# 5DS and 5DS R Sensor Scores at DXO



## ahsanford (Apr 16, 2015)

If you've seen my postings on the forums, you know I don't take DXO too seriously. When someone says the same lens is disappointing on one body and is best-in-class on another, they are generally more a source of giggles than useful info.

_*All. that. said.*_ My daily vigil begins, feel free to bookmark and do the same:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1008_1009

Hate DXO or love DXO, I am hard pressed to think of another reviewing institution that inspires such chaos, bile and frenzy in the photography forum world as these folks. No matter what they say about the 5DS, the photography world will be alight with all sorts of crazy after their take on the 5DS rigs is unveiled. Personally, I'm hoping for a great zingers like:

"The 5DS comes ever so close to outperforming the D7200"

"This landscape and studio camera really underdelivers at ISO 10,000."

"Canon finally delivers great resolution, but we don't give high marks for that anymore. Did we mention our brand new scoring system?"

[Rubs palms together gleefully] 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 17, 2015)

Sweet, they both scored zero ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 17, 2015)

My 5DSR has been on preorder for a month. I don't care much what DxO has to say about it, but I will have a look once they get it


----------



## leica_f32 (Apr 18, 2015)

DXO knows that you run a test to get the answer you want. Their bias is actually overwhelming in the last number of years. The priority ranking they assign to specific tests in arriving at a conclusion is not only hidden but they won't discuss it. The best I can liken their conclusions to is the college acceptance process. Can't be explained & won't be discussed.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 25, 2015)

Still nothing at DXO. 

One has to wonder if Canon even sends them an early production unit for review, especially knowing what a flogging they'll likely receive anyway.

- A


----------



## dolina (Apr 25, 2015)

Both bodies are the most economical way to comply with a client or technical requirement of 50+MP without resorting to pixel interpolation.

As this camera is being marketed to studio and landscape photogs its rather limited ISO range, an equal to a 5D Mark II and that would have been amazing back in 2008, is good enough when compared to medium format cameras and backs with CCD image sensors. 

One thing I am sure of is that in as short as a month or as long as a quarter both bodies will outsell the whole medium format market's sales for a year. Per a Forbes article from 2013 Leica claims that the whole medium format market is about 6,000 units/year.

For those curious why Leica entered the medium format market it is because well paid photojournalists who make up a significant market for their rangefinders are becoming rare. 

SLRs are dominated by Canon & Nikon and with smartphones eating into the dedicated still camera market at almost all levels it is best for Leica to go "up market" with their up market brand. Going up market and diversification has been the strategy of all brands in light of the 1.3 billion smartphones sold last year.

Who else offers a completely digital lens setup without legacy film glass in the medium format market?


----------



## RGF (Apr 29, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Sweet, they both scored zero ;D



The score can only go up once they test the camera 8)


----------



## K (Apr 29, 2015)

DXO's lens tests seem to be accurate and reflect reality. And the reason for that is likely the fact that lenses belong to a system and don't directly compete with one another. 

Bodies on the other hand...that's a different story.

Their sensor scores are a total joke. The reason for this they are not measuring to determine best IQ in the way human beings view images and IQ. They are measuring only a few things that can lead to better IQ, but they literally miss the big picture because sensors that they rank much lower than others - actually produce superior IQ and results and that is completely factual, observable and objective. Seeing is believing.


DXO loses all credibility when they rank the Nikon D3300's sensor above the 1DX.


DXO is probably shills for Nikon/Sony.


I have no reason whatsoever to say that other than it appears to be the truth. I'm not some Canon supporter or Nikon hater. It is just hard to accept these kinds of figures when I look at side by side RAW images and the reality is much different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

K said:


> DXO's lens tests seem to be accurate and reflect reality.



Sometimes. Other times they reflect the reality you might experience after eating peyote and three kinds psychogenic mushrooms while sitting next to a bale of flaming marihuana. 

First off, their Lens Scores are BS. The main factor is performance in 150 lux (like a dim warehouse), which is why the 50/1.8 scores higher than the 600/4, and also why the 'lens score' is heavily influenced by the Sensor Score of the body on which it's tested. 

The issue with DxOMark's lens _measurements_ isn't really the way they do the tests, it's that they sometimes screw them up badly, and when they do, they deny it. That was the case with the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS vs the MkII, for example. They claimed the MkI was optically slightly better, defended that statement when called out on it in their forums and denied any problem with their testing...then a full year later they silently updated their measurements of the MkII to show it as significantly better than its predecessor (something everyone else in the world already knew). 

They tested the Canon 17-40L, and they show at f/4 it's nearly as sharp in the corners as in the center (vs. the mushy wide open corners everyone else sees), and it's sharper wide open than the 16-35/2.8L II stopped down to f/8. So either they borrowed God's own perfect 17-40L for their testing, or they screwed up again.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > DXO's lens tests seem to be accurate and reflect reality.
> ...



Or they declare the same Sigma Art lens is gamechangingly good on a D800 and underperforming on a 5D3. 

One imagines that at DXO headquarters, there are two printed pictures side by side: one of a 50 MP image where each and every pixel is dead black, and another 1 MP image of the same thing. Under the picture is their 'play like a champion today' call to arms for all employees: 

_"One of these is not like the other. One is a transcendent image of darkness, rendered in lush detail. The other is a crappy low resolution copy of the same image.
*
That's why we're here, people. * To tell folks which one is better. It's a tough job, but we were born to do it."
_
- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 29, 2015)

K said:


> DXO's lens tests seem to be accurate and reflect reality.



Their tests may be (with the caveat that they aren't particularly forthcoming with their mistakes, as told by neuroanatomist), but their scores certainly don't reflect reality.

Take for example: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm and 600mm f/4G ED VR lens reviews: legendary performers in the range

The Canon 500 has equal or better metrics to the Nikkor 500, yet their composite score is the same because of "the excellent dynamic range of the Nikon D800 *sensor*".

But while the Sony a99's sensor has nearly the same "print" dynamic range as the D800's, the Sony lens with similar metrics to the Nikkor lens on a higher-than-Canon DR sensor get's the lowest score overall.

It's very facepalmy.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 29, 2015)

To me DXO is just one more data source out there . I don't base any decision on a single data source.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > DXO's lens tests seem to be accurate and reflect reality.
> ...


Really? I have never experienced any of those. Tell us what it is like.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



They should score lenses based on the optical performance of those lenses. 

They call it a Lens Score, and list the optical measurements under that Score as if those measurements determine the Score, when in fact the Score derives from primarily transmission measurement and the sensor score (which in itself is biased). 

By the way, despite being in a dim warehouse light level, they don't base that score on high ISO sensor performance as you suggest, but rather on low (likely base) ISO.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Furthermore, given that nearly everyone here shoots in dimly lit situations where they need high ISO to "get the shot", isn't using a low light level of more interest to everyone here than conditions that resemble a mid summer sunny day?




I imagine the tests they do are intended to feed the DXO Optics profiles, rather than to stand as independent metrics, but ideally they would test lenses on common calibrated equipment rather than on various cameras.

I'm not sure how or if light levels change lens performance.


----------



## Orangutan (May 1, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > the reality you might experience after eating peyote and three kinds psychogenic mushrooms while sitting next to a bale of flaming marihuana.
> ...



Imagine the disorientation and reality distortion you feel when you read a DXO lens score. It's very much like that.


----------



## K (May 3, 2015)

I'm sure the folks at DXO mark would be willing to trade their 1DX for a D3300 I have on hand. After all, they rate the D3300 as superior.

;D


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2015)

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1008_1009_795

The daily vigil continues... Any idea when units are shipping?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> The daily vigil continues...



With respect, you need to get a life...


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The daily vigil continues...
> ...



I put the terms "neuroanatomist" and "16034 posts" into Google and pressed the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

I got 347 pages of pictures of pots, kettles, and the color black. :

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Fair enough… But even _I'm_ not waiting with baited breath for the release of some information by DxO.


----------



## mkabi (May 7, 2015)

Going back to the topic...
I think that 5DS/5DSR should... at the very least score better than the 5DIII. (Note: I did say, _I think_)

And, I'm not trying to defend DXOMark and its scoring system, but I'm basing my thoughts 
using the scores they gave for a7 vs. a7II
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Sony-A7-II___916_996

Note: There is a drop in DR, but score remains the same.

As well as, comparing their scores between a7II vs. a7s vs. a7r
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-A7II-sensor-review-Mighty-mirrorless/Sony-A7II-vs-A7R-vs-A7S-Horses-for-courses

I don't know... I feel that they are just caught in the whole pixel peeping, mega-pixels are everything race...


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Going back to the topic...
> I think that 5DS/5DSR should... at the very least score better than the 5DIII. (Note: I did say, _I think_)
> 
> And, I'm not trying to defend DXOMark and its scoring system, but I'm basing my thoughts
> ...



My nutty hypothesis:

It will get a higher overall score than the 5D3 because of resolution, but individual metrics like high ISO an DR should not improve. Maeda-san already said that we should expect pixel level performance like the _7D2_, let alone a FF rig.

- A


----------



## jaayres20 (May 7, 2015)

The actual files posted on imaging resource, even when converted with Adobe DNG converter show a significant increase in DR over the 5D3. Color is good, noise is good. I am betting on a score in the 90s.


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2015)

jaayres20 said:


> The actual files posted on imaging resource, even when converted with Adobe DNG converter show a significant increase in DR over the 5D3. Color is good, noise is good. I am betting on a score in the 90s.



Great to hear, but why did Canon reduce the useable ISO range of these cameras, then? I think we were all expecting -- between that and Maeda-san's comments -- that ISO would be a step back for the 5DS rigs vs. the 5D3.

- A


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jaayres20 said:
> 
> 
> > The actual files posted on imaging resource, even when converted with Adobe DNG converter show a significant increase in DR over the 5D3. Color is good, noise is good. I am betting on a score in the 90s.
> ...



I'm guessing a stronger CFA.


----------



## msm (May 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jaayres20 said:
> 
> 
> > The actual files posted on imaging resource, even when converted with Adobe DNG converter show a significant increase in DR over the 5D3. Color is good, noise is good. I am betting on a score in the 90s.
> ...



My guess would be that Canon believe that that those who are in the market for camera are serious enough to not be impressed by some useless "native" iso setting of 10000000000. Despite the lower ISO range, I think the files on dpreview look good and I wouldn't be surprised if this will be Canon's best low light performer for now on DXO's sport score, because of better color depth.


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> If you've seen my postings on the forums, you know I don't take DXO too seriously. When someone says the same lens is disappointing on one body and is best-in-class on another, they are generally more a source of giggles than useful info.
> 
> _*All. that. said.*_ My daily vigil begins, feel free to bookmark and do the same:
> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1008_1009
> ...




I wouldn't get your hopes up quite that much. Canon has already stated that the dynamic range of the 5Ds/R will be roughly the same as the 5D III. That's strait from the horses mouth, and I think your just setting yourself up for disappointment. Personally, given what I've seen from imaging resource data so far, the color noise of the 5Ds is significantly improved over the 5D III, so aesthetically, the 5Ds should have better IQ, even at high ISO. Color noise is one of the worst things about the 5D III. It was improved from the 5D II...less of a significant red shift, but it is still quite bad. The 5Ds appears to have a much cleaner luminance noise, with lower color noise, both deep in the shadows and at higher ISO. However...at least as far as I can tell, the dynamic range hasn't improved much. 


The 5Ds with it's cleaner noise should prove to be a great camera, certainly better than it's predecessors, but "The 5DS comes ever so close to outperforming the D7200" is really asking for it to deliver on the DR front...and we already know that is very unlikely to happen. Canon has some intriguing technology in the works...their layered sensor patents could put them a step ahead of the competition for a while in terms of overall light gathering capacity, which while it may not improve DR (especially if they don't ditch their archaic off-die ADC setup), it could actually present some significant gains at high ISO with smaller pixels.


----------



## zlatko (May 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> _*All. that. said.*_ My daily vigil begins, feel free to bookmark and do the same:



I'm not waiting. They lost credibility a long time ago. If I were buying this camera, it would be based on many other factors, not at all on their scores.


----------



## Orangutan (May 8, 2015)

jrista said:


> I wouldn't get your hopes up quite that much. Canon has already stated that the dynamic range of the 5Ds/R will be roughly the same as the 5D III. That's strait from the horses mouth,


Possibly because he didn't want to acknowledge any deficiency in the 5D3. Unless the gain is large enough to be marketable (and transferable to future products) there's no good reason to disparage your current camera line-up until the 5D4 is out.


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't get your hopes up quite that much. Canon has already stated that the dynamic range of the 5Ds/R will be roughly the same as the 5D III. That's strait from the horses mouth,
> ...



I find that to be inverted thinking. I've never seen Canon take that particular tack with their statements. Canon certainly does their fair share of face saving and verbal maneuvering, but when they aren't simply telling the truth, they are either excessively obfuscatory, or blatantly lying, one of the two.  Besides, what I've seen with the 5Ds RAWs on imaging resource, I think Canon was telling the truth. Chroma noise has been improved considerably, however luminance noise is about the same, and DR appears to be about the same.

I think people will be happier pushing shadows more on a 5Ds, because it's cleaner, finer, more random noise. It has a prettier aesthetic. However in terms of actual sensor dynamic range, I would expect something in the low 11 stops range. The 7D II achieved 11.11 stops Screen DR, and the 5Ds has almost the same size pixels. I would expect something similar, 11.1-11.3 stops of Screen DR. On the Print DR score, the 7D II achieved 11.78 stops. Because the 5Ds has a sensor frame twice the size (and more), I expect it to fare better on the Print DR score. It should score better than the 6D if it has similar dark current to the 7D II, however it does have the smaller pixels, which might counteract some of the benefit of the larger sensor. I'd put Print DR somewhere between 11.9 and 12.2 stops.

For the record, the 5D III scored 10.97 Screen DR and 11.74 Print DR.

Given these statistics, a Screen DR score of 11.1-11.3 would put it pretty close to the 5D III's 11, and a Print DR score of 11.9-12.1 would put it pretty close to the 5D III's 11.7. I think that sounds pretty much in line with Canon's statements about DR being similar, in line with the IQ and technology improvements in the 6D and 7D II, and in line with what we can already see with the image data from Imaging Resource. The reduction in chroma noise is fairly significant and the luminance noise has a good aesthetic, and I can see imagers being more willing to push shadows with noise like that...and that is in line with statements of pros who have actually used the 5Ds.

Anyway, that would be my logical assessment. Improvement, a solid improvement on the chroma noise front (which I personally welcome very, very much...I really hate the chroma noise in the 5D III, and if the 5D IV has anything like the clean, random luminance noise of the 5Ds, I'll be pretty happy with it) but I wouldn't expect anything radical, like DR topping 13 stops (and certainly not 14 stops).


----------



## sanj (May 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hilarious. Hahahaha.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (May 10, 2015)

Wow I didn't expect that lowlight performance at 50mp! It's basically just as good as the 36mp d810 and the medium format 50mp Pentax.

Canon undersold the ISO performance, made us feel its specialty tool that's horrible in normal scenes above 800 ISO, but as I can see it's a very powerful lowlight shooter just like the d810 but with more detail. The d810 will probably have an advantage in DR when lifting shadows at 100 ISO.


----------



## telemaq76 (May 11, 2015)

according to the first raws available it s already noisy at iso-100 .


----------



## Orangutan (May 11, 2015)

telemaq76 said:


> according to the first raws available it s already noisy at iso-100 .



Care to elaborate?


----------



## jaayres20 (May 11, 2015)

Unless the final camera is worse than the beta version files I have seen on Imaging Resource then I will be more than happy with the files this camera produces. Detail and resolution are obviously excellent. To my surprise the images are more than usable at ISO 6400 and the ability to lift shadows far surpasses the 5D3 and is not too far behind the beloved D810. I can't imagine a scenario where I will need more from my gear than the 5DSr and my 1DX can more than handle.


----------



## LOALTD (May 12, 2015)

Has a pool started to guess the final score?


I'll start, I guess: 84


----------



## NancyP (May 13, 2015)

My cat isn't interested in sensor scores, only food.


----------



## K (May 14, 2015)

Why bother with the 5DS? 

DXO says the Nikon D3300 is superior to the 1DX and all the rest of the Canon cameras.


$329 (body only) and you've surpassed the entire Canon lineup in image quality!

;D


----------



## meywd (May 18, 2015)

gary samples said:


> I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to bring up this topic
> I have a few math questions mixed in with some theory
> I shoot 600/f4 200/f2
> and some with the canon extender III @ 200- 600- 840
> ...



If this will get too technical I think its better to make a new thread, lets keep this one for the bashing of DXO


----------



## rfdesigner (May 19, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> Has a pool started to guess the final score?
> 
> 
> I'll start, I guess: 84




ISO:1750
Colour Depth: 23.1
DR=12.4
Overall Score: 76

Based on scaling the 7DII out to 50MP


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2015)

macVega said:


> I am a big fan of the aps-c sensor but in terms of image quality it can never match a full-frame sensor, bigger sensor collect more light than a smaller one.



Light is irrelevant. Only the DxOMark Sensor Score matters.


----------



## tron (May 20, 2015)

NancyP said:


> My cat isn't interested in sensor scores, only food.


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 21, 2015)

DXO scores are a laughing joke in the professional sensor and lens world if you want to know how to judge tests of lenses on cameras to maximise the performance read this article (yes its a machine vision site but the principle is exactly the same). Read the entire article and your quickly realise why DXO is a joke. 

www.vision-systems.com/.../2009/03/matching-lenses-and-sensors.html

It does however highlight that as Canon use (as do Nikon, Sony et al) cameras with different pixel pitches the lens performance is NOT optimised for every camera.


----------



## RGF (May 22, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> DXO scores are a laughing joke in the professional sensor and lens world if you want to know how to judge tests of lenses on cameras to maximise the performance read this article (yes its a machine vision site but the principle is exactly the same). Read the entire article and your quickly realise why DXO is a joke.
> 
> www.vision-systems.com/.../2009/03/matching-lenses-and-sensors.html
> 
> It does however highlight that as Canon use (as do Nikon, Sony et al) cameras with different pixel pitches the lens performance is NOT optimised for every camera.



Tried to read the article and got a msg I don't have permission


----------



## meywd (May 22, 2015)

RGF said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > DXO scores are a laughing joke in the professional sensor and lens world if you want to know how to judge tests of lenses on cameras to maximise the performance read this article (yes its a machine vision site but the principle is exactly the same). Read the entire article and your quickly realise why DXO is a joke.
> ...



I think this is the same article http://www.vision-systems.com/articles/print/volume-14/issue-3/features/matching-lenses-and-sensors.html


----------



## RGF (May 22, 2015)

meywd said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Thanks


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2015)

Ooooh. A big fancy pants DXO site redesign just dropped. 

http://www.dxomark.com/

I wonder if that is set to coincide with a scathing review of the new 5Ds rigs? :

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Ooooh. A big fancy pants DXO site redesign just dropped.


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Ooooh. A big fancy pants DXO site redesign just dropped.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/
> 
> ...



Oh, good gravy, *it gets better.* They are putting "overall rank" (i.e. of ALL cameras) on there, and you can sort it by their normal metrics of Portrait (color depth), Landscape (DR) and Sports (ISO):

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras#brand=canon&price=0%2C45200&year=2011%2C2015&xDataType=year&yDataType=rankDxo

Filtering it on those metrics, two of Canon's top three dynamic range sensors are _Powershots_. I'll be brave and guess those two rigs have Sony sensors. 

Overall, the 5D3 is the 39th best camera on the market, and the 1DX is 34th.

With rankings like that, DXO is as bullet proof as Sepp Blatter (for those following the goings on in Zurich right now). Awesome.

- A


----------



## tron (May 29, 2015)

macVega said:


> What can i say..my cat..she knows bigger is better


Bigger pixel or bigger raw file? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ooooh. A big fancy pants DXO site redesign just dropped.
> ...



Look up the Max Mosely scandal sometime, if you want good reading material.


----------



## captainkanji (May 29, 2015)

I'm confident my iPhone 6plus will have a better score than the 5Ds


----------



## KBStudio (May 29, 2015)

Interesting, DXOMark is offline! All access points get a server error message and a note to "Try Again".


----------



## ahsanford (May 29, 2015)

KBStudio said:


> Interesting, DXOMark is offline! All access points get a server error message and a note to "Try Again".



It's back up now.

Ugh, my old 5DS links don't work, as the new DXO won't show scores if all lenses lack test data -- it auto-snaps back to a spec summary page. But if you drop in one camera that's been tested...

http://goo.gl/ltfhyL

You can have a nice daily go-to link to see if scores are posted.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2015)

And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D


----------



## tron (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## kphoto99 (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D



Why, the 's' does not stand for sport


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2015)

DXO is always right.... after all, they rate the 7D2 as superior to the 1DX in low light..... and the 50F1.8 is a much better lens than the 600F4.....


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> DXO is always right.... after all, they rate the 7D2 as superior to the 1DX in low light..... and the 50F1.8 is a much better lens than the 600F4.....



And the 500mm lenses get equal scores because of the higher DR of the Nikon camera used...

LOL


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D
> ...



Why yes ! Tell bdunbar79 to trade in his 1Dx


----------



## ksgal (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D



I was like... no, surely you jest..... Nope, that is what they have. 1Dx doesn't make the top 10?!

Well, now I know DXO = Ken Rockwell. Lots of facts and data mixed with lots of opinion and BS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D



DxO for the WIN!!!!!


----------



## ritholtz (May 29, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > DXO is always right.... after all, they rate the 7D2 as superior to the 1DX in low light..... and the 50F1.8 is a much better lens than the 600F4.....
> ...


According to their test scores, d7200 has better DR than even Nikon d750. That should be the last straw.
Even Rishi (dpr admin) says, all this measured DR doesn't show up in photos. He thinks, Bill Clauff measurement of photographic DR is better.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2015)

tron said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D
> ...



Evidently the Nikon Df  is a better "sports" camera than the Nikon D4s. Go figs.


----------



## PureClassA (May 29, 2015)

You weren't joking about the Sony A7s .... That's it. DxO has officially and completely beclowned itself. Any respect for it's rating system I still had just went right down the crapper.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> You weren't joking about the Sony A7s .... That's it. DxO has officially and completely beclowned itself. Any respect for it's rating system I still had just went right down the crapper.



Of note, they're specifically ranking cameras in this scheme, not sensors.


----------



## zim (May 29, 2015)

Awww come on guys give Dx0 a break, they didn't mention what SPORT....

https://youtu.be/09pnaAVEQvw


----------



## tron (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > And the top rates Sports camera is........Sony A7s ;D ;D
> ...


Rumor has it that Sony A7s is the best sports camera for shooting midnight snail races ;D


----------



## DominoDude (May 30, 2015)

zim said:


> Awww come on guys give Dx0 a break, they didn't mention what SPORT....
> 
> https://youtu.be/09pnaAVEQvw



Tihi

I also hear that the guys at Dx0 and Digital PReview have found that Sony and Nikon is far superior at action and event photography - they test both at the same time when they visit the local cow bingo. It's right up their a....lley.


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2015)

I have a hard time picking the best thing DXO has published:


Canon's highest dynamic range sensor is a PowerShot
The 50 f/1.8 II is a better lens than the 600 f/4L IS II
The same Zeiss Otus lens on a D800 is outstanding while it is disappointing on a 5D3

And I'm sure we'll get more great insights from these guys soon. Can't wait!

- A


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

I am amazed. However deserved it might be, you have kept this DxO bashing thread going for 5 full pages ... Amazing!


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I am amazed. However deserved it might be, you have kept this DxO bashing thread going for 5 full pages ... Amazing!



Why wouldn't it keep going until DxO stops saying stupid things? How many years have we been bashing KR?


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I am amazed. However deserved it might be, you have kept this DxO bashing thread going for 5 full pages ... Amazing!
> ...


The world is full of people, companies and organisations saying, printing and showing stupid things. When that´s the case, I just stop hear, read or view what they produce. The world is so full of things I wish I had time to explore. Wasting time on stupid things would give me even less time. 

Come to think of it ... I just wasted a few minutes on this thread, which I think is a total waste of time ... :


----------



## R1-7D (May 30, 2015)

This is comedy gold as far as the photographic world is concerned.


----------



## IslanderMV (May 30, 2015)

"Sometimes. Other times they reflect the reality you might experience after eating peyote and three kinds psychogenic mushrooms while sitting next to a bale of flaming marihuana."

Sounds like my average Friday nite.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 31, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The world is full of people, companies and organisations saying, printing and showing stupid things. When that´s the case, I just stop hear, read or view what they produce. The world is so full of things I wish I had time to explore. Wasting time on stupid things would give me even less time.
> 
> Come to think of it ... I just wasted a few minutes on this thread, which I think is a total waste of time ... :



When someone says stupid things, I point them out lest others are led astray.


----------



## meywd (May 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> > The 50 f/1.8 II is a better lens than the 600 f/4L IS II
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What are you talking about exactly? does DXO rank lenses by usefulness? or by bokeh? or by user rating? isn't their ranking made by scientific testing? or is a lens that has a big aperture a better lens by default? why are you making excuses for a behavior that has no logic?


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 31, 2015)

My guess is the new 5Ds/R cameras will score between 85 and 89 on the DxO "Overall" sensor scoring system.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> > The 50 f/1.8 II is a better lens than the 600 f/4L IS II
> 
> 
> Again, why does a big lens have to be better than a small lens?
> ...


If the 50/1.8 II gave a perfect image, so you should exorcise this lens copy as this is possessed by the devil.
If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 31, 2015)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



BIF with 28mm next ;D

AF speed is fast, just need to time it guys. It does great job indoor and much smaller/lighter to carry around. We plan to visit our little condo in Maui this summer. The ONLY camera I'm going to bring is A7s + full backpack of battery ;D


----------



## Neutral (May 31, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Good examples for those who judge a7s without possibly never trying it but reading from internet. This makes me smile ))
What is interesting that though continious AF on a7s is not so fast as AF on1dx but a7s can track objects all across the frame (corner to corner) which 1Dx can not do.
I found one interesting aspect of this a7s capability. 
Lock on AF allows use continious AF for focusing on something quickly using center focus area and then recompose frame with focus being kept on the main subject.
Much more convinent than moving focus point around the frame. This could be done to some extent with 1dx but less convinient as 1dx does not show AF lock area moving accross frame and size of focus area is not so flexible as on A7S. Focus area (box) in focus lock mode actually adjusting itself to the size of the tracked object and aways visible while following the object.
This is very convinient.
On a7s and other a7 bodies there are 8 custom programmable handles (buttons and dials) and when set from defaul settings to what is actually required this makes the body is very convinent.
After done that I found my a7s to be much more convinient for many things than 1DX.
Also face recognition and focus on eye by pressing set button features are so handy, do not know how i was doing without that before. Just single press of button and focus locked on person eye. I wish I would have that on my 1DX. Many things would be much more easy and faster


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 31, 2015)

Of course it has pretty decent tracking (almost certainly better than my A7R), but that's not the point. 

The standard should be "would those who publish the rankings choose according?" If whomever is in charge of the DXO ranking algorithm was offered any two cameras for the upcoming Olympics and selected anything other than the a7s and Nikon df, the ranking scheme is flawed. Any guesses as to what he/she would pick?


----------



## Sporgon (May 31, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Of course it has pretty decent tracking (almost certainly better than my A7R), but that's not the point.
> 
> The standard should be "would those who publish the rankings choose according?" If whomever is in charge of the DXO ranking algorithm was offered any two cameras for the upcoming Olympics and selected anything other than the a7s and Nikon df, the ranking scheme is flawed. Any guesses as to what he/she would pick?



Which ever it was someone would have to show them which end to point at the subject.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 31, 2015)

The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 31, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



You just opened up the A7 secret... ;D I do get missed focus shots with that.

On the other side, the Eye Focus is excellent. Shooting with FE55 @ f1.8, I can say my rate is 99.9%. Can't wait to hand on the new Batis 85mm and 25mm.

1Dx has Face focus feature in LiveView, but much slower than Eye Focus in A7. 

There is no perfect camera. I would care less what others have to say about mirrorless. I enjoy open my camera closet and pick out proper tool for my shooting. In another words, why not enjoy the best from both worlds


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2015)

isabella said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > DXO is always right.... after all, they rate the 7D2 as superior to the 1DX in low light..... and the 50F1.8 is a much better lens than the 600F4.....
> ...


Not sensor ranking.... CAMERA ranking.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If a Canon 600mm F4 has worst image than the nifty fifty, you must submit to fix it immediately.
> ...



The english is broken, but the intent seems clear: if you're getting better performance with a 50/1.8 than a 600/4, the 600/4 needs service.

DXO's lens score give a lot of weight to aperture, hence the super-tele is at a disadvantage. I honestly don't know a) why they bother trying to come up with a composite score, and b) why people continue to point out how flawed the composite score is.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


I have said it before and it bears repeating....

Any attempt to reduce a complex system being used by diverse users under diverse conditions to achieve diverse goals, into a single metric, is ******* to failure. 

The problem is not how DXO achieves their rating metric, it is the delusional belief that a single rating metric can either be achieved, or that it is of any merit.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 1, 2015)

Interesting! According to DXO, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM resolves 20.5mp mounted to a Canon 6D!! The sensor is only 20.2mp, so I guess it manages to increase the camera's resolution somehow...seems legit.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



Not sure why you consider a common desire to be groupthink, or why you think a preference for fast lenses is unique to this community ("here"), but no one rational prioritizes aperture above all.

Nobody who requires 600mm will buy a 24/1.4 or 50/1.2 instead for the same purpose because the latter are faster than the supertele (which would be the required outcome to indicate groupthink). Rather, those two don't even belong in the trade study.

Lumping all lenses together, regardless of purpose, and writing a single number to determine which is better than the others, is beyond ridiculous. It is however likely a confident way to get eyeballs on the screen which would ordinarily be put off by the constituent data.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.


Start a thread about the 16-35 f2.8 II vs the 16-35 f4 IS and the f4 quite often comes on top. Sometimes speed is a priority and sometimes it isn't.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 1, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.



Do you really want to tell that 1dx or any other DSLR servo AF is able to track objects on the frame area where there is no focusing points ? If so then how it is done in the frame corner where here is no focusing points ?
Or you want to tell that 1DX has focusing points area covering the whole frame? 
That all above (that it is possible to focus without focusing points) is really interesting and if true then this would be real revolution for DSLR focusing in normal mode ))) . 
This would be dream for many people.
I am not talking about live view on 1DX which I find so much inconvenient and cubesome compared to a7s and a7r. Never use live view on 1DX. I am talking about normal DSLR shooting mode using mirror and separate AF sensor.
I have both Canon1DX and Sony a7 and can compare both and use each one for which it is suited better.
1DX and a7 complement each other very well for different situations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.



Right, because...there's no difference in image quality between those two lenses, none at all. Even if there is, no one cares about that, only the faster aperture matters. At least, that's true in dilbertland.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2015)

Three photographers walk into a bar.... a wedding photographer, an astrophotographer, and a sports photographer..... The walk up to the bar together and sit down on three stools, and the bartender says "what brings you three in here"

The wedding photographer says, "I went looking for a car that was elegant so it would not look out of place at weddings". The astrophotographer said "I was looking for something small and nimble with four wheel drive to get to the observatory at the top of the mountain" The sports photographer said "I was looking for something that could carry my gear and I could park under the stadium".

Then the wedding photographer said "we all understand that horsepower is the most important metric to consider when buying a vehicle, so we based our decisions on that"..... and the sports photographer said "so we all bought mega-sized mining dumptrucks and once we realized what we had done, came in here to drink ourselves silly"

The bartender said "GET OUT!"

The moral of the story: Don't fixate on a single metric.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2015)

benperrin said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Start a thread about whether to get the 24-70/f4L IS USM or the 24-70/f2.8L USM II and the conclusion will be get the second because ... everyone wants a fast lens.
> ...


and the 70-200F4IS is a lot easier to backpack (and afford) than the F2.8 version......


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 1, 2015)

Faster aperture obviously has it purpose in low light or desired minimum depth of field etc. but in certain photography has limited benefits like in Landscape. Whats interesting as sensors provide greater DR the use of these lenses is unchanged even though sensors like the ones made by Sony in the Nikon D810 or their own A7R provide better low light sensitivity. Many fast lenses are poorer with even field illumination than their slower counter-parts and still need to be stopped down to attain good overall sharpness or less chromatic abberations and tend to be heavier due to larger light gathering glass which in itself significantly increases the cost.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


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


In Cinematography thats always the case, in photography it very much depends on "what" your principle subject is. For me I want the best lens for even field illumination and overall edge to edge sharpness for Landscape and faster lenses on average are worse and moreover not needed because greater DOF is more important for most subjects.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 1, 2015)

Neutral said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 1Dx can't track objects all across the frame corner to corner? You get the "ignorant statement of the day" award.
> ...



It depends on what you mean by "no focusing points area." The actual AF sensor is much larger than the rectangle you see, so I have grabbed subjects well to the left or right of the outer points. 

But if you mean in a true sense, true edge to true edge, then I can be on board with that. I would appreciate coverage out farther to the edge of the frame.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



Perhaps that would be the result and even the reasoning. It wouldn't apply to this discussion however. The proper thread to show your assertion would be about whether to get the EF600mm f/4LII or the EF50mm f/1.8II. If you are indeed correct about a groupthink mentality here, the conclusion will be get the 50mm because it's faster.

I assume the real conclusion would be: those two lenses are used for completely different things, but since adding the 50 to the order will be in the noise cost-wise, if you can afford the 600, get both.

For lenses with a smaller price difference, I assume the real conclusion would be dependent on purpose. Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home; nobody would suggest the 50 for distant birds in flight.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 1, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Interesting! According to DXO, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM resolves 20.5mp mounted to a Canon 6D!! The sensor is only 20.2mp, so I guess it manages to increase the camera's resolution somehow...seems legit.


You are quoting the wrong resolution. Actually, the 6D sensor is 5562x3708... that comes to 20.6MP but pixels are blanked off (I think for functions like peripheral falloff correction and noise reduction). The resulting images one gets from the 6D are only 5472x3648 which comes to 19.97MP. So The 300mm f/2.8 L II is even better than you thought.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 1, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really want to tell that 1dx or any other DSLR servo AF is able to track objects on the frame area where there is no focusing points ? If so then how it is done in the frame corner where here is no focusing points ?
> ...



Definitely, I meant “true sense” - true edge to edge . 
This was my dream for very long time to have AF sensor on my camera with AF points covering the whole frame – corner to corner. In addition, even more – MF camera (80-100) mpx with AF points covering the whole frame. This could make some sports photography disciplines much easier to shoot – easier to follow object.
I have no doubt that with 1DX you can get objects grabbed in the areas outside focusing points area but under some specific condition – if you already was locked on focus using one of focusing points and then system was tracking locked object . Or if the new object is entering the frame at the same distance with previously tracked object.
1DX is using intelligent AF tracking system to make AI Servo AF focus more accurate.
Intelligence means that AF does some object trajectory and speed predictions based on gathered tracking information so far. Therefore, it is possible to extrapolate object position and object speed for object leaving focusing points area.
What it is not possible to do with 1DX is to start focus on object from the corner or edge of the frame where there is no focusing points and continue to track it until next corner. 
It is only possible to start AF tracking using one of the existing AF points and system in some conditions could predict (extrapolate) object position after it leaves focusing area with focusing points. More far extrapolation goes - more extrapolation error is accumulated.
Though A7S have much slower continuous AF than 1DX with dedicated AF sensor but it can grab object in AF lock box anywhere in the frame – even at corner, adjust AF box size to match the locked object size, and track this object across the frame up to the next corner. Like what you see on the jet fighter pilot weapon targeting system. He find the target, get it locked in the tracking box and system follows the target. Then when pilot find the best moment he presses shoot button. 
With fast technology evolution, these technologies are now coming to the consumer market. Hope that soon we will see some significant progress on this in the FF ML cameras. It is only matter of sensor technology, sensor read speed, onboard processing power, and use of more sophisticated AF algorithms enabled by more onboard processing power in camera. Mirror and separate AF sensor will become obsolete when ML AF speed will match dedicated AF speed on DSLRs. ML is the future coming in reality now..


----------



## Neutral (Jun 1, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> You just opened up the A7 secret... ;D I do get missed focus shots with that.
> 
> On the other side, the Eye Focus is excellent. Shooting with FE55 @ f1.8, I can say my rate is 99.9%. Can't wait to hand on the new Batis 85mm and 25mm.
> 
> ...



I think we are both in the same boat and having basically the similar set of cameras/lenses, the same for some others here.
If it is possible to afford the best from both worlds,why not to do so ? 
Live is short and passes quickly so it is better not to be too late to enjoy the best things there )))

My motivation to start with a7R was my Canon EF 17TSE which I like but it was extremely inconvenient to use it on 1DX. Also I was tired to wait for High Res body from Canon. 
So I bought a7R for use as compact digital back for 17TSE and EF 24-70 F2.8 USM II and I was not disappointed.
Then some time later I could not resist buying A7S and more I used it more I liked it.
Especially after getting latest Zeiss FE 35 F.1.4 ZA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home...



Well, maybe no one would _suggest_ it, but that doesn't mean it won't work for that use case... 






EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 10000


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home...
> ...


That's a mighty big room or long hallway...cool example.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home...
> ...


Perhaps this is a case where a 50mm f/1.8 would be "better" than the 600mm f/4 ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody would suggest the 600 for indoor snaps of the family at home...
> ...



HAH! Nice. Still, nobody would suggest BUYING one for that purpose. On the other hand, I have a camera shy son. Maybe I should build a deer blind in the living room and camp out with a supertele


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Seems to back up the group thinking here where everyone desires faster lenses over slower lenses.



All else equal, are you telling me you'd prefer the _slower_ lens?


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 3, 2015)

Obviously a lot of DXOMark haters happen to be Canon fanboys. I'm a Canon shooter myself and even I recognize their sensors are not on par with others. They aren't as sharp and the dynamic range isn't all that great. This is easily shown in objective testing and not so easily in subjective testing. It's no secret that Canon has recycled their sensors for years and has responded with the new 24MP crop sensor and the new 50MP full frame sensor. Maybe their approach is conservative and concentrated on glass instead (which shows). Because Nikon lenses kind of suck. 

In the past 5 years, Canon sensors "suck" but good enough to sell and create beautiful photos. Why use resources on developing new ones? Now we are to a point where more resolution is driving the market and there's an actual need for new sensors. Now we have the Rebel T6, 5DS/R, and 7DMII


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 16, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Obviously a lot of DXOMark haters happen to be Canon fanboys. I'm a Canon shooter myself and even I recognize their sensors are not on par with others. They aren't as sharp and the dynamic range isn't all that great. This is easily shown in objective testing and not so easily in subjective testing. It's no secret that Canon has recycled their sensors for years and has responded with the new 24MP crop sensor and the new 50MP full frame sensor. Maybe their approach is conservative and concentrated on glass instead (which shows). Because Nikon lenses kind of suck.
> 
> In the past 5 years, Canon sensors "suck" but good enough to sell and create beautiful photos. Why use resources on developing new ones? Now we are to a point where more resolution is driving the market and there's an actual need for new sensors. Now we have the Rebel T6, 5DS/R, and 7DMII



The 5DS/R are certainly interesting developments. The sensors seem to be a big improvement over what Canon has been putting out the last few years, too. I'm curious to see where all this goes. The 5DmkIV will probably be a big indicator as to whether Canon has really got back into the sensor game to the point where it can compete with Sony on the sensor side of things. I wouldn't say Canon has to beat Sony (though it would be nice), but so long as the difference isn't big, then it would be acceptable. 

I think people also forget that there's more to a camera than the sensor. The sensor is a major part of it, don't get me wrong, and probably the most important part, but there are other things that can make or break a camera in the eyes of a potential buyer. I think Canon may know this too, as they seem to have been focusing on autofocus a lot (no pun intended.... ok, I lie, pun totally intended). This shouldn't be an excuse for poor sensor tech, but still worth keeping in mind. After all, the A7r has an amazing sensor, but there are some other aspects that are deal breakers to some people, such as poor autofocus, loud and clunky shutter, poor battery life, no optical viewfinder, lossy RAW files, and so on. Some of these have been resolved (see what I did there?) with the A72. This isn't to excuse Canon's shortcomings (they've done some REALLY annoying things), but more to explain that there's no "perfect" camera and a lot of it boils down to what you value most. I like some things about Canon, and dislike others. Same goes for Nikon, Sony, and Pentax (Pentax, imho, doesn't get nearly enough credit). [/soapbox] 

One thing I've been wondering for a while now is if Canon is/was capable of making sensors that could go toe to toe with Sony. Maybe they focused on autofocus and other things for so long because they just didn't know how to make sensors like that? Magic Lantern probably discredits this notion a bit, but it does make me wonder if Canon wanted to make better sensors but couldn't figure out how.


----------



## dcm (Jun 19, 2015)

The 5Ds twins look quite interesting, independent of any DxO sensor scores including Dynamic Range (DR). 

I've waded through some of the DR discussions in the last year, mostly for amusement. There seem to be 3 camps that compare DR differently based on their perspectives and needs. The charts below should help illustrate these 3 groups. It's all about where you set the baseline and the topline. 

The first group using Comparison 1 is strictly focused on the difference and closing the perceived gap. The baseline is the lowest current score and the topline is the current best score. Any difference is considered significant and the difference would help them in some current shooting circumstances. DxO often uses this perspective in their graphs to highlight the differences.

The second group using Comparison 2 takes a broader view and considers the complete, current picture. The baseline is zero (or 1) and the top line is the current best score. Here the perceived difference is much smaller when considering the total amount of DR provided. This is why many find Canon sufficient for their needs - they consider the gap to be an incremental improvement that doesn't afford them all that much. Other things bother them more. 

The last group uses Comparison 3 to take a long term view of where DR might go in the future to meet our needs. The baseline is zero (or 1) and the topline is well above the current best. I chose 32 bits as the topline for a reasonable target to achieve with future technology. This group includes folks that find none of the current sensors sufficient for their DR needs and will shoot HDR to overcome deficiencies with the current best sensors. A significant improvement might be double the current DR for this group depending on their HDR bracket range. The difference in current sensor technology isn't worth mentioning to those of us in this group. 

BTW: Edward Tufte offers some great insights on the design of graphs in Visual Display of Quantitative Information and his subsequent books.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 20, 2015)

dcm said:


> snip



Count me in camp two, although showing it linearly instead of in stops may be the most genuine.


----------



## dcm (Jun 20, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > snip
> ...



DxO quotes and compares it in stops so I chose to use the same method for consistency.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 20, 2015)

dcm said:


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



Right, I'm just saying the the unit of measure also skews the chart. I could express dynamic range in powers of 100 and show what is for all intents and purposes a flat line.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

dcm said:


> The 5Ds twins look quite interesting, independent of any DxO sensor scores including Dynamic Range (DR).
> 
> I've waded through some of the DR discussions in the last year, mostly for amusement. There seem to be 3 camps that compare DR differently based on their perspectives and needs. The charts below should help illustrate these 3 groups. It's all about where you set the baseline and the topline.
> 
> ...


Your point is very well illustrated.


----------



## caMARYnon (Jun 23, 2015)

dcm said:


> The first group using Comparison 1 is strictly focused on the difference and closing the perceived gap. The baseline is the lowest current score and the topline is the current best score. Any difference is considered significant and the difference would help them in some current shooting circumstances. DxO often uses this perspective in their graphs to highlight the differences.
> 
> The second group using Comparison 2 takes a broader view and considers the complete, current picture. The baseline is zero (or 1) and the top line is the current best score. Here the perceived difference is much smaller when considering the total amount of DR provided. This is why many find Canon sufficient for their needs - they consider the gap to be an incremental improvement that doesn't afford them all that much. Other things bother them more.
> 
> The last group uses Comparison 3 to take a long term view of where DR might go in the future to meet our needs. The baseline is zero (or 1) and the topline is well above the current best. I chose 32 bits as the topline for a reasonable target to achieve with future technology. This group includes folks that find none of the current sensors sufficient for their DR needs and will shoot HDR to overcome deficiencies with the current best sensors. A significant improvement might be double the current DR for this group depending on their HDR bracket range. The difference in current sensor technology isn't worth mentioning to those of us in this group.


Very well said.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 23, 2015)

Here is how we test lenses and then lenses on cameras:- 

1. Each lens is measured on an MTF machine on axis and off axis at six pre-determined points, the measurements are averaged and then compared to theoretical numbers. The results are recorded by serial number, date & time. 
2. Each lens f stops is measured on an f stop machine (this also reads T stops). 
3. Each lens is projected and checked at 6ft & infinity and to see various chromatic abberations against a standard graticule. Its also checked for distortions. For zooms lenses they are checked at each focal lengh and for tracking. Experiance tells you about various flaws like color fringing, fall off, veiling glare, contrast etc. 
4. Once we understand the characteristics of the lens we then shoot tests on a camera at different f stops again at 6ft & infinity. 6ft against a chart and infinity against a brick wall we use for all infinity tests. We do this more for practical testing than theoretical testing. 
5.Sometimes we shoot harp tests to check for forward or back focus (particularly important when shooting video with splits)
6. Cameras are mounted on lens test posts NOT tripods

Cameras:- 
1.We check the focal depth, speeds and dynamic range.
Dynamic range is tested with a special lens and shooting a sphere that is specially designed in Germany for measuring Dynamic range up to 16 stops. 

Our goal is to check lenses, check cameras and then check the two together its a bit more involved than Ive explained here (lighting for example) but infinately more concise than DXO. 

Many professionals are NOT looking for more resolution or more perfect images they often want certain imperfections to enhance the subject matter such as older uncoated lenses, lenses with flares of a certain type. I always say you can break a picture down but not make a bad picture good & its also why in B&W film has made a comeback.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 24, 2015)

We also now know DXO are no longer neutral pitching the DXO One as a DSLR alternative.


----------

