Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 31 Oct 2014 (Friday) 23:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How real and reliable are DXOmark scores?

 
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 03, 2014 00:46 |  #31

timbop wrote in post #17248668 (external link)
Yes, I get that - but I don't find the DR I get in my shots to be a limiting factor for me. Noise handling, AF, sharpness, etc are more important to me; the DR I get is sufficient.

Then the DR score is clearly something that doesn't matter to you.

That's a good thing, actually, because it means that there's one less thing about your gear that limits you.


But just because it doesn't limit you doesn't mean it won't limit someone else. That's why nobody can really legitimately say that what DxO does is universally worthless. Quite the opposite: DxO's measurements allow one to see what the real limitations of the cameras are, at least with respect to those things DxO measures, in an objective fashion.

Most certainly, there are going to be other considerations for most people. But the existence of other considerations does not eliminate the ones under discussion.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Nethawked
Senior Member
802 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 244
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Nov 03, 2014 01:17 |  #32

timbop wrote in post #17248821 (external link)
Well, when I first got back into photography in the digital age I used to put a lot of stock in metrics sites like DXO and photozone. However, I also did research by renting lenses and reading reviews like the digital picture, as well as looking at shots taken by the really good photographers here and on other forums as well. What I realized was that statistically significant differences in the "measurement-intensive" sites were often imperceptable looking at real images. In real world images, things like lighting, movement, focus accuracy, technique - those made a much bigger difference in image quality than some characteristic only visible at 100% after pushing 2 stops.

Exactly. Nobody looks at an image created by a relatively talented photographer and then wonders about anything as trivial as a DXOmark score.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 03, 2014 01:40 |  #33

Nethawked wrote in post #17248960 (external link)
Exactly. Nobody looks at an image created by a relatively talented photographer and then wonders about anything as trivial as a DXOmark score.

Which, of course, is why full frame doesn't matter, and high ISO capability is irrelevant, right?

After all, it's not the camera that limits what the photographer can do, right? Nobody looks at an image created by a relatively talented photographer and wonders about anything as trivial as what camera he used to capture the photo, right?

:rolleyes:


The DxO scores are just scores computed from measurements, but the measurement values are useful for determining which camera will meet one's needs best as regards some specific image capture capability.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photo123abc
Member
236 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Finland
     
Nov 03, 2014 03:38 as a reply to  @ post 17248365 |  #34

I find DXOmark pretty much useless. Yes there is alot of info about dynamic range and stuff. However real-life performance is what matters the most. Is AF fast with my lenses, what does grain look like, is the shutter silent enough...

What most people seem to forget that sensor isnt everything. More megapixels may seem like a great idea. However you dont gain any extra sharpness out of it if youre not using the right lenses. For example, A7r and D810 etc. Yes they have alot of mp and dr, but you just simply cant use it with lenses that cant reach that sharpness. Result? Similar image quality compared to lower mp body, lets say 5D3 without adding 1/3 useless data to your hard-drive.


You are what you eat - I dont remember eating a photographer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Unexpressive
Member
105 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2012
     
Nov 03, 2014 03:41 as a reply to  @ kcbrown's post |  #35

The only thing that surpasses DXos uselessness is a long discussion about it.....

just my 0.02 dollars....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Nov 03, 2014 04:02 |  #36

mclaren777 wrote in post #17247991 (external link)
I find DxO and DPReview to be incredibly helpful when I'm making gear decisions.

I find a set of D&D dice just as useful as DxOmark.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sega62
Senior Member
Avatar
756 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2011
     
Nov 03, 2014 04:12 |  #37

timbop wrote in post #17248821 (external link)
Well, when I first got back into photography in the digital age I used to put a lot of stock in metrics sites like DXO and photozone. However, I also did research by renting lenses and reading reviews like the digital picture, as well as looking at shots taken by the really good photographers here and on other forums as well. What I realized was that statistically significant differences in the "measurement-intensive" sites were often imperceptable looking at real images. In real world images, things like lighting, movement, focus accuracy, technique - those made a much bigger difference in image quality than some characteristic only visible at 100% after pushing 2 stops.

Thats exactly what I said.
Forums are a great way to look at what a camera and lens can do.
dxo are doing one test, compared to people in A Real World are doing.
some are processd, some are a little with light room, some are photoshop, but I would prefer users over Dxo that is affiliated to Nikon and Dpreview.
These guys are not doing any good to Canon considering they push the enveloppe on DR way too much.
dr is not the full measurment for a picture, some love clean Iso more, color tone, handling, focus.....get the picture?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,068 posts
Gallery: 552 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1651
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 03, 2014 04:56 |  #38

Charlie wrote in post #17248772 (external link)
Disagree, since optical tests are not practical. A lens can have super optics at infinity, but what if it has field curvature? Pure optics don't translate to a body lens combo. What good are optics claims if you can't realize the claims?

Do is more practical the way it is, I rather it stay that way. Would be nice if they had time for adapted lens tests as well.

You might have picked a better example than field curvature you know. Given that field curvature can actually only be measured ON an optical test bed, such as Lensrentals are now using. That and decentering were two important reasons that they invested in the thing in the first place. They use it mainly to check lenses before/after doing their own repairs. A good test bench system will also allow the testing of the lens at more than on focus distance setting, which is not really something that you can do when using a camera body to make the test.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Twister286
Member
63 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Nov 03, 2014 05:34 |  #39

In one of their summary scores, the single-number scores from DxO rated the 24-105L higher than the 300/2.8 L II...that alone should be grounds to take whatever they say with a huge pinch of salt.


50D | 430EX-II
EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 24-105 f/4L IS | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF-S 18-55 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Nov 03, 2014 06:04 |  #40

Twister286 wrote in post #17249122 (external link)
In one of their summary scores, the single-number scores from DxO rated the 24-105L higher than the 300/2.8 L II...that alone should be grounds to take whatever they say with a huge pinch of salt.

Oooh, do you have a link? That would be wonderfully amusing.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Nov 03, 2014 06:16 |  #41

JeffreyG wrote in post #17247782 (external link)
DxO objectively measures certain performance parameters of camera sensors and their objective measurements are quite reliable. The problem is, what they are measuring may or may not be of interest to you for what you shoot.

First off, note that DxO does not have an effective way to normalize their ratings between sensors of different sizes, or of different pixel densities. So the less alike any two sensors you compare the less comparable the ratings will be.

Second, note that they give a 'score' in three categories (I can't remember the names) but the scores relate to signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, and color fidelity.

Finally, DxO averages these scores into a final score for the sensor. But there is the problem. I don't care a whole bunch about DR and I care not at all about their color measure, so their final result is pretty close to useless for me.

There is even more detail to this if you are really interested, but I don't know how much of a digression you want here. But take this as an example. Canon and Nikon (Sony) sensors have about the same DR at high ISO levels. So if you shoot action in low light as I do, the sensors have about the same DR. But at low ISO, the Sony sensor has a much broader DR than the Canon sensor. So a landscape photographer would regard the Sony sensor as a lot better for DR and would see that reflected in the DxO rating. A sports shooter would find no real difference and would wonder why the ratings were not the same.

Just wanted to second this. It's right on the money. Since you're shooting landscapes, the Nikon may be better, but you also need to weigh in a ton of other factors like lens availibility (used and new market), ergonomics (go play with the menu systems of both and see which is more intuitive for you), features, and other such things. There really is not objective better or worse camera, just what is better for your specific needs.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 03, 2014 06:29 |  #42

Photo123abc wrote in post #17249046 (external link)
I find DXOmark pretty much useless. Yes there is alot of info about dynamic range and stuff. However real-life performance is what matters the most. Is AF fast with my lenses, what does grain look like, is the shutter silent enough...

What most people seem to forget that sensor isnt everything.

Of course. I doubt anyone is claiming that the DxO measurements give you anything like the complete picture.

But there is a difference between not having the complete picture and not having any picture at all.

DxO gives you some objective data about the camera that you can work with, but you have to go beyond the scores to get at it or, at least, understand exactly how the scores are derived. It's up to you to decide how important the various things DxO measures are.

Dynamic range is a perfect example. The DxO numbers show that the dynamic range of the Nikons exceeds the Canons at low ISOs, but that the curves intersect at some point and, depending on which specific cameras are being compared, may wind up favoring the Canons beyond that point. Does that mean that Nikon is better than Canon or vice versa? It depends on what you need out of your camera. If dynamic range isn't important to you, then the dynamic range numbers can clearly be ignored. But if you're a landscaper trying to eke out every last bit of tonal detail to be found in the scene, you're probably going to want to know just what the camera you're considering is capable of in that respect and how it compares with other alternatives you're considering.


There's no substitute for real-world experience with a camera, but the problem is that even that is dependent upon the individual. You simply cannot take someone else's experience with a camera and presume that it applies to you. How you postprocess your shots, for instance, may differ greatly from how someone else does, and that matters when it comes to how the attributes of the camera will affect the end result.


In the end, it's better to have data that you don't end up using than it is to need data that you don't have. DxO provides data. Whether you use it or not, and how you use it if you choose to, is entirely up to you.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 03, 2014 07:23 |  #43
bannedPermanent ban

Nethawked wrote in post #17248960 (external link)
Exactly. Nobody looks at an image created by a relatively talented photographer and then wonders about anything as trivial as a DXOmark score.

No...but maybe the talented photographer studied sites like DXO before making his buying decisions...leading to great photos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 03, 2014 07:25 |  #44
bannedPermanent ban

Photo123abc wrote in post #17249046 (external link)
I find DXOmark pretty much useless. Yes there is alot of info about dynamic range and stuff. However real-life performance is what matters the most. Is AF fast with my lenses, what does grain look like, is the shutter silent enough...

What most people seem to forget that sensor isnt everything. More megapixels may seem like a great idea. However you dont gain any extra sharpness out of it if youre not using the right lenses. For example, A7r and D810 etc. Yes they have alot of mp and dr, but you just simply cant use it with lenses that cant reach that sharpness. Result? Similar image quality compared to lower mp body, lets say 5D3 without adding 1/3 useless data to your hard-drive.

Funny how just a few years ago when Canon lead in sensor tech...sensor abilities were the talk of the town. Now all of a sudden it's just so passé.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 03, 2014 07:27 |  #45
bannedPermanent ban

Photo123abc wrote in post #17249046 (external link)
I find DXOmark pretty much useless. Yes there is alot of info about dynamic range and stuff. However real-life performance is what matters the most. Is AF fast with my lenses, what does grain look like, is the shutter silent enough...

What most people seem to forget that sensor isnt everything. More megapixels may seem like a great idea. However you dont gain any extra sharpness out of it if youre not using the right lenses. For example, A7r and D810 etc. Yes they have alot of mp and dr, but you just simply cant use it with lenses that cant reach that sharpness. Result? Similar image quality compared to lower mp body, lets say 5D3 without adding 1/3 useless data to your hard-drive.

You obviously never shot with either the D810 or A7r. Calling the pixels coming out of those sensors as useless shows your ignorance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18,116 views & 0 likes for this thread
How real and reliable are DXOmark scores?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is elkaboing
847 guests, 253 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.