Interesting Article on DXO Mark Ratings

[Steve Todd]

You may have already seen this, but I thought it might be of interest to CR folks:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html

 

[Harv]

Thanks for the link. An excellent read.

 

[unfocused]

I think Thom Hogan is one of the best columnists out there. He understands the technology and puts it into real world perspective. Not as easy to do as some people think.

His columns often confirm what I've been thinking, but didn't know how to articulate.

 

[tayassu]

Very true and very well written!
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Sabaki]

Thom Hogan does a fantastic job of articulating the whole truth here about the numbers.

Nothing here hinted at opinion from a biased reporter and it was only near the end of the article that I learnt he is a Nikon photographer.

DxO runs the classic misinformation game of 80% truth with 20% premeditated malarkey to influence the buying public.

 

[jrista]

Good to hear that someone else out there, and a Nikon guy no less, has problems with the way DXO reports their results. Tom is an excellent columnist.

 

[Don Haines]

DXO scores appear to be heavily biased towards shooting at the lowest ISO and a F1.0 lens (or better!). If that's how you shoot, then they make sense. For everyone else, it makes as much sense as using a screwdriver to loosen your wheel lugs...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

 

[jrista]

Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

I agree here. This is a measurement thing, too, not a score thing. I think it's good to look at other sources of data, but for the most part they generally agree that there is at least a two stop difference.

 

[Don Haines]

Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

I started shooting digital at 320x200 pixels in 16 colours at work. My first personal digital camera was 640x400 with 256 colours. If we listened to the people saying that we didn't need more DR, that's where we would still be.

Every small step forward adds up over the years into big differences, but 2 stops! That's a leap ahead. Three stops is HUGE! Saying it doesn't matter is denial.