1DX DXO Mark Out - Scores Higher than Nikon D4

Neilyb wrote in post #15217441
There are a few top wildlife togs who are Nikon through and through now using the 1Dx simply becasue the AF system kicks ass and the IQ is every bit as good as the D4 in real terms (IE the pictures cannot be told apart once printed or looked at).

Because the 1Dx focusses in the right place more often giveing you more choice on what to print. Yes the prints would look the same to the untrained, or even trained, eye but the 1Dx shooter will have more shots on the wall which are sharp in the right places.

meia lua wrote in post #15225594
I'm not insulting you.

You repeating the same thing doesn't make it true. DxO does tell you how much better, the ratings are as consistent as it is possible to make them (they use a repeatable, consistent process across cameras, and you can get the numbers yourself; indeed there are a couple of other sites that come up with similar types of information, and those sites, though the thresholds are different, come up with the same rankings and the same magnitude of differences).

That you don't like their results is understandable. But going from "I don't like it" to "they are therefore useless and wrong", while a human thing to do, is funny. I can tell you from DxO results that I can get better shadow IQ from a D7000 than a 5D2 at low ISO. And when I take a picture with them, that inference is confirmed. Does that make the D7000 a better camera? Depends what you want to do with it. If you want the 85 1.2 look, it doesn't. If you want to shoot into sunlight with less fill flash, it does.

A sensor doesn't make a camera. But it is a damn good start to one.

I don't like or dislike them. I just consider them irrelevant and useless to actually making images.

Yes, you can infer (can't "tell me") that the D7000 has better DR, but you can't know that unless you also test it, since their numbers are purely abstract, apart from any imaging considerations.

And, they are most certainly NOT consistent from camera to camera and most certainly are NOT confirmed by image-based testing.

Here is a small example:
DxO would have you believe the D7000 has almost 14ev of DR. Image-based testing puts it at ~9 1/3 ev, a difference of almost 5 stops. This large a difference makes the DxO result useless for anyone who wants to know how the camera will perform in actually making images (you know, like a photographer).

Continuing, DxO would have you believe the 7D has a DR of 11.7ev. Image-based testing puts it at ~8 1/3, a difference of ~3 1/2 stops. Again, a very large difference rendering the DxO number useless to a photographer. Even worse, the difference is not consistent with the D7000 results, so you can't even subtract a DxO factor and get useful results.

For the Canon v Nikon fanboys / gearheads, note that DxO says the D7000 has over 2 stops better DR than the 7D. The image-based testing puts the difference at just under 1 stop. A useful difference to a photographer, but not one he could get from DxO.

But, DxO makes great web forum fodder. That's about all they are good for.

^^Tom, I think we've heard you repeatedly say you don't beleive in DXO. I think it's time to drop it. I take DXO with a grain of salt as well but, from testing the 1Ds3/5D 3 vs. the D600/D800, the DR wins with Nikon. My test was simple and I didn't use any voodoo magic. My beloved 1Ds 3 and borrowed 5D 3 couldn't pull off a simple back lit scene while the Nikons pulled out shadows without breaking a sweat.

Sample just from the D600 and adjustments done in LR4.

Exposed for the highlights:

Love those dark under exposed shadows. Look mom no banding...

jdizzle wrote in post #15226377
^^Tom, I think we've heard you repeatedly say you don't beleive in DXO. I think it's time to drop it. ...

I was responding to the person who claimed that I merely "didn't like" DxO on some kind of irrational level, and just like the person, above, who claims my "feelings are hurt", it would seem that people who are fanboys or gearheads just can't imagine that someone else has a different outlook and are NOT fanboys or gearheads.

My issue with DxO has nothing to do with Canon v Nikon, or even whether one camera has superior DR to another. It has to do with their methodology being so completely divorced from image making and so thoroughly immersed in their formulas and lab measurements that they are useless to real photographic application beyond giving a general ranking. IOW, beyond "who's on first", their numbers mean nothing.

Reviews (such as those at dpreview) are much more useful for actual image-making decisions.

RTPVid wrote in post #15226716
I was responding to the person who claimed that I merely "didn't like" DxO on some kind of irrational level, and just like the person, above, who claims my "feelings are hurt", it would seem that people who are fanboys or gearheads just can't imagine that someone else has a different outlook and are NOT fanboys or gearheads.

My issue with DxO has nothing to do with Canon v Nikon, or even whether one camera has superior DR to another. It has to do with their methodology being so completely divorced from image making and so thoroughly immersed in their formulas and lab measurements that they are useless to real photographic application beyond giving a general ranking. IOW, beyond "who's on first", their numbers mean nothing.

Reviews (such as those at dpreview) are much more useful for actual image-making decisions.

Tbh, DPR's testing methods suck. My testing is simple. Push the sensor to it's limit in real world situations.

jdizzle wrote in post #15226754
Tbh, DPR's testing methods suck. My testing is simple. Push the sensor to it's limit in real world situations.

Wow! You've taken my whole position on DxO (instead of DPR), covering maybe a dozen or more postings, and condensed it down to less than 20 words! I'm impressed!

RTPVid wrote in post #15226764
Wow! You've taken my whole position on DxO (instead of DPR), covering maybe a dozen or more postings, and condensed it down to less than 20 words! I'm impressed!

As I said before, I take testing on the web with a grain of salt.

Steve Beck wrote in post #15226438
Love those dark under exposed shadows. Look mom no banding...

It's not 'underexposed'. It's exposed for the highlights. Any more exposure and you'd have blown out the sky.

The fact that the non-sky areas appear dark isn't due to underexposure - it's due to the default tone-mapping curve applied to the raw data being optimised for narrower DR situations. If the sensor has sufficient useable DR, the curve can be adjusted (i.e. pushing the shadows) to balance the sky and the foreground, while maintaining good foreground detail and low noise. If the sensor has insufficient DR, the shot becomes impossible.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15227316
It's not 'underexposed'. It's exposed for the highlights. Any more exposure and you'd have blown out the sky.

The fact that the non-sky areas appear dark isn't due to underexposure - it's due to the default tone-mapping curve applied to the raw data being optimised for narrower DR situations. If the sensor has sufficient useable DR, the curve can be adjusted (i.e. pushing the shadows) to balance the sky and the foreground, while maintaining good foreground detail and low noise. If the sensor has insufficient DR, the shot becomes impossible.

He also owns the D600. So, he understands the capability of the D600/D800.