DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

[David Hull]

Interestingly, the low marks didn't seem to have affected the brand's prestige or sales. The same might be said of Canon's marks vs Nikon. It would seem most people view DxO Mark as little more than a scientific curiosity. Not something you'd base a serious purchasing decision on.

Most people, even most photographers, probably does not even know about DXO mark. I believe that primarily people reading forums like this knows about DXO mark.

The DXO measurements (and similar data produces by others) affect my equipment choices. But they are far from my only source, since they cover only a part of what makes a camera "good" to me.

I think that DXO have seriously shifted landscape photographers towards Nikon. Those who chose a 5Dmk2 in the previous generation might have chosen a D800(e) today partially motivated by DXO. Unless their lense needs (or investement) keeps them back.

-h

True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.

 

[7enderbender]

This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.

Maybe the Leica sensors are technically "inferior" in this or that way but I still like looking at the results some folks are getting. And I have to admit that I wish I could afford the M system. It would work well with my preferences.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ...

I'm not challenging or disproving (nor am I capable of) what DxO claims, but I've never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX says. Their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

How can you be so certain?
-h

Yes, I am absolutely certain bcoz I never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX or some other xxx company says or claims and their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

That in no way proves that their claims are irrelevant to you. It only perhaps indicates that you are ignorant of their results. Not the same thing.

Do you ever see noise in your images?

-h

You seem to be under some misguided impression that you know more than me, about what is relevant to my needs.

 

[David Hull]

True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.

I think that I have a some understanding and experience in digital photography. While I agree that for general photography, the differences tends to be minor, when the shot depends on a large capture DR, I find the work-arounds to be clumsy, time-consuming and possible shot-ruining.

Not something that newbies or professionals would want to do if they could avoid it.

-h

I think that I have a some understanding and experience in digital photography.

As do I and I have never found the so-called DR issues of any of the Canon products to be a significant limitation -- nor have countless thousands of others who use the stuff on a day-to-day basis for both professional and amateur work.

The particular value of this feature (like any other) is clearly dependent on what you shoot and how you shoot it (as you seem to allude). Over the years of discussing this stuff, and having significant personal experience with the gear in question, it has been my observation that most of these differences are significantly over hyped by individuals who seem to have specific agendas to promote. This is probably not the case with you, but there has been plenty of it about.

 

[David Hull]

This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.

Maybe the Leica sensors are technically "inferior" in this or that way but I still like looking at the results some folks are getting. And I have to admit that I wish I could afford the M system. It would work well with my preferences.

You seem to be doing the error of believing that "if camera A has better DR than camera B, then camera A must produce better images. If it does not, then DR must be wrongfully measured".

This is not so. People make wonderful images using low-DR capturing.

Just like a 36 MP camera does not in itself make better pictures than an 18 MP camera. The photographer makes pictures, the camera facilitates. A high-resolution camera can enable some images that would be hard to do on a 18 MP camera.

-h
-h

That sums it up right there IMO, there seem to be way too much focus on minutia, IMO.

 

[RS2021]

Dxo and Ken Rockwell make photography what it is..."entertainment". Don't complain.
I have always loved the form factor of the classic Leica...low key and classy but good performers at the same time.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You seem to be under some misguided impression that you know more than me, about what is relevant to my needs.

I don't know, neither do I claim to know what is relevant to you.

If you choose to be ignorant, neither do you.

-h

Just bcoz I do not worship DxO or share your interest does not make me ignorant. But I do agree with you that you "don't know" what is relevant to me.

 

[CarlTN]

People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.

Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
-h

I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant. When I mentioned lens sharpness and autofocus performance, I was saying that these are the only aspects of performance I personally am left with when shooting at low ISO, as noise or dynamic range don't concern me down there, because it's already very good. Perhaps read what I said again...No need to nitpick, is there?

Regarding dynamic range at low ISO...I disagree with you. I assume you are heavily into HDR work? People will always exposure bracket to produce HDR images, no matter how big a dynamic range the sensor can achieve. Why? Because they like doing it. They will always want to maximize the number of bits they get in a final HDR image, to ease their own mind, and to essentially use as a creative toy later. But at the end of the day, what they achieve merely becomes an 8 bit "painterly" cartoon before it gets printed or displayed anywhere as a jpeg. It's still not preserving dynamic range in reality as the eye/brain saw it (or in the future, as some very superior sensor saw it.) It's artistically impressionistic of reality. In the future, if there are display devices and software that can accurately display 32 or 48 bits of dynamic range (and they are widely adopted...and people actually enjoy viewing pictures/video on them)...ONLY THEN will maximum sensor dynamic range (at low ISO) be truely a valid issue...in my opinion. This would require a contrast ratio orders of magnitude beyond even the claimed "10 million plus" of OLED displays, etc. It would also require the display device's ability to reproduce luminosity equal to that of the sun, while also being able to reproduce a black that is literally zero light output. I won't hold my breath on this...nor will I quibble over the difference between 16 or 13 bits of dynamic range in RAW files...because mostly I produce prints.

Even if future sensors do achieve 18, 20, 24, 32, or 48 bits of dynamic range...most people will probably be paying $1k on photo software plugins that will squeeze the dynamic range back down so it gets represented on a print. It will still look cartoonish...and the more elements in the picture that actually stretched the dynamic boundaries, the more cartoonish it will look. Sure it can sometimes look great and artistic...but it's still not representing what your eye/brain saw, the way it saw it.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

But I do agree with you that you "don't know" what is relevant to me.

I have never claimed to know, so this is just you fighting strawmen.

-h

Since you think I'm "fighting strawmen" why are you replying :

 

[Rienzphotoz]

People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.

Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
-h

I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant.

My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D

 

[CarlTN]

My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D

Haha, no doubt! I don't even disagree with DXO's findings...I just disagree with their desire to hold up Nikon as "the best" sensor...because they're weighting their entire score based on ISO 100. I find I rarely shoot at ISO 100, unless I'm using a tripod. Perhaps DXO should just change their name to "tripod marks the spot"? Or maybe "ND filter/HDR marky mark"?

I love doing slow paced landscape work, but springtime really screams out for fast-paced wildlife work...or at least slow paced wildlife when it gets too dark for fast paced...haha.

For me, the issue is, choosing between 5D3 and 6D. I'd prefer to spend less...and I've not tried the 6D yet. However, the recent "Popular Photography" review said that the 5D3 preserved a higher percentage of its detail between ISO 6400 and 12,800...than did the 6D. The 6D's detail fell off steeply above ISO 6400, where the 5D3's didn't see the falloff until above ISO 12,800. Then there's the superior AF sensor and fps of the 5D3. And supposedly the 6D can't AF in low light any better, if even as well...as the 5D3 (despite claims to the contrary, at least via the 6D's center point). So if used 6D prices also see a big fall soon...all of this points me toward the 5D3. (i.e., it would hold it's value better, and otherwise provide superior perfomance in every way.) Time and my own trial and error will tell.

 

[CarlTN]

Haha, I never said HDR is "irrelevent to everyone", and it looks like your own ego is in dire need of getting over itself, and perhaps a trip to the corner to cry it out?

Since you imply you are blessed with HDR gifts, please post your best work here, right now, and allow me to critique it. The proof will be in the seeing. I promise I will be thoughtful and perfectly objective.

 

[wickidwombat]

People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.

Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
-h

I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant.

My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D

Cult...
I think that's more correct

 

[Rienzphotoz]

People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.

Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
-h

I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant.

My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D

Cult...
I think that's more correct

Ha ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Since you think I'm "fighting strawmen" why are you replying :

Because you are quoting my posts.

-h

OK so you are the "strawman"! ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

OK so you are the "strawman"! ;D

What exactly do you want to contribute to this thread?

-h

You should ask the same question to yourself ... I get it that you like DxO and that it means a great deal to you or whatever and I respect your belief in DxO, but that does not mean you insist on calling others ignorant and impose your "religion" on others ... but if you insist on doing that, then you can expect a lot of people getting back at you like so many have done on this thread coz many of us DO NOT CARE about what DxO has to say ... but it seems like it is too hard for you to understand that. :

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You may hate measurements or DXO or Nikon all that you want.

1. You seriously need to understand the definition of "do not care" and "hate" ... I never said I hate DxO ... looks like you are once again misguided by your assumptions.

2. I do not hate Nikon ... see my gear list below ... my everyday camera, lens combo is Nikon D7000 and 18-300 VR ... seems like misguided assumptions are your forte.

That does not give you the right to decide what will be discussed on a public forum, or how people will reply to your posts. If you feel bad whenever people mention "DXO", perhaps you should avoid actively clicking on a thread starting with "DxO..."?

You should practice what you preach. Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid

No, I have explained clearly why I believe that you are ignorant: because you keep saying that you don't care about what DXO has to say.

Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "lalala" is not a good way to educate your self.

-h

You clearly displayed, to everyone about, your utter ignorance by your misguided assumptions of my supposed "hate" of DxO & Nikon ... I think immature discussion and misguided assumptions seems to be your forte, so no point in discussing with you ... I'm outta here.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

That is not a tautology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
"using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct"

If a camera is allready asserted to be "good", then claiming that some measurement cannot change that assertion is, in my understanding, a tautology.

-h

Yes, but you are wrong in this case anyway. The statement is a general statement, nothing else.

 

[BrettS]

Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid

No, I have explained clearly why I believe that you are ignorant: because you keep saying that you don't care about what DXO has to say.

Doing the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "lalala" is not a good way to educate your self.

Now, if you actually read what DXO say, what independent sources find, and explain what you believe is wrong or irrelevant about them, my guess is that these discussions will prove more interesting.

-h

Flashing red light. Mikael Risedal sockpuppet warning.