Canon vs Nikon at DxOMark

[Hardproducer]

How can this be?

Link 1:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon

Link 2:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/757/(lens2)/756/(brand1)/Sigma/(camera1)/680/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/895

At link 1 DxO tels us that the sensor of the nikon is much better. But at link 2 i attached the same type of lens and then the canon is better.
Means this that sigma makes the lenses better for canon or that nikon is only good without lenses?

 

[Sporgon]

I think it means that when DxO actually put a lens on the camera their results go out the window.

 

[jrista]

How can this be?

Link 1:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon

Link 2:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/757/(lens2)/756/(brand1)/Sigma/(camera1)/680/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/895

At link 1 DxO tels us that the sensor of the nikon is much better. But at link 2 i attached the same type of lens and then the canon is better.
Means this that sigma makes the lenses better for canon or that nikon is only good without lenses?

It means DXOMark lens tests are pretty useless. ;P

 

[tcmatthews]

DxOMark Lens tests are often flawed beyond being marginally useful.

Their M43 are performed with a camera that is by most accounts the worst Micro 43 ever made. This is true for the Sigma DN 30 M43 review.

There Sony Nex reviews are all done with the Nex 7. And every time they review a wide angle lens on the camera they blast the lens for problems in the corners. There is a know issue with the micro-lens one the Nex 7 that exhibits problems with all wide angle lens. They never mention the camera sensor flaw.

Their bias extends beyond Canon.

 

[BruinBear]

Im assuming its because on their sensor review they focus on things like DR and color while their lens reviews take their "perceptual MP" rating into account. Since the 70 is 20 MP vs the 12 MP D7000 thats probably the difference right there.

Oh, also, DXO sucks and their ratings are useless. :

 

[Northstar]

Dxo...I first became suspicious as to the quality of their information when I noticed typos and incorrect grammar in some of their articles...i thought, this is supposed to be a "quality" site for reviews?

Then, when I saw things like what you've pointed out in this post, I lost a great deal of respect for their work. There are lots of "head scratchers" in their lens reviews.

 

[Aglet]

DxO reports what they measure, they're not really interpreting it for you. Same lens can perform quite differently on different model bodies of same brand, that's what they're all about measuring.

only problem I have with them is their vague "scoring" which, in the case of lenses, actually includes a factor for the sensor noise of the camera it's mounting on?!?... WTH?!?

Meanwhile, convert your first lens link to a pair of 12MP cameras of the same era (D300s and 450D) and the comparison is very close. FWIW.

 

[tron]

I think it means that when DxO actually put a lens on the camera their results go out the window.

;D

 

[zlatko]

DxO thinks that the original Canon 85/1.2L is sharper than version II of the same lens. They give the original a sharpness score of 18, and they give version II a sharpness score of 15. Is there any photographer who has used both lenses who concurs that the original was sharper? I don't.

I find that version II is better overall, with better coatings and less flare and faster autofocus. (The original could catch some crazy flare.) And yet they have the exact same score on DxO.

 

[Pi]

At link 1 DxO tels us that the sensor of the nikon is much better. But at link 2 i attached the same type of lens and then the canon is better.
Means this that sigma makes the lenses better for canon or that nikon is only good without lenses?

Means that the Nikon sensor is better in what they measure: noise, DR, color separation, etc. The single number score means nothing, look at the individual factors.

The second test is a sharpness/vignetting, etc., test on the corresponding body, it measures very different things. The difference might be due to many factors, one of them being copy variation.

 

[sdsr]

Dxo...I first became suspicious as to the quality of their information when I noticed typos and incorrect grammar in some of their articles...i thought, this is supposed to be a "quality" site for reviews?

Aren't they French? If so, their English isn't too bad. Imagine if it were the other way around....

 

[sdsr]

DxOMark Lens tests are often flawed beyond being marginally useful.

Their M43 are performed with a camera that is by most accounts the worst Micro 43 ever made. This is true for the Sigma DN 30 M43 review.

[snip]

It actually gets rather comical if you look a bit closer. As anyone who's read a bit about m43 knows, the Olympus 75mm 1.8 seems to receive nothing but lavish praise, both in terms of image quality and as an elegant piece of engineering (to these eyes, at least, it's about as attractive as a lens gets). DxO acknowledges that it's the best m43 prime (for some reason they reviewed it based on its performance on a Panasonic body, where it scored 23 overall and 11 for sharpness, which I'll henceforth write as 23/11), but you can tell they've become a bit fed up with all the praise it receives and try to deflate the m43 enthusiasts' bubble:

"If you’re a convert to the smaller and lighter Micro Four Thirds cameras then the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f/1.8 is excellent, but to put it into some context it’s not in the same league as other portrait lens and camera combinations. Take for example the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G mounted on a Nikon D3X lately reviewed." (The score of the Nikon 85 1.8G on the D3X is 35/17.)

All sorts of things popped into my mind on reading this, such as - Why wouldn't the highest scoring lens at DxO, on one of Nikon's best FF cameras, yield better results than even the best m43 combination? ("$500 lens on $7000 body beats $900 lens on $900 body shock horror!") Why aren't you comparing a 75 1.8 m43 lens to a Nikon prime with an equivalent focal length (150mm)? Why do you keep mentioning the high price of this Olympus lens (c. $900 w/out discounts) without telling us the price of equivalent lenses in other systems, let alone while suggesting by way of comparison equipment worth $7500? For that matter, why not invoke the much cheaper D800, where the 85mm 1.8G scores even higher?

And then I started rummaging around with some of their numbers, leaving aside the oddity of comparing an 85mm with a 150mm lens. What if you put the Olympus on the best m43 camera, the OM-D? Its score goes up to 27/13. Not as good as the D3X score for the Nikon lens, obviously, but what if we try that Nikon lens on a few other Nikon bodies? On a FF D4 it gets 33/14 (i.e. sharpness much the same as the Olympus combo), while on a D700 it gets 28/11, which is exactly the same score it gets on the D7000.

After all that, the "gotcha" end of the review seems a tad inflated, shall we say.

 

[Loswr]

Aren't they French? If so, their English isn't too bad. Imagine if it were the other way around....

Merde!

 

[duydaniel]

You misunderstood the comparison. Let me explain

The sensor comparison was about color, dr, and iso.
The lens comparison was about sharpness which the 70D should be better due to higher resolution.

 

[jrista]

You misunderstood the comparison. Let me explain
...
The lens comparison was about sharpness which the 70D should be better due to higher resolution.

But that right there is the very problem. That isn't a lens test...it's a sensor test. A lens test should be sensor agnostic. It should tell you about the lens, not the sensor that was used with it.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Means this that sigma makes the lenses better for canon ... ?

A bit off-topic.
Tamron & Sigma lenses are expected to perform better on Canon than on Nikon mount, in my opinion.


We have to consider that Nikon crop factor is 1.5, while Canon's one is 1.6 and, therefore, an APS-C lens optically developed in order to get both mounts should have (slightly) less vignetting (and better transmission, maybe?).


(1.6^2)/(1.5^2)=1.137.
If the Sigma lens fits the Nikon mount, it has 13.7% more glass than strictly needed for a Canon APS-C mount.
To put it in other words: full frame lenses produce low vignetting on APS-C bodies, and a Sigma "Nikon Compatible" APS-C lens is slightly more "full-framish" than a Canon APS-C lens.
















Nevertheless,
I will not be surprised if similar results emerge from DXOMark tests on Full frame Nikon vs. Canon bodies with Sigma / Tamron lenses. ;D :

 

[duydaniel]

You misunderstood the comparison. Let me explain
...
The lens comparison was about sharpness which the 70D should be better due to higher resolution.

But that right there is the very problem. That isn't a lens test...it's a sensor test. A lens test should be sensor agnostic. It should tell you about the lens, not the sensor that was used with it.

The same lens mount on different body will produce different sharpness due to whatever megapixel the body has. When you test a lens, you use a controlled light setting where dr, iso is not the factor, the 70D edge out in sharpness due to higher megapixels. You cannot test the lens without a sensor in this setting

 

[9VIII]

If you look at DPR and SLRgear.com, those tests are good. They give sharpness from all points across the frame in all apertures and zoom levels. Trying to describe all that with a single number is really a horrible idea.

 

[Pi]

A bit off-topic.
Tamron & Sigma lenses are expected to perform better on Canon than on Nikon mount, in my opinion.


We have to consider that Nikon crop factor is 1.5, while Canon's one is 1.6 and, therefore, an APS-C lens optically developed in order to get both mounts should have (slightly) less vignetting (and better transmission, maybe?).

For this reason, third party lenses would perform better on Nikon crop bodies, not Canon. The 1.5 crop sensor are like mini-FF compared to Canon, which means a bit less enlargement.