Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X

[Neutral]

But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.

Could you please clarify which application you are referring to in this statement?

Subject was related to DXO 8, so this above relates to Dxo 8 improvements over Dxo 7.5.5.

 

[han_solo82]

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

 

[Neutral]

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

We are talking about completely deferent things)))
You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS .
Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.
The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number. This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) .

And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”

 

[Neutral]

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT.
Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

 

[picturesbyme]

a little "real" life use...

http://youtu.be/0YnhJk4hoq8

 

[han_solo82]

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

We are talking about completely deferent things)))
You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS .
Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.
The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number. This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) .

And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”

Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...

 

[han_solo82]

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT.
Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

 

[Simba]

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT.
Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

This is really a funny human nature. There were so many cheers about 1DX being the best camera when the rumor DXO score was posted. Now the real score is being questioned when it is low.

 

[han_solo82]

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT.
Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

This is really a funny human nature. There were so many cheers about 1DX being the best camera when the rumor DXO score was posted. Now the real score is being questioned when it is low.

Please, reread my 1st post : "there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one)"

I've never even mention 1DX. DXO score problem have been there since the beginning and evident on lots and lots and lots of comparison between different cameras...

 

[Neutral]

Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...

Please no familiarities here – this is at least impolite not to say more)))
As for DXO – we are not discussing what they are claiming themselves – just results of their measurements.
And forget about SCORES - when you see at measurement curves you need to “FEEL” sensor performance across different conditions the same way as you “feel” image histogram in the camera or image processing S/W.
Do you give this histogram any scores to better work with the image?
If you are telling that you studying physics – think of Fourier or Laplace transforms that give you information about physical process in other domains/dimensions which helps better understand the properties of the process and work with it.
And I do not see any point discussing this further

 

[AmbientLight]

Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.

Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.

Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.

Social scientists 'feel' things. Real scientists quantify things.

Apologies to any social scientists I've just offended... :-[

 

[Razor2012]

a little "real" life use...

Exactly. So would you want a camera that has better DR, or one that has better AF, ISO & FPS? We're talking real life use here. I personally would take the latter. All the DR in the world isn't going to matter if you miss the pic or it's OOF.

 

[han_solo82]

Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...

Please no familiarities here – this is at least impolite not to say more)))
As for DXO – we are not discussing what they are claiming themselves – just results of their measurements.
And forget about SCORES - when you see at measurement curves you need to “FEEL” sensor performance across different conditions the same way as you “feel” image histogram in the camera or image processing S/W.
Do you give this histogram any scores to better work with the image?
If you are telling that you studying physics – think of Fourier or Laplace transforms that give you information about physical process in other domains/dimensions which helps better understand the properties of the process and work with it.
And I do not see any point discussing this further

Ok so now when a website talks about sensor performance we are suppose to "feel them". Please.

Anyways, as you are being offended by my "familiarities" attempt, I'll take your last point and stop discussing this with you...

 

[gene_can_sing]

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

 

[Razor2012]

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

It's true...in regards to sensors. I wonder if the Nikon camp complains about AF & ISO or FPS? Canon will eventually have better sensors, and Nikon will eventually have better AF. So really, depending on what your priorities are, is there really a bad choice? No. In the real world I would sooner have not missed a shot and have it in-focus rather than more DR.

 

[Loswr]

...this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts.

You're right. 1D X, 5DIII, terrible AF, slow fps, badly built, horrible ergonomics. C'mon Canon, step up!

Oh, you meant just the sensor that's got all those other features wrapped around it?

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

Your post lacks credibility. Your credibility score is 0.

ALL FRONTS? I thought DxO only measured sensors? Now it measures everything? I guess the 1DX is a horrible camera and is behind the times? Too bad it whips the crap out of Nikon's best camera, in all facets of photography. And I'm not going by some stupid score or stupid chart. I'm going by experience at night football games. I guess if I can make a camera like the 1DX and still be accused of needing to step it up on all fronts, I guess I'd be content in needing to step it up on all fronts.

Canon making that stupid little 1DX and that stupid little 5D Mark III. Shame on them!

 

[weekendshooter]

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

Actually we Nikoners complain just as much about DXO's overall scores. D3200 24mp 1.5x crop scoring higher than the 5D3? Suuuuuuure. Also D7000 has better DR than the D4?? Maybe, but that doesn't mean anything other than a fake score on a website. We're just as realistic about DXO as you guys are

Also I'm not sure what people here are talking about when they mention Nikon's "bad AF" - the D800 had some teething problems just like the 5D3's light leak, but the AF has always been just fine. I quite like my 51 point AF and RGB metering as well as having several f/8 cross-types in the D800 and D4. Both systems are great, and each one is optimized for a different purpose.

 

[han_solo82]

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.

Let's put Af, Build, FPS, etc. aside since DXO mark is a SENSOR analysis website.

While I agree that Canon's sensor are not the best right now, and that they need to act sooner than later, this isn't the point here at all. The point is simply that saying that a D3200 sensor is better than a 5dIII sensor, when all the measurements besides 3 points on 4 different graphs shows you otherwise (that is objectivity), is just plain silly. Well turns out I don't like being taken for an ignorant.

I mean, I would have arrived at the same conclusion if they had scored the Canon T3 higher than the D600/D800...