DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...

[Wrathwilde]

What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo? What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't.

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.

(And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.)

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures. See quotes below...

All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process.

they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50

As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother... when the best course of action would be to share them on the DxOMark forum, where the mods can actually see the issues being brought up about their articles and reviews, research them to find out if they actually are mistakes or not, and correct them if necessary.

I can tell you right now that if DxOLab's testing procedures were as worthless or as suspect as people like you, and some others on this forum, make them out to be... then the software they use that compiled data for, namely DxO Optics Pro, would be absolutely worthless... instead of the kickass software it is. You may disagree with their numbers and testing procedures, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and that is reflected in the ability of their software to maximize image quality for the Camera's and Lenses they have run through their testing procedures. If their tests weren't exceedingly accurate, their software would suffer horribly... something I don't think most of the people here complaining about DxO's testing procedures seem to grasp. If their testing is worthless... then their software would be too, that's obviously not the case.

Which isn't to say that their overall camera score isn't biased toward certain sensor attributes, just that the actual measurements from their testing has to be exceedingly accurate to generate the results DxO Optics Pro is capable of.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

 

[Northstar]

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures

yes..still feel that way. but not just from a two typos and an error. It's an accumulation of what I consider many "head scratching" reviews/tests they have made. As one example, I mentioned their crazy 70-200 2.8 is ii review where they give it a dxo score 10%-40% lower than OLDER model sigma, nikon, and sony 70-200's....even though the newest canon is widely considered one of the best ever by most others.

also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors.

also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon. I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses. another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.

I have others but I'll stop there..

As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother.

because there are people on CR that might be interested.

also... you said their product is not the information, but their software.... yes, I obviously know that. my point is that when they present information in a review or from a test, then their product becomes the information...and the info(product) should be accurate and typo free.

some have said, give them a break, everyone makes mistakes....yep, I get that too. BUT, as an almost 15 year veteran of corporate america, I can tell you that most professionals that are very good at their job, and produce presentations or reports for a client or their boss, don't typically make multiple mistakes on one page Some professionals that are average at their job or don't pay much attention to detail probably would make this type of error....and there you have it.

also...yes, I'm writing in "quick mode" so don't take the easy shot at my writing/grammar

 

[Loswr]

also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors.

also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon. I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses. another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.

No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores:

[quote author=DxOMark]
The DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.
The Optical Metric Scores consider the classical or standard measurements used to rate the performance of a lens, such as resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission and chromatic aberration.
[/quote]

The lens score is dependent on the camera used. Nikon sensors score higher, ergo Nikon lenses score higher. Simple.

Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon.

Personally, I find the DxO Measurements quite useful, and their Scores rather useless.

 

[Northstar]

No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores: DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.

yes...I understand. But, to post a "score" for the old nikon 70-200 paired with the a 5dx at 27, and the current canon 70-200 is ii with a 5d2 scores an 18, would imply that the nikon lens (the old model) is roughly 50% better than the new canon. this is where I take issue...the scoring for lenses and cameras isn't accurate, and implies a significant advantage to nikon which is just not the case....simple.

Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon

good point