# Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/official-dxomark-sensor-score-for-the-eos-1d-x/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/official-dxomark-sensor-score-for-the-eos-1d-x/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Official Numbers are in


</strong>For the people that like the numbers game, DXOMark has released their official score for the Canon EOS-1D X.</p>
<p>The numbers don’t look too bad, though they don’t tell the whole story about the EOS-1D X. I think it’s currently the best DSLR as a whole currently on the market, unless you want the big resolution of the D800.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EOS-1-DX-The-best-of-Canon-s-full-frame-sensors"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-11759" title="dxo1dx" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/dxo1dx.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="326" /></a></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EOS-1-DX-The-best-of-Canon-s-full-frame-sensors" target="_blank">Read the complete review at DXOMark</a></strong></p>
<p><em>Canon EOS-1D X at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y3T1AI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B005Y3T1AI&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA1DX.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/24696/product_name/Canon+EOS-1D+X+Digital+SLR+Camera+%28Body+Only%29+" target="_blank">Norman Camera</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Ricku (Oct 31, 2012)

Outside of resolution AND low ISO dynamic range.


----------



## Shawn L (Oct 31, 2012)

> But neither is a dedicated Nikon shooter going to run and buy the Canon 1D X.



Um, wrong (at 16:15): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VyNFOPrIKmQ#t=977s

1) Green D4
2) AF on Canon



Shawn L.


----------



## rol11 (Oct 31, 2012)

DXO? Funny as always ;D


----------



## robbymack (Oct 31, 2012)

That's it I'm moving to Nikon


----------



## spinworkxroy (Oct 31, 2012)

Paper number…there's always more to a camera than just paper scores…people don't buy cameras to do controlled "tests"

I wonder, is there even a site that does proper rating that takes into consideration the lab scores and also have another system for real-life usage scores? Something like usability, speed, reliability etc…things that really matter…


----------



## seekthedragon (Oct 31, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Not such a good DxO score as we were led to expect.
> 
> Mikael, what are your thoughts on this? ;D



Have a look on the charts. It has some disadvantages only in low light ISO DR, the rest is just as good as the D800 or D4. 
Besides I just had the opportunity to try one 1D X last weekend, and I can tell, that this beast has an incredibly superior AF compared to anything which I ever held in my hands (including the 7D, 1D mkIII and the 5D mkIII also).

So maybe the sensor could be better, but even this way, this is the best DSLR out there at the moment.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Oct 31, 2012)

So, Canon Rumors can now dismiss the source of the email they got on Oct, 11 as a (CR0) in the future.

For those who want to know the supposed Scores were as follows...

Rumored / _*Actual*_ 

*DxO* - 90 / *82* 
*DR* - 12.8 / *11.8* 
*Color Depth* - 24.9 / *23.8* 
*ISO* - 3296 / *2786*


----------



## jaayres20 (Oct 31, 2012)

How can they rate the D800 better at high ISO noise? Is anyone else saying the same thing?


----------



## rpt (Oct 31, 2012)

Here we go again


----------



## Aglet (Oct 31, 2012)

*Surprise! Surprise! There's NO surprise!*

1Dx is a very good camera in all the metrics except the one where Canon is just plain behind and has made only marginal improvements in the last (nearly) decade.

Let's wish them well in their R&D for the next generation of sensor tech.
Which might end up in a Rebel long before it sees a pro body - unless their high MP FF rumor manages to see the light of day.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 31, 2012)

guys, is anyone disappointed with score would like to exchange your 1dx or hassy to some superior camera like nikon d7100? with additional charge from your side, of course


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2012)

For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released. 



jaayres20 said:


> How can they rate the D800 better at high ISO noise?



Because the Sports/Low Light Score is based on images downsampled to 8 MP, and when you downsample a 36 MP image to 8 MP, you average out more noise than when you downsample an 18 MP image to 8 MP.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 31, 2012)

rpt said:


> Here we go again


You made me laugh! ;D


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

No surprises about the camera sensor, this fully correlates with my experience with 1Dx and some measurements done by other people - e.g. one French photographer specializing on astronomy - unfortunately do not remember his name. 
For indoor events like sports/shows/artist performances in low light 1Dx is probably the best camera ever from Canon - results are amazing - one part of that is sensor high ISO performance and the other is outstanding autofocus capabilities. It does easily what was almost impossible before. Few days ago I was shooting world stars ballet performance and results are stunning.
Unfortunately cannot post any shots here - not allowed without special permission from the performance owners. 
But for high DR landscape photography it is definitely not the best tool - I posted some examples recently.
Seems that from Canon for landscaper type of photography 1Ds is still the best one – one good reason to keep it until new big mpx camera from Canon will come to existence.

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.


----------



## Shizam (Oct 31, 2012)

Well said Neutral


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released.
> ....


 I was wondering why they do not put their measurements after adding 1Dx support in ver .7.5.5. and this might be a good explanation ))) 
Usually after each new release of DXO they put measurements results on DxoMark for new supported cameras just few days later but with 1Dx we were waiting almost one month.
I already upgraded both Phase One Capture 1 from ver. 6 to ver. 7 and DXO from 7.5.5 to 8 and already did some comparison tests for C1, LR4 and DXO 8 for 1Dx RAW files to see what is better for what. For low to average ISO - the best IQ is from C1, LR4 is the 2d and DXO on 3d – to my vision. For very high ISO – starting from 12800 to 51200 Dxo 8 is still having the same problems as before with low contrast smooth areas which becomes blotchy and "plastic" - almost the same as I demonstrated recently in other thread. So LR4 is still better in noise reductions than Dxo8. There are though some useful improvements in Dxo 8 - e.g. tone sliders which I suspect they simply borrowed from LR4 – exactly the same (Adobe might sue them for the same reasion as Apple is Suing Samsung))) . But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 31, 2012)

Neutral said:


> But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.


Could you please clarify which application you are referring to in this statement?


----------



## charlesa (Oct 31, 2012)

Less numbers, more real life performance. Will keep my 1DX tight and let the numbers go to hell. Been through over 10 bodies, Nikon, Canon you name it over all the years, this is by far the best performing body I put my fingers on.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 31, 2012)

I propose a new internet abbreviation along the likes of LOL, WTF, and OMG for whenever posts like this are made:

TIISTN

short for....

That's it, I'm switching to Nikon ;D

It should save a lot of people a lot of keystrokes. You're welcome


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.
> ...


Subject was related to DXO 8, so this above relates to Dxo 8 improvements over Dxo 7.5.5.


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

Neutral said:


> And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
> For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.



That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false. 

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

han_solo82 said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
> ...


We are talking about completely deferent things)))
You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS .
Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.
The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number. This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) . 

And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

han_solo82 said:


> But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.



This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT. 
Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 31, 2012)

a little "real" life use... 

http://youtu.be/0YnhJk4hoq8


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

Neutral said:


> han_solo82 said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings! 

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

Neutral said:


> han_solo82 said:
> 
> 
> > But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.
> ...



It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...


----------



## Simba (Oct 31, 2012)

han_solo82 said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > han_solo82 said:
> ...



This is really a funny human nature. There were so many cheers about 1DX being the best camera when the rumor DXO score was posted. Now the real score is being questioned when it is low.


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

Simba said:


> han_solo82 said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



Please, reread my 1st post : "there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one)"

I've never even mention 1DX. DXO score problem have been there since the beginning and evident on lots and lots and lots of comparison between different cameras...


----------



## Neutral (Oct 31, 2012)

han_solo82 said:


> Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!
> 
> You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...


Please no familiarities here – this is at least impolite not to say more)))
As for DXO – we are not discussing what they are claiming themselves – just results of their measurements.
And forget about SCORES - when you see at measurement curves you need to “FEEL” sensor performance across different conditions the same way as you “feel” image histogram in the camera or image processing S/W.
Do you give this histogram any scores to better work with the image? 
If you are telling that you studying physics – think of Fourier or Laplace transforms that give you information about physical process in other domains/dimensions which helps better understand the properties of the process and work with it.
And I do not see any point discussing this further


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 31, 2012)

Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.

Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.
> 
> Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.



Social scientists 'feel' things. _Real_ scientists quantify things. 

Apologies to any social scientists I've just offended... :-[


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 31, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> a little "real" life use...



Exactly. So would you want a camera that has better DR, or one that has better AF, ISO & FPS? We're talking real life use here. I personally would take the latter. All the DR in the world isn't going to matter if you miss the pic or it's OOF.


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

Neutral said:


> han_solo82 said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!
> ...



Ok so now when a website talks about sensor performance we are suppose to "feel them". Please. 

Anyways, as you are being offended by my "familiarities" attempt, I'll take your last point and stop discussing this with you...


----------



## gene_can_sing (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.

If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.

No one likes to be on the losing end, and if anything, this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up since Sony sensors are kicking their Butt, on both the stills and the video end. Since I'm more on the video end, not sure if you guys heard about the new Sony F5, close in price to the Canon C300, but about 5x the camera. The C300 is not even remotely in the same league.

The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts. Fortunately, they can ride on their name for a while, but soon, people will expect results.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.
> 
> If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.
> 
> ...



It's true...in regards to sensors. I wonder if the Nikon camp complains about AF & ISO or FPS? Canon will eventually have better sensors, and Nikon will eventually have better AF. So really, depending on what your priorities are, is there really a bad choice? No. In the real world I would sooner have not missed a shot and have it in-focus rather than more DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> ...this should be a wake up to Canon to step their game up
> 
> The story line has been repeating over and over this year, Canon needs to step up on all fronts.



You're right. 1D X, 5DIII, terrible AF, slow fps, badly built, horrible ergonomics. C'mon Canon, step up!

Oh, you meant just the sensor that's got all those other features wrapped around it?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.
> 
> If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.
> 
> ...



Your post lacks credibility. Your credibility score is 0.

ALL FRONTS? I thought DxO only measured sensors? Now it measures everything? I guess the 1DX is a horrible camera and is behind the times? Too bad it whips the crap out of Nikon's best camera, in all facets of photography. And I'm not going by some stupid score or stupid chart. I'm going by experience at night football games. I guess if I can make a camera like the 1DX and still be accused of needing to step it up on all fronts, I guess I'd be content in needing to step it up on all fronts. 

Canon making that stupid little 1DX and that stupid little 5D Mark III. Shame on them!


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.
> 
> If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.
> 
> ...



Actually we Nikoners complain just as much about DXO's overall scores. D3200 24mp 1.5x crop scoring higher than the 5D3? Suuuuuuure. Also D7000 has better DR than the D4?? Maybe, but that doesn't mean anything other than a fake score on a website. We're just as realistic about DXO as you guys are 

Also I'm not sure what people here are talking about when they mention Nikon's "bad AF" - the D800 had some teething problems just like the 5D3's light leak, but the AF has always been just fine. I quite like my 51 point AF and RGB metering  as well as having several f/8 cross-types in the D800 and D4. Both systems are great, and each one is optimized for a different purpose.


----------



## han_solo82 (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.
> 
> If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.
> 
> ...



Let's put Af, Build, FPS, etc. aside since DXO mark is a SENSOR analysis website.

While I agree that Canon's sensor are not the best right now, and that they need to act sooner than later, this isn't the point here at all. The point is simply that saying that a D3200 sensor is better than a 5dIII sensor, when all the measurements besides 3 points on 4 different graphs shows you otherwise (that is objectivity), is just plain silly. Well turns out I don't like being taken for an ignorant.

I mean, I would have arrived at the same conclusion if they had scored the Canon T3 higher than the D600/D800...


----------



## aznable (Oct 31, 2012)

a little Beyond nikon d3200....a very good result...lol


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 31, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to down Nikon or Sony. They make great sensors! I also like Nikon's EC during auto ISO in full manual mode. But overall, the sensor is only a fraction of the camera. Why then, can I shoot at much higher ISO's and print 8 x 10's with minimal NR, at ISO 25,600 with the 1DX and I cannot do that with a D4? Why? That is all I'd like to know. In this regard, the DxO score means nothing to me at all and I go with whatever works in the field, which in this case the ONLY choice I have to do so is the 1DX. If the D4 and D800 sensors are better, who the hell cares if they don't produce shots and I have to pack up and go home in the 4th quarter?


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.
> 
> If the tables were turned and the 1DX was the camera scoring a 95 instead of the D800, people at Canonrumors would revere DXO.
> 
> ...


According to the reality shows I'm watching from time to time (not that I'm a big fun of those, just spending time with my wife) the group of people who is on the losing end wins in the end. So it's time to focus on how we shoot instead of speculating on all other stuff not even remotely related to the current moment of time. Let's see what next year brings to us


----------



## gene_can_sing (Oct 31, 2012)

Sorry to get such a rise out of you guys. 

It's strange to me how different stills people are vs. video people. Many video people are company agnostic for the most part. They tend to just go with what is the best camera out (probably because many use manual lenses so the investment in one company isn't quite as heavy). Stills people are ardent defenders of the faith. You are either Canon or Nikon, and you guys will defend your company to death. Saying something bad about Canon (or Nikon on the "other" site) is like insulting your mother, or probably worse.


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Oct 31, 2012)

Forget the scores. 

I shot all of these college football photos at ISO 8,000, f/2.8, 1/1,250 sec on my 1DX.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/multimedia/galleries/musports/x746103246/Gallery-Marshall-vs-UCF-game-action

High school stadiums are usually much worse. The night shots in this gallery were at ISO 16,000, 1/640-1/800 sec, f/2.8. 
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/multimedia/galleries/sports/x1363969376/Gallery-Class-AAA-Region-IV-soccer-championships-at-Cabell-Midland

Sorry about the compression but our website is a little behind the times. Anyway I love the 1DX and everything it does. I don't touch the 1D MK IV anymore but still keep my 5D MK II for wide angles below ISO 3,200.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 31, 2012)

MarkWebbPhoto said:


> Forget the scores.
> 
> I shot all of these college football photos at ISO 8,000, f/2.8, 1/1,250 sec on my 1DX.
> http://www.herald-dispatch.com/multimedia/galleries/musports/x746103246/Gallery-Marshall-vs-UCF-game-action
> ...



Lol, how can we forget the scores when that seems to be the only thing that matters? Nice shots, what lens were you using?


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 31, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> at 500 px even my old casio looks good.
> 
> it´s not that it´s not good enough.. it´s normal to want the BEST for your money.
> 
> ...



You're preachin to the choir here... but some people don't want to listen.


----------



## Mika (Oct 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to down Nikon or Sony. They make great sensors! I also like Nikon's EC during auto ISO in full manual mode. But overall, the sensor is only a fraction of the camera. Why then, can I shoot at much higher ISO's and print 8 x 10's with minimal NR, at ISO 25,600 with the 1DX and I cannot do that with a D4? Why? That is all I'd like to know. In this regard, the DxO score means nothing to me at all and I go with whatever works in the field, which in this case the ONLY choice I have to do so is the 1DX. If the D4 and D800 sensors are better, who the hell cares if they don't produce shots and I have to pack up and go home in the 4th quarter?



BUT BUT, here I thought you could underexpose those shots with Nikon at lower ISO and push them back up in the post! 

Sorry, could not resist this time - no offence meant to Nikon people with this - both Japanese camera companies are good.

Bottom line being that different photography areas require different kind of things from the sensor.


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

kirillica said:


> guys, is anyone disappointed with score would like to exchange your 1dx or hassy to some superior camera like nikon d7100? with additional charge from your side, of course


 ;D


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> Sorry to get such a rise out of you guys.
> 
> It's strange to me how different stills people are vs. video people. Many video people are company agnostic for the most part. They tend to just go with what is the best camera out (probably because many use manual lenses so the investment in one company isn't quite as heavy). Stills people are ardent defenders of the faith. You are either Canon or Nikon, and you guys will defend your company to death. Saying something bad about Canon (or Nikon on the "other" site) is like insulting your mother, or probably worse.


Video people may be new to DSLRs. They used to use other king of equipment totally different form DSLRs. Stills people are more probably coming from the analog era or early digital so they had much time to get acquainted with their equipment and learned to appreciate its capabilities. Other than that I cannot think of any other reason...


----------



## ddashti (Oct 31, 2012)

Sometimes it feels like, even though it's not the case, DxO Mark gives somewhat of a "boost" to the Nikon results. Like on of the posts on here said, the images are scaled down to 8 MP, so that could be why.


----------



## RuneL (Nov 1, 2012)

Who cares. Most of the people buying these will never use them to their full potential. They'll shoot their grand kids at a school play and their dog and some family outings.


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

I am so disappointed. If I had a Canon camera with such a low DxO score I wouldn't be able to sleep. Oh wait I have a 5DII and a 5DIII


----------



## jrista (Nov 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And thus the problem with using downsampled images as the sole source of DXO scores. BOTH downsampled and native results need to be factored into DXO's results so things don't get so skewed.


----------



## friedmud (Nov 1, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> So would you want a camera that has better DR, or one that has better AF, ISO & FPS?



If you had a camera that had the DR of the human eye but only shot one frame every 10 minutes at ISO 100 only and was only manual focus... I would put a second mortgage on my house to buy it. This is doubly true if it came in at 30-40Mp and also had incredible color reproduction.

BUT... that's just me... as a landscape photographer. I certainly wouldn't get on a forum and suggest that everyone in the world would want a camera like that...

Many people have many different needs in photography. Study the DXO measurements and take them for what they are: measurements. Taken together with many other reviews and tests they can help people make decisions _for themselves_ about what cameras best suit their needs....


----------



## sanj (Nov 1, 2012)

Neutral said:


> han_solo82 said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!
> ...



The word 'friend' is impolite? Huh?!?!


----------



## sach100 (Nov 1, 2012)

Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.



sanj said:


> www.greypartridgefilms.com



That's an impressive bio Sanj!


----------



## heptagon (Nov 1, 2012)

Does anyone know how many points the weather sealing is in the score?


----------



## nightbreath (Nov 1, 2012)

friedmud said:


> If you had a camera that had the DR of the human eye but only shot one frame every 10 minutes at ISO 100 only and was only manual focus...


I've read in a book of a Russian author (not sure if it was translated to English) that human eye has 5-6 stops of DR. And the reason we can see much bigger range of lightness levels is the ability of our eyes to adapt to the rapidly changing environment.

The book's author was a researcher in photography so this statement might be true. Did anyone hear anything like that?


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 1, 2012)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm sure the people at Nikonrumors are saying DXO is the greatest and most accurate tests ever.



Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon. 
They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like. 

None of the desperate fighting seen here.


----------



## simonxu11 (Nov 1, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon.
> They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.
> 
> None of the desperate fighting seen here.



Are you sure, just saw one on their first page _"DxOMark test results for Nikon 1 J2 mirrorless camera are out"_
And:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/09/19/nikon-d600-gets-second-best-dxomark-score-after-the-d800e.aspx/
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/08/dxomark-tests-the-nikon-d7000.aspx/
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/20/nikon-d4-tested-at-dxomark-gets-second-best-overall-score.aspx/
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/23/nikon-d800-gets-tested-at-dxomark-gets-the-1-spot.aspx/
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/06/nikon-d3200-dxomark-score-second-best-aps-c-camera-ever.aspx/
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/21/there-is-a-new-dxomark-king-nikon-d800e.aspx/nikon-d800e-dxomark-test-results/


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 1, 2012)

Funny, you are quite correct Simon! It is quite amusing how Nikon users don't appreciate DXO's scores any more than us Canon users. It all comes down to people at both rumours sites being interested in photography and real life usability of cameras instead of the senseless vendor bashing promoted by some.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 1, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon.
> ...


Ah, but I'm talking about the forum there. There nobody could care less about DxO. There they discuss cameras and photography. Not DxO.

What is published on the first page of the site is a different story. That after all is the admin giving us news, just like here.

And even in the comments to the front page posts, DxO is hardly mentioned. Almost all discussion in the comments threads on the front page is complaints about Nikon doing this that, or not doing this or that ('when is the D400 coming' etc). Typical nonsense you find in any similar situation, whether it's cameras, software, guitars, games, computer parts or smartphones or whatever. People just complain and bitch.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 1, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I think it’s currently the best DSLR as a whole currently on the market, unless you want the big resolution of the D800.



Admin has it exactly right.

DxO scores is just one aspect of the whole picture. Relevant, but only one of numerous aspects.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 1, 2012)

Relevant, really? You just contradicted yourself .

If you state that Nikon forum users couldn't care less about DXO, but do care about photography, it looks as if we should take a hint over here and switch to discussing actual photography more often.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.
> ...



Do you really want to say that you do not "FEEL" what is behind the numbers in a real life or do not want to "FEEL" them?
Simple example - you are leaving your apartment, checking the weather gadget and it tells that in one hour temperature will drop down from 70F to 41F and wind speed will rise from 1m/c to 30m/c. And you will be telling that you do not "feel" what all that means and what you need to do regarding that and what to put on? I can't believe that ))))))) And there thousands examples like this)))
I think this example above clearly clarifies what I meant in my posts using word “FEEL” the numbers. 
And I really appreciate your sense of humor but as usual to make a joke one need to turn things upside down to make things look funny.
And here order of things does matter and significant.
First of course are things quantified by numbers (nobody argues about that) and then how one realize or understand what is behind that numbers ("forest behind the trees") - one can name it "FEEL", "VISUALIZE", "IMAGINE" - call it whatever you want.
I have no doubts that you know this better than me ))))
Regarding DXO SCORE discussion my point was that it is absolutely pointless to argue about SCORE results, one need to see at measurements curves and understand or "feel" how this correlates to real life.
Arguing about one dimensional SCORE value is the same as to argue about mapping multi-dimensional space into one dimensional. No need to be a scientist to know that mapping multidimensional space into single dimensional space has infinite number of solutions and each one could be correct depending on initial mapping conditions. In addition this mapping is not reversible - you cannot revert or map it back to the original space - here is again infinite number of solutions for that.

Any discussion should be constructive and not destructive – so something useful could result as outcome of that and could be used for benefit of all involved.
Again back to DXO - and if they are listening – they could easily reconcile most (but not all of course) people on all the forums by introducing several different sensor scores based on the target usage and carefully defined metrics to get right score for each of the usage domains e.g.: 
1. Landscape/studio photography 
2. General use photography (no extreme conditions)
3. Sport/events/shows photography for ISO above 1600 or may be even above ISO 3200
4. Best universal shooting – suitable to work in any extreme conditions 
5. Keep their own DXO metrics.
Then from drop down menu list anyone can select criteria which he want to use to and see what are sensors ranking and what is the best sensor for this specific domain. 
There is no big deal to do that.
This could be just better way to present measurements results to specific groups of photographers.


----------



## marekjoz (Nov 1, 2012)

So I was not quite wrong predicting these numbers in April (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5828.msg111220#msg111220), without even having this camera in my hands:

Published Predicted
- Portrait (color depth) 23.8 24 
- Landscape (dynamic range) 11.8 12
- Sports (low-Light ISO) 2786 2650
- Overall Score 82 84

, I like you DXO


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 1, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Interestingly, over at Nikonrumors, DxO and their test results are almost never mentioned. Neither is Canon.
> They're too busy discussing using their cameras and photography... lens recommendations, best body for specific purposes and the like.
> 
> None of the desperate fighting seen here.



I love my Canon gear, but this might be the best reason yet to switch to Nikon ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 1, 2012)

Lets just hope that mikael risedal never finds this thread.


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 1, 2012)

Heh, you ever keep track of how many new users join just to troll? Just look at Coke & Pepsi, who's always bashing who there? If you're number one your always in the hot seat.


----------



## sanj (Nov 1, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > If you had a camera that had the DR of the human eye but only shot one frame every 10 minutes at ISO 100 only and was only manual focus...
> ...



Yes I have that somewhere.


----------



## sanj (Nov 1, 2012)

sach100 said:


> Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Much. The website is actually still under construction. Lots more pictures and videos to load!


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 1, 2012)

sanj said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > friedmud said:
> ...



I always was told our eye has a massive DR but not because of the optics but how our brain can dynamically adjust areas of a scene to make blacks brighter and highlights darker. Kinda like dynamic area ISO.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 1, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> Relevant, really? You just contradicted yourself .



No, no contradiction. DxO scores are relevant, but not the only thing to take into consideration. 

No contradiction there.


----------



## rpt (Nov 1, 2012)

sach100 said:


> Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.


LOL! That's a good one.


----------



## poias (Nov 1, 2012)

rpt said:


> sach100 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.
> ...



Ironically, Nikon's DX are trouncing Canon's flagship 1DX in DXO. My head hurts.


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 1, 2012)

poias said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > sach100 said:
> ...



The only thing.


----------



## jrista (Nov 1, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



Dynamic range is the total sensitivity range. Just like with a camera and a computer, the eye/brain configuration chooses which range out of the total sensitivity range to "process to". I think our eyes are capable of well more than 5-6 stops on average at any given moment, but I do not believe we can see the entire 25+ stop dynamic range our eyes have all at once. Exactly how much we can see in any one go I can't say, although if I compare my eyes to my 7D, I can definitely see more than 11 stops at a time. My 7D will either clip highlights or block shadows if I try to capture a scene with 12 stops, but my eyes seem to concurrently handle the highlights and shadows of the same scenes just fine.


----------



## poias (Nov 1, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Our eyes are like D800 where we can (naturally) pull out a lot of shadow details instantly.


----------



## DB (Nov 1, 2012)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



It is not your eyes, it is your brain that makes adjustments (a lot faster than your eyes) e.g. walk from a pitch black room out through a door into bright sunlight, your eyes don't see the green grass in front of you as they're adjusting, but your brain interpolates based on previous cognitive experience (it knows what green looks like and what grass looks like and further knows that grass = green)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2012)

poias said:


> Our eyes are like D800 where we can (naturally) pull out a lot of shadow details instantly.



Maybe _your_ visual system is like the D800. Mine has far more than 13.2 stops of DR, my 'raw files' are transferred and processed much faster, and image noise is nonexistent. OTOH, image playback loses some of the detail...


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Our eyes are like D800 where we can (naturally) pull out a lot of shadow details instantly.
> ...



Damn, I knew I should of gotten CF card slots installed instead of those slower SD's.


----------



## tron (Nov 2, 2012)

rpt said:


> sach100 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Nikon can start (re)naming their cameras as DXO4, DXO800 etc.
> ...


 ;D Or DxO can be renamed to Nikon ;D ;D


----------



## jrista (Nov 2, 2012)

DB said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Not entirely. There are changes in chemical response at the rod/cone level as well that start taking effect when you move from areas of differing brightness. Some of those changes are quick (milliseconds to seconds), some take a little time (minutes), and full adjustment to moving into a very bright or very dark area from the opposite can take over an hour. The brain is effectively a biological superresolution processor, it additively picks up "frames" around 500 fps from our eyes (frames is a bad word...its a continual stream of visual information, and no one has really mapped exactly what it is that our brains process yet), and keeps them in somewhat of a "circular buffer" of sorts (although thats really far too simplistic, as our brains permanently store the majority of what goes in...to varying degrees of memorable permanence), so it definitely has a lot more information to work with than simply a single snapshot of the world from our eyes. But it is not purely 100% a "brain thing"...hence my use of the phrase "eye/brain configuration". 

The brain part is also something we can influence to a degree, as well. The notion that "the brain" knows what green looks like, or that there are associations between grass and green, is more than simply autonomic. There is a mental, psychological component to such recognition of what we see as well, and through will you can change *your* perception of color or other visual information to varying degrees, and the brains visual cortex will respond. Sometimes its a very subconscious thing...the same lawn under the same light may look muted and dull one day, and vibrant and lively the next, depending on your mood or other mental factors. One can choose to see only vibrant color in fall leaves, or choose to "see deeper" and begin realizing far more than just vibrant color...more nuanced color of greater detail and tonality, by choosing to...(You can try it, it is mostly a matter of focus and intent, sometimes you can even expand your visual field to absorb and recognize more information from a much wider field of view than the brain normally does (which is usually in the 2° degree field of view that comprises the most cone-dense central foveal spot of our eyes)). As a photographer, I have tried to train my brain to see what the camera sees, or what I might end up with in Lightroom, as I look through the viewfinder. Reality and what my creative side can "see" are often radically different things, but you can influence your sight to see reality differently. Changing perception, especially trying to train your brain to have different perception in different contexts, can be time consuming...but the point is "prior cognitive experience" is only part of the story.

"Sight" is far more complex than just the brain, or just the eyes. No one single specific thing controls it all, its not purely prior cognitive experience, and its not purely autonomic. There are thousands of chemical cascade reactions taking place every second in the eyes and all over our brains to support visual processing, adaptation to changing luminance, light and shadows included, adjustment according to intent and focus, etc. I wouldn't call the eye the same as a D800 either. The eye is a continuous, streaming, fluid visual processor, where as a camera is explicitly designed to effectively freeze time for a given duration. I would say the only real similarity between the two is simply that they both deal with the visual, use lenses, and have sensors....but beyond that they function in radically different ways for different purposes. 



Someday, far off in the future when we have the kind of bandwidth and picoscale sensor fabrication technology that would make a modern DSLR geek's eyeballs pop and brain boil, I foresee a camera sensor that operates more along the lines of human sight: Extremely high resolution, near-perfect quantum efficiency, extremely high sensitivity, excessively high "continuous frame rate" (tens of thousands of frames per second at least), ultra fast image processor that can do similar things to the brain...additively combine hundreds or thousands of individual "frames" from the sensor into a superresolution image that could potentially be larger in pixel dimensions than the sensor itself, and effectively have unlimited dynamic range (or say something around 25 stops...which might as well be unlimited...2048x more range than the D800 has (if that puts it in perspective. ;P). Of course, we would also need 10 stop inks and paper, 16 stop high density (300ppi) computer screens, etc. to actually make effective use of such an eye-wateringly good camera. Ah, the future is going to be so expensive...


----------



## Neutral (Nov 2, 2012)

jrista said:


> Someday, far off in the future when we have the kind of bandwidth and picoscale sensor fabrication technology that would make a modern DSLR geek's eyeballs pop and brain boil, I foresee a camera sensor that operates more along the lines of human sight: Extremely high resolution, near-perfect quantum efficiency, extremely high sensitivity, excessively high "continuous frame rate" (tens of thousands of frames per second at least), ultra fast image processor that can do similar things to the brain...additively combine hundreds or thousands of individual "frames" from the sensor into a superresolution image that could potentially be larger in pixel dimensions than the sensor itself, and effectively have unlimited dynamic range (or say something around 25 stops...which might as well be unlimited...2048x more range than the D800 has (if that puts it in perspective. ;P). Of course, we would also need 10 stop inks and paper, 16 stop high density (300ppi) computer screens, etc. to actually make effective use of such an eye-wateringly good camera. Ah, the future is going to be so expensive...



It is pleasure to see that some people vision of the future is very close to mine))) 
In fact even now there is a lot of technology pieces around which if combined together could result in a stunning sensor performance. And just recently new publication from IBM about their research results in microchips technologies –something which is really amazing. Also use of graphene nano-tubes in micro- circuitry design. 
Imagine sensor using sub 10nm 3D technology process with graphene nano-tubes , per pixel ADC and per pixel small processor, per pixel adjustable dynamic sensitivity and dynamic ISO, per pixel phase detection for on chip AF for all the pixels across the frame (no more mirror/ prism , no more separate AF circuitry), per pixel uniformity calibration etc. All that is possible to do now.
And you right about R&D target in this area – to make imaging device (sensor(s)+ processors array) to reach capabilities of the human eye. I would add more - not only to reach but far surpass those capabilities – e.g. for robotics vision. People who are watching what is happening in different R&D areas around see how many things that were described in science fiction rapidly come into existence. 
Some things could drastically change our world in next near 30-50 years. 
Unfortunately all that initially being done not for general public but in areas where primary goal is result and not a profit – just keep cost under some control. Than 10-15 year later it becomes available for others. Hopefully we will see some results of such developments in some near future.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 2, 2012)

For those who are interested some more details to my post above regarding "IBM carbon nanotechnology - nanotubes for future of microelectronics" which I mentioned there - latest publication (17hours ago) in "EE Times India" explains that in easy way and what it promise in some future not too far away from now.
Actually IBM is investing a lot in R&D and that investments are very effective - making revolutionary breakthroughs in number of technologies. And this below is only small part of their R&D areas.

"Carbon nanotubes represent a new class of semiconductor materials whose electrical properties are more attractive than silicon, particularly for building nanoscale transistor devices that are a few tens of atoms across. Electrons in carbon transistors can move easier than in silicon-based devices allowing for quicker transport of data. The nanotubes are also ideally shaped for transistors at the atomic scale, an advantage over silicon. These qualities are among the reasons to replace the traditional silicon transistor with carbon—and coupled with new chip design architectures—will allow computing innovation on a miniature scale for the future."

Enjoy reading full article: 
http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800677471_1800007_NT_eb791c5c.HTM

Official IBM press release:
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/39250.wss

An here is another small publication:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2012/10/how-nanotechnology-could-speed-up-ibm.html


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 2, 2012)

At that time we'll be doing eye transplants.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 2, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> At that time we'll be doing eye transplants.


These are already available )))
Sensor with special adaptor to connect this sensor to nurve stem. 
This allowed to restore vision to totaly blind people
Also brain microchips implants are already availabe - being used to restore some lost brain functionlity.
Problem before was connection of non-organic chip to the organic tissue and provide purmanent electical contact to nurves and it was successfully resolved few years back.


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 2, 2012)

Neutral said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > At that time we'll be doing eye transplants.
> ...



So how has this been working out for the patient?


----------



## Neutral (Nov 2, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



Here is article regarding artificial eye implants.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410884/longer-lasting-artificial-eyes/
So far it is still limited - number of pixels and connectition to the nurves but gives ability to patients to recognize things around.

----------- 
Here is another article regarding neuroprocessor brain implants - how it works but I think it is not the latest one. One that I read some time ago and was referencing above - can not find now - the same but with special chip bottom layer which allows brain tissue (neurons) to grow into this chip special bottom layer forming electrical contact between neurons and implant instead of using titanium electrodes -this was very interesting article- recent research results from one of the labs - not availabe commercially yet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ti8_AY4DykwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=neuroprocessor+brain+implant&source=bl&ots=z-ZnRO_2D6&sig=uP0bxtM_rHkm-wkJbaO4dUF-kk8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BSiUUK6gOIG3hQe99IGgBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=neuroprocessor%20brain%20implant&f=false


----------



## jukka (Nov 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



there are calculations who shows about 24 stops of DR when the eyes and the brain ﻿﻿﻿interprets scanning of a motive, scene from the blackest to whitest


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 3, 2012)

i stick with my 5D MK2 until canon introduces a new improved sensor generation.
a new sensor generation with better LOW ISO performance.

until then the price for new lenses is maybe down too......


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2012)

jukka said:


> there are calculations who shows about 24 stops of DR when the eyes and the brain ﻿﻿﻿interprets scanning of a motive, scene from the blackest to whitest


So there will be a rumor that in the year 2120 Canon sensors will have 23 stops of DR and Nikon 25 ;D 
The problem is there will be still arguing whether this is valid because DxO will have downsized the 300 Mpixel Canon and the 500Mpixel Nikon images down to ... 8 ;D


----------



## rpt (Nov 4, 2012)

tron said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > there are calculations who shows about 24 stops of DR when the eyes and the brain ﻿﻿﻿interprets scanning of a motive, scene from the blackest to whitest
> ...


You are really rubbing it in aren't you? 

Simply put, the name of my camera company starts with "can" and the "other" "camera" "company" decided to have a name that ends with con - I admit they tweaked the spelling - but it still reads CON!


----------

