# Why so much trust in DXO.



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

Check this topic. 
So why should we trust there sensor numbers ???

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106506/


70-200 version II rates lower then 70-200 version I. 

Think about this. 
They know and we all know this is not true. 
DXO guys also rate EVERY Nikon counterpart lens higher than Canon. 

In real life the 70-200 II is one of the best zoom lenses in the world. 

But DXO has nothing to do with real live. 
Number numbers. 

What we see with our eyes doesn't matter anymore. 
Number numbers numbers and numbers. This is a bad thing. 

!!!!!! We all trust ONE company for all there numbers !!!!!!

The company that rates the 70-200 F4 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS II not that good !!!!!!!!!!!!
While these lenses are tested superb everywhere. 

FOR THOSE having the 300mm F2.8 version II, I feel sorry. 
The 24-105 resolution wise is much better. Funny these clowns. 

I own the latest NEX 7 and it should be close to the 5D according DXO numbers. 
Well my eyes tell me it's not. Why ??


Take the camera , take pictures, see yourself and forget about this commercial company that sales software.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

DxO are a software development company that uses extremely precise testing of cameras and lenses as a way to maximise the usefulness of their software (such as DxO Optics Pro) by creating the best possible profiles for each respective model. 

It just so happens that they have an interesting by-product of their testing: the test results are a very powerful marketing tool as they attract attention to the DxO brand - and of course they make the most of that by publishing their findings on the web. 

Being an independent French company, one can hardly say they are best pals/neighbors with Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer. 
They spend days and days testing each camera body and lens model, using very well-defined test methodology based on scientific principles. They take thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of photos with each camera body and lens in all possible situations in a controlled lab environment and work only from RAW format so the effects of jpg 'cooking' and other artefacts are not included in their results.

Because their methodology demands precisely controlled and repeatable results, they can't base their findings on 'real world' photography - like going downtown and shooting on the street.

I can't imagine what they would gain by INTENTIONALLY pissing off Canon owners who then are angry at them and refuse to take them or their products seriously. 
They can't 'fix' their Canon results to make them look better just to please people like you - they are forced to be objective, otherwise they would be accused of bias and their reputation (and their software) would be destroyed.

Has it occurred to you that Canon (and other manufacturers) themselves never complain or call DxO idiots? Why? Because they know they're not likely to win in the laboratory. They've probably already seen similar results in their own lab tests and know full well what DxO is likely to find.

Canon's decision to release the 5DMkIII with it's present sensor is in the end a marketing decision. And it may turn out to be a bad move.

If you don't like DxO findings, that's your business. If camera and lens manufacturers don't like their findings, that's their business. But all of it generates more traffic for DxO and more exposure for their software products.


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

It just doesn't make sense for there lens tests. 
In real world these tests don't match. 

Period.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> Check this topic.
> So why should we trust there sensor numbers ???
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106506/



You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html

Canon is not a 6 year old blonde little girl being picked on. If they didn't measure up to expectations they can handle it. Nikon has stumbled in the past too and they got over it clearly. Just because canon didn't win this round it doesn't mean anything for the future.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent

the techradar test:


Quote
TIFF images (after conversion from raw) have a consistently good signal to noise ratio across the sensitivity range comparing closely to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III and just *having the edge over the Nikon D800*. It also shows a slight improvement at all sensitivities over the Canon EOS 5D Mk II.



Quote
TIFF files (after conversion from raw) have a high dynamic range with results comparing closely to the Nikon D4 and D800. Compared with the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, there is a marked improvement showing over 2EV greater range at the lower end of the sensitivity scale.


i thought techradar is a DxO certified lab? 

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/noise-and-dynamic-range-results-explained-1027588


anyone cares to explain?


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> anyone cares to explain?



Perhaps they are looking at full-size, pixel by pixel? 
DxO downsize first before comparing.


----------



## JR (Apr 20, 2012)

I itself, i like the concept of testing certain spec of a camera/sensor from an "independant" party because companies can play with specs sometime. That beeing said, i think some of the weighting they are using at dxo or the way they setup test i find a bit weird. I also do not concure with their conclusion on certain product when i look at actual picture when i shoot!!!

I hate when reviewers in general start playing with the file size or the effective number of pixel to normalize their result (like downsizing a high mp file to 8 MP...). I real like, if i get a D800 i will not be shooting at 8mp, so give me the test at 36mp. Same for the mkiii, i will be shooting at 22mp, so give me those test...

Anyway, i think we need to take this with a grain of salt. I mean deao Canon suck that much (if we all drank the dxo coolaid)?


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 20, 2012)

Most of the other tests have been closer to the techradar test than the DXO test. DxO is way off of every other test and analysis I have seen. Everyone seems to say that the D800 impressed everyone in low light (most thought it would fall apart at ISO 1600+ and it holds up much better than that) but still fell short of the Mark III. DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO conclusion. DR on the Dxo test for the D800 is really really high. No one has observed that so I wonder how they pulled that number. The way that DxO tests the low light ISO is also related to DR so i'm assuming that whatever made them conclude a 14 stop DR for the D800 is what kept the D800 ahead in low light ISO. Something is up with their DR test. The Phase One is way below the Nikon D7000 and the same as the Nikon D5100. Seriously? As an engineer myself, we are taught to make sure that are tests line up with reality, otherwise we redo our testing procedures. Since their ISO tests are based on DR, both of these tests are flawed in some way.


----------



## JR (Apr 20, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> Most of the other tests have been closer to the techradar test than the DXO test. DxO is way off of every other test and analysis I have seen. Everyone seems to say that the D800 impressed everyone in low light (most thought it would fall apart at ISO 1600+ and it holds up much better than that) but still fell short of the Mark III. DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO conclusion. DR on the Dxo test for the D800 is really really high. No one has observed that so I wonder how they pulled that number. The way that DxO tests the low light ISO is also related to DR so i'm assuming that whatever made them conclude a 14 stop DR for the D800 is what kept the D800 ahead in low light ISO. Something is up with their DR test. The Phase One is way below the Nikon D7000 and the same as the Nikon D5100. Seriously? As an engineer myself, we are taught to make sure that are tests line up with reality, otherwise we redo our testing procedures. Since their ISO tests are based on DR, both of these tests are flawed in some way.



Good point indeed regarding their iso test. I wish they could find a different way to test it. I mean when you look at sample from dpreview it is quite clear the mkiii is better then the d800 in the iso range...


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > anyone cares to explain?
> ...



read again, they are a DXO certified lab.... so i guess they use not only the same software but also the same methodology.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 20, 2012)

canon always kind of sucked at DXO test.. not?
i bet there is a nikon fanboy at DXO who manipulates the numbers. 

but who cares... i would not sell a hasselblad based on DXO tests.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> It just doesn't make sense for there lens tests.
> In real world these tests don't match.
> 
> Period.



In the real world, selection bias and brand loyalty tend to be the dominant factors. The whole point of repeatable tests is to determine, using set criteria, how things actually preform. When just out and shooting people build a lot of bias into what they think of performance, often with 'this is newer/more expensive, so it must be better otherwise I would be a real fool to have paid so much more for it!' thrown in.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
> http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html



Actually.. eyes suck. The vast majority of what you see is extrapolated, the actual resolution of a human eye is very low, but we have a lot of grey matter behind them that tries to combine the little information it is getting with a bank of world knowledge and internal models to product its best guess about what it is seeing. Human vision is very easy to trick and what you expect to see plays a dominant role in what you actually perceive.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 20, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> In the real world, selection bias and brand loyalty tend to be the dominant factors. The whole point of repeatable tests is to determine, using set criteria, how things actually preform. When just out and shooting people build a lot of bias into what they think of performance, often with 'this is newer/more expensive, so it must be better otherwise I would be a real fool to have paid so much more for it!' thrown in.



that does not explain how techradar and DXO come to different conclusions... given they both use the DXO testing method.


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
> ...



Well we still look at pictures with human eyes.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Apr 20, 2012)

I have to be honest. I didn't really read many of the posts above.

First off--does DXO really matter? 5d3 and d800 are both great cameras, I think we could all agree on that.

2nd, though, I feel like many people may be letting their blind love of Canon get in the way. If Dxo came out and said the 5d was better, I imagine many canon users would be citing the Dxo scores as a triumph. Is it possible that in some ways the d800 is actually a better camera? Maybe it's actually possible--and for $500 cheaper. I just hope Canon acknowledges the competition and does something about it. Lower prices/pump up their products more. Competition, in theory, is good.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> DxO are a software development company that uses extremely precise testing of cameras and lenses as a way to maximise the usefulness of their software (such as DxO Optics Pro) by creating the best possible profiles for each respective model.
> 
> It just so happens that they have an interesting by-product of their testing: the test results are a very powerful marketing tool as they attract attention to the DxO brand - and of course they make the most of that by publishing their findings on the web.
> 
> ...



Neat and crystal clear assessment of the situation.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 20, 2012)

Isn't the best camera always the one on your hand at the right moment? All this crazy numbers are just that... Numbers, are not going to make the photographer any better or any richer, you are not going to sell a copy of your photo because was shot with the best sensor, I've seen amazing photos taken with disposable cameras that I wish I've taken with my state of the art equipment.... 

I undertstand you are spending good amount of money and want the best for it, me too... But isn't this going a bit too far? Just wondering where to draw the line between using a camera to express feelings as a form of art, or just being a technical obsessed photographer.


----------



## fman (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm ready to accept DxOMark camera measurement results (their scoring is a mess, let's forget about it).

But anyone caring to explain their 70-200 IS II resolution measurement?

DP photos shown a significant improvement (at least to my eyes), not loss of resolution:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

How comes such a huge gap between measurement results and test photos?

There must be something wrong in their testing methods or I don't understand what resolution means...
I'm really not biased, just trying to understand.


----------



## Sallivres (Apr 20, 2012)

I think that's why they do this lab tests because the difference is hardly noticeable in real life situation. Lets say D800 is better than the 5DIII but on a very small margin.

Its like one car is 1s faster than the other in a quarter mile drag race.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 20, 2012)

yeah i forgot the 70-200 test the found the version 1 better lol when everyone clearly knows how much of an improvement the version 2 is DXO sucks balls lol


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Can any one tell me why we are having this discussion? I don't visit DXO for their test results. How about you?


----------



## meli (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/page:5#articleContent
> 
> the techradar test:
> 
> ...





Canon-F1 said:


> that does not explain how techradar and DXO come to different conclusions... given they both use the DXO testing method.





Astro said:


> read again, they are a DXO certified lab.... so i guess they use not only the same software but also the same methodology.



I would love to see how they perform the tests in Techradar cause apparently if you'd give 5 monkeys 5 crayons and a paper they would definitely get less random results(and given enough time they would get them right. for those who havent checked the graphs in the link, here are some exquisite findings:


d700 & 5dII have the same snr @ 6400iso as @ 200iso

you want the best DR out of a D700 or a 5DII jpeg? shoot @3200

5DIII jpegs has the same DR @ iso 50 & iso 25600

5DII raws have the same DR all the way from 100 to 6400iso

Its not the first time either, i seem to remember some olympus-related paranoid results some time ago that didnt had any relation with reality either


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

victorwol said:


> Isn't the best camera always the one on your hand at the right moment? All this crazy numbers are just that... Numbers, are not going to make the photographer any better or any richer, you are not going to sell a copy of your photo because was shot with the best sensor, I've seen amazing photos taken with disposable cameras that I wish I've taken with my state of the art equipment....
> 
> I undertstand you are spending good amount of money and want the best for it, me too... But isn't this going a bit too far? Just wondering where to draw the line between using a camera to express feelings as a form of art, or just being a technical obsessed photographer.



+ 10000000000000

Indeed this is what photography is all about. 
Couldn't have said this better.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 20, 2012)

DxO labs have their methods and their procedures. Some have said in the past they weighed more into their high ISO scores and now are weighing more into DR... I dont know how true any of it is... If you take it at face value, nikon has always bested canon in these tests for the last decade or there abouts... Quite frankly i'd be quite shocked if any Canon camera started testing higher than nikon in the foreseeable future, but it is what it is. Personally i take all these tests into consideration when it comes into purchasing decisions, but I weigh most my decisions on my eye test and usability. I had no issues whatsoever with the 5d2 sensor, but it's handling never sat well with me so i opted for the 7D for the longest time because I knew I could always get the shot with the 7D over the 5d2. IQ on the 7D was marginally acceptable to it worked for me and my clients have always praised my work. I dont need 14 stops of DR to make my clients happy nor do I wish to undertake extra post processing just to get extra pop. In the end, the 5d3 is the best of both worlds for me... Yes there are room to improve, there always is, but as long as the camera doesn't slow me down, i'm cool.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 20, 2012)

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800. Since the DR calculation that Dxo uses is not based solely on the ratio of light to dark but only those values where a signal to noise ratio is below 0dB. I wonder if by perfectly dividing those numbers they are able to achieve a lower noise floor in the shadows enabling larger dynamic range numbers on paper. Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of 8) and the 24MP D3x, 24MP Sony A580, also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies. 

Can it really be a coincidence that EVERY top body in DR happens to have a MP count that is a multiple of the 8MP that DxO mysteriously uses for all of its calculations????
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

This is certainly not a conspiracy, but DXO is simply performing their tests to give you the end results shown. You cannot expect them to spend a lot of effort in testing without a solid business reason being involved somewhere.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 20, 2012)

fman said:


> I'm ready to accept DxOMark camera measurement results (their scoring is a mess, let's forget about it).
> 
> But anyone caring to explain their 70-200 IS II resolution measurement?



the nikon fanboy who works for DXO is hand selecting bad canon lenses. 
it´s hard to find a bad exemplar but maybe he dropped it a few times.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 20, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> fman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm ready to accept DxOMark camera measurement results (their scoring is a mess, let's forget about it).
> ...



I KNEW it! I say lets start a petition to require craig to sit in on the tests to verify the results are accurate! haha.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 20, 2012)

Isn't the sensor just a small part of the whole package? Even IF the Nikon/ Sony sensor is lab tested better, who cares?

So the Nikon sensor is better. I like Canon's design, ergonomics, lenses, etc...

If you don't like the modern day sensors, go buy an EOS 1V with an interchangeable sensor (fuji, kodak & ilford have been making some nice ones for generations)- That camera is a beast!

I have a 5D mkii on the way & couldn't be more excited. I'm gonna take pictures with that camera, and I will have the lens cap off and I won't be shooting test charts or brick walls.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 20, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> My conspiracy theory:
> I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800. Since the DR calculation that Dxo uses is not based solely on the ratio of light to dark but only those values where a signal to noise ratio is below 0dB. I wonder if by perfectly dividing those numbers they are able to achieve a lower noise floor in the shadows enabling larger dynamic range numbers on paper. Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of 8) and the 24MP D3x, 24MP Sony A580, also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies.
> 
> Can it really be a coincidence that EVERY top body in DR happens to have a MP count that is a multiple of the 8MP that DxO mysteriously uses for all of its calculations????
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape



My math may be wrong (never has been my strongest point), but I don't think 36 is a multiple of 8... Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Quite frankly I don't trust any claim by DXO that certain sensors or lenses are better than others. It looks to me like their results are fabricated more than they are measured. It does not help that their results do not compare well with other published test results or the reality found by many photographers. I also have severe doubts to their claims of being trustworthy. They are a company out to make money. This has nothing to do with providing trustworthy tests, better examples of which can be found at DPReview.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 20, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> My math may be wrong (never has been my strongest point), but I don't think 36 is a multiple of 8... Please correct me if I'm wrong.



oh it is... 4.5 x 8 = 36


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 20, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > My math may be wrong (never has been my strongest point), but I don't think 36 is a multiple of 8... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> ...



Oh silly me... Here I was thinking 'multiple' meant 'whole number multiple'


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> It looks to me like their results are fabricated more than they are measured. It does not help that their results do not compare well with other published test results or the reality found by many photographers. I also have severe doubts to their claims of being trustworthy.



Actually, I find their charts to be very informative and definitely give me a good sense of what to expect from the copy of lens or body I receive when I buy. 

Now the distilled numbers (the so called DxOMarks) are a different story...they really have no practical value beyond generating a bunch of buzz and chatter. Mission accomplished in the case of D800 vs 5D3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO *conclusion* ... these tests are flawed in some way.



Not flawed, just frequently misinterpreted. DxO's conclusions (i.e. overall and use case scores) are based on normalizationto an 8 MP image, and when you do that, you increase DR and decrease noise in proportion to the amount of downsampling. Thus, a 36 MP image (4.5-fold downsampled) will fare better than a 22 MP image (2.75-fold downsampled).

DxO's measurements, when you look at the non-normalized data, correspond more closely to your statement above, although perhaps the tipping point is closer to ISO 1000 or 1250, but here's what I mean:


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

skitron said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > It looks to me like their results are fabricated more than they are measured. It does not help that their results do not compare well with other published test results or the reality found by many photographers. I also have severe doubts to their claims of being trustworthy.
> ...



Well for lenses not. 
Glad I did buy the 70-200 version II instead of the better tested 70-200 version I.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2012)

If you have ever dealt with French Companies, you might understand. They are good people, but they have a different culture and different way of looking at things than we are used to. We had to require some we worked with to use standard US test methods since theirs gave a answer that made their product look better than the US competition.

France, Germany and Europe setup the ISO standards, the whole world belongs, but its over balanced in favor of Europe because there are many small countries each getting a vote.

For example, Rumania has 693 Technical committee members while the USA has only 623,(France, Germany, and China have over 700) and its a similar number for the many small countries in Europe where members can often drive from home to attend meetings. Its due to cost and the USA keeping to SAE and ANSI standards. Small companies cannot afford to send committee members to Europe for a week or two of meetings when they are outnumbered 100-1 by european countries who want rules that heavily favor European Trade. Its very Political. I sent one of my engineers to represent our large aerospace company in a small technical field once, but its a losing effort, and mostly a education into how Europe use the ISO satandards for trade advantages.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

+1 for the comment about French companies. They do have a distinct business culture as does any other country here in Europe.


----------



## Astro (Apr 20, 2012)

well if the USA or the UK had to decide over standards we had some crazy S___ standards no engineer with the right mind would want to use.

so i say.... thank good for the ISO committee!!

*Mouthful* about 1⁄2 fluid ounce (oz.) 

Pony = Mouthful × 2 = 1 oz.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Indeed much of the standardization such as SI metrics do originate in France. Nevertheless this should not be construed to give DXO any credibility beyond that, which they have built themselves.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2012)

Astro said:


> well if the USA or the UK had to decide over standards we had some crazy S___ standards no engineer with the right mind would want to use.



What, our systems of weights and measures don't make sense?!? They're totally logical. Wait...how many drams in one stone? :


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Sorry, but British and American weight standards are much like those in antiquity: Anyone can come up with their own weights and anything like a common measurement such as the yard is mere coincidence :. That does not make much sense to me with current societies facing globalization.

I would be in favour of coming up with an international standard for power plugs. Let's use the ones from Jordania, being fully compliant with the simplified European plug design.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 20, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > In the real world, selection bias and brand loyalty tend to be the dominant factors. The whole point of repeatable tests is to determine, using set criteria, how things actually preform. When just out and shooting people build a lot of bias into what they think of performance, often with 'this is newer/more expensive, so it must be better otherwise I would be a real fool to have paid so much more for it!' thrown in.
> ...



they don't. they use the same software. there is no way to know if there are any external factors influencing the test. If you take DXO as having test setup free of external interference then it implies that tests that don't match it aren't setup the same or even properly.



Neeneko said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > You shouldn't trust numbers, trust your eyes.
> ...



are you trying to say something? sorry but I feel asleep half way.....



> My conspiracy theory:
> I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores


If canon had made a 46MP sensor then the conspiracy was that they are helping canon. Canon's score is what canon gets because of the decisions they took long ago, not DXO's.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Reality check, please! I have read here how DXO has set up their tests perfectly and free of external interference and such.
First of all there is no such thing as a perfect test. There is always a possibility for someone doing it better. Secondly I don't believe for one nanosecond that DXO is free of what has been described as Nikon fanboyism. Maybe this affects only one DXO employee determining test results, but that is where it counts, especially if DXO could not get rid of this employee over years. That whole thing smells rather fishy to me, like a fish that has slowly travelled from the Mediterranean sea to the vicinity of Paris, sitting there on a shelf for a while.

If Nikon's market performance would mirror DXO's test results, perhaps there would be something there, but this is obviously not the case. So why are people's buying decisions so different from DXO's test results? Why would photographers owning both Nikon and Canon gear still use Canon gear?

In my humble opinion Nikon's and Canon's products are comparable to some extend and market performance by both companies does support this view, even giving Canon a generous advantage, but according to DXO it appears like no one should buy Canon's products. That doesn't fit reality, so DXO's test results must be way off. It does not help that they try to cover up, by making this appear to be impartial and proper, when it appears to be not.


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > AmbientLight said:
> ...



I've heard about that. I suppose it's part of the grain of salt we have to take knowing they are testing sample batches of exactly one copy. But I still find their graphs to be very informative, just not *definitive* is all. But between them and reading the better user reviews it's pretty easy for me to set the expectations levels about right for what I buy.


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

And then the lens scores. 
Do they reflect the real feeling when we use the lenses our self ??


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> And then the lens scores.
> Do they reflect the real feeling when we use the lenses our self ??



For the dab of stuff I've bought the *plots* definitely do. I don't bother with the silly "DxOMark" numbers though...


----------



## altenae (Apr 20, 2012)

skitron said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > And then the lens scores.
> ...



Well for me this list is not the way my lenses deliver in real world.
Would you buy your lens from this list ?
Then you would buy the 70-200 2.8 IS version over the version II !!!!!!!
Look at the 300mm F2.8 version II
I am lost in this lens score.


----------



## Razor2012 (Apr 20, 2012)

What's Nikon's 70-200 score?


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > altenae said:
> ...



""I don't bother with the silly "DxOMark" numbers though...""

I only bother to look at the field maps, they are very informative. The numbers are basically meaningless to me.

Think of it this way, the field maps and the graphs are raw data that you interpret. The so called "DxOMark" is their attempt to interpret the field maps and graphs for you.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 20, 2012)

altenae said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > altenae said:
> ...



OK I am completely lost on how they score the lenses, because according to their score the Canon 300mm f/2.8L II USM is worse resolution wise than the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ... Can anyone having both confirm that ??? :


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 20, 2012)

Understanding the lens scores is much more complicated than for the camera scores. Here's how to compare:

- pick two or three lenses WITH the camera you would use: cameras make a huge difference on the results (just look at a 50mm f/1.8 with a 7D and a 5DII)
-go to measurements, resolution, field map, and select one after another the whole range of focal lengths, for maximum aperture: this usually gives you the minimum sharpness (excluding very small apertures)
-repeat the above for fnumber=8 or 11: this usually gives you the maximum sharpness

Than you can look at transmission and the other variables with the same care.

The results are a matter of personal taste and needs: with my Canon 10-22mm I usually shoot landscapes at small apertures, and it performs amazingly. If I look at the Nikon 10-24mm test, in general it might be better (with cameras of the same category, indeed it scores better than the Canon lens), but for my needs is much inferior.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 20, 2012)

DXO is crap, the have the 24-70L rated 1point lower than the 24-105L which is utterly absurd.


----------



## Mike Ca (Apr 21, 2012)

I think the DxO measurements are accurate and give you good information about the aspects of the camera they are measuring. There is, of course, many other things to take into consideration than just the sensor when picking a camera.

What I have never been able to make sense of is the DxO overall or case usage scores. These numbers don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I guess part of the problem is they are only rating the sensor, not the camera.

At ISO 100 the D800 has 2.25 stops better DR than the 5D III. If the 5D III had 6 stops of DR and the D800 had 8.25 stops of DR, this would be a huge deal, but the 5D III has 11 stops of DR and that is more DR than any monitor or print can show. The extra two stops of DR will not be seen unless the dynamic range is compressed using single frame HDR adjustment techniques. In the vast majority of photographs you will never see that extra DR. You can increase the DR of a camera like the 5D III using multi frame HDR, so that extra DR is not a critical factor for me.

Professional and good non-professional photographers have learned to work with light, either find good natural light, supplement natural light or create their own light. I recently heard a talk by an old news photographer. He said when he was sent to cover a parade or similar event, his basic rule was find the good light, then find something interesting to photograph in the good light. There are types of photography, like landscape, where that isn't always possible, and those are the photographers most interested in the high dynamic range in their cameras.

DxO is a company that sells software that among other things does single frame HDR adjustments. They talk about an "exclusive HDR mono-image feature" in their software. They have a vested interest in encouraging camera manufactures to increase the DR of their cameras so that this feature becomes more useful. Without HDR like adjustments in post processing, you will never see the difference in the dynamic range of the 5D III and the D800.


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> OK I am completely lost on how they score the lenses, because according to their score the Canon 300mm f/2.8L II USM is worse resolution wise than the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ... Can anyone having both confirm that ??? :



I think the main thing with their method for scoring that gives counterintuitive results is that they appear to take the best result across the whole aperture range. They also do some averaging across focal lengths (the 75-300 doesn't peak at the long end). Also, they tend to allow for some degradation across the frame so a lens that is very good in the center with bad corners might get off lightly. 

I'll describe the field maps in a bit more depth, I think this will be consistent with what users of these lenses observe. 

You see that the 300mm f/2.8 is better wide open than the 300mm f/4. If you stop the 300mm f/2.8 down, it's not even close -- the 300mm f/2.8 is already near its peak by f/4. The 300mm needs to be stopped down to f/8 to be in the same territory. 

According to the field map, the 75-300mm at 300mm is pretty horrid across the aperture range though if you stop down to f/11, the middle of the frame isn't too bad. At 100mm or less, corners sharpen up by f/8 and the center is sharp. At 135mm it needs to be stopped down to f/11 and longer than that the corners are bad.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 21, 2012)

People trust DXO because they do not have the skills/time to actually learn photography. Rather than think for themselves, they trust some company to compute a number and believe if they own the camera with the highest number, their photography will automatically improve.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > OK I am completely lost on how they score the lenses, because according to their score the Canon 300mm f/2.8L II USM is worse resolution wise than the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ... Can anyone having both confirm that ??? :
> ...



Well what I mean is only the linepair value as they tested it on the 5d MK II. In this regard they tested the 300 f2.8 II as the worst !!! This is in complete opposition of every other test you find on the internet and I am sure that no one would spend about 8000 US$ for this lens if the other 300mm options would even come close ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 21, 2012)

You can see what I mean looking at these side by side test charts: 

The First one is the 300 f2.8 II at f4 against the 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 IS at f8 and 300mm. You see that these lenses look like they are not even from same the same planet resolution wise (as expected) 

The second one shows the both 70-200mm f2.8 IS versions (I and II) against each other and the newer lens again is much better (also as expected)

So how can DxO test these in in any way differently ??? 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> Well what I mean is only the linepair value as they tested it on the 5d MK II. In this regard they tested the 300 f2.8 II as the worst !!! This is in complete opposition of every other test you find on the internet and I am sure that no one would spend about 8000 US$ for this lens if the other 300mm options would even come close ...



Well, please take the time to read my comment which explains why the numbers are the way they are. There is clearly an issue with the way they aggregate the numbers (across the aperture and focal length range) but from the measurements themselves the 300mm f/2.8 has some clear advantages.

I think posters here are fishing for examples of cases where Dxomark's aggregation method is misleading (e.g. this sudden affinity for medium format is a bit hilarious) but they do make their measurements available. 

In this case (the D800 or a number of other cameras), it's pretty clear where Canon is falling short on the test - dynamic range at low ISO.


----------



## altenae (Apr 21, 2012)

So ONE company in the world with there numbers are the only right numbers ?????

Other review sites show other numbers and yet the only true numbers are from DXO ?????

Why ?

If you want real trustable numbers you need more than ONE instance to come up with numbers. 

And still there are only numbers


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> You can see what I mean looking at these side by side test charts:
> 
> The First one is the 300 f2.8 II at f4 against the 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 IS at f8 and 300mm. You see that these lenses look like they are not even from same the same planet resolution wise (as expected)
> 
> ...



The website you link to doesn't attempt to summarize resolution in a single number. You're not comparing apples and apples You're comparing a test chart crop at a specific focal length/aperture with an aggregate summary statisti, so it's not terribly surprising that the two aren't at all equivalent.

As I wrote, you can look at the field maps in DXO (e.g. see their test results across the aperture range, focal length range and frame). Click on "Measurements", then "resolution" then "field map". Generally the field maps aren't too surprising. Where they are surprising, that's reason to step back and absorb what the results mean instead of hastily dismissing any test that doesn't produce the numbers we want. 

Back to the 5DIII, Canon haven't been the leaders in sensor technology for some time and DR at low ISO has been wanting in most of their newer cameras. I really don't understand why everyone is getting so bent out of shape (and fishing for some really far fetched criticisms of DxO ) over these test results.


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

altenae said:


> So ONE company in the world with there numbers are the only right numbers ?????
> 
> Other review sites show other numbers and yet the only true numbers are from DXO ?????
> 
> ...



I don't see anyone claiming anything of the sort. I see a lot of very hasty attempts to dismiss DxOMark because they don't like the latest test scores.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > You can see what I mean looking at these side by side test charts:
> ...



What I see when I look at the testmaps of DxO is that the 300mm f2.8 II is generally worse (resolution wise) than the zoom 70-300 F4-5.6 IS. 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM/%28camera%29/483[url]]]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM/%28camera%29/483[url]


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM/%28camera%29/436[/url]

Excuse me but are they kidding ??? These result are a contradiction to about everything you see when you look at pictures taken with those two lenses, test charts, MTF charts etc ... IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE ... The 300mm f2.8 II is the sharpest and best lens resolution wise that was ever produced by Canon (by even quite a margin to the 400mm f2.8 II) ... So how can you come up with these numbers then ?


----------



## altenae (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > So ONE company in the world with there numbers are the only right numbers ?????
> ...



This has nothing to do with the latest scores. 
My point is that these are numbers published by ONE company only.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > So ONE company in the world with there numbers are the only right numbers ?????
> ...



yes, which is silly because other reviews have reached the same conclusion: The 5DmkIII does not offer significant gains for the price, and the D800 easily edges it out in dynamic range and low ISO noise. The whole debate seems to have shifted now to lenses. who cares? The 5DmkIII score has NOTHING to do with lenses. While I agree that no one site should be taken as the final word, the feeling that the 5DmkIII isn't all that it was hyped to be has been echoed again and again. It is time to move on. seriously, it may not be the best camera, but it is a really good one. Isn't that enough?


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> What I see when I look at the testmaps of DxO is that the 300mm f2.8 II is generally worse (resolution wise) than the zoom 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.



In your earlier post, it was the 75-300mm (which clearly does worse). Now you're fishing for a different lens ? This is data dredging at its worst. You can convince yourself of anything if you selectively fish for data that confirms your hypothesis and ignore data that falsifies it. 

In this case (with the other lens), it looks like the MTF is comparable to the 300mm, but it's "wide open" at f/5.6. The 300mm f/2.8 is already good by f/4. Who knows, they could have gotten a good copy. 



> Excuse me but are they kidding ???



Who are you kidding ? This faux outrage is the result of a data dredging exercise you undertook because you don't like the test scores that DxO gave to Canon's new flagship, but this lens talk is a big red herring. Complaining about DxO doesn't alter the fact that Canon seem to have lost the edge in sensor technology.


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

altenae said:


> This has nothing to do with the latest scores.
> My point is that these are numbers published by ONE company only.



So what ? no-one suggested otherwise.


----------



## altenae (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > This has nothing to do with the latest scores.
> ...



Nevermind.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > What I see when I look at the testmaps of DxO is that the 300mm f2.8 II is generally worse (resolution wise) than the zoom 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.
> ...


Which was a typo, I just entered the wrong lens name... and btw the newer 70-300 is rated higher so the typo was to my disadvantage ... the comparison is still the same faulty one (you can go through all resolution charts on the interactive comparison I linked) I assure you there is not one possible combination where the 70-300 IS is better than the 300 f2.8 II ... 

However if you seriously suggest that the 300 f2.8 II compares to the 70-300 or 75-300 and DXO does that it is nothing but a plain joke. I personally have never seen any serious pro photographer at any sports event even in the brightest daylight at noon using one of the other two lenses (which according to DXO should deliver the same or better results) ... 

Have you ever used both ? I guess you would also question those results if you had ...


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> In your earlier post, it was the 75-300mm (which clearly does worse). Now you're fishing for a different lens ? This is data dredging at its worst. You can convince yourself of anything if you selectively fish for data that confirms your hypothesis and ignore data that falsifies it.
> 
> In this case (with the other lens), it looks like the MTF is comparable to the 300mm, but it's "wide open" at f/5.6. The 300mm f/2.8 is already good by f/4. Who knows, they could have gotten a good copy.
> 
> ...


Which was a typo, I just entered the wrong lens name... and btw the newer 70-300 is rated higher so the typo was to my disadvantage ... the comparison is still the same faulty one 
[/quote]

No, the 75-300mm (what you wrote originally) is as I described in my earlier post (poor unless stopped down considerably and pretty much weak in the edges across the aperture/FL range) 



> However if you seriously suggest that the 300 f2.8 II compares to the 70-300 or 75-300 and DXO does that



I haven't used either lens, so I wouldn't suggest any such thing. I have seen some cases where cheaper lenses do reasonably well in their MTF scores, though at much smaller apertures than good lenses. Generally, if I saw a test result that seemed a bit surprising, I'd check other test results. 



> it is nothing but a plain joke. I personally have never seen any serious pro photographer at any sports event even in the brightest daylight at noon using one of the other two lenses (which according to DXO should deliver the same or better results) ...



Actually, DxO include a "sports" use case score, and the score they assign does not suggest that the two lenses should deliver the same or better results. There's more to evaluating a lens than MTF at f/11. 

But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.



As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII... I guess there are 3-4 other threads in this forum here parallel to this one where people who never used the MK III on their own are doing this... Btw I own both the MKII and MK III so I can at least tell that the MKIII is much better IQ wise... and I have also tested most of lenses myself so I know that the 300mm f2.8 II is the about the highest resolving lens I have ever seen.


----------



## elflord (Apr 21, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII..



But why the sudden data dredging exercise against DxO ? Did the Canon fans suddenly discover an affinity for medium format ? Or is it because they don't like the new test result ? 

If it's "academic", why are the fans so angry ? 



> I guess there are 3-4 other threads in this forum here parallel to this one where people who never used the MK III on their own are doing this...



I haven't used it because I'm very happy with the 5DII. It's not on the cutting edge of sensor tech but given the incremental progress in sensor performance it's pretty close and a damn good camera. I think there is a tendency in rumors forums to have unrealistic expectations of technological progress -- predictions of 1-2 stop improvements here which is clearly impossible given the trajectory of sensor technology. It's not clear to me what I stand accused of doing.

Generally, I prefer reviews were the tester tries to dig deeper and figure out what's going on with their results, a "review" that consists of some data but no explanation or insight would carry less weight to me, so I'd tend to give tdp's (and photozones and lenstips) reviews of the 70-300 more weight than DxO. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this "proves" that DxO are incompetent or untrustworthy. 

What bothers me about the attacks on DxO is that the "critics" appear to be lashing out because they don't like the test results. Most of the criticism of DxO in these threads has been not only uninformed, it appears that most of the critics go out of their way to not understand the measurements.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Apr 22, 2012)

elflord said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII..
> ...



Well I just question the test results for the lenses as these are as I said in contradiction to everything experienced in the real world so I don't know how DXO can come up with such measurements ...

Regarding the disappointed fans: 
I don't know why ppl are unhappy with the 5D MK III, most of these unhappy ones as far as I see either don't have the camera and are only referring to test results or are only looking at the D800 without much real world experience (btw I would not want to have one after using it for a short time) ... 

About everyone who has the 5D MKIII now really loves it (minus maybe 1-2% which always have sth. to complain, but I think that is normal and in some cases these are of ppl with real technical problems on their copy) ... So I don't see many actual owners complaining about the camera and imo there is also not much to complain when I use it and compare it to the MKII it is better in about every regard ...


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 22, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.
> ...



I absolutely agree with you here on the 5D2 vs. 5D3. What I find funny/sad is how many people there are who prefer to trust a number vs. reviews from people who have actually used both cameras. DXO is a joke. They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.



Wait, wait, Douglas Adams have the 5DIII a score of 42?!?


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.
> ...



If Douglas Adams did, I would trust it more than I trust the DXO score.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 23, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> About everyone who has the 5D MKIII now really loves it (minus maybe 1-2% which always have sth. to complain, but I think that is normal and in some cases these are of ppl with real technical problems on their copy) ... So I don't see many actual owners complaining about the camera and imo there is also not much to complain when I use it and compare it to the MKII it is better in about every regard ...



Well, there is a bit of a bias in there. In general the only people who are going to jump on a high cost new body like the 5D3 are people who are going to be pre-disposed to want it, either though a good matchup of use cases or rabbid fanboyism... and both of those groups are going to be pretty happy with it.

The people who are likely to be unhappy with a 5D3 or match up poorly with the use cases have generally not plunked down the kilobucks needed to buy from this first batch. Thus most of the negative views of the 5D3 are, of course, going to come from people who have not bought one. Would you plop down thousands of dollars on a brand new body that you were not excited about or had reservations?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Thus most of the negative views of the 5D3 are, of course, going to come from people who have not bought one. Would you plop down thousands of dollars on a brand new body that you were not excited about or had reservations?



Meaning...it's being bashed by people who haven't used it. Give those 'opinions' the weight they deserve - less than a feather.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meaning...it's being bashed by people who haven't used it. Give those 'opinions' the weight they deserve - less than a feather.



It also means that the 'opinions' of the people who like it are worth about as much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning...it's being bashed by people who haven't used it. Give those 'opinions' the weight they deserve - less than a feather.
> ...


Not if those opinions - positive or negative - are from people who've actually used the camera.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > About everyone who has the 5D MKIII now really loves it (minus maybe 1-2% which always have sth. to complain, but I think that is normal and in some cases these are of ppl with real technical problems on their copy) ... So I don't see many actual owners complaining about the camera and imo there is also not much to complain when I use it and compare it to the MKII it is better in about every regard ...
> ...



It's early in the morning here so bear with me, but you are basically saying that the only people who would buy the 5d3 are people "predisposed" to want it and has some level of fanboyism, everyone else either has no opinion or dislikes it? hmm... And i take it you are one of the "few" who hasn't bought the camera? wow that takes balls, gotta say. People have different needs/wants/demands for new bodies... Canon has fit this body into probably 90% of all photographers general wishlist of goodies and specifications and probably 50% of most photographers budgets... It either is going to make you excited and help you achieve photos you have struggled to get in some other body or means, or it's going to excite you and be out of your price range, or it's not going to excite you at all. Doesn't make the camera any better or worse, it's just a tool for you to use... No need to start calling all 5d3 owners fanboys.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 23, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> It's early in the morning here so bear with me, but you are basically saying that the only people who would buy the 5d3 are people "predisposed" to want it and has some level of fanboyism, everyone else either has no opinion or dislikes it? hmm... And i take it you are one of the "few" who hasn't bought the camera? wow that takes balls, gotta say. People have different needs/wants/demands for new bodies... Canon has fit this body into probably 90% of all photographers general wishlist of goodies and specifications and probably 50% of most photographers budgets... It either is going to make you excited and help you achieve photos you have struggled to get in some other body or means, or it's going to excite you and be out of your price range, or it's not going to excite you at all. Doesn't make the camera any better or worse, it's just a tool for you to use... No need to start calling all 5d3 owners fanboys.



Nope, not saying that at all ^_^



> either though a good matchup of use cases or rabbid fanboyism... and both of those groups are going to be pretty happy with it.



I was trying to say that the two groups who were likely to buy this camera in significant numbers form the first run are either fanboys OR their needs match up well with it. As many have pointed out, it is a fantastic camera for certain segments and those people are likely to give it good reviews because it is geared towards them and thus the features/behavior work really well for them.

There is also the fanboy group that, well, it is a new expensive camera from their favoritest camera company ever so naturally they buy it... and they will not complain because of brand loyalty.

Thus neither early adopter group makes a good sample for evaluating the camera in an objective or general way

And true, I have not bought this camera, but I try to be explicit that I have not bought it because the cost/benefit for my use cases is pretty bad. Then again I am still shooting with a 300D/350D pair so I am very stingy about my cost/benefit analysis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Thus neither early adopter group makes a good sample for evaluating the camera in an objective or general way



As opposed to people who've never touched the camera, who are ideally suited to objectively evaluate the camera. </sarcasm>


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's early in the morning here so bear with me, but you are basically saying that the only people who would buy the 5d3 are people "predisposed" to want it and has some level of fanboyism, everyone else either has no opinion or dislikes it? hmm... And i take it you are one of the "few" who hasn't bought the camera? wow that takes balls, gotta say. People have different needs/wants/demands for new bodies... Canon has fit this body into probably 90% of all photographers general wishlist of goodies and specifications and probably 50% of most photographers budgets... It either is going to make you excited and help you achieve photos you have struggled to get in some other body or means, or it's going to excite you and be out of your price range, or it's not going to excite you at all. Doesn't make the camera any better or worse, it's just a tool for you to use... No need to start calling all 5d3 owners fanboys.
> ...



Fair enough and thanks for clarifying... I do agree the high cost compared to it's predecessor the 5d2 was shocking but in the end, the 5d2, under demanding situations falls short and the 7d, while an incredible body and AF system, leaves some to be desired once you crank up the ISO beyond 1000. The 5d3 is, as you put it, a good fit, for me and from what I can gather a good chunk of 5d2 users. I've talked to 5d3 pro shooters who even said they are using that over their 1ds 3 bodies... It's not for everyone for various reasons, but it's still an incredible body.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> As opposed to people who've never touched the camera, who are ideally suited to objectively evaluate the camera. </sarcasm>



Ahm, which part of 'also' did you not understand?
The problem is, the camera has not been around long enough for a usefully unbias group outside professional reviewers, who on the whole have been mixed with some liking the camera and some not.

However, I would say that people who have not used the camera are in a better position to say how well it meets their needs then early adopters who buy the camera based off their needs. Plus, you have the problem that the early adopters are heavily biased towards being for the camera while people who are not using it run a more neutral range, and are much less defensive about their lack of interest.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 23, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Fair enough and thanks for clarifying...



*nods* a lot of tone gets lost in text, and I really am not trying to communicate that I think poorly of the 5D3 or its users.



> I do agree the high cost compared to it's predecessor the 5d2 was shocking but in the end, the 5d2, under demanding situations falls short and the 7d, while an incredible body and AF system, leaves some to be desired once you crank up the ISO beyond 1000. The 5d3 is, as you put it, a good fit, for me and from what I can gather a good chunk of 5d2 users. I've talked to 5d3 pro shooters who even said they are using that over their 1ds 3 bodies... It's not for everyone for various reasons, but it's still an incredible body.



I think this cuts to why some people are reacting so poorly to it, as you say, it is a great upgrade to the 5D2 and excels at the things the 5D2 was used for... but Canon is kinda positioning it as a catch all (though part of that is due to how they release cameras, staggering models like they do has this historic problem, which is why most other industries have stopped doing it) thus for people whom the 5D2 was not geared towards are kinda grumpy.

I think one of the marketing problems is that the 5D2 was such a runaway success that Canon is now treating that user segment as the primary or only one, producing two new bodies that fit that case plus, it could be argued, starting a whole new line of video cameras designed to be an upgrade path for the video segment of that group. So a non-trivial number of Canon users are going 'but.. I wasn't a 5D2 user' and thus if the 5D3 is positioned as the catch-all replacement then, well people are going to point out areas where it fails at that role.

Hopefully within the next year Canon will release some complementing bodies in the mid-high range and I imagine much of this drama will die away. And in fantasy land they will someday learn to release the whole range at once instead of this mess they do now.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough and thanks for clarifying...
> ...



I fully get what your saying about the staggering body announcements/releases and it's very hard to get excited as things are constantly coming out at different times and it's hard to see where everything relates to each other, and much like the 5d3, there are rumors/speculation of a high MP camera on the horizon and the 7d2, 70D, rebels are speculated to be in the foreseeable future... 

I also get how you say that if you aren't in a position to get the 5d3, it's easy to be more critical/objective at times. Some will say it's more class envy than objective, but that's neither here or there. When the 5d2 first came out, i wanted that body so bad, but a few big client contracts didn't fall through the way i was hoping and I had a baby on the way and in the end, there was only the 50D and the 5d2 at the time and I couldn't justify the 5d2 so I got the 50D and hated every minute i had with it. During that time, it could be objection, could be envy, could be both, but image quality, especially all the soft images posted on the web became even more blaring to me, all the negative features stood out like sore thumbs... The 7D came out, ditched the 50D as quickly as possible and got the 7D and fell in love with it's capabilities. It became even more easier to be more critical of the 5d2... Better body, AF, features, video, etc... Eventually I was able to acquire the 5d2 as an additional body but never fell in love with it... It was good and never had issue with the image quality, but in the end, to me, a merger of those two would be my perfect camera. That's what canon signed, sealed, and delivered to me and I couldn't be more thrilled. 

Those who already bought the camera are financially tied to said equipment and so I can see how you say it could be easy to be more subjective, but then in the end, those who are using it on a daily basis would have the best vantage point as to what the camera is capable of and dissecting to the root of any "issues" within the camera than those who are sitting on the sidelines who realize if they could have had the camera, they would.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 23, 2012)

i don't care about mindless comparisons.... i just know the mk1 and mk2 70-200 are great lenses i have and have had both...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> However, I would say that people who have not used the camera are in a better position to say how well it meets their needs then early adopters who buy the camera based off their needs.



People who have not used the camera are in absolutely no position to say how well it meets their needs. They are only in a position to _speculate_ how well said camera _might possibly maybe_ meet their needs or not, were they actually to use it. 

People who have actually used the camera are in a position to say how well it is meeting their needs, or not, from direct actual experience.

Tell you what, I'll give you a bunch of links to web pages and reviews of MRI scanners in the 7T to 11T range, you go read up on them on the internet and then critically evaluate which would best meet my needs. Wait, you don't have any need for an MRI? That's ok - feel free to review them, and tell us all that Bruker is way better than Varian based on what you've read on the internet, or vice versa. I'll give that 'review' the same credence that I give to most of the, ummm, 'information' being posted about the 5DIII.



awinphoto said:


> I also get how you say that if you aren't in a position to get the 5d3, it's easy to be more critical/objective at times. Some will say it's more class envy than objective, but that's neither here or there.



I sort of get it, but not really. I can critically evaluate MRIs because I've used them. Even so, I refrain on commenting on the performance or suitability of a new model until I've tried it out, technical comments and clarifications notwithstanding. 

If you haven't used a product, you are in a position to do your research and reach a personal conclusion. You are in a position to share your viewpoint, and the internet makes that very easy - everyone gets their own personal soapbox, and even idiots can spout off and sound like they know what they're talking about (even if their story changes from week to week). But you are not necessarily in a position to be more objective. I'll certainly acknowledge that having made a purchase, there's a tendency to want to justify that purchase, especially a large purchase. But someone who buys a product with a certain set of expectations is the person best-qualified to judge if that product meets those expectations.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I also get how you say that if you aren't in a position to get the 5d3, it's easy to be more critical/objective at times. Some will say it's more class envy than objective, but that's neither here or there.
> ...



Objectivity may be harder and harder to find my friend as everyone can only speak from their own experiences and POV... It seems the only way to really get objective is 3rd party independent companies but then again depending on their results, pattern of said results, and reliability of results, even they can be said they are biased and subjective, see DxO and DPR for examples. In my personal story/experience I mentioned at the time I thought I was being pretty objective but then again it could be clouded by the fact at the time I couldn't get one and also could be viewed, depending how's considering my "objective" POV as either envy by those who disagree or right on by those who agree... 

I do agree that people who use it, work with it, and give it the honest shot have the most accurate POV because they know first hand. If i have questions about being a pilot, I ask a pilot, not a person with a flight simulator on an ipad. Then again, those who dont have the camera can look at the specs and determine, given their experience, needs, and wants, and can come to a generalized conclusion if it will work for them or not. Sometimes if they can keep their emotions out of it and any disappointment/envy/whatever in check, they can give honest and objective Viewpoints but with the internet and the anonymous nature of forums, its a task that gets harder and harder to do by many people.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 23, 2012)

I do like your post, but in my humble opinion there is one part wrong within it. You cannot fully trust just any company to be an impartial 3rd party. Trust must be earned. It is not gained by marketing statements.

If there are multiple occasions of a self-proclaimed independent tester delivering results matching actual real life experience, we can begin to trust them to a certain extend. Of course in case someone doesn't use the product they have tested, that one will never know.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



many people have tested both and surprise, surprise, they get the same dynamic range findings as DxO did, so no, DxO sensor tests are not a joke (maybe their lens tests though ;D)


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Really? Where are these people? Are they Oompa Loompas or real people?

Of the folks here who owned a 5D2 and now have a 5D3, how many agree with DXO that the 5D3 is only marginally better for high ISO? Of those who have a 1D4 and a 5D2, how many agree with DXO that the 5D2 has better high ISO (admittedly I do not own a 1D4 but everyone I know who owns both cameras believes the 1D4 is a bit better).


----------



## psolberg (Apr 23, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



He's not an oompa loopa but one of the most well known reviewers in the world that shoots many systems.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120419_2-Canon5DM3-dxomark.html

even diehard canon shooters are noticing terrible examples of low ISO noise (and please don't acuse the guy of bias, he shoots canon)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

then there is the ISO test done properly (resampled as they would be on a print, not using crops)
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#iso_performance

seriously. the debate is over. It is time to stop the denial and go out and shoot. What's the point of dwelling on the issue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



Who was talking high ISO? It's low ISO where DxO shows the D800 spanking the 5D3.

The 5D3 is around 1/2-2/3rds stop better SNR than the 5D2, more toward the 2/3rds side. Not huge but enough to notice, especially at ISO6400+ or in scenes with tons of near black where the nicer high iso banding helps.

You don't have to own the cameras to take a white and black frame (I've shot Canon since the EOS 650, BTW, and do own the 5D2 and since I just found a special $3100 deal on the 5D3 I might even get tempted to just stick one more round rather than $ hassle to switch now, but even if I do stay, I will switch if the 5D4 also has left-in-the-dust 2007 levels of dynamic range).

I matched DxO's results exactly for ISO100 DR in my tests and so have a number of others, all independently, on DPR and elsewhere. A well respected landscape photographer and long time Canon user posted a D800/5D3 review and notice behavior that exactly matched the DxO measurements, as have some others.

Just deal with the fact that they have done a single thing since 2007 to improve low ISO photography.

If you don't all try to hide that fact away then maybe the 5D4 won't have the same problem, if you do then maybe it will and I'd rather not have to switch over to Nikon, but if the next gen after the 2012 release don't show improvements here, sadly, I finally will. I seriously thought about it for the first time, this time, and I suppose still could.


----------

