DXO claim 1DX2 new class leader

[Larsskv]

...
I remember last time Rishi was in here... When he couldn´t convince people of the A7RII being superior at higher ISO, in a visual way, he started arguing with maths and formulas. How math is relevant in a visual comparison is yet to be explained... I´m sure bias couldn't have anything to do with it? :

Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."

You've seen the pictures with different shades of grey where the same color in one place looks dark than in another just because of what's around it? You could swear black and blue that one patch is darker but in actual fact it is not.

In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.

Sorry, Dilbert. You failed in cinvincing me that I should stop using my eyes, and in stead rely on DPR maths, when determining the tecnical quality of a picture.

Eye witness statements aren't usually anything to do with science, they are usually to do with law cases or claims about UFOs etc. As a scientist who has spent most of his career trying to "prove" mechanisms, I can assure you that direct observation is usually the closest we can get to "proof" because the evidence is real and not indirect from deduction. Indirect evidence can always be interpreted in different ways by different theories. All of this doesn't mean I don't accept measurements - I use them all the time, and the more accurate the better - it's that experimental observation is how you test different theories.

My point is that eye witness statements has everything to do with whether you prefer picture 1 over picture 2. Science is irrelevant in that regard.

 

[Mikehit]

My point is that eye witness statements has everything to do with whether you prefer picture 1 over picture 2. Science is irrelevant in that regard.

In hifi, it is undoubted that digital is more accurate but many people 'prefer' vinyl.
Too many people confuse the two.

It is often not the technology that is the problem but how it is used. To give 2 examples:
when Nikon started using Sony sensors they managed to get more out of the sensor than Sony did, bot subjectively and objectively.
With MFT cameras, I have spoken to a few people who preferred the out-of-camera stuff in an Olympus camera but preferred the Panasonic raw file to work with.

As far as I can see, DxO for all its sins is trying to measure the nature of the raw data coming from the sensor. There is plenty of room for people and technology to muck it up once they get that raw data.

 

[3kramd5]

...
I remember last time Rishi was in here... When he couldn´t convince people of the A7RII being superior at higher ISO, in a visual way, he started arguing with maths and formulas. How math is relevant in a visual comparison is yet to be explained... I´m sure bias couldn't have anything to do with it? :

Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."

You've seen the pictures with different shades of grey where the same color in one place looks dark than in another just because of what's around it? You could swear black and blue that one patch is darker but in actual fact it is not.

In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.

Sorry, Dilbert. You failed in cinvincing me that I should stop using my eyes, and in stead rely on DPR maths, when determining the tecnical quality of a picture.

Eye witness statements aren't usually anything to do with science, they are usually to do with law cases

Of course, in law, eye witness statements are highly unreliable. Accounts vary from witness to witness, and often just one witness will relate different or contradictory information when asked multiple times. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is an incomplete understanding of a situation. I was once accosted and deemed a racist because I used the word niggardly. The witness didn't have a complete understanding; that which he heard was not that which was spoken.

Fortunately, when most of us look at photos, we aren't trying to prove anything.

 

[sebasan]

Looking the data more in detail (graphs on SNR, DR, etc) in both modes (screen, print), and compared specially with the D5, D810 and A7RII, I get the conclusion that the overall 88 points is really short, specially when the A7RII gets 98. I am not going to explain in detail why I think that, I invite that everybody look the data more in detail and get their own conclusion.

 

[East Wind Photography]

i wont look at the data because i dont really care what Dxo reports. All i will say is from my use and what i see, i agree with your perception. . Sony may be fine for some but it cant do what i need it to do so the rating is useless and irrelevant.

 

[Woody]

Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."...

In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.

Errr... in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????

 

[Larsskv]

...
Fortunately, when most of us look at photos, we aren't trying to prove anything.

And we're not trying to measure something. All that we're trying to do is work out if we like it or not.

Which is to say that if camera A produces images that are measurably worse in IQ than camera B but a person can still prefer the images from A or B based on what they like.

Yes, the main point is what you like and prefer, and somehow this main point is often overlooked by DPR and always by DXO! Still, personal preference isn't the whole story, I think. If you can't see a difference with your own eyes, including differences when pushing and pulling a file, it serves no purpose (other than beeing controversial, and get attention) to try to differenciate the scores, or using maths to declare a "winner".

I bet DXO's scoring system is designed mainly to provoke and get attention, and that is a good reason to why people should stop paying attention to them.

 

[Halfniak]

DxO have performed tests in their labs that are repeatable and measurable to come to these conclusions.

What tests have you yourself done with all three cameras to show otherwise?

That's the problem, Dilbert. They're the only show in town* that is distilling sensor performance into numbers.

Unlike with lenses, where each lens that gets tested has 3-4 other places effectively doing the same test, DXO stands alone here, so they are the loudest voice on the subject. Everyone else just posts IQ samples, noise samples, etc. and lets photographers judge for themselves -- and that model of judgment can't be re-posted on Petapixel, DPR, etc. like DXO's work can.

- A

(*Yes, there are other places that do this but they get 1/100th the traffic because they tend to publish reports that resemble electrical engineering lab tests. Rank and file photographers can't process that information quickly or compare it to others in a simple web-driven interface.)

Here, have fun!

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

[JMZawodny]

I generally do not care much about what anyone writes as we all have our biases, conscious or otherwise. I do, however, value the DxO measurements (not the scores). Using the side-by-side comparison tool, I looked at the various plots comparing the 1Dx2, 5D2, and 7D2. They certainly confirm my experience with all 3 cameras. If you are willing to cut through the irrelevant material there are good objective data to be found on DXOmark.

 

[Mikehit]

Here, have fun!

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

So what is 'photographic dynamic range' as opposed to 'Dynamic range'?

 

[privatebydesign]

Here, have fun!

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

So what is 'photographic dynamic range' as opposed to 'Dynamic range'?

It is when you set your 'bottom' value to be something higher than 1. The value isn't constant across testers and that value might, or might not, align with what you personally consider 'too noisy'.

Bill Claff, at your link, uses a value of 20, so when the SNR crosses 20 he considers that is too dark to get meaningful data from. An 'engineering dynamic range' is when the SNR crosses 1, and that is the reason many manufacturers claim a DR that users just don't see.


http://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Sensors_&_Raw/Sensor_Analysis_Primer/Engineering_and_Photographic_Dynamic_Range.htm

 

[ritholtz]

Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."...

In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.

Errr... in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????

How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.

 

[romanr74]

...
I remember last time Rishi was in here... When he couldn´t convince people of the A7RII being superior at higher ISO, in a visual way, he started arguing with maths and formulas. How math is relevant in a visual comparison is yet to be explained... I´m sure bias couldn't have anything to do with it? :

Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."

You've seen the pictures with different shades of grey where the same color in one place looks dark than in another just because of what's around it? You could swear black and blue that one patch is darker but in actual fact it is not.

In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.

now that i know this i will have my pocket calculator handy next time i go to a photo exhibition

 

[Woody]

How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.

Sharpness / resolution? Yes, lens selection makes a difference.

SNR or noise? Nope, lens selection makes no difference.

We are examining SNR in DPReview comparison test.

 

[Loswr]

...
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

To get an idea of the "sameness" in Canon sensors, go to this link and select 6D, 5DII, 5DIII.

...then, just for funsies, add the Nikon D5.

 

[Stu_bert]

It is a good site (photonstophotos.net).

If any 1dx MK II owner would mind - you can send him RAWs through his specification update the graphs

http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm - right at the top of the page.


I know it is slightly off topic, but looking at this graph

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

Comparing all the high MP sensors, the 5Dsr is not as much adrift of Nikon/Sony as I had thought.

Whether a 1Dx MK II vs MK 1 is sufficient to highlight what improvements a 5Dsr mk II might bring I'm not sure.

Also the 80D vs the 5Dsr also paints an intriguing graph...

 

[Woody]

To get an idea of the "sameness" in Canon sensors, go to this link and select 6D, 5DII, 5DIII.
Then select 1DX and 5DsR.

Hey, you have chosen to ignore my post regarding DPReview's comparison:

"in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????"

I suppose if no one has any objection, we can conclusively state DPReview's statements are not based on unbiased observations and measurements, but are instead based on pure biasness and BS.

 

[ritholtz]

How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.

Sharpness / resolution? Yes, lens selection makes a difference.

SNR or noise? Nope, lens selection makes no difference.

We are examining SNR in DPReview comparison test.

Thanks Woody. I am assuming you are checking raw values like Bill Claff. Do we get proper noise comparison by comparing images at 100% view from dpr comparison tool.

 

[ritholtz]

To get an idea of the "sameness" in Canon sensors, go to this link and select 6D, 5DII, 5DIII.
Then select 1DX and 5DsR.

Hey, you have chosen to ignore my post regarding DPReview's comparison:

"in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????"

I suppose if no one has any objection, we can conclusively state DPReview's statements are not based on unbiased observations and measurements, but are instead based on pure biasness and BS.

I think, their class leading low light image quality is based on JPEG comparison. From their review:
"The new sensor offers class-leading low light image quality, especially due to an improved JPEG engine, but Raws aren't the most flexible when shooting high contrast scenes."

But they claimed DR at high iso better than 1dx2 which is also not completely true. Based on DXO, D5 has more DR only with couple of ISO's. Bill is yet to publish his DR calculations for 1dx2. Not sure what values they are referring to.

"Canon's new 1D-X II actually supersedes the base ISO dynamic range of the D5, thought it falls behind at high ISO."

Their D5 review definitely doesn't follow typical pattern they follow with Canon cameras like 7D2, 5D5 and 80d. They made very big deal out of low ISO DR for 7d2. But they said D5 matches with 6d. They started 80d review by claiming 80d video specs are inferior compared to competition. But ignored D5 specs compared competion (1dx2).

"But as with other Nikon DSLRs that shoot video, the D5 is first and foremost a stills camera, with video being a bonus if you need to take the occasional clip."

 

[Woody]

I think, their class leading low light image quality is based on JPEG comparison. From their review:
"The new sensor offers class-leading low light image quality, especially due to an improved JPEG engine, but Raws aren't the most flexible when shooting high contrast scenes."

DPReview used RAW images:
"Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests, high ISO Raw performance remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF. Noise performance falls slightly behind the Nikon D5 (and even the Sony a7R II when normalized) at very high ISOs."
- http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/2

This is inconsistent with what their comparison scene actually shows, as well as DXO numbers: