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

[Northstar]

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 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...

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.

nisujwalker....funny, you got me on that one! But, I have corrected the mistake....it's called follow up. Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no. BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.

Anyway..like some have said, I've "expanded" too much energy on this now. I better get back to my new 5d3 and test out that expendable ISO....I hear it really expends well, especially when you expend it up to 25,600.

 

[K-amps]

Not to give my age away , but this reminds me of the Audio Review mags of the 70's/80's.

Stereo Review would rate audio components based on THD Total Harmonic distortion and IM etc. Slowly manufacturers found ways to reduce this mathmatically arrived at number by increasing feedback in the audio circuits (for amplifiers) and get Stereo Review to arrive at better "numbers"... but the Audio began to sound too sterlie and clinical.... Then came the Subjectivists; who did not measure the Audio signal by numbers, but by actual listening tests and AB comparisons. they found that the Tubes of the good old days with 3%-10% THD sounded better than newer transistor designs with THD numbers below 0.01%.

Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely used as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models.

And one sad day Stereo Review found itself out of Business...

DxO numbers seem to me to be the Stereo Review of the 2000's.... Already people talk about the amazing Flesh tones the 5D can dish out despite having sensor numbers that are a pale comparison to the D800. So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

It does not translate into wonderful Audio or mersmerising photos.


PS: I am not saying DxO will go out of Business, just saying don't take their numbers so seriously. And no, you don't have to win every Peeing contest against the Nikon boys... just beat them with your Photography Skills

 

[thepancakeman]

Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Yeah, it is. Have you ever read the manual for a TV or DVD players. Many of them are completely incomprehensible, and yet magically the TV/DVD player works just fine. How could that possible be???

And you mean "that big OF a leap." "Big a leap" makes aboslutely zero grammatical sense.

 

[Janco]

Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no. BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.

Oh, those shiny things on the internet are to be taken with a grain of salt? And I always thought.....

Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely uses as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models [.......]

So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

+1
I guess that's what it basically comes down to...

 

[atvinyard]

Did you send them an e-mail to let them know about their typo? That would be the appropriate thing to do.

Proper grammer and attention to detail are important when it comes to maintaining reputation, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

Let he who never ever makes a spelling error be the one to cast the first stone.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO. Seems we also shouldn't turst the New York Times, Buffalo's NPR station, and we should beleive that Mitt Romney supports shooting one's family. Ok, fine. Tim to moved on.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

error myself. I'm swiss.

Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. ;D

That capability is coming soon

 

[zim]

'Tim to move on' LOL very god ;D ;D ;D

 

[zim]

Oh wait!!! You mean Tim worked at DXO and he’s been made redundant over this? poor Tim, he’s got a wife and kids too…






…. I liked Tim






Your all rotten getting him fired

 

[Northstar]

Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.

Yeah, it is. Have you ever read the manual for a TV or DVD players. Many of them are completely incomprehensible, and yet magically the TV/DVD player works just fine. How could that possible be???

And you mean "that big OF a leap." "Big a leap" makes aboslutely zero grammatical sense.

you're right about the grammatical sense....you're wrong in your analogy. a tv maker's goal is to make a tv that works well, not a manual that works well.

dxomark's goal here is to present information....the information is their product. in this case, they have three product errors in one line of information.

 

[pwp]

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.

Well you seemed to work out from the context that "expendable" meant "expandable". The planet is populated by intelligent people who no doubt will also make this gigantic cognitive leap just as you did.

Just be thankful there is someone as thorough as DXO to provide pixel peepers with the research data they generate.

A typo? OMG. Fire the secretary! Call in the National guard! Cancel everything! Or just chill.....

Paul Wright

 

[awinphoto]

Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO.

Well that settles it... never really trusted DxO anyways so this puts the nail in the coffin... =) hahaha... Cant speak for DxO, but i've seen people get fired for a typo like this gone public, literally, but dont know or really care about DxO's firing practices, how nit picky they are, and the tenure and prior reputation of the person who was responsible. Personally I dont trust the site but for other reasons than a type.

 

[agierke]

i have never really understood the fanaticism over DxO's ratings whether it be in favor of or against their findings. any review should never be "trusted". its foolish to make decisions about your own livelihood solely based upon the opinion of someone else (and i do believe that DxO results are quite simply an opinion).

reviews are meant to be a guide to HELP inform an audience, not make a decision for said audience. i read alot of reviews about gear, and then i make up my own mind ONLY after i have had hands on experience using the said piece of equipment under real world circumstances.

that being said, a typo or misinformation coming from DxO is entirely inconsequential in my opinion.

forgive me if i misspeled anything...

 

[meli]

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.

yes perfectly legitimate perspective,

for example if i would buy a 550d and the 18-55 kit lens turns out to be decentered, i mean its a 50$ piece of lens but hey, " if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong," right? "and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means" so Canon is definitely cr*p right? i mean this is what you're claiming there right?

You get the ridiculousness of yours and Northstar's statement or?

 

[Positron]

Okay, it's a spelling error. Someone who wasn't a native English speaker mistook the words expandable and expendable (a very understandable mistake).

Compared to native English speakers who write there instead of their and they're (and note how the reverse almost never happens), your instead of you're (same as before), and my absolute favorite, "lense", it's trivial. "Expendable" is a result of English containing two decently difficult words that happen to be quite similar in both spelling and pronunciation. The latter examples are not spelling errors, they're understanding errors which prove that the writer has a fundamental lack of understanding of the very words, and by extansion, ideas, which they aim to convey.

 

[YoukY63]

The first time I saw the first post of that topic, I was wondering if it was a joke or a new rant to DxO (kind of vendetta ;D).
Now we understood it was not a joke and I think everybody agree on the total non-sense of such topic. Come on, are we really discussing for an English typo on a French website since 3 pages? A typo about the iso range of the body? Seriously??? :

Admins, don't you think it is time now to close it here?

 

[briansquibb]

DxO numbers seem to me to be the Stereo Review of the 2000's.... Already people talk about the amazing Flesh tones the 5D can dish out despite having sensor numbers that are a pale comparison to the D800. So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

Two examples might be:

5D classic - I found the images particularly good

1DS3 - skin tones are just superb to my eye - stunning with the 135/f2, 200 f/2

 

[Wrathwilde]

the information is their product.

It isn't. The "reviews" and "published results" are just a happy byproduct of the testing they do for their real business, their software business, and DxO Optics Pro is some kick ass software. They also create embedded software, silicon architectures and optical designs for still and video image real time processing, as well as image quality evaluation, measurement tools, and methodologies. To equate the fact that their web staff may accidentally confuse one english word for another on a site that is merely a free public service (that originates in french, no less), or that the tech writer who occasionally quotes the wrong number is somehow indicative of the quality of their science and engineering staff is laughable. If you were translating your view point into french, would you recognize the difference between "conneries" and a "connard" at a glance? It's like knowing the difference between your argument and yourself.

IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!

DxoMark.com is separate from the main DxO.com site. DxOMark isn't in the business of testing, that would be DxOLabs. If you think the lab techs are the ones writing the reviews... and plugging the information into the DxOMark site, you are wonderfully naive. Do you think the engineers at GM or Ford are wasting their time plugging in performance numbers on their companies respective websites, or that they double check the websites to make sure the published numbers matched what they tested on the bench, or that they personally make sure that the foreign GM/Ford sites are properly translated? Of course not. DxOLab's technicians have better things to do, and real work to accomplish, like making sure the data they collected translates into real world improvements in their software.

At the end of the day DxOMark is nothing more than a public forum and service that DxOLabs is under no real obligation to provide information to. The fact that they translate their pages as well as they do is amazing, and better than 99% of foreign sites I've visited. The fact is... accidentally getting a number wrong in a product review is pretty meaningless, they aren't selling the products they review, if they were... that would be a completely different matter.

Ever read an auto magazine? They are constantly doing tests, collecting data, etc. I often find that the written article will have at least one discrepancy from the data table. Does that make the people who review the cars idiots? Does that mean that we shouldn't trust them when they say that the 2012 Camaro out performs the 2012 Mustang, that it rides nicer and is more forgiving in corners? Of course not, and although the person writing the (car) article was probably present during the testing... he probably wasn't the one setting up the testing equipment or verifying the numbers.

Jobs get delegated, if you're in the legal field, or advertising, sure, the wrong word or number might get you fired... as there is often a great deal of money riding on it. The same can't be said for DxOMark, which is just a free service that was born out of DxOLabs legitimate business, they have no need to strive for excellence in their web translations, their current incarnation is just fine, occasional errors and all.

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.

The 5D3's ISO sensitivity for 50 and 100 is exactly the same (tested at an actual ISO 80). The raw files get flagged for Canon's software to process differently, but the way DxO tests the raw files there is probably no difference between the two. Canon software pulls it down a partial stop. Basically Canon's ISO 50 is a software cheat, so who gives a damn. In reality the 5D3 really does only go down to it's 100 setting, which is effectively ISO 80. Long story short, that quote of the 5D3 going down to ISO 100 could have been a mistake, or it could have been deliberate... since the raw files are identical except for some flagging that tells Canon's software how to process the "ISO 50" file.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

 

[Northstar]

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.

 

[YoukY63]

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?

Then I would have prompted several typos and incorrect informations from other highly respected websites such as DPReview or PhotoZone. Because yes, I already found some (especially incorrect infos) on these websites too. Even in American or British websites. About characteristics that can matters to people, not a stupid mispelling. But who cares, they are just few mistakes as everybody on earth can do.

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.

Since it did not happened, as you pointed out, do you plan to apologize to DxO people for trying to make them look like fool and stupid? :