5DS scores at DXO **now posted**

[Sporgon]

Wow so much hate for DXO Mark.

I have run my own tests Nikon vs Canon as myself and my family own both types of gear, and I can replicate every result that DXO produce.

I even managed to replicate an interesting flaw in their testing, one lens showed better sharpness at f16 than all others, I replicated this and discovered that this lens did not actually stop down to F16 but was still at F11 giving the erroneous result.

I have found them to be extremely reliable, and these new figures they have posted pretty much match exactly what everyone else is saying.

For example, they say that the low light score, ie the ISO performance is behind that of the D810, but very similar to that of a 5DMKIII

DP Review example pics show exactly this.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

They say the dynamic range is behind that of the D810, but improved from previous Canon cameras.
DP Review examples show the same thing.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7

What all these results show is that unlike Sony and Nikon, who have managed the feat of giving you more pixels and better iso and better DR all in the same full frame package, Canon have simply scaled up the 7D MK II's crop sensor with all its compromises. It is not a great leap forward in technology, and the upcoming Sony 42Mpix backlit sensor is probably going to destroy it.

An interesting point, I tested Nikon D810 with 24-70 vs Canon 5DMK II with 24-105 lens, I found that the Nikon at 70mm resolved the same as the Canon at 105mm. As a *system* this is what matters when producing a file. And that is what DXO Mark scores showed this. They also showed that the Nikon 24-70 would suffer CA in the corners, and that is what I found.

So I expect that now there is a system that has 50mpix and some great lenses, you will see Canon lenses up top with some of the best performing sharpness scores, and I think we will see the big white telephotos finally showing just how sharp they are on a sensor that can resolve all they can give.

Then if you have so much experience with these different systems how do you explain the DxO scoring of APS sensors against FF ?

On many of the Sony or now Toshiba crop sensors DxO has them equal to, or even higher than, FF sensors. Yet if you use a 'higher rated' crop sensor alongside an 'inferior' FF sensor the FF is significantly better in terms of colour definition, tonal graduation, overall definition, practical resolution......the list goes on.

Likewise the extra DR of the Exmor sensor (and I guess Toshiba from what I have seen of the D4 data) is of little practical value outside of artificially raising shadow data, so the 'scores' are biased to this end result - which is of little use to the majority.

 

[dufflover]

Ever since the D800 came out people have countlessly demonstrated practical use of the higher DR and particularly cleaner shadows, even if the change itself doesn't make-or-break the image (in which case I'd like to see people defend paying premiums on their lens choices). Hey I can easily say really high ISO shooting is stupidly artificial too or the differences in ISO noise between the brands, or heck crop and FF are of no use to the majority either.
(no, sadly I don't either which would be nice )

 

[9VIII]

OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........

It's like the editors of these websites are sleeping. DPReview and Petapixel still haven't picked up the story yet.

This will generate thousands of page views for them -- you think they'd be more on it.

- A

DxO says: "Canon delivers a 50 MP camera that delivers image quality that's just about as good as our new DxO ONE iPhone camera attachment."

Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...

Because when people like DxO run a business based on spreading nonsense and lies about something you care about, you can't just take that sitting down. They are an active force and the passive approach isn't going to be very effective at counteracting the loads of misinformation being spread.
I'm sure there are lots of people entering the hobby who look at DXO scores and think they're very smart for doing so, when the opposite may be true.
Yes, a sceptical mind should see theough it, and there may even be some good information to be had, but all too often people come on the internet just wanting to do a minimum of reading to verify they aren't making a bad choice, these are the bread and butter of DxO and various Youtubers, and it's important that the common culture they see when dipping their toes into photography doesn't take everything at face value.

 

[K]

In photography, seeing is believing.

There are many side by side RAW comparisons of the 5DS vs D810 - and the IQ of the 5DS is superior, and not just in resolution.

This goes for lens tests too.

At the end of the day, all that matters in photography is the final output. What you can SEE and how the image LOOKS. Based on this, Canon does NOT lag behind Nikon or Sony at all. In many ways, they are superior.

You can choose to believe some contrived pseudo-scientific tests from DXO to formulate a numerical rank for sensors and then base the IQ result on that OR..... you can simply look at RAW images from both systems side by side and see for yourself. If a person has a shred of honesty in them, and isn't blind - they'll find that Canon is either equal or better in many situations by just looking at the real world output - photos!.


Remember folks, DXO rates the D3300 better than the 1DX. That's all you need to know.


Now, if your photographic technique is solely based on severely underexposing at ISO 100, then pushing 3+ stops in post to achieve washed out ( "recovered" ) images - Nikon/Sony is for you. No question about it.

For everything else, Canon is the choice.

 

[sanj]

OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........

It's like the editors of these websites are sleeping. DPReview and Petapixel still haven't picked up the story yet.

This will generate thousands of page views for them -- you think they'd be more on it.

- A

DxO says: "Canon delivers a 50 MP camera that delivers image quality that's just about as good as our new DxO ONE iPhone camera attachment."

Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...

Because when people like DxO run a business based on spreading nonsense and lies about something you care about, you can't just take that sitting down. They are an active force and the passive approach isn't going to be very effective at counteracting the loads of misinformation being spread.
I'm sure there are lots of people entering the hobby who look at DXO scores and think they're very smart for doing so, when the opposite may be true.
Yes, a sceptical mind should see theough it, and there may even be some good information to be had, but all too often people come on the internet just wanting to do a minimum of reading to verify they aren't making a bad choice, these are the bread and butter of DxO and various Youtubers, and it's important that the common culture they see when dipping their toes into photography doesn't take everything at face value.

In that case, it may be better not to log onto their website and ignoring them. Discussing only gives them publicity. IMHO.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...

For a group of people who don't respect DXO, CR members sure spend a lot of time commenting on it. ???

 

[mskrystalmeth]

Oh Canon No! IF you cannot beat an Old 36.3mp Sensor from a few years back, How can you beat the New Sony 42.2mp Sensor coming out very soon. Canon..What did you do wrong? lol

 

[benperrin]

Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...

For a group of people who don't respect DXO, CR members sure spend a lot of time commenting on it. ???

I think it's just that people dislike misinformation but like sanj said the best course of action is probably to ignore it.

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.

 

[BobHope]

Wow so much hate for DXO Mark.

I have run my own tests Nikon vs Canon as myself and my family own both types of gear, and I can replicate every result that DXO produce.

I even managed to replicate an interesting flaw in their testing, one lens showed better sharpness at f16 than all others, I replicated this and discovered that this lens did not actually stop down to F16 but was still at F11 giving the erroneous result.

I have found them to be extremely reliable, and these new figures they have posted pretty much match exactly what everyone else is saying.

For example, they say that the low light score, ie the ISO performance is behind that of the D810, but very similar to that of a 5DMKIII

DP Review example pics show exactly this.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

They say the dynamic range is behind that of the D810, but improved from previous Canon cameras.
DP Review examples show the same thing.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7

What all these results show is that unlike Sony and Nikon, who have managed the feat of giving you more pixels and better iso and better DR all in the same full frame package, Canon have simply scaled up the 7D MK II's crop sensor with all its compromises. It is not a great leap forward in technology, and the upcoming Sony 42Mpix backlit sensor is probably going to destroy it.

An interesting point, I tested Nikon D810 with 24-70 vs Canon 5DMK II with 24-105 lens, I found that the Nikon at 70mm resolved the same as the Canon at 105mm. As a *system* this is what matters when producing a file. And that is what DXO Mark scores showed this. They also showed that the Nikon 24-70 would suffer CA in the corners, and that is what I found.

So I expect that now there is a system that has 50mpix and some great lenses, you will see Canon lenses up top with some of the best performing sharpness scores, and I think we will see the big white telephotos finally showing just how sharp they are on a sensor that can resolve all they can give.

Then if you have so much experience with these different systems how do you explain the DxO scoring of APS sensors against FF ?

On many of the Sony or now Toshiba crop sensors DxO has them equal to, or even higher than, FF sensors. Yet if you use a 'higher rated' crop sensor alongside an 'inferior' FF sensor the FF is significantly better in terms of colour definition, tonal graduation, overall definition, practical resolution......the list goes on.

Likewise the extra DR of the Exmor sensor (and I guess Toshiba from what I have seen of the D4 data) is of little practical value outside of artificially raising shadow data, so the 'scores' are biased to this end result - which is of little use to the majority.

If you look at those scores, lets compare the 5DMK III to the D7100 for example.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-D7100___1009_795_865

You will find the scores again match up with reality, the Nikon has very very slightly better colour depth, much better DR and much worse ISO performance.

And if you look at DP Reviews published Raw files and try to push the shadows for the 5d Mk3 you will see it has a horrible performance, with lots of noise, but worse is the banding which is almost impossible to automatically remove.

And if you look at the high iso studio shots for the D7200, you find it has poor ISO performance over iso 800 and the 5DMK III twice as good - which is exactly what the DXO numbers show.

And you talk about overall resolution and practical definition, well, again if you check DXO's number you find they accurately represent this - and that the same sigma 50mm lens is sharper on the Canon Full frame cameras than it is on the APS-C Nikon camera.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__202_865_201_795

Again we can see with our own eyes that DXO's numbers are accurate, and in fact there are many measurements where the the Full frame camera beats the APS-C camera and that is accurately represented.

The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure, but the reality is Canon are using sensor technology 10 years out of date and desperately needs to build a new chip fab plant, and this is the price they are paying for this lack of investment.

And regarding DR being useless, it is incredibly useful in the real world ! I have taken photos of birds in flight where I have been able to recover the details of their eyes and the colour of the irises, bringing the photo to life. I no longer need a fill flash to shoot in direct sunlight. I can get beautiful backlight shots and bring the eyes and the face back into balance without banding or noise or loss of skintones. I can shoot weddings in a dark church and have the couple and the sunlit stained glass window all exposed perfectly.

 

[blanddragon]

I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.

+1 Totally agree.

 

[mskrystalmeth]

...and to CR...Why didn't you post the Entire Comparison Results. Nikon D810 VS Sony A7r VS The Canons? CR...You edited out the full results.

 

[Loswr]

I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.

Exactly. Biased Scores. Bad Science. BS.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm beginning to think that some people are paid to login here and comment on Canon cameras by Canon and that anything that speaks negatively about Canon and its products are therefore insulted and derided. Otherwise there's no other way to make sense of certain comments.

Just like you are trolling the forum putting down anything that is Canon.

I don't put just anything down, I put things down where and when they deserve to be.

And here is your massive error: you are not objective, so you "put things down where and when they deserve to be" based on YOUR needs or expectations. You seem unable to grasp the simple idea that other people's needs and expectations may differ considerably from yours. For example, some people believe life's too short to risk shortening it by riding a fast motorcycle, while others believe life's too short not to enjoy it to the fullest, even with considerable risk.

Summary: You are not the arbiter of objective truth on this or any other matter. Of course, neither is anyone else. It is a matter of selecting the right kit for your needs and budget. Even Neuro has said (prior to the 5Ds) that if he were primarily a landscape shooter he'd probably use a D8x0.

 

[sanj]

"And regarding DR being useless, it is incredibly useful in the real world ! I have taken photos of birds in flight where I have been able to recover the details of their eyes and the colour of the irises, bringing the photo to life. I no longer need a fill flash to shoot in direct sunlight. I can get beautiful backlight shots and bring the eyes and the face back into balance without banding or noise or loss of skintones. I can shoot weddings in a dark church and have the couple and the sunlit stained glass window all exposed perfectly."

I agree.

 

[3kramd5]

The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure

That composite score is by and large what people like to poke fun at. And really, that's what it is: poking fun; nobody real is genuinely offended by DXO Mark, and even those of us who find their scoring wonky/inconsistent tend to appreciate the underlying data.

But even some of the data makes me go "huh."

For example, for testing dynamic range, they use a pretty nifty rig with controlled lighting and a series of ND filters. From their description: "We use filters having different light absorption levels ranging from 0% to 99.99% in order to test across a dynamic range of 4 density steps (= 13.3 f-stops — a dynamic range much greater than today’s digital cameras)."

But then their results show several cameras with DR significantly higher than their testing methodology can possibly measure (e.g. 14.8 f-stops)

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

[... recently overheard (yes, in the late 1800's) in a smoke filled brasserie along the left bank...]

Manet: Did you see the latest DXO results? That new brush sure kicks *ss!

Monet: Oh ya. But it's a flawed study. It's a French company that did the testing and you know how we can't be trusted to test anything coming from outside France, right?

Renoir: Hold on a moment. Have you seen my latest painting? It was made using one of those new wowy-zowy brushes.

Manet: I didn't like it. It sux, frankly. The background wasn't as smooth as the ones I paint and your skin tone and resolution aren't as good as they should be. Besides, my old brush set still can put paint to canvas and my work can blow your's out of the water!

Renoir: Ha! Hardly. Or as they say in America - "not even!" How many women do you expect to woo, how many strangers to you expect to impress, and how many paintings do you expect to sell if you don't keep up with the latest developments in the Great Brush Race? Huh??

Manet: Well that's it! I'm convinced. My next paintings will all be made using these new brushes. But what do I do with all my old paintings that were made with clearly inferior brushes? Do I burn them, hang them on urinal walls or give them away to the English who have no taste in anything?

Monet: Ah cr*p! I'm outta here. Y'all are such morons.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Don Haines]

In all of this, NOBODY! denies that Sony/Nikon has more DR than Canon. Likewise, though depending on the type of photography and conditions you shoot in, the utility of having more DR ranges from "it will have little effect" to "gotta have it" there isn't anyone who would complain if the DR was increased.

Nikon having the best DR does not make it the best camera. Likewise, Canon having the best AF does not make it the best camera. You can not focus on one aspect and use it to represent the entirety. It is as failed of a concept as the earlier lens example where we fixated on aperture and came to the conclusion that the 50F1.8 is superior to the 600F4IS II. There are so many variable to consider that the statement is meaningless. You can't even say that one is better than the other for birding.... is the bird 200 feet away or is it 2 feet away?

The problem is boiling a camera (or a lens) down to a single metric and not revealing how that metric was obtained.

Since photography is a collection of diverse goals, needs, and resources.... having a single metric means that the score will be biased. If you calculate the metric based on the needs of a landscape photographer, it will be biased against studio photographers. If you calculate based on the needs of studio photographers, it will be biased against wedding photographers..... and so on.... and so on..... and so on.... You can't win!

You people can argue the details until the cows come home and there will be no resolution. The problem is the concept. The details are meaningless under a faulty concept.

 

[Coldhands]

I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.

I think this statement neatly encapsulates the sentiment among the science/engineering members here.

It's analogous to the way I get angered about things like alternative therapies, the "Food Babe" (and her ilk), anti-vaccination, etc. They claim to be science-based when in reality they are pseudo-science at best.

Does it affect me directly? No. But it irks me to think of the people who don't have the background to be able to recognise real science from this junk.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Gawds! you sound so French. Really. You do. And that's a good thing, too.

I've seen where Anglo-Saxons can argue over a topic without fully understanding where their data is strong and weak, nor how it was generated in the first place.

It's easy to argue numbers, but more difficult to argue reality.

...You people can argue the details until the cows come home and there will be no resolution. The problem is the concept. The details are meaningless under a faulty concept.