5DS scores at DXO **now posted**

[LetTheRightLensIn]

as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded.

as expected, the fanboys will discredit DXO until such time as they publish a favorable outcome, then DXO will be all that matters.

as expected, real photographers will care little, and just use a tool for the job and move on. This is just a camera. Not a religion.

Generally the criticism of the company's scores seems pretty well-supported (I've not used the website much, so I can only go on the web chatter). Can you address their points rather than labelling them all 'fanboys'?

How about you provide the specifics? Where is everyone criticism all of their scores?
I only see fanboys doing that (regarding the sensor stuff that is, I have seen more reasonable people complain about their lens test scores, especially before they re-did them, there was a lot of WEIRD stuff their for lenses, even the specific details stuff not just the overall stuff)

Sure the overall sensor ratings and maybe even the overall low light sports score are questionable, but they present a ton of detailed scores too.

 

[psolberg]

as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded.

as expected, the fanboys will discredit DXO until such time as they publish a favorable outcome, then DXO will be all that matters.

as expected, real photographers will care little, and just use a tool for the job and move on. This is just a camera. Not a religion.

Generally the criticism of the company's scores seems pretty well-supported (I've not used the website much, so I can only go on the web chatter). Can you address their points rather than labelling them all 'fanboys'?

How about you provide the specifics? Where is everyone criticism all of their scores?
I only see fanboys doing that (regarding the sensor stuff that is, I have seen more reasonable people complain about their lens test scores, especially before they re-did them, there was a lot of WEIRD stuff their for lenses, even the specific details stuff not just the overall stuff)

Sure the overall sensor ratings and maybe even the overall low light sports score are questionable, but they present a ton of detailed scores too.

Are you seriously asking me to find people who are critical of DXO's canon scores? I'm not sure why you need help?

 

[Loswr]

Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
Only thing that is the same old bad penny here is you.

Sure their overall scores are a bit 'interesting' but you full well known lots of individual numbrs are not based on bad science, biased or bovine scat, but like any political operative you handily toss everything together and obfuscate while portraying yourself as the bastion of clarity, straightforwardness and all.

Sure, and we have learned members like psolberg quoting individual numbers like DR "in the mid 14's" for SoNikon sensors. Never mind that is only a mathematical determination following downsampling to 8 MP, never mind that the cameras can neither capture nor record >14-stops of DR.

Any individual or organization that doesn't publish their full methodology, that defends erroneous data and then silently corrects it months later, is conducting bad science. The problem isn't that DxO is doing these things – companies do that and much worse all the time. The problem is that DxO promote themselves as being, "...known and respected for [their] deep knowledge on the science of image processing," and even used 'image science' as part of their logo – and their science is...bad.

 

[noisejammer]

I don't want to argue for or against their methodology... but - excepting the D3s - you have to go back to 2008 to find a ff Nikon camera with an overall score that's comparable with the 5DS. Therefore, when measured using the DXO yardstick, Nikon's cameras are consistently better than Canon's.

I see this as a bit like IQ tests - all they really demonstrate is how good the subject is at answering IQ tests. Nevertheless, people who do well in IQ tests do seem to be smarter.

 

[RGF]

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030

Nevermind. It's official. The DxO One is a better camera than the 5D Mk III. And only a mere 2% below the 5DS.

Well, Sh!t ... I gotta go return my 5DSR now.

If I make the equipment and the test, you can assured that my equipment would score on my test

 

[captainkanji]

It would help if DXO removed the body cap when testing.

 

[Don Haines]

My problem with DXO is simple.

It does not matter if it is for lenses or sensors.... ( they test CAMERAS, not sensors)

It does not matter who the manufacturer is.

A camera/lens combination is a complex system. It is used by a wide range of people with very diverse goals, skills, and preferences. Any attempt to reduce this to a single metric (score) is doomed to failure because that metric will not be appropriate to the vast majority of users...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
Only thing that is the same old bad penny here is you.

Sure their overall scores are a bit 'interesting' but you full well known lots of individual numbrs are not based on bad science, biased or bovine scat, but like any political operative you handily toss everything together and obfuscate while portraying yourself as the bastion of clarity, straightforwardness and all.

Sure, and we have learned members like psolberg quoting individual numbers like DR "in the mid 14's" for SoNikon sensors. Never mind that is only a mathematical determination following downsampling to 8 MP, never mind that the cameras can neither capture nor record >14-stops of DR.

Never mind you know about normalization and the fair way to relatively compare cameras and we've already gone over that, but more obfuscation, big surprise.

 

[psolberg]

Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
Only thing that is the same old bad penny here is you.

Sure their overall scores are a bit 'interesting' but you full well known lots of individual numbrs are not based on bad science, biased or bovine scat, but like any political operative you handily toss everything together and obfuscate while portraying yourself as the bastion of clarity, straightforwardness and all.

Sure, and we have learned members like psolberg quoting individual numbers like DR "in the mid 14's" for SoNikon sensors. Never mind that is only a mathematical determination following downsampling to 8 MP, never mind that the cameras can neither capture nor record >14-stops of DR.

Any individual or organization that doesn't publish their full methodology, that defends erroneous data and then silently corrects it months later, is conducting bad science. The problem isn't that DxO is doing these things – companies do that and much worse all the time. The problem is that DxO promote themselves as being, "...known and respected for [their] deep knowledge on the science of image processing," and even used 'image science' as part of their logo – and their science is...bad.

lol you're really butt hurt over this DXO score no? Why do you care so much? Find peace in your photography. It is not a competition or a soccer match. You've shot canon's "limited" DR for this long and clearly you're ok with the results. Don't let somebody with 2 more stops bother you. I think what you need is not more DR or better tone curves: you just need to stop making gear a religion.

 

[scyrene]

as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded.

as expected, the fanboys will discredit DXO until such time as they publish a favorable outcome, then DXO will be all that matters.

as expected, real photographers will care little, and just use a tool for the job and move on. This is just a camera. Not a religion.

Generally the criticism of the company's scores seems pretty well-supported (I've not used the website much, so I can only go on the web chatter). Can you address their points rather than labelling them all 'fanboys'?

How about you provide the specifics? Where is everyone criticism all of their scores?
I only see fanboys doing that (regarding the sensor stuff that is, I have seen more reasonable people complain about their lens test scores, especially before they re-did them, there was a lot of WEIRD stuff their for lenses, even the specific details stuff not just the overall stuff)

Sure the overall sensor ratings and maybe even the overall low light sports score are questionable, but they present a ton of detailed scores too.

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

 

[Don Haines]

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that.

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.

 

[Phenix205]

Being a Canon fanboy 8), who the f cares about the DxO score. In the film era, how many people were really talking about so-called "best film" because no one judged a photo based on the film that was used.

 

[psolberg]

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that.

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.

just checking, but we're still taking sensor ratings which are done without lenses right?

 

[bdunbar79]

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that.

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.

just checking, but we're still taking sensor ratings which are done without lenses right?

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man the irony. You just discovered one of the many problems of DxOmark scoring.

 

[3kramd5]

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that.

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.

just checking, but we're still taking sensor ratings which are done without lenses right?

In the quoted post they're talking about lens scoring, which is a function of many things including sensor DR.

 

[psolberg]

Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.

You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that.

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.

just checking, but we're still taking sensor ratings which are done without lenses right?

In the quoted post they're talking about lens scoring, which is a function of many things including sensor DR.

Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.

 

[Perio]

As expected, the SoNikon fanboys will continue to turn up here like bad pennies, full of support for DxO's BS (which is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, Bad Science, and Bovine Scat, among other things).

On the top of bad science, there is conflict of interest since the release of DxO One.

 

[Loswr]

Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.

No, but then you wouldn't, would you? Just because Lance Armstrong doped in some of his races, doesn't mean he did in others. At least he finally admitted his mistakes, something DxO has failed to do.

 

[3kramd5]

Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.

It's just two parallel discussions.

 

[PureClassA]

I did a studio shoot with my DSR + 135L this weekend. I was looking at an image in LR and thought "Damn this looks incredible! Super sharp eyebrows and lashes and every detail beautifully preserved. Couldn't have looked better" Then I suddenly realized "Holy crap I'm only looking at 40% of the frame!" It was actually a bit freaky how much fine detail this thing yanks in. Even if I had framed in that same shot 50-60% tighter with my 5D III (effectively matching pixel for pixel what I was looking at), I still think the DSR would have retained more detail.

Again, the scores don't matter to me. I know when I look at comparison shots 5D III to 5DSR, I get a very noticeable jump in results that I'm very happy with. It's not fanboy-ism. It's just being a very happy customer like many others who own canon.