5DS scores at DXO **now posted**

[PureClassA]

And you'll notice the top review on Amazon of the 5DS & 5DSR is mine 8)

DPR paid me well.... Nothing. Lol

Hmmmm...and DPR reviews are incorporated into Amazon's product pages...because Amazon owns DPR. Manufacturers can certainly offer large retailers whatever terms they choose, with obvious implications for that retailer's profits. I'm sure DPR wants you to think they're impartial...just as DxO wants you to think they're doing good science. I know one of those isn't true, I'm not sure about the other.

 

[PureClassA]

And by the way, I figured I would cut the vitriol in here with something a bit more lighthearted. I popped an SD card with 5DSR pics into my 6D (took it with me on my 11th anniversary trip with wife today) and I got this LOL

 

[PureClassA]

I tend toappreciate the manner in which DPR breaks down full reviews. Really lets you dig into their scoring mechanism. Again, sometimes I concur, sometimes not. But unlike DxO, you can get your head around what they are doing and the 12 part breakdown (the bar graph tables they use on Conclusion pages) is really cool

Hmmmm...and DPR reviews are incorporated into Amazon's product pages...because Amazon owns DPR. Manufacturers can certainly offer large retailers whatever terms they choose, with obvious implications for that retailer's profits. I'm sure DPR wants you to think they're impartial...just as DxO wants you to think they're doing good science. I know one of those isn't true, I'm not sure about the other.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

According to dxo, 5DS scored 82 in Sensitivity metamerism index and 5DSR scored 74 only. I guess there is a science behind this.

Hmm that's weird the 5Ds gets much higher metamerism than the 5Dsr.
Would they really have used a different CFA in each model?
Could the double AA on the sr really alter the color that much???
I wonder if maybe they mistakenly copied over the wrong data for the 5DsR metamerism from some other camera.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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)

That's not what they do for the DR test itself where it's just clipping point and black frame.
You are probably looking at what maybe they use for the tonal range and color sensitivity plots?

Anyway back to the DR though, don't forget the DR Print scores are normalized to 8MP output, you don't get any sort of 14.8 stops at the 'per-pixel' level.

 

[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)

That's not what they do for the DR test itself where it's just clipping point and black frame.
You are probably looking at what maybe they use for the tonal range and color sensitivity plots?

I dunno, this is what they say they do, unless there is a superseding page (I can't find one, but that does not mean it does not exist, or that the protocol hasn't changed without mention).

The filters are made of pure optical glass with no structures that can be measured as noise. (While other image quality measurement solutions make use of printed targets, we believe such targets are inappropriate for noise measurement testing, as the intrinsic noise pattern of the print paper may be recorded by the tested camera and then confused with the camera’s own noise pattern.)
We place high-density filters on neighboring positions to limit reciprocal illumination of the patches.
The light box (placed behind the target) is composed of two fluorescent daylight spectrum tubes with a diffusing sheet on top, achieving a perfect uniformity on each filter. The luminance is about 1500cd/m2.
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). When shooting such a chart, the sensor of the camera being tested sees a wide range of light levels, with a 1/10,000 ratio from minimum to maximum. For comparison, a printed target dynamic is typically 2 density steps (6.65 f-stops), which is inadequate to simulate high dynamic range or back-lit scenes.
Each uniform zone on the chart (a “patch”) is measured for luminance (cd/m2) with a certified luminance-meter; then all the values are input into DxO Analyzer software.
Once we measure the target and calibrate the DxO Analyzer software, the selected camera shoots an image of the noise target at different ISO settings, and we measure the noise for each color channel of the target image (R, Gr, Gb, B). We compute the mean gray level and noise values for each patch and for all images shot at different ISO settings. We then interpolate these numerical values for all gray levels to calculate and plot signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) curves, from which DxO Analyzer extracts the SNR 18%, the dynamic range, and the tonal range.

So yes, they aren't counting from their fancy stop wedge (essentially), but rather using it to measure noise from which they deduce dynamic range

Anyway back to the DR though, don't forget the DR Print scores are normalized to 8MP output, you don't get any sort of 14.8 stops at the 'per-pixel' level.

Whoops. Yes. I with they'd show screen by default rather than the down sampled number. Regardless, they still don't have enough range on the tool to measure some of the numbers they publish.

 

[Aglet]

OTOH, there are people like Sporgon – a photographer with substantial talent (I've seen his website...and I've seen yours) – who bought and used the 36 MP Exmor along side Canon gear for some time. His three word review of Exmor: "I sold it."

just cuz sporgon didn't find any advantage in fitting an alternate platform into his workflow does not negate the real advantages of an alternate platform.
Someone's who's used to working with or around the shortcomings of their chosen platform may utilize similar methods on the alternate platform and that can bypass those advantages.

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.

 

[Aglet]

Yes, their extremely reliable data show that the 17-40L at f/4 is as sharp in the corners as in the center. Their extremely reliable data showed that the 70-200/2.8L IS was superior to its MkII successor, and when challenged they defended that conclusion...until a year later when they silently updated their data without admitting their mistake.

I do find their measurements generally useful, as long as they are viewed with the understanding that there are glaring errors in some of their data. I find their Scores to be useless and misleading.

I've also discovered erroneous lens data on their website. Instead of bleating about it incessantly on some web forum, I informed them, and it was corrected within a few weeks after exchanging some email. Perhaps they respond more quickly to some suggestions than others.'

 

[benperrin]

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.

 

[9VIII]

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).

 

[Aglet]

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.

 

[benperrin]

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.

Well the smiley at the end of your post says you may be using sarcasm but it is hard to tell when online. I had the 30d and my friend had the 40d and I can tell you right now that the 5d2 is a much better camera. I'll still be using it as my primary camera until my a7rII arrives and will still find it to be a fantastic camera. It does produce hot pixels during long exposures which can be annoying although it's not the only camera that suffers from that problem. If a very average photographer like myself can get decent images out of it I don't think it's the camera that is the problem.

 

[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.

 

[benperrin]

Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.

Just noticed that the 5dsr is also semi-professional. Oh well it's just a label.

 

[Eldar]

Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...

 

[sanj]

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.

Some may not curse Exmor. Each to his own...

 

[jd7]

Makes sense. dpreview likely doesn't have the in-house talent to properly engineer sensor tests for their camera reviews so rather than try to make up their own, they're using a well recognised 3rd party.

I'm glad you said "well recognised" rather than "well respected". I'm not even sure of the basis on which DxO claims its scores are "industry standard" (http://www.dxomark.com/About/What-is-DxOMark).

As Neuro has already pointed out, if you claim to be doing "scientific" testing, you should make your methodology crystal clear. Anyone with the gear and the inclination should be able to independently repeat the tests DxO is doing to see if he/she gets the same results. But no one can do that because no one knows how DxO arrives at its scores. It's bad enough trying to reduce a camera or lens to a single score when different people will use them for very different photographic purposes, but I guess a lot of reviews try to do that sort of thing. But for an organisation to try to set itself up as a credible testing organisation and then not explain its methodology is ... well, no one should take it seriously.

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.

 

[jd7]

Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...

Sums it up pretty well.

 

[Maximilian]

Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...

Sums it up pretty well.

+1
DxO? *yawn*
let's go out shooting with what we have

 

[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