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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Northstar

Northstar

Mar 31, 2012
1,672
0
15,881
111
US - Midwest
#1
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons

This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion. I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal? Is it worth mentioning? WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang on the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with quality controls, and a disciplined process.[/b]

Anyway, I just thought some folks would think it interesting...
 
#3
Oh no! Not a typo involving two words with nearly identical spelling by people who's native language isn't english! Their maths must be defective because any mistake of any type invalidates everything!

*headdesk*

Part of me is hoping this was supposed to be a joke post. Such a leap of logic either shows defectively black and white thinking or a real bone to pick.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. It's not a simple typo, they spelled it that way twice on the same line..AND...they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison. So an error and a typo in the same line... Also, the "a" and the "e" on a keyboard are nowhere near each other...so it's actually more than just a typo.(possible that they didn't know how to spell expandable)

In my business, if I presented a report to a client that had wrong information and erroneous information, I would worry that I wouldn't "get the deal", and I would be embarrassed, and I would be concerned that the client would have a negative perception of our company's quality of work.

ALSO - a side note that I've been itching to post, but also helps make my point - like many others on this website and worldwide...How can they rate the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II so poorly when EVERYBODY else thinks it's one of the best zooms ever made by anybody.....JUST THEIR REVIEW OF THE 70-200 IS II DISCREDITS THEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. A reputable company would possibly conclude that they received a bad copy and try again, but NO. Again, it's poor reporting/presentation/research/testing.... "something fishy going on" in my opinion.

If everyone else says 2+2 = 4, but you get 5, then go back and double check your work...triple check if necessary. Obviously in both my points above they didn't double or triple check their work. AND IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!
 
Upvote 0
#6
Northstar said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. It's not a simple typo, they spelled it that way twice on the same line..AND...they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison. So an error and a typo in the same line... Also, the "a" and the "e" on a keyboard are nowhere near each other...so it's actually more than just a typo.(possible that they didn't know how to spell expandable)

Here's the deal - Businesses present reports/information/proposals/ and presentations to businesses in other countries and in various foreign languages thousands of times every day - IF YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF INFORMATION, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS NEED TO BE ACCURATE AND FREE OF ERRORS....THIS IS THEIR BUSINESS!! In my business, if I presented a report to a client that had wrong information and erroneous information, I would worry that I wouldn't "get the deal", and I would be embarrassed, and I would be concerned that the client would have a negative perception of our company's quality of work.

ALSO - a side note that I've been itching to post, but also helps make my point - like many others on this website and worldwide...HOW IN GOD'S NAME DO THEY RATE THE Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II SO POORLY - when EVERYBODY else thinks it's one of the best zooms ever made by anybody.....JUST THEIR REVIEW OF THE 70-200 IS II DISCREDITS THEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. A reputable company would possibly conclude that they received a bad copy and try again, but NO. Again, it's poor reporting/presentation/research/testing.... "something fishy going on" in my opinion.

If everyone else says 2+2 = 4, but you get 5, then go back and double check your work...triple check if necessary. Obviously in both my points above they didn't double or triple check their work. AND IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!
Click to expand...

+1

If the word is used colloquially I would understand. BUT it should never had happened if the work is double checked or edited.
 
Upvote 0
#9
My gripe with DXO is that canon and nikon have different processors to make the most of their own sensors, and that by reviewing cameras from RAW data only (rather than say in camera JPEGS or TIFFs created via DPP or NX2 etc) is like test driving a car with the gearbox removed.

Simple typos are not worth getting excited about.

Their DXOmark of the cameras I have used bears no relation to the real life images I get from cameras which have been consistently well reviewed elsewhere (thus my decision to buy)
 
Upvote 0
#11
Doesn't DXO do its testing not primarily as a service but rather to support its own software?

Should I shy away from DXO Optics Pro because I happen to like a lens that didn't perform well in their testing? Come on.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??
Click to expand...

I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....

RuneL said:
I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.
Click to expand...

My goodness, don't ever listen to politicians speak. You'd come away with the impression that our world leaders are all sloppy idiots.

(which, maybe, isn't far from the truth...)
 
Upvote 0
#14
Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....

neuroanatomist said:
My goodness, don't ever listen to politicians speak. You'd come away with the impression that our world leaders are all sloppy idiots.

(which, maybe, isn't far from the truth...)
Click to expand...

Um....uhh...well....many of our world leaders ARE sloppy idiots! ;D
(Couldn't resist)

I don't care about their spelling (or mis-spelling), I'll still use their software. YMMV
 
Upvote 0
#15
For what it's worth, I work with agencies providing photography... A simple 1 word mis-spelling, in an agency or marketing situation, could cost someone their job and or career depending how bad it is. I would generally agree a 1 off type happens and shouldn't be overstated and the company will do what it needs to do... mis-information however is a bigger issue and reason to call to arms 8) 8)
 
Upvote 0
#16
I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have significant consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things certainly can matter.

As far as DxO goes, its all about credibility: if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong, which I think is the OP's position too - and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means.

And if they can't properly QA their prose, why should I automatically trust their numbers?

This is a perfectly legitimate perspective, whether or not you agree with it.
 
Upvote 0
#18
First, they are french, aren't they? French people don't like the english language very much. I don't want to offend anyone, it's just a feeling I sometimes have. The english word expandable could be translated to extensible in french. I see it happen very quickly that they write expendable. Considering that they are french, it's very very good writing (not that particular word, but else). I bet there is almost no company based on english language that would be able to write articles in french without a good interpreter. And I think everyone who read that article AND realised there was a mistake was educated enough to realise what word there should be.

Now this article was free, right? Did you (OP and others that complain) pay for that? Even if you're customer of DxO (DxO optics pro or some services) please feel free to complain if there happen to be mistakes that lead to misinformation or wrong conversion of your image or whatever. But please, I really don't understand a discussion about typos or writing mistakes.

And now please smite me to death if I made a typo or grammatical error myself. I'm swiss.

Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. ;D
 
Upvote 0
#19
KeithR said:
I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have significant consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things certainly can matter.
Click to expand...

I work in a technical role in the aerospace industry. If misspellings mattered in technical documentation, airplanes would be falling out of the sky.

I don't think this wrong word says anything about the accuracy of DXO's measurements, nor do I believe that DXO's measurements hold a heck of a lot of import for photographic equipment consumers.

Much ado about nothing.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Northstar said:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons

This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion. I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal? Is it worth mentioning? WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this butchering of a simple word, and then no follow up or quality control on their website (which gets how many millions of hits) to correct that mistake. All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process.

Anyway, I just thought some folks would think it interesting...
Click to expand...

They hang the DXO scores? Where do they hang them? Do you mean they hang on every word that the company publishes? Don't complain about typos in a post and then make typos yourself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu