1DX DXO Mark Out - Scores Higher than Nikon D4

I have seen stunning work from D800, D4 and pretty much all Nikons. So er, I cannot concur on the "Nikon have strange colours" quote.

I see stunning work, even landscapes and other High DR stuff, from Canon cameras....

That said I remember when I watched DR review the 1DX that the 1DX just looked "special" to me...I liked its output

I am reasonably confident my 7D shots generally look better than most folks shots from a D7000 despite the D7000's better sensor...

KenjiS wrote in post #15111722
I am reasonably confident my 7D shots generally look better than most folks shots from a D7000 despite the D7000's better sensor...

Wow, I am always shocked to see people boast about the excellence of their work like this. I just took a quick peek at a D7000 image group on Flickr and I don't believe I can concur with the confident claim: http://www.flickr.com …9281182/#photo_​8079281182

LOL

Not knocking any reviews, but if you want to compare bodies, lenses, etc., rent it. The best way to determine which is better (for you) is your results. I never thought in recent times I would switch to Nikon, nor did I think I would buy a Sony P&S and/or Panasonic. Best test for me was actually using them, PP'ing them and seeing the results.

elrey2375 wrote in post #15111179
where are all the DXO haters

Oh, I see, that's only when the Nikons score better

DxO is infatuated with math and formulas and most of their testing has little / no connection to actual real-world use.

Feel better?

meh.. although im curious to see now how the 6D will perform

maybe they should re-benchmark the 5D series to see if they will get different scores than before (maybe they made updates/changes on their benchmark procedure).

David Arbogast wrote in post #15112250
Wow, I am always shocked to see people boast about the excellence of their work like this. I just took a quick peek at a D7000 image group on Flickr and I don't believe I can concur with the confident claim: http://www.flickr.com …9281182/#photo_​8079281182

I think the point is you can get great pictures no matter what camera you use, as long as you know how to use it.

I can't say I'm a fan of DXO's lens scores. I don't have a dog in that fight, but I think their lens scoring is beyond ridiculous. For example tested on the 5D II, they give the 70-200mm f/2.8L Mk I a score of 26, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L Mk II a score of 18. And the 300mm f/2.8L II IS USM scored 15. I don't own any of those lenses, have never used those lenses, but I've got a pretty good hunch that the 300mm f/2.8L II is one of Canon's premiere lenses and the 70-200mm II is definitely superior to the mark I.

taemo wrote in post #15112733
I think the point is you can get great pictures no matter what camera you use, as long as you know how to use it.

I agree that was the intended point, but if you want to make that point, then it's good to say it just as you did. And that oft-stated point always reads better to me if the "My pictures are better than most other people's pictures who use better gear" bit isn't used.

Neilyb wrote in post #15111695
I have seen stunning work from D800, D4 and pretty much all Nikons. So er, I cannot concur on the "Nikon have strange colours" quote.

Yeah, really the colors aren't all that different. A lot of the color difference comes from the slightly different white balance that the cameras choose. Overall the Canon default color seems a little bit more punchy. Canon Standard and Portrait, in my opinion, don't look nearly as nice as Nikon Standard and Portrait. Canon Landscape on the other hand, looks better than Nikon landscape (the Nikon landscape is, by default, way too contrasty and seems to really set the black level high). Adobe standard looks very similar between them if white balance is set the same (it looks very bad, imho, for both, lol). For Canon I'd always use faithful or landscape. Nikon I always use Standard or Portrait and go from there. Of course you can make a color checker profile and do w/e. Or tweak it however you want. The colors from my D800 are way more "defined" than the stuff from my 60d (my 7d was worse than my 60d). Lot more color purity especially in the shadows. 5d3 seems great too (other than in the deep shadows). But really, you can get great color from any modern DSLR, let's be honest here.

KenjiS wrote in post #15111722
I see stunning work, even landscapes and other High DR stuff, from Canon cameras....

That said I remember when I watched DR review the 1DX that the 1DX just looked "special" to me...I liked its output

I am reasonably confident my 7D shots generally look better than most folks shots from a D7000 despite the D7000's better sensor...

My thinking with the 1dx output was that it didn't look any better than the 5d3, unless you got above iso 3200. I VERY much doubt that those DXO mark results are real. Very very much doubt it. The High ISO score might be believable...maybe. But the DR, nah. I don't think it's very different from the 5d3 really. Course, "I could be wrong" (tm). ;p

I dunno, I have a lot of shots from my rebel xsi back in the day that look better than a lot of my d800 shots. Cuz the lighting happened to be better, because the spring/late winter that I got my 11-16mm Tokina had amazing weather, etc. Equipment does matter and helps and makes it enjoyable, but it doesn't make a shot taken in worse lightning look better than a shot taken in great lighting. Do have some shots that were taken in great beautiful light that would have been a lot better with my d800 though, simply due to the DR and cleanliness of the files.

^Woos, sorry to go off topic here, but I like your avatar. I'm a big fan of that show.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15108848
Canon Rumors says: "I was sent an email claiming the results of DXOMark’s testing of the Canon EOS-1D X. I have not yet seen it on their site, so don’t take these numbers as official until they’re up."

Apparently if you send Canon Rumors an email, they'll post it.

I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this line.

Remember, the source of this news is Canon Rumors, not DxOMark. We don't even know for sure whether DxOMark has tested the 1D X yet.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15113001
^Woos, sorry to go off topic here, but I like your avatar. I'm a big fan of that show.

Woot. Yeah I'm a huge geek, it's one of my fav things ever.

Until they publish results on their site http://www.dxomark.com …or-Database/Canon/EOS-1Dx this is a rumor.

Moved.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15112250
Wow, I am always shocked to see people boast about the excellence of their work like this. I just took a quick peek at a D7000 image group on Flickr and I don't believe I can concur with the confident claim: http://www.flickr.com …9281182/#photo_​8079281182

And if you knew me you'd also know i generally do not say things about my own work, if anything, im usually harder on it, primarily because anytime i have any confidence someone comes along and decides to tear me a new one about it -_-

You're right, that group does have some great shots in it

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15108451
Funny how every sensor they tested and rated highly (35mm) is supposed to produce better looking images, yet I haven't seen a single picture from those highly rated sensors that look better than anything from Canon's latest offerings. I've downloaded and processed quite a few RAW files from the D800 series and while the DR and detail is nice, I never end up with a better looking result. The colors just don't seem to want to pop up as much without making the whole image look strange.

DXO would be much more valid if robots were the ones buying and using cameras...

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the hardcore gearheads think more like robots than artists.

i've talked to a lab technician and a lab owner who process and correct photos for wedding albums and both praise Nikon's colors accuracy.