For what its worth

idkdc wrote in post #17270383
I didn't parrot, actually someone else took the time to run through each of his points, which you didn't seem to directly answer that post and try to dispel each point one by one.

I have looked into their website and scores myself a while back. They just give numbers for resolution per sensor per lens that rolled out of their software algorithms. Like I said, it's an engineering black box for how they get their numbers and how they weight their final score.

Did you look at the actual graphs they produce? Did you analyze those graphs. Since you shot with the D800, did you notice those graphs line up with what you experienced?

Show me where their is any contradictory information on the camera tests performed by DXO.

CanonPaperboy wrote in post #17270285
And would you be so dismissive of it if Canon was highest ranking?

Nope, because I really don't give a crap, and have no need to justify my choices.

Hogloff wrote in post #17270385
Exactly where did I say this. I said the people on this board are more advanced than the general public and tests like DXO is very relevant for many. If you don't like them...then I guess don't visit DXO...but please let other intelligent people make their own opinions on the data.

If you disagree with some posters' points, which as you said, agree more or less with Thom Hogan's, can you go and point out the problem in his reasoning? I think you're choosing to ignore the text as well as his points others took the time to post here in summary. Iso 100-400, Nikon/Sony have an advantage. ISO 400+ it's close to Canon having the advantage beyond that. What's so hard and decisive about that?

idkdc wrote in post #17270307
Seems like CanonPaperboy is making answers for Hogloff. I could be wrong, but it's probably a duplicate account here made just for this thread.

Either that or they need a jar of vaseline and a room in the Poconos.

Hogloff wrote in post #17270391
Did you look at the actual graphs they produce? Did you analyze those graphs. Since you shot with the D800, did you notice those graphs line up with what you experienced?

Show me where their is any contradictory information on the camera tests performed by DXO.

Correlation of data. I said I had no problem with the data, just how the data is produced. I agree that the D800 is a wonderful camera. Chill out. This is the difference between methodology (how you get the results) and conclusion (what the results are). In a scientific setting, a true conclusion does not make up for lack of methodology/documentat​ion. That is my only point here.

I'm going to quote myself again because you didn't seem to get it the first time:

"You are appealing to ignorance here (argumentum ad ignorantiam):

idkdc wrote in post #17270402
Correlation of data. I said I had no problem with the data, just how the data is produced. I agree that the D800 is a wonderful camera. Chill out. This is the difference between methodology (how you get the results) and conclusion (what the results are). In a scientific setting, a true conclusion does not make up for lack of methodology/documentat​ion. That is my only point here.

Have you actually looked at their methodology yourself or just believe what Thom wrote? I haven't and don't really care that much about it. I use DXO and a few other test sites and they usually line up with the results...that is all that I care about. I then do my own homework by renting the gear prior to purchase. That to me is the best methodology of all.

Nethawked wrote in post #17270397
Either that or they need a jar of vaseline and a room in the Poconos.

Grow up.

Hogloff wrote in post #17270414
Have you actually looked at their methodology yourself or just believe what Thom wrote? I haven't and don't really care that much about it. I use DXO and a few other test sites and they usually line up with the results...that is all that I care about. I then do my own homework by renting the gear prior to purchase. That to me is the best methodology of all.

I have, there is no documentation out there, good sir. If you have good enough memory, some of their results didn't line up with the real world, like their original test of the 70-200 IS II from Canon when it was first released. If we knew what their method was, then their result would have been more trustworthy, but alas, none was provided, and a firestorm ensued shortly.

idkdc wrote in post #17270422
I have, there is no documentation out there, good sir. If you have good enough memory, some of their results didn't line up with the real world, like their original test of the 70-200 IS II from Canon when it was first released. If we knew what their method was, then their result would have been more trustworthy, but alas, none was provided, and a firestorm ensued shortly.

I've been explicitly talking about their camera tests...nothing every said about their lens testing. I've never seen anything discredited about their camera tests...other than their rankings which are their own preference on what is important to them.

CanonPaperboy wrote in post #17270282
Than why the need for any new cameras if it's all about the photographer. Why the need for a 7D II if the original was good enough? The improvements were very incremental.

You're not taking comments in context, but cherry picking words that might support your viewpoint. Only it didn't work in this case, finally we have a winner. The 7D2 update got poor DxO marks, and yet suppliers can't keep it in stock. Hard to believe with that horrible Canon sensor, huh?

Hogloff wrote in post #17270447
I've been explicitly talking about their camera tests...nothing every said about their lens testing. I've never seen anything discredited about their camera tests...other than their rankings which are their own preference on what is important to them.

They're possibly using the same methodology, so the veracity of one test would hint at the veracity at the other - overall reliability record would matter given the opaque methodology.

Besides, a Tobacco company can fund a research team to conduct a test, but if their methodology is not documented, and they make a conclusion in the Tobacco company's favor, even if that conclusion makes common sense or goes in line with anecdotal experiences like yours or mine, other scientists will still point it out as suspicious as there is a huge conflict of interest. DXOMark tests equipment for Sony and Nikon. Conflict of interest. I'm not saying their results are wrong, as I've repeatedly said in response to your fervent defense, I'm saying they need to present a transparent method in order to dispel concerns that they have a huge conflict of interest and are not as neutral as they present themselves as.

idkdc wrote in post #17270468
They're possibly using the same methodology, so the veracity of one test would hint at the veracity at the other - overall reliability record would matter given that the opaque methodology.

Besides, a Tobacco company can fund a research team to conduct a test, but if their methodology is not documented, and they make a conclusion in the Tobacco company's favor, even if that conclusion makes common sense or goes in line with anecdotal experiences like yours or mine, other scientists will still point it out as suspicious as there is a huge conflict of interest. DXOMark tests equipment for Sony and Nikon. Conflict of interest. I'm not saying their results are wrong, as I've repeatedly said in response to your fervent defense, I'm saying they need to present a transparent method in order to dispel concerns that they have a huge conflict of interest and are not as neutral as they present themselves as.

Maybe for the scientific bit heads...but for the mere mortal photographer, results from multiple sites that agree with each other is enough for me. I don't want to read about their detailed methods or algorithms etc...

Like I said, my final test is camera or lens in hand taking photos. That beats anything else out there. I use these test sites to weed out the cameras for my needs. Works for me as I'm more into photography than spending boring time reading scientific papers. Buts that's just me...if others enjoy the papers...go for it.

Hogloff wrote in post #17270484
Maybe for the scientific bit heads...but for the mere mortal photographer, results from multiple sites that agree with each other is enough for me. I don't want to read about their detailed methods or algorithms etc...

Like I said, my final test is camera or lens in hand taking photos. That beats anything else out there. I use these test sites to weed out the cameras for my needs. Works for me as I'm more into photography than spending boring time reading scientific papers. Buts that's just me...if others enjoy the papers...go for it.

Yup, you'll pixel peep, measurebate and read test charts, but questioning how those test charts are made is too boring for you. Bit of an arbitrary line to draw. Others could argue that the charts themselves are too boring, and irrelevant/not-applicable to the "mere mortal photographer," and to skip them and jump straight to testing the cameras yourself and then going out to shoot.

idkdc wrote in post #17270504
Yup, you'll pixel peep, measurebate and read test charts, but questioning how those test charts are made is too boring for you. Bit of an arbitrary line to draw. Others could argue that the charts themselves are too boring, and irrelevant/not-applicable to the "mere mortal photographer," and to skip them and jump straight to testing the cameras yourself and then going out to shoot.

Yes...but how do you narrow down what cameras to test? By listening to people on forms like this...I think not. By spending a couple of hours at various sites looking at their results...yep.

How do you decide? Listening to Thom?

Hogloff wrote in post #17270530
Yes...but how do you narrow down what cameras to test? By listening to people on forms like this...I think not. By spending a couple of hours at various sites looking at their results...yep.

How do you decide? Listening to Thom?

I actually walked straight into the camera store for my latest camera brand decision when the reps from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax 645 (their medium format platform), Hasselblad, Phase One, Mayima, etc. brought all their cameras and lenses and flashes for me to try in store. I got to try out the supertelephotos, their 200mm f/2's, their f/1.4's, f/1.2's etc. It was a great experience, and I loved talking to all their representatives to get an idea of their customer service and their manufacturing ideologies (most of the reps were photographers themselves who gave feedback to their employers) and I tried all the cameras myself. I worked with both Nikon and Canon (zooms and exotics) gear at my newspaper and would frequently borrow friends' gear to try everything myself. I learned the nuances between brands this way shooting cross-platform 40 hours a week. I've looked into transparent testing websites like Photozone.de, Slrgear, Lensrentals.com, etc. for research, but never needed to look into DXOMark at all to justify my purchases. I understand the pros and cons of Sony sensors and other brands of bodies from playing around with the raw files myself. Sony is a new player, don't give them so much credit, Nikon had the first widely-available sensor where you could raise shadows like crazy (that I can remember).