Why so much trust in DXO.

[altenae]

Check this topic.
So why should we trust there sensor numbers ???

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106506/


70-200 version II rates lower then 70-200 version I.

Think about this.
They know and we all know this is not true.
DXO guys also rate EVERY Nikon counterpart lens higher than Canon.

In real life the 70-200 II is one of the best zoom lenses in the world.

But DXO has nothing to do with real live.
Number numbers.

What we see with our eyes doesn't matter anymore.
Number numbers numbers and numbers. This is a bad thing.

!!!!!! We all trust ONE company for all there numbers !!!!!!

The company that rates the 70-200 F4 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS II not that good !!!!!!!!!!!!
While these lenses are tested superb everywhere.

FOR THOSE having the 300mm F2.8 version II, I feel sorry.
The 24-105 resolution wise is much better. Funny these clowns.

I own the latest NEX 7 and it should be close to the 5D according DXO numbers.
Well my eyes tell me it's not. Why ??


Take the camera , take pictures, see yourself and forget about this commercial company that sales software.

 

[Fishnose]

DxO are a software development company that uses extremely precise testing of cameras and lenses as a way to maximise the usefulness of their software (such as DxO Optics Pro) by creating the best possible profiles for each respective model.

It just so happens that they have an interesting by-product of their testing: the test results are a very powerful marketing tool as they attract attention to the DxO brand - and of course they make the most of that by publishing their findings on the web.

Being an independent French company, one can hardly say they are best pals/neighbors with Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer.
They spend days and days testing each camera body and lens model, using very well-defined test methodology based on scientific principles. They take thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of photos with each camera body and lens in all possible situations in a controlled lab environment and work only from RAW format so the effects of jpg 'cooking' and other artefacts are not included in their results.

Because their methodology demands precisely controlled and repeatable results, they can't base their findings on 'real world' photography - like going downtown and shooting on the street.

I can't imagine what they would gain by INTENTIONALLY pissing off Canon owners who then are angry at them and refuse to take them or their products seriously.
They can't 'fix' their Canon results to make them look better just to please people like you - they are forced to be objective, otherwise they would be accused of bias and their reputation (and their software) would be destroyed.

Has it occurred to you that Canon (and other manufacturers) themselves never complain or call DxO idiots? Why? Because they know they're not likely to win in the laboratory. They've probably already seen similar results in their own lab tests and know full well what DxO is likely to find.

Canon's decision to release the 5DMkIII with it's present sensor is in the end a marketing decision. And it may turn out to be a bad move.

If you don't like DxO findings, that's your business. If camera and lens manufacturers don't like their findings, that's their business. But all of it generates more traffic for DxO and more exposure for their software products.

 

[altenae]

It just doesn't make sense for there lens tests.
In real world these tests don't match.

Period.

 

[psolberg]

Check this topic.
So why should we trust there sensor numbers ???

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106506/

You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html

Canon is not a 6 year old blonde little girl being picked on. If they didn't measure up to expectations they can handle it. Nikon has stumbled in the past too and they got over it clearly. Just because canon didn't win this round it doesn't mean anything for the future.

 

[Astro]

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent

the techradar test:


Quote
TIFF images (after conversion from raw) have a consistently good signal to noise ratio across the sensitivity range comparing closely to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III and just having the edge over the Nikon D800. It also shows a slight improvement at all sensitivities over the Canon EOS 5D Mk II.



Quote
TIFF files (after conversion from raw) have a high dynamic range with results comparing closely to the Nikon D4 and D800. Compared with the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, there is a marked improvement showing over 2EV greater range at the lower end of the sensitivity scale.


i thought techradar is a DxO certified lab?

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/noise-and-dynamic-range-results-explained-1027588


anyone cares to explain?

 

[Fishnose]

anyone cares to explain?

Perhaps they are looking at full-size, pixel by pixel?
DxO downsize first before comparing.

 

[JR]

I itself, i like the concept of testing certain spec of a camera/sensor from an "independant" party because companies can play with specs sometime. That beeing said, i think some of the weighting they are using at dxo or the way they setup test i find a bit weird. I also do not concure with their conclusion on certain product when i look at actual picture when i shoot!!!

I hate when reviewers in general start playing with the file size or the effective number of pixel to normalize their result (like downsizing a high mp file to 8 MP...). I real like, if i get a D800 i will not be shooting at 8mp, so give me the test at 36mp. Same for the mkiii, i will be shooting at 22mp, so give me those test...

Anyway, i think we need to take this with a grain of salt. I mean deao Canon suck that much (if we all drank the dxo coolaid)?

 

[dswatson83]

Most of the other tests have been closer to the techradar test than the DXO test. DxO is way off of every other test and analysis I have seen. Everyone seems to say that the D800 impressed everyone in low light (most thought it would fall apart at ISO 1600+ and it holds up much better than that) but still fell short of the Mark III. DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO conclusion. DR on the Dxo test for the D800 is really really high. No one has observed that so I wonder how they pulled that number. The way that DxO tests the low light ISO is also related to DR so i'm assuming that whatever made them conclude a 14 stop DR for the D800 is what kept the D800 ahead in low light ISO. Something is up with their DR test. The Phase One is way below the Nikon D7000 and the same as the Nikon D5100. Seriously? As an engineer myself, we are taught to make sure that are tests line up with reality, otherwise we redo our testing procedures. Since their ISO tests are based on DR, both of these tests are flawed in some way.

 

[JR]

Most of the other tests have been closer to the techradar test than the DXO test. DxO is way off of every other test and analysis I have seen. Everyone seems to say that the D800 impressed everyone in low light (most thought it would fall apart at ISO 1600+ and it holds up much better than that) but still fell short of the Mark III. DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO conclusion. DR on the Dxo test for the D800 is really really high. No one has observed that so I wonder how they pulled that number. The way that DxO tests the low light ISO is also related to DR so i'm assuming that whatever made them conclude a 14 stop DR for the D800 is what kept the D800 ahead in low light ISO. Something is up with their DR test. The Phase One is way below the Nikon D7000 and the same as the Nikon D5100. Seriously? As an engineer myself, we are taught to make sure that are tests line up with reality, otherwise we redo our testing procedures. Since their ISO tests are based on DR, both of these tests are flawed in some way.

Good point indeed regarding their iso test. I wish they could find a different way to test it. I mean when you look at sample from dpreview it is quite clear the mkiii is better then the d800 in the iso range...

 

[Astro]

anyone cares to explain?

Perhaps they are looking at full-size, pixel by pixel?
DxO downsize first before comparing.

read again, they are a DXO certified lab.... so i guess they use not only the same software but also the same methodology.

 

[Canon-F1]

canon always kind of sucked at DXO test.. not?
i bet there is a nikon fanboy at DXO who manipulates the numbers.

but who cares... i would not sell a hasselblad based on DXO tests.

 

[Neeneko]

It just doesn't make sense for there lens tests.
In real world these tests don't match.

Period.

In the real world, selection bias and brand loyalty tend to be the dominant factors. The whole point of repeatable tests is to determine, using set criteria, how things actually preform. When just out and shooting people build a lot of bias into what they think of performance, often with 'this is newer/more expensive, so it must be better otherwise I would be a real fool to have paid so much more for it!' thrown in.

 

[Neeneko]

You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html

Actually.. eyes suck. The vast majority of what you see is extrapolated, the actual resolution of a human eye is very low, but we have a lot of grey matter behind them that tries to combine the little information it is getting with a bank of world knowledge and internal models to product its best guess about what it is seeing. Human vision is very easy to trick and what you expect to see plays a dominant role in what you actually perceive.

 

[Canon-F1]

In the real world, selection bias and brand loyalty tend to be the dominant factors. The whole point of repeatable tests is to determine, using set criteria, how things actually preform. When just out and shooting people build a lot of bias into what they think of performance, often with 'this is newer/more expensive, so it must be better otherwise I would be a real fool to have paid so much more for it!' thrown in.

that does not explain how techradar and DXO come to different conclusions... given they both use the DXO testing method.

 

[altenae]

You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html

Actually.. eyes suck. The vast majority of what you see is extrapolated, the actual resolution of a human eye is very low, but we have a lot of grey matter behind them that tries to combine the little information it is getting with a bank of world knowledge and internal models to product its best guess about what it is seeing. Human vision is very easy to trick and what you expect to see plays a dominant role in what you actually perceive.

Well we still look at pictures with human eyes.

 

[Lyra Video Productions]

I have to be honest. I didn't really read many of the posts above.

First off--does DXO really matter? 5d3 and d800 are both great cameras, I think we could all agree on that.

2nd, though, I feel like many people may be letting their blind love of Canon get in the way. If Dxo came out and said the 5d was better, I imagine many canon users would be citing the Dxo scores as a triumph. Is it possible that in some ways the d800 is actually a better camera? Maybe it's actually possible--and for $500 cheaper. I just hope Canon acknowledges the competition and does something about it. Lower prices/pump up their products more. Competition, in theory, is good.

 

[dichiaras]

DxO are a software development company that uses extremely precise testing of cameras and lenses as a way to maximise the usefulness of their software (such as DxO Optics Pro) by creating the best possible profiles for each respective model.

It just so happens that they have an interesting by-product of their testing: the test results are a very powerful marketing tool as they attract attention to the DxO brand - and of course they make the most of that by publishing their findings on the web.

Being an independent French company, one can hardly say they are best pals/neighbors with Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer.
They spend days and days testing each camera body and lens model, using very well-defined test methodology based on scientific principles. They take thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of photos with each camera body and lens in all possible situations in a controlled lab environment and work only from RAW format so the effects of jpg 'cooking' and other artefacts are not included in their results.

Because their methodology demands precisely controlled and repeatable results, they can't base their findings on 'real world' photography - like going downtown and shooting on the street.

I can't imagine what they would gain by INTENTIONALLY pissing off Canon owners who then are angry at them and refuse to take them or their products seriously.
They can't 'fix' their Canon results to make them look better just to please people like you - they are forced to be objective, otherwise they would be accused of bias and their reputation (and their software) would be destroyed.

Has it occurred to you that Canon (and other manufacturers) themselves never complain or call DxO idiots? Why? Because they know they're not likely to win in the laboratory. They've probably already seen similar results in their own lab tests and know full well what DxO is likely to find.

Canon's decision to release the 5DMkIII with it's present sensor is in the end a marketing decision. And it may turn out to be a bad move.

If you don't like DxO findings, that's your business. If camera and lens manufacturers don't like their findings, that's their business. But all of it generates more traffic for DxO and more exposure for their software products.

Neat and crystal clear assessment of the situation.

 

[victorwol]

Isn't the best camera always the one on your hand at the right moment? All this crazy numbers are just that... Numbers, are not going to make the photographer any better or any richer, you are not going to sell a copy of your photo because was shot with the best sensor, I've seen amazing photos taken with disposable cameras that I wish I've taken with my state of the art equipment....

I undertstand you are spending good amount of money and want the best for it, me too... But isn't this going a bit too far? Just wondering where to draw the line between using a camera to express feelings as a form of art, or just being a technical obsessed photographer.

 

[fman]

I'm ready to accept DxOMark camera measurement results (their scoring is a mess, let's forget about it).

But anyone caring to explain their 70-200 IS II resolution measurement?

DP photos shown a significant improvement (at least to my eyes), not loss of resolution:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

How comes such a huge gap between measurement results and test photos?

There must be something wrong in their testing methods or I don't understand what resolution means...
I'm really not biased, just trying to understand.

 

[Sallivres]

I think that's why they do this lab tests because the difference is hardly noticeable in real life situation. Lets say D800 is better than the 5DIII but on a very small margin.

Its like one car is 1s faster than the other in a quarter mile drag race.