# DXO vs Reality



## wickidwombat (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?

Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis 

Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade


----------



## peederj (Mar 29, 2012)

Better than Ken Rockwell at least!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

I received feedback from a client today who wasn't too thrilled with my work. He commented on how the images were poorly lit and composed, and lacked any emotion. Fortunately, I was able to manipulate the exif data to make it appear as if the images were shot with a D800. I sent him a link to its DxOMark test results, explaining how it has the best-performing sensor on earth. He then said, "you're right, these image right here are some medium format $**t. Now everyone's happy ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

If Nikon were a big customer, and Canon was not, what would you do?

http://www.dxo.com/us/image_quality/customers2

DXO would like you to think they are independent and do not take advertising from camera makers, but ...


----------



## Zhanger (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm a Nikon shooter currently with a D5100. DxOMark ranks the D5100/D7000 very well in terms of DR, but I can never really get the amount of dynamic range that I'm happy with in my photos. This is primarily why I'm really looking to go full frame.

Just goes to show you how useless numbers are.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

Zhanger said:


> I'm a Nikon shooter currently with a D5100. DxOMark ranks the D5100/D7000 very well in terms of DR, but I can never really get the amount of dynamic range that I'm happy with in my photos. This is primarily why I'm really looking to go full frame.
> 
> Just goes to show you how useless numbers are.


 
The DR ratings are like gas milage ratings. They are the best ideal case, but not what most users see. The DR ratings for jpeg are closer to reality. You can get more DR from Raw files, but the images more often than not look flat and awful.


----------



## Zhanger (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zhanger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Nikon shooter currently with a D5100. DxOMark ranks the D5100/D7000 very well in terms of DR, but I can never really get the amount of dynamic range that I'm happy with in my photos. This is primarily why I'm really looking to go full frame.
> ...



Which is why I really hate processing RAWs, especially on a D5100, which is not exactly a top-notch camera. I find myself just shooting straight JPEGs cause I'm usually pretty good with nailing the exposures the first time around.

Poking my head around the Canon side cause I have pretty much no commitment to Nikon as far as lenses are considered (hell I use a Canon EOS strap on my D5100...)


----------



## JR (Mar 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
> 
> Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis
> 
> Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade



I agree with you wicki. the more I look at real life sample picture from the various camera like D800, D4 and 5DmkIII at DP Review for example the less I find these DxO test relevant. 

If any of you guy are audiophile and sound system lovers, you would know that a cheep sony amplifier often has much better spec sheet then a $10,000 amplifiers! But guess which one sounds better though in real life! (I need to remember this one next time I get paranoid about my camera spec!)

8)


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Nikon were a big customer, and Canon was not, what would you do?
> 
> http://www.dxo.com/us/image_quality/customers2
> 
> DXO would like you to think they are independent and do not take advertising from camera makers, but ...



Ot the other hand maybe Canon is not present there because doesn't win?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If Nikon were a big customer, and Canon was not, what would you do?
> ...


 
Or doesn't want to "Buy" a high rating?


----------



## birtembuk (Mar 29, 2012)

Definitely agree on DXO discrepancy between lab bench and reality. Wrote a note already on this but the thread was stopped. Imo, this is pure academic exercise. A bit like taking an engine out of a car and test it on a formatted test-bench by white-coat-dressed technicians producing lots of data that nobody gives a damn about. Obviously, a car is much more than an engine. But, the way the data and numbers are presented give the false impression of authenticity. People love that. It's irrational, but they love that. For me, I would not buy any gear just based on DXO reviews. Just take it as informative as any other info available at the time.

Just remember how they found the 70-200/2.8 II to be just OK on their test-bench while absolutely every other review site around the world has only praise for that lens. Rings a bell ?


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

The thing with testing is that you can test a product to death and find a huge number of issues or come up with fancy charts. However, if your test scenarios do not echo what 80% of your customers would do, there is no point testing. All the time spent in testing, finding issues and fixing them is a waste.


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If Nikon were a big customer, and Canon was not, what would you do?
> ...



Or Canon has not given DxO permission to put their logo up. In my job, a few of our best customers have a policy of never allowing their logo on such pages. So our "Customer Segments" page does not show their logos.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 29, 2012)

I will be convinced when 24-70 II will be treated same way.
I know that while testing you can show results in different ways to proof your point the way you want. But they have their testing procedures which are known before each test is performed. If so many people don't believe those tests, then why someone didn't proof yet that they lie?

I'm an engineer and believe in numbers, anyway. I know there are things difficult to measure (like bokeh). But I also know how difficult it's to talk to audiophiles, who pay 1k$ for better USB wire saying it sounds better.

I'm not saying they play fair, but judging that tests of Canon's gear are bad because there's Nikon as customer... Well, I'm not sure....


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 29, 2012)

I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.

There are many other websites that cite themselves as professional, systematic, etc - whereas there are SO many variables, and if they don't get 1 thing just 'spot on' - it can ruin the overall results. I recall one site that tested scores of lenses, but many of them at their very minimum focusing distance (MFD) - where some lenses (even high quality ones) are not at their sharpest... and the results were very skewed. 

Another site I came across a few weeks ago - the testers only tested the 'minimum focal length' (eg 70-300mm @ 70mm - and all at f8) - and only a certain 'part' of the overall image (centre pixels). It was crazy how some average quality lenses were ranked the same as others which were much higher, just based on that.

I have a marketing management and accounting degree, so I understand about corporate logos, branding, sponsorship, 'marketing words', etc - very well. So that could be an issue... but I doubt that DxO would test eg Nikon more favourably just because of that (they could open themselves up to legal action if that were the case....)

Having said that, I do like DxO's Optics Pro software a LOT. So I'm a customer of DxO's. I won't be so 'put off' by the annoyances I have with DxO's sensor test not to use their good stuff!

Cheers.

Paul


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 29, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.
> 
> There are many other websites that cite themselves as professional, systematic, etc - whereas there are SO many variables, and if they don't get 1 thing just 'spot on' - it can ruin the overall results. I recall one site that tested scores of lenses, but many of them at their very minimum focusing distance (MFD) - where some lenses (even high quality ones) are not at their sharpest... and the results were very skewed.
> 
> ...



Well stated but honestly it's not fair putting in one row DxO and such sites you've mentioned...


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2012)

Zhanger said:


> Poking my head around the Canon side cause I have pretty much no commitment to Nikon as far as lenses are considered (hell I use a Canon EOS strap on my D5100...)



Funny. I just bought a D5100 to see if it can really perform better in real life High-DR shots better than my semi-pro Canon gear. 

preliminary results are looking like it can... More testing to do but making some public soon.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 29, 2012)

Zhanger said:


> I use a Canon EOS strap on my D5100.



Camera straps are often overlooked, it's a crucial piece of kit that can make or break your camera. Ken Rockwell once compared camera straps from all the major manufactures, and the ones that didn't make their own straps he was able to simulate by taking a generic strap and writing the manufactures name on it in nail polish that most closely mimicked the color of the mfg's logo. The results were astounding!!! With the Zeiss strap attached the images became much sharper and popped with an almost 3D quality to them. The Leica strap increased percievable resolution by 20%. The Nikon strap increased the DR but just didn't feel right, a bit clunky and cumbersome. The Canon EOS strap was the best all around, there was a Hit to the DR, but was more comfortable than any of the other straps and was right behind the Leica and Zeiss straps when it came to overall image quality.

Cheers, 
Wrathwilde


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2012)

My take on DxOmark.

Take w a spoon of pepto but I now prefer the SCREEN comparison on DxO rather than the PRINT version.

I print big, their test print is 12x18 inches i think, at about 180 or 200ppi to = 8MP. 

18x12 is the smallest print size I make, which matches up well to the 10MP output of my old 40D, for example.

If you look at the screen comparisons for a lot of cameras what you'll find is that this pixel-level type of result is very good at showing you how various camera systems can perform when you're viewing on screen at 1:1 size. Go ahead, check your favorite cameras... I'll wait...

Done?

OK. notice how much more similar SCREEN results on most of them are at:

- 18% SNR?
- Tonal Range?
- Color Sensitivity?
- Dynamic Range? ( more on this one later )

What's that telling us?
To me it looks like most camera system mfrs are doing a pretty good job pressing the limits of physics and electronics.

If you look at cameras that are at or below about 10MP, SCREEN and PRINT numbers are closer than they are for higher rez cameras of a similar type. It's once you get above about 10 MP sensors that the S vs P numbers start to show more of a difference, with PRINT pulling ahead.
Why?
Likely because the merging of pixel data from higher resolution sensors into few effective pixels for print tend to average out noise and other pixel-level inconsistencies.
I think if the test print was 30x20 inches at 200ppi we'd see different results until sensor resolutions exceed 24MP.

SO, if you're using more than 8MP worth of sensor data to print a similar 18x12" print at 200ppi you're likely getting dimishing returns from higher resolution gear but your results may align better to the PRINT results and actually look a little better.. however it is that they actually measure that.

If you're printing huge sizes where individual pixel data starts to become visible at nose-to-paper distances then your results may be more closely related to the SCREEN results.

Back to the Dynamic Range spec. This is where Canon's gear is reaching its limits at iso settings of 800 and lower compared to the competition. At the limited print size used for the DxO test this is still not likely to show very much of the low iso banding problems some of us hardware-pushing types complain about. If you only print little postcards sizes like 8x10 or 11x14 (  ) you're not very likely to notice banding except perhaps on screen at 1:1 size.

I've used a 7D that showed significant low-iso banding that's sometimes so bad it's very visible on screen with only a slight tone-curve tweak to bring up some shadow area details. There are vertical bands 8 pixels wide, 8 pixels apart, across shadow areas of low iso images. Even if making an 18x12" print that's at 300ppi, that's less than 20 line-pairs of noise per inch, something that can quite easily be noticed.

I also shoot with a 60D, the DxO scores for which are virtually identical to the 7D with the latter tending to rate slightly higher.
Funny thing about the results tho, the 60D suffers considerably less low-iso banding issues than the 7D. They're not showing up in the shadows of my larger prints or on screen, certainly not to anywhere near the extent they are from the 7D. If I were to look at the DxO results, the 7D looks better by a hair. Real life is not the case in my experience.

I don't know exactly what criteria or methods DxO is using for their SNR and DR measurements, whether SCREEN or PRINT. I'm not sure if they take into account this sort of pattern noise that some cameras add too much of to an image. If averaging out the noise data, the banding will have less of an effect on the measured specs yet still show up as a problem in images. 
Still, the better the SNR and DR numbers are then the less likely this is to be a problem. 

I'm looking forward to seeing how much of DxO's reported 2.5 stops of base-iso DR lead for the D5100 translate into real-world usability over a 60D or 7D. And maybe over the 5D2 as well.
Would that make the $650 marvel a better camera than the 5D2? heck no! but it makes it worth using in situations I now know some of my Canon gear will not be able to handle as well.

Just trying to use the best tool for the job.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 29, 2012)

Reality seems to confirm better DR of some cameras.

The question is what you read out of the total scores, it may help quite well with your decision, there is no other such a methodological approach as far as I know. 

Mind you they measure only sensors, irrespective of content and in that sense they describe sensor basic capabilities. 

Clear mind is still needed. 




wickidwombat said:


> I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
> 
> Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis
> 
> Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade


----------



## infared (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zhanger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Nikon shooter currently with a D5100. DxOMark ranks the D5100/D7000 very well in terms of DR, but I can never really get the amount of dynamic range that I'm happy with in my photos. This is primarily why I'm really looking to go full frame.
> ...



Raw files are neutral..and FULL of information. That is the beauty of them. Yes they look flat. Take them to post and you have SO MUCH MORE information to pull out the image to create what you saw when you took the photo. Yes it takes more time, yes you need good software, (more than one in my opinion, depending on what the final image will look like)..but Raw Files are an incredible tool. They are the whole reason why I spend my hard earned money on a expensive camera that produces them. I know a guy who owns an 5D Mark II and uses it to shoot weddings in jpeg? Me thinks he might get a LITTLE more detail out of the bride's dress if he shot in Raw but my suggestions fell on deaf ears?


----------



## elflord (Mar 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?



You have to look beyond the one number summary and look at the graphs/scores. The medium format backs don't score as high because they don't good high ISO numbers. I don't know these products well, but it looks like they're not designed for high ISO shooting (Some simply won't let you push the ISO very high). 

I suspect the real reason DxO is coming under fire all of a sudden has more to do with the Nikon D800's score than the scores of Medium format cameras.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 29, 2012)

I did mention a few times prior to D800 testing that DxO suggested Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mark 1 was sharper than mark 2. Even after forum complaints there that the results could not be correct, DxO maintained that there was nothing wrong with the results.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

This is probably the only source that suggests mark 1 was sharper than mark 2. I am not suggesting DxO is necessarily biased, but something does not seem right. Perhaps their testing just does not have enough coverage to give a realistic picture?

Either case, I look at their figures but never rely on them for any purchase... 

Cheers!


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 29, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> I did mention a few times prior to D800 testing that DxO suggested Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mark 1 was sharper than mark 2. Even after forum complaints there that the results could not be correct, DxO maintained that there was nothing wrong with the results.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review
> 
> ...



A couple thoughts come to mind... 

For me it was not so much the Nikon D800 score, but it was that score relative to other cameras I know to be better and more capable. If you go by DxO, the D4 and D3s are shite compared to the D800 which is just not true. Then when you throw the whole MF quality into the mix... Yes, the MFs may bot be designed for High ISO per se, but does beg to question the ability to quantitatively measure IQ

In someways reminds me of CDs versus LPs, and while "Digital" is supposed to capture and be so reproduceable, the audiophiles still find magic in the outdated LPs for sound quality. 

Not to bring film versus digital back in the mix, but I do think that it is possible to produce a camera that "tests" well but whose IQ to the eye does not meet with the same judgement. 

To me this diminishes the value of DxO since they are telling me a new BMW outperforms a new Ferrari

Is the D800 a better camera than the D4? DxO says it is by a big margin. 

You can tell me Rosie O'donnell is hotter than Olivia Wilde, I'll say you just have a thing for fat chicks who aren't funny


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.
> ...



Hi marekjoz

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't at my usual computer when I wrote my previous post, so I couldn't look up the sites I was referring to.

It would probably have been more helpful to explain that I'm not placing DxO in the same basket as many other even less systematic photographic equipment testing sites. There are many shades of grey.

DxO has some very helpful tools and software. Just their sensor tests don't cut the mustard, imho.

Regards

Paul


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 29, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Your making my point. Sorry. The sensor in the d800 is not leaps and bounds over that of the D4.

I know that.
Nikon knows that.
DxO tests can't figure that out.

Despite what DxO is trying to tell me, Rosie O'Donnell is still fat and not more attractive than Olivia Wilde. 

Fact. Not Opinion.


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

dilbert said:


> DxO doesn't measure/score "camera", it scores "sensor." Thus DxO ranks camera based on sensor and sensor alone. For some people that will make it a better camera than the D4, for some it will not.



Gold!

You hit the head one the nail (or the other way around... whatever... )


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 29, 2012)

elflord said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
> ...



The only medium format digital camera with an ISO of above 800 is the Pentax 645D which goes up to 1600. Th ereason being that most, apart from teh Pentax are aimed at studio shooters. The Pentax, being weather shielded and having a few lenses that are also weather shielded is aimed also at landscape shooters, which is does very well. 

This is a shot I took at a concert in Sweden which was at every extreme: 

Pentax 645D A (manual focus) 80 - 160 f/4.5 @ f/4.5 and 160mm 1/125 ISO 1600




hannah with orchestra in sweden by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 29, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > pj1974 said:
> ...



Paul
since English is not my first language, sometimes it's more difficult for me to grade shades of grey and also sometimes it's more difficult to find what's thrown into one basket  Anyway you clearly state what you like and dislike in DxO and this is *fair*. I just have problems with statements (it's not to you, Paul) I read: "they are wrong because the results are not what I expected, what I invested in, what I like, what I believe....". 
It's obviously not logic because of this simple schema:
1. Did they describe their testing procedures? Yes
2. Do they follow their testing procedures during tests? Most probably, they risk too much.
3. Is there anything wrong with their testing procedures? If there is, then I'd like to read about that - why there is something wrong with the way they run their test.
4. Is there anything wrong with the interpretation of their results? Is yes, then I'd like to read about that.

I simply don't understand people, who fight against numbers, numbers having their interpretation. If someone believes there is so much wrong with DxO, then there is a simple way to proof it.
In my opinion: I do believe that numbers which DxO publishes are real. There might be sometimes something to interpretation but as far as I didn't see clearly pushing one brand over another and interpreting same or comparative results the opposite way depending on situation, then I'm not convinced they lie.

Paul, do you know what I mean?
Regards, Marek


----------



## Actionpix (Mar 29, 2012)

I always am surprised how people can get excited over "theory". "Well diffraction is only theory but no real life." "Well calculating DoF/hyper focal focusing is no real life situation." It is. "Theory", a word "artists" hate, explains why your images get unnecessary soft when you use to much aperture. Theory explains why you do not get the max (technical) out of your images. The same one can say concerning lab tests. They are "no real life situation" but will show the potential of equipment, whether you use it in real life or not. The potential is there and it has values you can compare. If you do not like the result you can argue against "theory" and "lab test" but they are as real as real life. They only are emotionless.


----------



## dichiaras (Mar 29, 2012)

Why are so many people so much against science and the scientific method?
DxO gives results for a standardized 8mp image as well as a 100% crop. The more important one is the former, since you usually crop just a little your image, and then downsize it. I looked also at the results for DR from dpreview (for 100% crop), and they more or less agree with those from DxO. So at the end of the day DxO and dpreview both agree that Nikon and Sony have better DR than Canon (crop sensors at least). Quoting from the dpreview of the 600D about DR: "Overall this is exactly what we're used to seeing from Canon DSLRs, meaning a little less highlight range by default than is typically obtained from Nikon and Sony competitors ".

DxO rates the image quality given by Canon lenses as higher than that of Nikon lenses: shall we believe that DxO gives unfair advantage to Canon for the lenses and to Nikon/Sony for the sensors? No, that's silly!

Since I'm at it, I think that dpreview is definitely more lenient with Canon than with any other brand: while describing the highlight priority option they write "Turn this on and the 600D captures an extra stop in the highlights, resulting in an overall range that at least matches that of Sony and Nikon models." That's inaccurate, since the Nikon D5100 has a similar option that pushes DR much higher than the 600D's, as written in the D5100 review. Between DxO and dpreview, I think it's the latter to be unfair.

But again, for many people Canon is a religion: they just have faith, and definitely not in numbers. 

PS I have a Canon 1100D with four Canon lenses, and am very happy with the IQ that I get for the buck, but before upgrading (which I plan to do as soon as the 650D and 70D come out) I will take a long and accurate look at the DxO test results.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 29, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> I always am surprised how people can get excited over "theory". "Well diffraction is only theory but no real life." "Well calculating DoF/hyper focal focusing is no real life situation." It is. "Theory", a word "artists" hate, explains why your images get unnecessary soft when you use to much aperture. Theory explains why you do not get the max (technical) out of your images. The same one can say concerning lab tests. They are "no real life situation" but will show the potential of equipment, whether you use it in real life or not. The potential is there and it has values you can compare. If you do not like the result you can argue against "theory" and "lab test" but they are as real as real life. They only are emotionless.



Sorry but it's Throwing tests away is like saying: "I don't care how many HP has my engine. I don't care how fast does it accelerate. Those are just numbers." o
Of course - those are just numbers comparing if one car is faster than the other. That's about numbers as people like to see things comparable. It doesn't say what comfort is inside, nor where and how gently you drive.
Another example - I don't care if my camera/lens resolves 1000lp/mm or 400 = I don't care if my camera has 8MP or 20MP = I don't care if my camera shoots 8fps or 3fps, 14 bits TR or 8 bits TR and so on...
Let's not get crazy. Not everything is comparable but there are important things that are. Better camera will not make a photographer of anybody - that's obvious. But why not look on comparisons, tests or numbers? I don't get it.
Charts and graphs are simple enhancement to specification. What's wrong in it?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 29, 2012)

For the most part, my view on DxO is similar to how i take DPR and the rest of the "in-depth" review sites... with a grain of salt. Getting a top of the line camera isn't going to make you a better photographer... It CAN however give you a higher ceiling to learn... It CAN give you more options and make things easier, faster, cleaner, but it will vary from photographer to photographer. Nikon, in theory, has typically scored higher than canon in the last half decade in these sort of tests, however a good chunk of National Geo's staff and field photographers shoot canon and get great images. 

As far as DR and such, as another has posted, in post, it gives more flexibility and room for editing... while that's fine and good, your forgetting a lot of "pro" photographers, when it comes to photoshop or post production, are lazy. You would be surprised how many pro's outsource photoshop work. You would also be surprised how many dont outsource but "shoot to print"... They use an expodisc or the like, nail WB, nail exposure, shoot, and then do little in post to prep the files... If all of a sudden the files are turning up flat, that isn't going to sit well as it defeats their business motto. Of course there are some "low volume" photographers who charge more per shoot, they can afford spending time in PS or LR and clean up images all day long, but that is going to get old quick. So there's different angles to look at everything. 

Lastly, coming from a background of shooting cameras that weren't the most opportunistic cameras, such as toyo's for LF instead of sinars, bronicas and kowas instead of Mayima and such... I have learned to adapt, to make the best of my equipment, and not to worry so much about numbers/test/reports as if i have, I would have dropped out a long time ago... In the end, it's not the equipment nor what some test says about the equipment, it's about how you use said equipment.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 29, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> Why are so many people so much against science and the scientific method?
> DxO gives results for a standardized 8mp image as well as a 100% crop. The more important one is the former, since you usually crop just a little your image, and then downsize it. I looked also at the results for DR from dpreview (for 100% crop), and they more or less agree with those from DxO. So at the end of the day DxO and dpreview both agree that Nikon and Sony have better DR than Canon (crop sensors at least). Quoting from the dpreview of the 600D about DR: "Overall this is exactly what we're used to seeing from Canon DSLRs, meaning a little less highlight range by default than is typically obtained from Nikon and Sony competitors ".
> 
> DxO rates the image quality given by Canon lenses as higher than that of Nikon lenses: shall we believe that DxO gives unfair advantage to Canon for the lenses and to Nikon/Sony for the sensors? No, that's silly!
> ...



It's not so much that we are against scientific tests, it's just not the all to be all... in this day and age, we are so competitive, so eager to be #1 that when something isn't #1, we get panicky... Case in point, D800 scores well in the DxO scores.... you saw how the forum threads blew up... oh what has canon done, nikon is so much better, DR this, DR that, when will canon catch up... shoot that basically summarized two full days on Canon Rumors last week. Even IF, and this is a big IF, canon comes even within 2-3 points on the ratings, how does that fair out when pairing Canons lenses and nikons lenses... All the obsessing over sensors is like the film days... which film has better DR, which film has the better color/saturation, which has more sensitivity, etc... The difference is we cant interchange them like we could with film... There are so many more factors now when evaluating cameras as it is a whole package... AF, build, weather sealing, on-board software, usability, etc... it really is a complete package rather than a single element, and this test is only testing one single element. Lastly DPR, in going back through their paces, in comparisons with nikons offerings... the 7D and the initial 5D were the first cameras they gave glowing reviews of... more or less they picked apart the xxd series to death, picked apart the 5d2 compared to the D700, and only of recent have they really warmed up to Canon, within the last 2-3 years. At least their tests are more of the camera as a whole, which I can give more weight in as a "review" site.


----------



## elflord (Mar 31, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Your making my point. Sorry. The sensor in the d800 is not leaps and bounds over that of the D4.
> 
> I know that.
> Nikon knows that.
> DxO tests can't figure that out.



DxO scores of the D4 and D800 are pretty close -- basically neck and neck except for the dynamic range part of the test, hardly different by "leaps and bounds". The D4 actually does slightly better on the ISO score (2965 vs 2853) 

The only substantial difference on the test is that the D800 has more dynamic range (about a stop more according to the test) at ISO100 and ISO200.


----------



## jrista (Mar 31, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
> 
> Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis
> 
> Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade



I take DXO results with a _nice, big, honkin grain of salt_ most of the time. I like the ability to include consistently-generated (hmm, grain of salt there?) low-level hardware statistics as a factor in comparing like-brand cameras (i.e. I am looking forward to seeing if they measure any hardware-level improvements between the 5D II and III), as most of the time I figure that stuff should be pretty accurate. However when it comes to some of their numbers and some of their customers (i.e. Nikon), I become more and more skeptical. With their claim of 14.4 stops of "print" DR for the Nikon D800, some 2/3rds of a stop better than the sensor itself is capable of, I've become extremely skeptical of their numbers, and usually try to have a _few_ big, honkin grains of salt handy at all times.

When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14. DXO's DR ratings are only useful if you are shooting a scene with extreme DR to start with, and you push the "expose to the right" (ETTR) technique to the absolute limits. Even then, human error and caution will prevent you from actually achieving the maximum possible DR as indicated by DXO. The only way to actually use all of a camera's available DR is to expose a scene you simply can't expose properly no matter how much headroom it has, in which case you'll always end up with unrecoverable blocked blacks and blown highlights.


----------



## iMagic (Mar 31, 2012)

I could care less about technical this and that. Bottom line, what are real world results preceptually (both on screen and in print) and what are the real world practicalities (useability, accessories, etc.). For example, if the final result is a print, does the DR and mega pixels really make a difference on the size/quality of print?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 31, 2012)

jrista said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
> ...



Not what you said before they posted D800 results....



> When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14. DXO's DR ratings are only useful if you are shooting a scene with extreme DR to start with, and you push the "expose to the right" (ETTR) technique to the absolute limits. Even then, human error and caution will prevent you from actually achieving the maximum possible DR as indicated by DXO. The only way to actually use all of a camera's available DR is to expose a scene you simply can't expose properly no matter how much headroom it has, in which case you'll always end up with unrecoverable blocked blacks and blown highlights.



Who cares what those details are the point is to use it to compare cameras relative to one another.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 31, 2012)

I agree that the DxO analysis does not prove that any camera is definitively superior to another camera when it comes to real world applications. It surprises me how many people gawk at the ratings and results of the DxO tests and base their purchasing decisions on them. For example, based on DxO results, the logical decision would be to purchase a D800 over a D4 or D3s even if cost was not a factor; simply because DxO tests "prove" that the D800 is superior to a D4 or D3s. Now think about it... The D4 and D800 were released in the same quarter so Nikon obviously had the opportunity to choose how they wanted the D4 and D800 sensors to be built. So Nikon puts their "greatest sensor ever" into the D800 which is not their flagship model. To me a "flagship model" defines what a company is made of and is the pinnacle of a company's achievements in research and development. So according to DxO... Nikon somehow chose not to put their "best sensor" in the D4... right... that's completely illogical and I'm sure also not true... yes, the D800 has 36 megapixels... but will it outperform a D4 in all other areas that contribute to producing a great image? I think we should ask someone who owns both a D4 and D800 to see how they feel after working with both cameras.

The same would go for Canon with the 5DmkIII and 1Dx. Although, nobody is saying that the 5DmkIII is better than a 1Dx; the 5DmkIII has more megapixels than a 1Dx. Maybe not as dramatic a jump in comparison to what's going on in the Nikon world, but the general difference still remains. Does anyone think that Canon put their "best sensor" in the 5DmkIII and put a crappier sensor in the 1Dx? What if DxO said so? Would you believe it? 

Just to add support for my reasoning... (BTW, this is a non-photography related example). What if Motor Trend magazine did a test between the 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 and 2012 Corvette ZR-1 and said that the Camaro was the best sports coupe that Chevrolet ever came out with? Kind of a no brainer right? LOL


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

jrista said:


> When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14.



The histogram in DPP seems to show DR - is that correct and accurate?

I aim for maximum DR of the shots I am taking with the 1Ds3 and max out (DPP reading) at around 10, getting mostly over 9 for iso 100/200

The equivalent for the 1D4 and 7D are about 9 max with average about 8

These are for shots that should have high DR


----------



## jrista (Mar 31, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14.
> ...



Those sounds like entirely reasonable numbers to me...


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 31, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



Hi Marek

Yes, I do know what you mean. It's true that a lot of 'testing websites' meet the conditions you write about. What annoys me, is that the 'ratings' that these websites give do not always take into account many other factors (even in terms of pure image quality / sensor capabilities) - and 'not including that' - is a 'gap' - that should does not represent professionalism.

So I don't really place any of my purchasing decision on DxO's sensor tests. But they do have some useful software I'm VERY glad to have bought!

By the way, congratulations with good use of English! I speak 5 languages, so I know what it's like trying to express thoughts in a language that is not one's mother language.

Regards

Paul


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 31, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Sorry but it's Throwing tests away is like saying: "I don't care how many HP has my engine. I don't care how fast does it accelerate. Those are just numbers." o
> Of course - those are just numbers comparing if one car is faster than the other. That's about numbers as people like to see things comparable. It doesn't say what comfort is inside, nor where and how gently you drive.
> Another example - I don't care if my camera/lens resolves 1000lp/mm or 400 = I don't care if my camera has 8MP or 20MP = I don't care if my camera shoots 8fps or 3fps, 14 bits TR or 8 bits TR and so on...
> Let's not get crazy. Not everything is comparable but there are important things that are. Better camera will not make a photographer of anybody - that's obvious. But why not look on comparisons, tests or numbers? I don't get it.
> Charts and graphs are simple enhancement to specification. What's wrong in it?



Well, there is some reality in that but also some error in the parallels. 

In the context of the car, the DXO results are often more like "volume of air exhausted", "heat dissipation rate" and "150-200km/h rate". 

In the grand scheme of things in practically using a car or camera, they are mostly moot ...


----------



## jrista (Mar 31, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I may not have "said" it before, but I always take DXO results with a grain of salt. I think most of their statistics ARE accurate..._within the context_ of DXO, relative to each other. I think their numbers are valuable for comparing cameras, however I have never thought their numbers should be used in isolation (I've referenced DPR results as much as I've referenced DXO results in my posts, often in the same posts). Since I may also not have said so before, let me say so now: I find DPR results, even though I believe they are more subjective and less accurate, to be just as valuable as DXO results, and in some respects, much more valuable...since they represent a real-world context better. I DID actually think their Print DR (normalized) DR results were decent before, as I fully understand the value of normalized IQ comparisons. I thought that their normalized print results, since for most cameras your downscaling...which minimizes noise and multisamples source data for each pixel, was "exhibiting the full capabilities of the native sensor DR." However I entirely expected them to come out of the gates claiming the D800 scored 13.97 on their Print DR tests, not some mysterious, magical nonsense like 14.4! I REALLY expected them to say the D800 nailed 14 stops right on the head, but instead they are basically making a claim that the D800 and only the D800 offers photographers the magical ability to GAIN ADDITIONAL DR simply by DOWNSAMPLING. Then Mt. Spokane came along posted a DXO link indicating that Nikon...but not Canon...was a big time paying supporter. Sorry, but I go where the evidence leads, and there is some *evidence of very fishy behavior* about DXO and Nikon these days.

For arguments sake, lets assume there is some magical gain in DR simply by downsampling. That is an ALGORITHMIC process done on DIGITIZED pixel data. The physical sensor, according to DXO's Screen DR value (which at the moment I am not suspicious of...we'll see if they claim that a future 14-bit SoNikon sensor is capable of 14.1 stops...) can produce 13.8 stops of DR strait out of the camera, no processing of any kind outside of amp and ADC. If you run into a real life scene with MORE than 13.8 stops...the theoretical possibility of using a digital algorithm to "stretch out" 14.4 stops from your RAW file isn't going to help you. A real life scene with 18 stops of DR is going to outpace even the D800 sensor, and your only option is going to be to compress the blacks into less space (and therefor less recoverability)...or use an ND filter, just like all the rest of the photographers on the great and beautiful earth.

Thanks to DXO's new D800 rating of 14.4, I am now a firm believer that Print DR is a useless measurement. Digital wizardry can not and will never be a replacement for native, hardware-level dynamic range. I now believe DXO's sole "accurate" measurement of actual hardware-level DR is their Screen DR measurement. I'm unwilling to accept Print DR measurements for any camera now as being even remotely realistic. As such, I believe the following are accurate dynamic range estimates for Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras:


*Brand **Model **DR Stops**Notes*Canon1D IV11.46Canon1Ds III11.25Canon5D II11.16Canon7D11.12NikonD700013.35Still the best from a non-magical DR standpoint_Nikon__D800__13.23__Nikon__D4__12.58_NikonD9012.21DXO "measured ISO" closer to ISO 200, listed as ISO 200 rather than ISO 100 in chartNikonD7011.85DXO "measured ISO" closer to ISO 200, listed as ISO 200 rather than ISO 100 in chartNikonD3s11.66DXO "measured ISO" closer to ISO 200, listed as ISO 200 rather than ISO 100 in chart_Sony__NEX-7__12.59__Mirrorless_SonySLT-A7712.35SonyA-90011.5

NOTE: I was pretty sure DXO listed the Screen DR for the D800 at 13.8 stops before. It is currently listed as 13.23...which makes their claim of 14.4 stops "Print DR" even _more insane_. That would be *1.17 stops* of _MAGICAL DR_ gained by the simple act of *DOWNSAMPLING?!?!?* _BULL SH*T!_ *BIG, STEAMING PILE OF BULL SH*T!* 

Print DR == worthless tool for comparison.

Given the table above, briansquibb's numbers of a about 10 stops of real-world DR for his 1DsIII seem pretty spot on. It would be very difficult to actually utilize the full 11.25 stops without at least blowing out one color channel. Its tough to determine how much shadow DR you might be capturing as well, since you can't really "clip" shadows...you just might not actually gather enough light to measure as a reading in a pixel. Real-world 10-stop DR with an 11.25 stop camera seems entirely valid and realistic to me. I would suspect something similar with the D800...you might get about 12-stop real-world DR with the 13.23 stop megapixel flagship camera if you really pushed for it.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 31, 2012)

Having owned a Nikon D70 _waaaay_ back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.

So much for DxO, then.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Having owned a Nikon D70 _waaaay_ back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.
> 
> So much for DxO, then.



+1 Not convinced the 1D4 is better than the 1Ds3 either


----------



## jrista (Mar 31, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Having owned a Nikon D70 _waaaay_ back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.
> 
> So much for DxO, then.





briansquibb said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > Having owned a Nikon D70 _waaaay_ back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.
> ...



It would depend on what your observing. First off, most "good" computer screens these days are 8-bit screens, and the best of the best are 10-bit screens (which require a matching 10-bit video card to fully realize). That would mean that on a computer screen, the best you could "observe" in terms of DR is about 8-10 stops worth. The bastion of additional dynamic range is not really in what you can see, its in how far you can push exposure and what you can recover. I'd be willing to bet the 7D has more highlight headroom than the D70, and I'd be willing to bet the same thing about the 1D IV vs. the 1DsIII. Canon does kind of suck on the shadow DR end of things, but I've been able to push their exposures extremely far to the right (compress the highlights) such that when I have a histogram that is riding up the right-hand side and would seem to be fully blown, I can usually recover everything...and at worst, I might blow out a tiny bit of one color channel. My Canon 7D has more highlight headroom than my 450D did for sure (which according to DXO Screen DR has about 10.47 stops of native DR), and I've noticed much greater highlight recovery when exposing the moon or a sunset than I did before.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

It would depend on what your observing. First off, most "good" computer screens these days are 8-bit screens, and the best of the best are 10-bit screens (which require a matching 10-bit video card to fully realize). That would mean that on a computer screen, the best you could "observe" in terms of DR is about 8-10 stops worth. The bastion of additional dynamic range is not really in what you can see, its in how far you can push exposure and what you can recover. I'd be willing to bet the 7D has more highlight headroom than the D70, and I'd be willing to bet the same thing about the 1D IV vs. the 1DsIII. Canon does kind of suck on the shadow DR end of things, but I've been able to push their exposures extremely far to the right (compress the highlights) such that when I have a histogram that is riding up the right-hand side and would seem to be fully blown, I can usually recover everything...and at worst, I might blow out a tiny bit of one color channel. My Canon 7D has more highlight headroom than my 450D did for sure (which according to DXO Screen DR has about 10.47 stops of native DR), and I've noticed much greater highlight recovery when exposing the moon or a sunset than I did before.
[/quote]

I only use the histogram in DPP. I find the 1Ds3 has about +/- 5 so it meters in the middle - which I am happy about as it leaves room for level adjustment


----------



## dichiaras (Mar 31, 2012)

Can everybody settle down?
Canon, either with the crop sensor or the full frame one, has less DR than Nikon's corresponding sensors: everywhere you look, DPR, DxO, or individual photographer's reviews, that's what you get. It's a fact of life, so live with it!

On the other hand, even if I had a Nikon D800 instead than my very modest Canon 1100D (which I would love to get rid of once a new Canon crop sensor comes out), my pictures wouldn't get noticeably better, just because very very rarely I need all that DR, color depth, and ISO performance that Nikons offer. And I'm sure neither does 99% of all of you writing on this forum (and 95% of those just reading it, since they spend better their time by actually taking pictures )... 

SO JUST CALM DOWN


----------



## jrista (Mar 31, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It would depend on what your observing. First off, most "good" computer screens these days are 8-bit screens, and the best of the best are 10-bit screens (which require a matching 10-bit video card to fully realize). That would mean that on a computer screen, the best you could "observe" in terms of DR is about 8-10 stops worth. The bastion of additional dynamic range is not really in what you can see, its in how far you can push exposure and what you can recover. I'd be willing to bet the 7D has more highlight headroom than the D70, and I'd be willing to bet the same thing about the 1D IV vs. the 1DsIII. Canon does kind of suck on the shadow DR end of things, but I've been able to push their exposures extremely far to the right (compress the highlights) such that when I have a histogram that is riding up the right-hand side and would seem to be fully blown, I can usually recover everything...and at worst, I might blow out a tiny bit of one color channel. My Canon 7D has more highlight headroom than my 450D did for sure (which according to DXO Screen DR has about 10.47 stops of native DR), and I've noticed much greater highlight recovery when exposing the moon or a sunset than I did before.
> ...



I'll have to poke around with DPP, see what it says about my cameras. I wonder if Nikon has any similar software that offers the same kind of DR insight.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> On the other hand, even if I had a Nikon D800 instead than my very modest Canon 1100D (which I would love to get rid of once a new Canon crop sensor comes out), my pictures wouldn't get noticeably better, just because very very rarely I need all that DR, color depth, and ISO performance that Nikons offer. And I'm sure neither does 99% of all of you writing on this forum (and 95% of those just reading it, since they spend better their time by actually taking pictures )...
> 
> SO JUST CALM DOWN



I dont think you will find that in real life that Nikon's are appreciably better than Canon, regardless of the 'scientific' reviews that go on. The only thing that matters is is the resultant output.

I find that I do need the maximum dr for my photos - however it is more important to use the right techniques to get that from the equipment you have rather than the 'other' brand.

I have no interest in switching to Nikon - it would cost a lot and the gain would be, if anything, very small in Reality. This thread is examining the DXO measurement system which for some does influence peoples choice of body. However as you will have noticed that the opinion is swinging such that there is little conidence in the DXO reviews.

I dont think this thread has got at all heated


----------



## davidpeter (Apr 1, 2012)

Don't take it as an offense, but this whole topic shows that you don't have a clue about the methods and results of DxO testing. 
DxO is very accurate and reliable, and bench marking sensors is only the showcase of the lab's work. But anyone, who does not posses some advanced knowledge about AD converters, Fourier transform, digital imaging and such things should not care them. You only fool yourself, when you compare numbers without knowing their meanings. Worse, when you argue about numbers without knowing their meaning, you fool others too.

For me, DxO is one of the primary factors when I'm buying a new body as I know how to handle the scores. The other primary factors are the test pictures, what I took myself. This pair has never failed me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 1, 2012)

jrista said:


> However I entirely expected them to come out of the gates claiming the D800 scored 13.97 on their Print DR tests, not some mysterious, magical nonsense like 14.4! I REALLY expected them to say the D800 nailed 14 stops right on the head, but instead they are basically making a claim that the D800 and only the D800 offers photographers the magical ability to GAIN ADDITIONAL DR simply by DOWNSAMPLING. Then Mt. Spokane came along posted a DXO link indicating that Nikon...but not Canon...was a big time paying supporter. Sorry, but I go where the evidence leads, and there is some *evidence of very fishy behavior* about DXO and Nikon these days.



Enough with the area 51 stuff ;D they 'magically' make ALL of the cameras that have more than 8MP do better, not just the D800 and not just Nikons, note the 5D2 is like 11.2 unless you look at the print plot and only then does it hit the 11.8-11.9. No black helicopters here. ;D




> If you run into a real life scene with MORE than 13.8 stops...the theoretical possibility of using a digital algorithm to "stretch out" 14.4 stops from your RAW file isn't going to help you. A real life scene with 18 stops of DR is going to outpace even the D800 sensor, and your only option is going to be to compress the blacks into less space (and therefor less recoverability)...or use an ND filter, just like all the rest of the photographers on the great and beautiful earth.



a print viewed from farther away might seem to have better DR
anyway as we've both said the absolute numbers don't even matter, it's the relative numbers that matter



> Thanks to DXO's new D800 rating of 14.4, I am now a firm believer that Print DR is a useless measurement.



No it is not, it is the one that makes sense since it normalizes things. Without it you'd penalize a D800 vs a 5D AND a 5D2 vs a 5D etc.



> Digital wizardry can not and will never be a replacement for native, hardware-level dynamic range. I now believe DXO's sole "accurate" measurement of actual hardware-level DR is their Screen DR measurement. I'm unwilling to accept Print DR measurements for any camera now as being even remotely realistic. As such, I believe the following are accurate dynamic range estimates for Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras:



no the screen may make sense for looking at an individual camera or even for seeing how you do when you maintain full res of each, but it is not a fair way to compare different cameras in general at all


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 1, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Having owned a Nikon D70 _waaaay_ back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.
> 
> So much for DxO, then.



it doesn't which is why jrista is totally wrong claiming that the screen measurement is the one to use, using the print measurement, as you should, it no longer has the stop advantage


----------



## jrista (Apr 1, 2012)

davidpeter said:


> But anyone, who does not posses some advanced knowledge about AD converters, Fourier transform, digital imaging and such things should not care them. You only fool yourself, when you compare numbers without knowing their meanings. Worse, when you argue about numbers without knowing their meaning, you fool others too.



That, right there, pretty much sums up the problem with DXO quite perfectly: The exact meaning of their numbers are not fully known!! Thats my entire complaint about Print DR...we don't know what the hell it really is, exactly how it is derived, and exactly what mathematical and procedural algorithms are applied to images when scaling to their 8x12 print size. Worse yet, we don't know if they use a consistent approach to that process, and with the results of the D800, whether DXO uses a "consistent approach" is exactly why they are in the crosshairs. 

Now, I personally do understand how ADC's, fourier transforms, digital imaging, color processing and color spaces, color fidelity and color space conversions, spatial frequencies/MTF, and the physical nature of light work, and I know it pretty damn well. I may not be a DXO Labs "scientist", but I do understand how those things work. Despite that, I STILL find the numbers DXO produces to be useful ONLY WITHIN the context of DXO. Without explicit details about how every one of their tests is done (we only have vague details and rolled up mathematical formulas, etc.), DXO numbers don't really mean anything in the real world.

So yeah, no one is really truly qualified to use DXO numbers in any meaningful context...and that is also exactly the problem, especially when people put too much weight on their results. They may be _consistent_, but if D800 Print DR is telling to any degree, they are seeming more and more to be _consistently *useless*_.


----------

