# DXO claim 1DX2 new class leader



## GuyF (Jun 29, 2016)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-sensor-review-New-class-leader

"_The Canon performs exceptionally well. Not only does it have a wider useful dynamic range at base and low ISOs than the Nikon, it’s not far behind the Sony, and that small difference won’t be noticed in use. The Canon sensor continues to offer a wide dynamic range at every ISO setting, improving on the Sony from ISO800 onwards, and falling only slightly behind the Nikon’s strong performance from ISO6400 onwards. Indeed, the difference at most is around +0.6EV. Canon cameras are known for high ISO noise performance, and the Mark II surpasses both the Nikon and Sony by nearly +0.5EV.
Conclusion

This is a well-deserved result for Canon, and this versatile sensor should prove attractive to a wide range of photographers, including those that work in multiple disciplines. The wide dynamic range at low ISOs should appeal to all photographers, but especially those using it for landscapes, and the low noise at high ISOs will also appeal to action and sports photographers. Although the new model is aimed primarily at that market, the increase in pixel count over its predecessor now matches that of the earlier EOS-1Ds Mk III, a model that’s still highly regarded for editorial and commercial work. It is not too much of a stretch to view the new EOS-1D X Mk II as the natural successor to that camera, and its wide range of capabilities, including DCI 4K video, make it look highly tempting. Sure, it would have been great to see a higher pixel count, but overall, the sensor performance offers photographers the versatility to tackle a wide range of assignments with just one camera._"


----------



## Eldar (Jun 29, 2016)

My God!!! What has happened ???

They seem to have tested the same camera I´m using


----------



## GuyF (Jun 29, 2016)

Yup, it's the Brexit effect. Now everyone's smokin' crack.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 29, 2016)

DxO is now under new sponsor ;D


----------



## RGF (Jun 29, 2016)

Amazing. Canon and Nikon are tied at 88 each (1Dx M2 and D5)

Looking at the details

Portrait (color depth):
- Canon 1Dx M2 24.1(bits)
- Nikon D5 25.1

Landscape (DR)
- Canon 1Dx m2 13.5 Evs
- Nikon D5 12.3

Sports (Low-Light ISO)
- Canon 1Dx M2 3207 ISO
- Nikon D5 2324 ISO


----------



## Azathoth (Jun 29, 2016)

Pff lol who cares, DXO is full of crap...


----------



## sebasan (Jun 29, 2016)

RGF said:


> Amazing. Canon and Nikon are tied at 88 each (1Dx M2 and D5)
> 
> Looking at the details
> 
> ...



Maybe the 1 point difference in color depth equall everything else 
Amazing Low-Light result


----------



## CanonGuy (Jun 29, 2016)

News: DXO finds new sponsor ;D ;D ;D

Breaking news: Canon finally made a decent sensor by sponsoring a review site : : :


----------



## BRunner (Jun 29, 2016)

If you dig deeper beyond the single number results, it's obvious, that sensors in both cameras (1DxII and D5) are balanced slightly differently. This my produce equal "Score", which BTW. I really don't give a s.....

What's truly amazing, that the new camera maintains same DR at ISO 1600 as 1DsIII and 1Dx at ISO100! Yet they upped metamerism index from 73 on 1Dx to 81 on 1DxII (still not in the heights of 1DsIII and 1DIII, which both scored 86). The improvement on 1Dx isn't only at base ISO, but goes up to ISO3200!

I still can't understand why Nikon replaced the D4s sensor with D5 sensor...


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 29, 2016)

Azathoth said:


> Pff lol who cares, DXO is full of crap...



Agreed. The 1DX was never bad, and the D5 isn't either.

Somehow the 1DX MkII gets the same overall rating as the eight year old D3X?

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D3X___1071_485


No one should ever rely on DxO for anything except for their individual graphs that show performance of an individual metric, any score that they have ever assigned to anything is utterly meaningless.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 29, 2016)

Impressive to see the DR range curve against the outgoing 1DX1. More impressive? How the D5 sensor achieved the same score and was outgunned by the 1DX2 in almost all categories and along the graph.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2016)

sebasan said:


> Maybe the 1 point difference in color depth equall everything else
> Amazing Low-Light result



Really crudely, from sorting and comparing their ranking tables on different metrics, I roughly peg the following:


Each bit of color depth gets you about 4 overall score points
Each Ev of higher DR gets you about 2.5 overall score points
300 pts higher on Sports/ISO gets you about 1 more overall score point

Of course, trying to _understand DXO's overall score metric_ is tantamount to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.

#ibuprofenplease

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Of course, trying to _understand DXO's overall score metric_ is tantamount to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.
> 
> #ibuprofenplease
> 
> - A



I have no doubt that there is no formula. Even worse, there is nothing about DxO that prevents their results from being an extortion tool.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 29, 2016)

The gods have spoken....


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2016)

Canon is *******. :'(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2016)

9VIII said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, trying to _understand DXO's overall score metric_ is tantamount to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.
> ...



I've seen an approximation:

DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



59-0.2 = 58.8 so shouldn't the eqn be:

DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 58.8 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663)


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 29, 2016)

Taken from the CR homepage... 



> DXOMark has completed their review of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and has given the camera a sensor score of 88. This is the highest score ever for a Canon DSLR.



The thing is though, they haven't completed their review of the 1DX Mark II. They've completed their review of the _sensor_ inside the 1DX Mark II. There's a big difference, and unfortunately an alarming number of people don't understand the difference (not saying CR doesn't, they obviously do). Some think that if the sensor inside of a camera is rated highly it MUST be a better camera than a lower scoring camera (sensor). Really unfortunate that some people are so sheep-ish.


----------



## photonius (Jun 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I thought it's something like:

DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2 + (if Canon) - 3


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Yes, or there's a missing set of parentheses around a term. Not my formula, found in an article on DxO's website (reposted with permission, the author was not affiliated with them). The same author also suggested that the coefficients for the three sub scores might not be constant across all sensors.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Taken from the CR homepage...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go to DXO's homepage: http://www.dxomark.com/

In the top right, they offer CAMERAS and LENSES. Click on CAMERAS _and all you get are sensor reviews_. 

That is all you need to know about DXO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2016)

If curious, here are some head to head overall scores:

D5500: 84
760D: 70
750D: 71

D7200: 87
80D: 79

D500: 83
7D2: 70

D610: 94 
6D: 82

D810: 97
5D3: 80
5DS: 87
5DSR: 86

*D5: 88
1DX2: 88*

In the roughly head-to-head segments listed above, this is the first time Canon has matched Nikon's score since... what, the 1Ds3 in 2007?

Rejoice! We're as good as someone else in a nonsensical metric!

- A


----------



## RGF (Jun 29, 2016)

sebasan said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing. Canon and Nikon are tied at 88 each (1Dx M2 and D5)
> ...



These are top line record.

If you look by ISO, at higher ISO the D5 tops the 1Dx M2 which accounts for the tie,


----------



## RGF (Jun 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



That is at a single ISO setting. What about across the range. How high will they go? They can not penalize too much for having ridiculously high ISO (D5 at 3MM) otherwise the D5 score would have been in the very low.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 29, 2016)

Surprising thing is, How close it is with D5 DR even at high ISO. It is only behind by 1/2 stop at iso 12800 and 25600.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2016)

RGF said:


> That is at a single ISO setting. What about across the range. How high will they go? They can not penalize too much for having ridiculously high ISO (D5 at 3MM) otherwise the D5 score would have been in the very low.



Yet DXO had no trouble whatsoever declaring the Sigma 35 Art sharper than the 35L II -- because the Canon stopped down to f/22 and that pulled down its average compared to the Sigma, which only stops down to f/16.

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > That is at a single ISO setting. What about across the range. How high will they go? They can not penalize too much for having ridiculously high ISO (D5 at 3MM) otherwise the D5 score would have been in the very low.
> ...



That's actually not the case. I wrote them about those 2 lenses and they said that the scores are based on the best performing aperture, not some kind of (weighted) average across all apertures. 

I know... Surprised me too.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Ugh. DXO claims the best aperture for just about every lens they test is _wide open_, which we all know is lovely for transmission but is an unqualified s---show for vignetting, sharpness, etc.

- A


----------



## Marauder (Jun 30, 2016)

DXO Mark hates it. DXO Mark loves it. Who cares! It's DXO Mark! I'd call this meaningless...but that would be an affront to meaninglessness! : 

Note: Not dissing the 1DX II -- I'm sure it's a superb camera and I've read some very impressive reviews. I just don't give a furry rat's @$$ about DXO Mark's opinion on the matter, one way or the other. *shrugs*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2016)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Across the range is irrelevant. DR and color depth only matter at base ISO. DxO = Biased Scores = BS.


----------



## Zv (Jun 30, 2016)

This is terrible news ..... What will we argue over now?


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 30, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > This is terrible news ..... What will we argue over now?
> ...


DPR praised D5 which is a Nikon DSLR. I guess once Nikon makes mirrorless, they will throw everything into that. Same DR thing they used to bash 7d2, used as advantage to D5 because they prioritized high ISO performance. D5 is labelled as setting standards and 1DX2 is considered as catching up. Looks like DXO did not get the memo. They declared 1DX2 new class leader.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > This is terrible news ..... What will we argue over now?
> ...



Hey dilbert, I think you missed something in Zv's post. I edited it to make it easier for you to apprehend, if that's even possible.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Gotta hand it to you: at least you don't have an impenetrably dry sense of humor.


----------



## brianftpc (Jun 30, 2016)

"Canon cameras are known for high ISO noise performance, and the Mark II surpasses both the Nikon and Sony by nearly +0.5EV"

Then why the hell cant I see it...is mine broke????? Have I missed a firmware update?


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 30, 2016)

LOL @ people trying to assign bizarre conspiracies, fictional biases, and persecutions to a technical test of a single piece of hardware inside a product.

New product is technically better than previous version. Shocking. Clearly, this kind of revelation is utter madness, and could only be the work of a shady, back-alley deal to advertise/slander. It's _so obvious_ that only a hateful, bias, clueless, paid-off site would say that the new version of a product is quite good.

Careful, now, your tinfoil hats are slipping.


----------



## Woody (Jun 30, 2016)

RGF said:


> Sports (Low-Light ISO)
> - Canon 1Dx M2 3207 ISO
> - Nikon D5 2324 ISO



How to explain this:
"Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests, high ISO Raw performance remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF. Noise performance _*falls slightly behind*_ the Nikon D5 (and even the Sony a7R II when normalized) at very high ISOs."
- http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/2

Wow, who is smoking what? 

Or is that a side effect of Brexit (DPReview wrote the above before Brexit, while DXOMark gave their review after Brexit)?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 30, 2016)

This is good news, but I do sort of wonder where they got a 1Dx II with a 24 mp APS-C sensor.


> The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II is available now and will set you back $6,299 (USD).
> 
> 24.2-Mpix APS-C CMOS sensor



Seriously, I've never been a DXO lover or hater. I'm glad a camera I just shelled out a lot of money for is highly rated, but honestly, I've never understood why people make such a big deal out of scores that usually vary by only one or two points anyway and by graphs that show only tiny differences between models.


----------



## Pompo (Jun 30, 2016)

*Re: why comparing to Sony 7II?*

I wonder why the Sony A7II was chosen to be compared instead of a7sII? Is it for its resolution maybe?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2016)

*Re: why comparing to Sony 7II?*



Pompo said:


> I wonder why the Sony A7II was chosen to be compared instead of a7sII? Is it for its resolution maybe?



I guess the A7 II's 24 MP is 'close' to the 20-ish MP of the gripped rigs. 

Honestly, the 1DX II should be compared to its predecessor and the Nikon and they should be done with it. This is a two horse market.

- A


----------



## Refurb7 (Jun 30, 2016)

9VIII said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, trying to _understand DXO's overall score metric_ is tantamount to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.
> ...



I don't trust anything they write.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 30, 2016)

Azathoth said:


> Pff lol who cares, DXO is full of crap...


+1 Yup! 
They really should stop releasing (biased) scores and focus on improving their software.

And nope!


Dylan777 said:


> DxO is now under new sponsor ;D


No new sponsor. 
But Canon has cracked the code of their (biased) calculations


----------



## vscd (Jun 30, 2016)

Now, as the DR war seems to be solved some declare the war on DXO? Seems fighting is the important thing here, regardless against what.

DXO measures quite reasonable, the only problem for some is to understand the numbers. The values are sensorbased, only. And it's only meaningful to compare specific graphs with eachother, not the final number of "88" against "88".

Canon made a big step forward, showing what the nonsense ISO-specs of the D5 really are: marketing-BS, only. 

Now as the 1DX2 has more [email protected] than the Nikon dD5, DXO must be wrong, paid or insignificant. Funny, as they were the holy bible in the last few Sensorbashing-years.


----------



## Halfniak (Jun 30, 2016)

Well done Canon. ISO Sports score: 3207 !!


----------



## Woody (Jun 30, 2016)

Halfniak said:


> Well done Canon. ISO Sports score: 3207 !!



But... but... according to 'unbiased' DPReview:

"Noise performance _*falls slightly behind*_ the Nikon D5 (and even the Sony a7R II when normalized) at very high ISOs."
- http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/2

Paging Rishi Sanyal. Rishi Sanyal.

;D ;D


----------



## Halfniak (Jun 30, 2016)

macVega said:


> Finally.. Canon decides to give DxO some money, and that is a good thing because many people actually believe the crap DxO write on their site, Nikon has surely benefited from a sponsorship for a very long time now.. ???



nah.. Canon just designed a better sensor. Nothing biased or false about DXO's scoring.


----------



## rocketsurgeon (Jun 30, 2016)

Lets hope that if the 1dxii sersor is on par/better than the d5, then the 5div will be on par/better than the d810!

I hope they built a new fabrication process to achieve that!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jun 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I haven't found the reference Neuro mentions, but I believe the approximation formula was published in an essay on Luminous Landscapes by Peter van der Hamer, a Dutch physicist/engineer. He believes the reference point is the Lecia M8 which had color depth of 21.1, dynamic range of 11.3, and ISO of 663. Various weighting factors are applied and sensors which are better than the M8 score higher, poorer performing sensors score lower. The [ -0.2] term remains a mystery as it appears to be a typo in the original paper. The claim is that the formula is within 1 or 2 points of all DxO scores posted as of 2012 when the formula was published. 

The trouble is that current generation sensors are all so good that measurement error (which is never acknowledged by DxO just like the real formula is never stated!) times these weighting factors may be just as significant as any real differences between sensors. Bad Science for sure!


----------



## NorbR (Jun 30, 2016)

Woody said:


> Halfniak said:
> 
> 
> > Well done Canon. ISO Sports score: 3207 !!
> ...



DxO's ISO 'Sports' measure takes SNR *and* DR into account. I can't remember the exact details but they are available, for once, on DxO's website.

DPR on the other hand only talk about noise level (i.e. related to DxO's SNR measurements), not DR. At least I assume so. 

So if the D5 has better SNR performance but worst DR at higher ISOs (which seems consistent with everything I've read about these cameras, but then again I have zero direct experience with them), it's perfectly possible for the D5 to do worse on the DxO metric, and yet have its praises sung by DPR.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 30, 2016)

In the continuing debate of DxO being biased or honest, I give you this image. Nobody will convince me they're honest...I think the numbers they find are truthful inside their graphs, but their overall scores and main scores are entirely made up or use a rigged algorithm. These 2 APS-C sensors really fall behind the 1DX, yet the overall score would give the impression that they're competitive...to me, that's dishonest.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2016)

vscd said:


> Now, as the DR war seems to be solved some declare the war on DXO?



No, DxO's Scores have been on the craplist for years. 




Halfniak said:


> Nothing biased or false about DXO's scoring.



Yes, DxO's Scores are biased, although that bias is not based on brand. 




Woody said:


> But... but... according to 'unbiased' DPReview...



Now, DPR _is_ biased based on brand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2016)

NorbR said:


> DxO's ISO 'Sports' measure takes SNR *and* DR into account. I can't remember the exact details but they are available, for once, on DxO's website.
> 
> DPR on the other hand only talk about noise level (i.e. related to DxO's SNR measurements), not DR. At least I assume so.
> 
> So if the D5 has better SNR performance but worst DR at higher ISOs (which seems consistent with everything I've read about these cameras, but then again I have zero direct experience with them), it's perfectly possible for the D5 to do worse on the DxO metric, and yet have its praises sung by DPR.



Except that when you look at DxO's measurements, you see that the 1D X II has better SNR than the D5 from ISO 400 all the way up to ISO 409600, which is the highest available setting on the 1D X II. In fact, the D5 has slightly more DR from ISO 3200 to 102400, and they're equal beyond that. 

So, nope...DPR is just seeing what they want to see – bias.


----------



## Woody (Jun 30, 2016)

NorbR said:


> So if the D5 has better SNR performance but worst DR at higher ISOs (which seems consistent with everything I've read about these cameras, but then again I have zero direct experience with them), it's perfectly possible for the D5 to do worse on the DxO metric, and yet have its praises sung by DPR.



Yet, on DPReview page where the comparison is done, I have examined every detail in the test scene and cannot tell where the D5 appears to have better SNR than 1DX2. The detail resolved and noise levels are so close it's not funny. Therein lies the mystery... ;D


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 30, 2016)

Woody said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > So if the D5 has better SNR performance but worst DR at higher ISOs (which seems consistent with everything I've read about these cameras, but then again I have zero direct experience with them), it's perfectly possible for the D5 to do worse on the DxO metric, and yet have its praises sung by DPR.
> ...



I remember last time Rishi was in here... When he couldn´t convince people of the A7RII being superior at higher ISO, in a visual way, he started arguing with maths and formulas. How math is relevant in a visual comparison is yet to be explained... I´m sure bias couldn't have anything to do with it? :


----------



## RGF (Jun 30, 2016)

Of course none of the test address accuracy of AF and AF tracking.

Performance at higher ISO.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> DxO have performed tests in their labs that are repeatable and measurable to come to these conclusions.
> 
> What tests have you yourself done with all three cameras to show otherwise?



That's the problem, Dilbert. They're the only show in town* that is distilling sensor performance into _numbers_. 

Unlike with lenses, where each lens that gets tested has 3-4 other places effectively doing the same test, DXO stands alone here, so they are the loudest voice on the subject. Everyone else just posts IQ samples, noise samples, etc. and lets photographers judge for themselves -- and that model of judgment can't be re-posted on Petapixel, DPR, etc. like DXO's work can.

- A

(*Yes, there are other places that do this but they get 1/100th the traffic because they tend to publish reports that resemble electrical engineering lab tests. Rank and file photographers can't process that information quickly or compare it to others in a simple web-driven interface.)


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Sorry, Dilbert. You failed in cinvincing me that I should stop using my eyes, and in stead rely on DPR maths, when determining the tecnical quality of a picture.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Eye witness statements aren't usually anything to do with science, they are usually to do with law cases or claims about UFOs etc. As a scientist who has spent most of his career trying to "prove" mechanisms, I can assure you that direct observation is usually the closest we can get to "proof" because the evidence is real and not indirect from deduction. Indirect evidence can always be interpreted in different ways by different theories. All of this doesn't mean I don't accept measurements - I use them all the time, and the more accurate the better - it's that experimental observation is how you test different theories.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Just to add, I've spent a spent a significant amount of time engaged in analysis of scientific images. While measurement is certainly important from a quantitative standpoint, in my experience if you can't see a qualitative difference with your eyes, a measurable quantitative difference is very unlikely to be meaningful in real world terms.


----------



## GuyF (Jun 30, 2016)

As that brainiac Einstein said, "some things that can be measured don't matter and some things that matter can't be measured."

Smart bloke.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



My point is that eye witness statements has everything to do with whether you prefer picture 1 over picture 2. Science is irrelevant in that regard.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> My point is that eye witness statements has everything to do with whether you prefer picture 1 over picture 2. Science is irrelevant in that regard.



In hifi, it is undoubted that digital is more accurate but many people 'prefer' vinyl. 
Too many people confuse the two.

It is often not the technology that is the problem but how it is used. To give 2 examples: 
when Nikon started using Sony sensors they managed to get more out of the sensor than Sony did, bot subjectively and objectively. 
With MFT cameras, I have spoken to a few people who preferred the out-of-camera stuff in an Olympus camera but preferred the Panasonic raw file to work with. 

As far as I can see, DxO for all its sins is trying to measure the nature of the raw data coming from the sensor. There is plenty of room for people and technology to muck it up once they get that raw data.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Of course, in law, eye witness statements are highly unreliable. Accounts vary from witness to witness, and often just one witness will relate different or contradictory information when asked multiple times. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is an incomplete understanding of a situation. I was once accosted and deemed a racist because I used the word niggardly. The witness didn't have a complete understanding; that which he heard was not that which was spoken.

Fortunately, when *most *of us look at photos, we aren't trying to prove anything.


----------



## sebasan (Jun 30, 2016)

Looking the data more in detail (graphs on SNR, DR, etc) in both modes (screen, print), and compared specially with the D5, D810 and A7RII, I get the conclusion that the overall 88 points is really short, specially when the A7RII gets 98. I am not going to explain in detail why I think that, I invite that everybody look the data more in detail and get their own conclusion.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 30, 2016)

i wont look at the data because i dont really care what Dxo reports. All i will say is from my use and what i see, i agree with your perception. . Sony may be fine for some but it cant do what i need it to do so the rating is useless and irrelevant.


----------



## Woody (Jul 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."...
> 
> In the end, the best proof of something as absolute is math and science - not your eyes or brain. Ask any scientist about how reliable "eye witness" statements are vs something that is measurable/recordable.



Errr... in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes, the main point is what you like and prefer, and somehow this main point is often overlooked by DPR and always by DXO! Still, personal preference isn't the whole story, I think. If you can't see a difference with your own eyes, including differences when pushing and pulling a file, it serves no purpose (other than beeing controversial, and get attention) to try to differenciate the scores, or using maths to declare a "winner". 

I bet DXO's scoring system is designed mainly to provoke and get attention, and that is a good reason to why people should stop paying attention to them.


----------



## Halfniak (Jul 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > DxO have performed tests in their labs that are repeatable and measurable to come to these conclusions.
> ...



Here, have fun!

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


----------



## JMZawodny (Jul 1, 2016)

I generally do not care much about what anyone writes as we all have our biases, conscious or otherwise. I do, however, value the DxO measurements (not the scores). Using the side-by-side comparison tool, I looked at the various plots comparing the 1Dx2, 5D2, and 7D2. They certainly confirm my experience with all 3 cameras. If you are willing to cut through the irrelevant material there are good objective data to be found on DXOmark.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 1, 2016)

Halfniak said:


> Here, have fun!
> 
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm



So what is 'photographic dynamic range' as opposed to 'Dynamic range'?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 1, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Halfniak said:
> 
> 
> > Here, have fun!
> ...


It is when you set your 'bottom' value to be something higher than 1. The value isn't constant across testers and that value might, or might not, align with what you personally consider 'too noisy'.

Bill Claff, at your link, uses a value of 20, so when the SNR crosses 20 he considers that is too dark to get meaningful data from. An 'engineering dynamic range' is when the SNR crosses 1, and that is the reason many manufacturers claim a DR that users just don't see.


http://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Sensors_&_Raw/Sensor_Analysis_Primer/Engineering_and_Photographic_Dynamic_Range.htm


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 1, 2016)

Woody said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."...
> ...


How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



now that i know this i will have my pocket calculator handy next time i go to a photo exhibition


----------



## Woody (Jul 2, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.



Sharpness / resolution? Yes, lens selection makes a difference.

SNR or noise? Nope, lens selection makes no difference.

We are examining SNR in DPReview comparison test.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Halfniak said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



...then, just for funsies, add the Nikon D5.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jul 2, 2016)

It is a good site (photonstophotos.net).

If any 1dx MK II owner would mind - you can send him RAWs through his specification update the graphs

http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm - right at the top of the page.


I know it is slightly off topic, but looking at this graph

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

Comparing all the high MP sensors, the 5Dsr is not as much adrift of Nikon/Sony as I had thought. 

Whether a 1Dx MK II vs MK 1 is sufficient to highlight what improvements a 5Dsr mk II might bring I'm not sure.

Also the 80D vs the 5Dsr also paints an intriguing graph...


----------



## Woody (Jul 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> To get an idea of the "sameness" in Canon sensors, go to this link and select 6D, 5DII, 5DIII.
> Then select 1DX and 5DsR.



Hey, you have chosen to ignore my post regarding DPReview's comparison:

"in this instance, eye observations do not agree with DPReview's conclusion... and neither do the numbers from DXO. So how????"

I suppose if no one has any objection, we can conclusively state DPReview's statements are not based on unbiased observations and measurements, but are instead based on pure biasness and BS.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > How much difference lens selection make to the studio tests when looking at pixel level. There is no lens variability in dxo tests.
> ...



Thanks Woody. I am assuming you are checking raw values like Bill Claff. Do we get proper noise comparison by comparing images at 100% view from dpr comparison tool.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > To get an idea of the "sameness" in Canon sensors, go to this link and select 6D, 5DII, 5DIII.
> ...


I think, their class leading low light image quality is based on JPEG comparison. From their review:
"The new sensor offers class-leading low light image quality, especially due to an improved JPEG engine, but Raws aren't the most flexible when shooting high contrast scenes."

But they claimed DR at high iso better than 1dx2 which is also not completely true. Based on DXO, D5 has more DR only with couple of ISO's. Bill is yet to publish his DR calculations for 1dx2. Not sure what values they are referring to.

"Canon's new 1D-X II actually supersedes the base ISO dynamic range of the D5, thought it falls behind at high ISO."

Their D5 review definitely doesn't follow typical pattern they follow with Canon cameras like 7D2, 5D5 and 80d. They made very big deal out of low ISO DR for 7d2. But they said D5 matches with 6d. They started 80d review by claiming 80d video specs are inferior compared to competition. But ignored D5 specs compared competion (1dx2). 

"But as with other Nikon DSLRs that shoot video, the D5 is first and foremost a stills camera, with video being a bonus if you need to take the occasional clip."


----------



## Woody (Jul 2, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> I think, their class leading low light image quality is based on JPEG comparison. From their review:
> "The new sensor offers class-leading low light image quality, especially due to an improved JPEG engine, but Raws aren't the most flexible when shooting high contrast scenes."



DPReview used RAW images:
"Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests, *high ISO Raw performance* remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF. Noise performance *falls slightly behind* the Nikon D5 (and even the Sony a7R II when normalized) at very high ISOs."
- http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/2

This is inconsistent with what their comparison scene actually shows, as well as DXO numbers:


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Just using the data they've provided the public sets the two lenses apart man. I don't need to pick up anything and test anything if the information they themselves have shown doesn't make sense to anyone on how the overall scores are this close to each other. Another good example would be the Sigma 50mm Art being mounted on the D810 versus the 5DS and the Canon mount version outperformed it yet the overall score showed the Nikon mount winning...how is that even possible? This is where my personal questioning of their integrity comes from.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 3, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Which is the definition of biased. DPReview does this with their reviews BIG time and I don't even think they realize it either...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Another good example would be the Sigma 50mm Art being mounted on the D810 versus the 5DS and the Canon mount version outperformed it yet the overall score showed the Nikon mount winning...how is that even possible?



In establishing the composite score of a lens, DxO considers the dynamic range of the camera to which the lens is mounted. Similarly, they consider the resolution of the camera in establishing their sharpness figure.

That's the how.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 3, 2016)

Woody said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Eyes are easily deceived, hence optical illusions. The brain is also bad when it comes to "remembering."...
> ...


I don't know what you were looking at or comparing as you only posted the DXO graph. 
I've attached a screenshot of the DPR RAW studio samples for the D5 and 1Dx-II.

What we are looking at here is the roughly 18% grey patch on the colorchecker (which corresponds with DXO's SNR-18% graph)

Lenses used in the DPR studio test: 
Canon 85/1.8 vs Nikon 85/1.8

According to DXO lens test, The Canon 85/1.8 has about 0.1Ev more vignette @ f/5.6 and has in the range of 0.2-0.3Ev less transmission than the either of the Nikon 85/1.8 variants.

So the 1DX-II has roughly 0.3Ev less light at the sampling point given the relative position of the sampling point in the field of view.

Given that the Canon 1DX-II 18%patch looks extremely highly similar to the D5 18%patch even with 0.3Ev less light, is it not a fair assessment that the Canon 1Dx-II is slightly better. This happens to line up  with the SNR18% graphs produced by DXO.


----------

