DXOMark scores and testing explained

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …nchmarking_came​ras2.shtml

An excellent article explaining what each of the DXOMark scores mean, and how they are calculated, for those who don't understand them or doubt the findings or the reasoning behind them.

Is an excellent article - and a little disappointing to see how Canon is indeed behind Sony/Nikon, especially in APS-C and in dynamic range at lower ISO's.

For Canon to be behind in APS-C is understandable - after all, their sensor is 13% smaller than their competitors (1.6 vs 1.5 crop). I wonder if EF-S lenses can, in fact, cover a 1.5x crop sensor - if so, maybe changing their APS-C sensors to be in line with the size of everyone else's sensor might be a good move.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15375513
For Canon to be behind in APS-C is understandable - after all, their sensor is 13% smaller than their competitors (1.6 vs 1.5 crop). I wonder if EF-S lenses can, in fact, cover a 1.5x crop sensor - if so, maybe changing their APS-C sensors to be in line with the size of everyone else's sensor might be a good move.

I believe OM-D has 2x crop and at low ISO isn't really behind Canon APS-C.
Canon needs to up their game...not sensor size..although I have to say I wouldn't mind if 7D2 would be 1.3x crop

Pop Photo magazine named the 5D Mark 3 camera of the year. They say the 5D has the best high ISO performance of the major manufacturers. DXOMark is just one voice and one testing method.

RbnDave wrote in post #15376714
Pop Photo magazine named the 5D Mark 3 camera of the year. They say the 5D has the best high ISO performance of the major manufacturers. DXOMark is just one voice and one testing method.

And the DXOMark figures reflect that. At high ISO, the issues which cause Canon's low-ISO noise problems are drowned out by amplified shot noise. What the high-ISO results also indicate is that, if they could just fix the low-ISO noise and banding problems, the Canon sensor should actually have slightly more DR than the Nikon/Sony sensors at ISO 100 - just that the curve flattens out dramatically below ISO 800 that this is not the case. In other words, Canon's sensor is actually slightly better than Sony/Nikon, but this is ruined by a poor A/D conversion process.

In any case, what's Pop Photo's objective testing methodology, and how do they get their results?

I think the FF Canon sensors are probably "close enough" for most users (and in fact a bit better at high ISO) that other factors really are more important. For crop users the differences at present are more glaring. The latest Olympus 4/3 sensors appear to be better and are significantly smaller. The latest Nikon/Sony crop sensors look very impressive. I hope Canon's new fabrication plant can bring them back to the top.

My Dad has the D800 and is driving himself crazy trying to get sharp photos. He views everything at 100% and is finding out that some of his lenses don't have the resolving power for that high res sensor. Also, if he isn't shooting from a tripod all his pictures look slightly smudged when viewed at 100%.

RbnDave wrote in post #15377567
My Dad has the D800 and is driving himself crazy trying to get sharp photos. He views everything at 100% and is finding out that some of his lenses don't have the resolving power for that high res sensor. Also, if he isn't shooting from a tripod all his pictures look slightly smudged when viewed at 100%.

He needs to stop driving himself nuts doing this with that big a sensor. The goal isn't 100% crop sharpness, it's overall image, or even a reasonable crop, sharpness. By the logic he is applying a lower resolution sensor would be "better" since sharper at 100%, which is obviously nuts.

RbnDave wrote in post #15377567
My Dad has the D800 and is driving himself crazy trying to get sharp photos. He views everything at 100% and is finding out that some of his lenses don't have the resolving power for that high res sensor. Also, if he isn't shooting from a tripod all his pictures look slightly smudged when viewed at 100%.

lungdoc wrote in post #15377628
He needs to stop driving himself nuts doing this with that big a sensor. The goal isn't 100% crop sharpness, it's overall image, or even a reasonable crop, sharpness. By the logic he is applying a lower resolution sensor would be "better" since sharper at 100%, which is obviously nuts.

+1
Or simply up the shutter speed if he is seeing hand held motion blur at 100% of 36 GIGApixels.
If he is still not convinced, find a low MP camera and upsize the image to D800 level then compare the smudgeness at 100%

lungdoc wrote in post #15377628
He needs to stop driving himself nuts doing this with that big a sensor. The goal isn't 100% crop sharpness, it's overall image, or even a reasonable crop, sharpness. By the logic he is applying a lower resolution sensor would be "better" since sharper at 100%, which is obviously nuts.

That's exactly what I told him, but he doesn't understand what I'm talking about. He's even gone out with his old D90 and done some comparison shots. At 100% the D90 looks sharper than his D800 (of course it does). Maybe I'll have him read this thread. You're explanation might be more clear than mine.

Now, if you could also talk him down off the ledge concerning the D800 left focus point issue, that'd be helpful.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15372999
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …nchmarking_came​ras2.shtml

An excellent article explaining what each of the DXOMark scores mean, and how they are calculated, for those who don't understand them or doubt the findings or the reasoning behind them.

It's a good article. I think the key takaway for photographers would be to understand that the more a reviewer tries to distill camera or lens performance down to a single number, the less relevant the result will be.

I personally do not care about 1/3 of the DxO score at all (color depth) and I don't care about another 1/3 of the DxO score much (low ISO DR). That's why I'm perfectly happy with Canon cameras that get pretty lousy overall scores from them.

A landscape shooter on the other hand is going to be looking at the low ISO DR score for the most part and this person will come to a different conclusion. This is one problem I have with the DxO result.

Lenses are similar in that there are so many possible things that can be scored that any kind of a single rating is just not a plausible thing. Again, a portrait photographer may be after center sharpness and bokeh while a landscape photographer only cares about corner to corner sharpness while stopped down and with a minimum of distortion and vignetting.

Flat out, I like certain lenses just find even though they have terrible corners or vignette heavily. Other users would find these characteristics to be unforgivable. How can one rating cover this?

JeffreyG wrote in post #15380695
It's a good article. I think the key takaway for photographers would be to understand that the more a reviewer tries to distill camera or lens performance down to a single number, the less relevant the result will be.

I personally do not care about 1/3 of the DxO score at all (color depth) and I don't care about another 1/3 of the DxO score much (low ISO DR). That's why I'm perfectly happy with Canon cameras that get pretty lousy overall scores from them.

A landscape shooter on the other hand is going to be looking at the low ISO DR score for the most part and this person will come to a different conclusion. This is one problem I have with the DxO result.

Lenses are similar in that there are so many possible things that can be scored that any kind of a single rating is just not a plausible thing. Again, a portrait photographer may be after center sharpness and bokeh while a landscape photographer only cares about corner to corner sharpness while stopped down and with a minimum of distortion and vignetting.

Flat out, I like certain lenses just find even though they have terrible corners or vignette heavily. Other users would find these characteristics to be unforgivable. How can one rating cover this?

It's why they publish different scores, for DR, ISO and colour depth, so you can look at what's important to you. For me, I could care less about ISO in 99% of situations, but DR and colour depth are important.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15372999
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …nchmarking_came​ras2.shtml

An excellent article explaining what each of the DXOMark scores mean, and how they are calculated, for those who don't understand them or doubt the findings or the reasoning behind them.

well their findings.... I'm interested in high ISO mostly since I tend to shoot indoors a lot. I'm not seeing how their figures match up to my eyes. I think canon has a clear cut advantage in high ISO than nikon, though nikon regularly scores higher. Take the D600 vs 6D....

I think most people can agree that the D600 trumps low iso, and the 6D trumps high ISO, yet the dxo marks only show the D600 topping in both categories. It's different than what my eye sees. Even multiple reviewers claim the 6D to have better high iso.

In that sense, the test loses a lot of credibility.

Charlie wrote in post #15381319
well their findings.... I'm interested in high ISO mostly since I tend to shoot indoors a lot. I'm not seeing how their figures match up to my eyes. I think canon has a clear cut advantage in high ISO than nikon, though nikon regularly scores higher. Take the D600 vs 6D....

I think most people can agree that the D600 trumps low iso, and the 6D trumps high ISO, yet the dxo marks only show the D600 topping in both categories. It's different than what my eye sees. Even multiple reviewers claim the 6D to have better high iso.

In that sense, the test loses a lot of credibility.

One thing I can say is that Canon doesn't have an answer to challenge the D800. I care less about ISO and look for DR. Canon can't touch Nikon in this manner.