.

I'm sorry... This is a private thread. It's intended only for everyone in the world but you.

You might want to check out the forums at DPReview. Now those folks now how to bring the cutting insights that you are so fond of.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

When it comes to camera sensor scores the problem here is that DxO publish numbers that some people here don't like and rather than accept the numbers are an aggregate of others, they dispute them and their formulation. There's no evidence to show that the numbers are wrong and there's no evidence of bias - if there was any evidence of bias then it would be trivial for someone else to set up a similar facility to DxO and publish contradictory results. Nobody has, not even anyone from CR.

So jump up and down and shout all you like about the numbers being wrong or biased, etc, but until you've got your own test rig set up and are producing a better set of results than DxO, grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.

DxO have got respect from a lot of people that have a lot better credentials than those complaining here on CR but I won't be one to deny people their opinions but remind people that until they've got evidence to show DxO are wrong in how they score sensors, what they're saying is just an opinion and everyone has one of those...

It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....

You can not come up with an aggregate number without introducing bias. If I feel that colour depth is more important for my style of photography and you fell that DR is best for your style, we will agree that all the measurements are good, but never agree on how the aggregate score is calculated. This is the flaw in DXO... they went beyond taking measurements and introduced bias.....

 

[ahsanford]

It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....

+1. I've been saying this for some time. I don't really have an axe to grind with their metrics (save perhaps their perceptual MPix with lenses), I just can't stand their aggregate scores which categorically disregard the varying needs of photographers. Some folks live in a high ISO world while others live in the studio or on a tripod. It stands to reason they'd have different needs with their gear.

DXO would be a far more respected site if they had the following operating plan:

1) Collect data.
2) Describe your methods.
3) Report data on just the individual metrics.
4) [ crickets ]

Leave out the aggregate score. This thread never would have happened if so.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

...
It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....

You can not come up with an aggregate number without introducing bias. If I feel that colour depth is more important for my style of photography and you fell that DR is best for your style, we will agree that all the measurements are good, but never agree on how the aggregate score is calculated. This is the flaw in DXO... they went beyond taking measurements and introduced bias.....

Can you demonstrate with actual scores for different cameras where you see evidence of this bias?

Dilbert, I don't think that's what he means. In this case, it's not a brand bias so much as 'all photographers all over the world would only want this kind of camera' bias. How they roll up the aggregate score weights things in a way not everyone might want.

A concert photog is probably far far far more concerned about high ISO performance than how much DR the rig has at ISO 100. A studio portraiture person might more heavily prioritize color. A landscaper, on the other hand, might love DXO's aggregate score as it is. Everyone's needs are different.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

...
It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....

You can not come up with an aggregate number without introducing bias. If I feel that colour depth is more important for my style of photography and you fell that DR is best for your style, we will agree that all the measurements are good, but never agree on how the aggregate score is calculated. This is the flaw in DXO... they went beyond taking measurements and introduced bias.....

Can you demonstrate with actual scores for different cameras where you see evidence of this bias?

You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.

...the Sensor Overall Score describes the results of measurements only on sensors and is essentially related to image noise (for example, a difference of one f-stop offsets the Overall Sensor Score by approximately 15 points)...

Image noise has a more significant impact on sensor score than color depth, for example. That's called bias. It's perfectly fair for them to set up their own biases (another word could be 'weightings'), I just wish they'd disclose them.

 

[Loswr]

You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.

...the Sensor Overall Score describes the results of measurements only on sensors and is essentially related to image noise (for example, a difference of one f-stop offsets the Overall Sensor Score by approximately 15 points)...

Image noise has a more significant impact on sensor score than color depth, for example. That's called bias. It's perfectly fair for them to set up their own biases (another word could be 'weightings'), I just wish they'd disclose them.

How is DxO ONE SuperRAW™ getting its own separate score a 'measurement only on sensors'?? It's perfectly reasonable for them as a private company to test whatever/however they want, but it ruins their credibility as independent/impartial testers.