# DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...



## Northstar (May 14, 2012)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons

This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion. I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal? Is it worth mentioning? WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang on the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with quality controls, and a disciplined process.[/b] 

Anyway, I just thought some folks would think it interesting...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 15, 2012)

*Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....*

Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??


----------



## Neeneko (May 15, 2012)

Oh no! Not a typo involving two words with nearly identical spelling by people who's native language isn't english! Their maths must be defective because any mistake of any type invalidates everything!

*headdesk*

Part of me is hoping this was supposed to be a joke post. Such a leap of logic either shows defectively black and white thinking or a real bone to pick.


----------



## Northstar (May 15, 2012)

*Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??



I respectfully disagree. It's not a simple typo, they spelled it that way twice on the same line..AND...they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison. So an error and a typo in the same line... Also, the "a" and the "e" on a keyboard are nowhere near each other...so it's actually more than just a typo.(possible that they didn't know how to spell expandable)

In my business, if I presented a report to a client that had wrong information and erroneous information, I would worry that I wouldn't "get the deal", and I would be embarrassed, and I would be concerned that the client would have a negative perception of our company's quality of work. 

ALSO - a side note that I've been itching to post, but also helps make my point - like many others on this website and worldwide...How can they rate the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II so poorly when EVERYBODY else thinks it's one of the best zooms ever made by anybody.....JUST THEIR REVIEW OF THE 70-200 IS II DISCREDITS THEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. A reputable company would possibly conclude that they received a bad copy and try again, but NO. Again, it's poor reporting/presentation/research/testing.... "something fishy going on" in my opinion.

*If everyone else says 2+2 = 4, but you get 5, then go back and double check your work...triple check if necessary. Obviously in both my points above they didn't double or triple check their work.* AND IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!


----------



## YellowJersey (May 15, 2012)

Meh, no biggie. English isn't their native language. Hell, the people at dxo can probably speak and write English better than many English speakers.


----------



## TotoEC (May 15, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??
> ...



+1

If the word is used colloquially I would understand. BUT it should never had happened if the work is double checked or edited.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 15, 2012)

Tiny issue, as others are saying.

People aren't perfect.


----------



## Wrathwilde (May 15, 2012)

Where's the smite button when you need it?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 15, 2012)

My gripe with DXO is that canon and nikon have different processors to make the most of their own sensors, and that by reviewing cameras from RAW data only (rather than say in camera JPEGS or TIFFs created via DPP or NX2 etc) is like test driving a car with the gearbox removed.

Simple typos are not worth getting excited about.

Their DXOmark of the cameras I have used bears no relation to the real life images I get from cameras which have been consistently well reviewed elsewhere (thus my decision to buy)


----------



## psolberg (May 15, 2012)

wait, you honestly took the time to type all that because of a typo? get over it already. I seriously can't belive people are still upset at canon's poor DXO numbers. It is time to move on people.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 15, 2012)

Doesn't DXO do its testing not primarily as a service but rather to support its own software?

Should I shy away from DXO Optics Pro because I happen to like a lens that didn't perform well in their testing? Come on.


----------



## RuneL (May 15, 2012)

*Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??



I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2012)

*Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....*



RuneL said:


> I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.



My goodness, don't ever listen to politicians speak. You'd come away with the impression that our world leaders are all sloppy idiots.

(which, maybe, isn't far from the truth...)


----------



## emag (May 15, 2012)

*Re: I went to DXOMark and found this little thing....*



neuroanatomist said:


> My goodness, don't ever listen to politicians speak. You'd come away with the impression that our world leaders are all sloppy idiots.
> 
> (which, maybe, isn't far from the truth...)



Um....uhh...well....many of our world leaders ARE sloppy idiots! ;D
(Couldn't resist)

I don't care about their spelling (or mis-spelling), I'll still use their software. YMMV


----------



## awinphoto (May 15, 2012)

For what it's worth, I work with agencies providing photography... A simple 1 word mis-spelling, in an agency or marketing situation, could cost someone their job and or career depending how bad it is. I would generally agree a 1 off type happens and shouldn't be overstated and the company will do what it needs to do... mis-information however is a bigger issue and reason to call to arms 8) 8)


----------



## KeithR (May 15, 2012)

I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have _significant_ consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things _certainly can_ matter.

As far as DxO goes, its all about credibility: if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong, which I think is the OP's position too - and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means.

And if they can't properly QA their prose, why should I automatically trust their numbers?

This is a perfectly legitimate perspective, whether or not you _agree_ with it.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 15, 2012)

*sigh*


----------



## Janco (May 15, 2012)

First, they are french, aren't they? French people don't like the english language very much. I don't want to offend anyone, it's just a feeling I sometimes have. The english word expandable could be translated to extensible in french. I see it happen very quickly that they write expendable. Considering that they are french, it's very very good writing (not that particular word, but else). I bet there is almost no company based on english language that would be able to write articles in french without a good interpreter. And I think everyone who read that article AND realised there was a mistake was educated enough to realise what word there should be.

Now this article was free, right? Did you (OP and others that complain) pay for that? Even if you're customer of DxO (DxO optics pro or some services) please feel free to complain if there happen to be mistakes that lead to misinformation or wrong conversion of your image or whatever. But please, I really don't understand a discussion about typos or writing mistakes.

And now please smite me to death if I made a typo or grammatical error myself. I'm swiss.

Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 15, 2012)

KeithR said:


> I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have _significant_ consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things _certainly can_ matter.



I work in a technical role in the aerospace industry. If misspellings mattered in technical documentation, airplanes would be falling out of the sky.

I don't think this wrong word says anything about the accuracy of DXO's measurements, nor do I believe that DXO's measurements hold a heck of a lot of import for photographic equipment consumers.

Much ado about nothing.


----------



## nitsujwalker (May 15, 2012)

Northstar said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons
> 
> This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion. I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.
> 
> ...



They hang the DXO scores? Where do they hang them? Do you mean they hang on every word that the company publishes? Don't complain about typos in a post and then make typos yourself.


----------



## Northstar (May 15, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons
> ...



nisujwalker....funny, you got me on that one! But, I have corrected the mistake....it's called follow up. Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap. 

Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no. BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.

Anyway..like some have said, I've "expanded" too much energy on this now. I better get back to my new 5d3 and test out that expendable ISO....I hear it really expends well, especially when you expend it up to 25,600.


----------



## K-amps (May 15, 2012)

Not to give my age away , but this reminds me of the Audio Review mags of the 70's/80's. 

Stereo Review would rate audio components based on THD Total Harmonic distortion and IM etc. Slowly manufacturers found ways to reduce this mathmatically arrived at number by increasing feedback in the audio circuits (for amplifiers) and get Stereo Review to arrive at better "numbers"... but the Audio began to sound too sterlie and clinical.... Then came the Subjectivists; who did not measure the Audio signal by numbers, but by actual listening tests and AB comparisons. they found that the Tubes of the good old days with 3%-10% THD sounded better than newer transistor designs with THD numbers below 0.01%.

Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely used as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models.

And one sad day Stereo Review found itself out of Business...

DxO numbers seem to me to be the Stereo Review of the 2000's.... Already people talk about the amazing Flesh tones the 5D can dish out despite having sensor numbers that are a pale comparison to the D800. So take it for what it is worth... just a number.

It does not translate into wonderful Audio or mersmerising photos. 


PS: I am not saying DxO will go out of Business, just saying don't take their numbers so seriously. And no, you don't have to win every Peeing contest against the Nikon boys... just beat them with your Photography Skills


----------



## thepancakeman (May 15, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.



Yeah, it is. Have you ever read the manual for a TV or DVD players. Many of them are completely incomprehensible, and yet magically the TV/DVD player works just fine. How could that possible be???

And you mean "that big *OF* a leap." "Big a leap" makes aboslutely zero grammatical sense.


----------



## Janco (May 15, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Listen, my whole point is this....do these three mistakes on one line mean the people at DXO are a bunch of idiots...no. BUT, it validates the point that many have made about DXO, that their reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, AND questioned because they can and obviously do make mistakes...in this case, several.



Oh, those shiny things on the internet are to be taken with a grain of salt?  And I always thought.....




K-amps said:


> Eventually the THD/IM numbers were merely uses as a guide, but it was understood that the quality of Audio is perhaps beyond what can be measured by these simple models [.......]
> 
> So take it for what it is worth... just a number.



+1
I guess that's what it basically comes down to...


----------



## atvinyard (May 15, 2012)

Did you send them an e-mail to let them know about their typo? That would be the appropriate thing to do.

Proper grammer and attention to detail are important when it comes to maintaining reputation, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time. 

Let he who never ever makes a spelling error be the one to cast the first stone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2012)

Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO. Seems we also shouldn't turst the New York Times, Buffalo's NPR station, and we should beleive that Mitt Romney supports shooting one's family. Ok, fine. Tim to moved on.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 15, 2012)

Janco said:


> error myself. I'm swiss.
> 
> Edit: Oh I forgot, no possibility to smite anymore. ;D


 
That capability is coming soon


----------



## zim (May 15, 2012)

'Tim to move on' LOL very god ;D ;D ;D


----------



## zim (May 15, 2012)

Oh wait!!! You mean Tim worked at DXO and he’s been made redundant over this? poor Tim, he’s got a wife and kids too…






…. I liked Tim






Your all rotten getting him fired


----------



## Northstar (May 15, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Good businesses should have a process for that type of Q control.(especially an information business) If they don't, then maybe they don't have good Q control in their sensor testing....it's NOT that big a leap.
> ...



you're right about the grammatical sense....you're wrong in your analogy. a tv maker's goal is to make a tv that works well, not a manual that works well.

dxomark's goal here is to present information....*the information is their product.* in this case, they have three product errors in one line of information.


----------



## pwp (May 15, 2012)

Northstar said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Comparisons
> This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion.


Well you seemed to work out from the context that "expendable" meant "expandable". The planet is populated by intelligent people who no doubt will also make this gigantic cognitive leap just as you did.

Just be thankful there is someone as thorough as DXO to provide pixel peepers with the research data they generate. 

A typo? OMG. Fire the secretary! Call in the National guard! Cancel everything! Or just chill.....

Paul Wright


----------



## awinphoto (May 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, so becuase there's a typo on the DxO webite, we shouldnt trust DxO.



Well that settles it... never really trusted DxO anyways so this puts the nail in the coffin... =) hahaha... Cant speak for DxO, but i've seen people get fired for a typo like this gone public, literally, but dont know or really care about DxO's firing practices, how nit picky they are, and the tenure and prior reputation of the person who was responsible. Personally I dont trust the site but for other reasons than a type.


----------



## agierke (May 15, 2012)

i have never really understood the fanaticism over DxO's ratings whether it be in favor of or against their findings. any review should never be "trusted". its foolish to make decisions about your own livelihood solely based upon the opinion of someone else (and i do believe that DxO results are quite simply an opinion).

reviews are meant to be a guide to HELP inform an audience, not make a decision for said audience. i read alot of reviews about gear, and then i make up my own mind ONLY after i have had hands on experience using the said piece of equipment under real world circumstances.

that being said, a typo or misinformation coming from DxO is entirely inconsequential in my opinion.

forgive me if i misspeled anything...


----------



## meli (May 15, 2012)

KeithR said:


> I work in a legal role where a one word error in my writing could have _significant_ consequences for the organisation I work for, so these things _certainly can_ matter.
> 
> As far as DxO goes, its all about credibility: if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong, which I think is the OP's position too - and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means.
> 
> ...



yes perfectly legitimate perspective, 

for example if i would buy a 550d and the 18-55 kit lens turns out to be decentered, i mean its a 50$ piece of lens but hey, "_ if they can't get the simple stuff right, it does beg questions about what else they get wrong,_" right? "_and it's not the only such mistake they've made by any means_" so Canon is definitely cr*p right? i mean this is what you're claiming there right?

You get the ridiculousness of yours and Northstar's statement or?


----------



## Positron (May 16, 2012)

Okay, it's a spelling error. Someone who wasn't a native English speaker mistook the words expandable and expendable (a very understandable mistake).

Compared to native English speakers who write there instead of their and they're (and note how the reverse almost never happens), your instead of you're (same as before), and my absolute favorite, "lense", it's trivial. "Expendable" is a result of English containing two decently difficult words that happen to be quite similar in both spelling and pronunciation. The latter examples are not spelling errors, they're *understanding* errors which prove that the writer has a fundamental lack of understanding of the very words, and by _extansion_, ideas, which they aim to convey.


----------



## YoukY63 (May 16, 2012)

The first time I saw the first post of that topic, I was wondering if it was a joke or a new rant to DxO (kind of vendetta ;D).
Now we understood it was not a joke and I think everybody agree on the total *non-sense *of such topic. Come on, are we really discussing for an English typo on a French website since 3 pages? A typo about the iso range of the body? Seriously???  :

Admins, don't you think it is time now to close it here?


----------



## briansquibb (May 16, 2012)

K-amps said:


> DxO numbers seem to me to be the Stereo Review of the 2000's.... Already people talk about the amazing Flesh tones the 5D can dish out despite having sensor numbers that are a pale comparison to the D800. So take it for what it is worth... just a number.



Two examples might be:

5D classic - I found the images particularly good 

1DS3 - skin tones are just superb to my eye - stunning with the 135/f2, 200 f/2


----------



## Wrathwilde (May 16, 2012)

Northstar said:


> *the information is their product.*



It isn't. The "reviews" and "published results" are just a happy byproduct of the testing they do for their real business, their software business, and DxO Optics Pro is some kick ass software. They also create embedded software, silicon architectures and optical designs for still and video image real time processing, as well as image quality evaluation, measurement tools, and methodologies. To equate the fact that their web staff may accidentally confuse one english word for another on a site that is merely a free public service (that originates in french, no less), or that the tech writer who occasionally quotes the wrong number is somehow indicative of the quality of their science and engineering staff is laughable. If you were translating your view point into french, would you recognize the difference between "conneries" and a "connard" at a glance? It's like knowing the difference between your argument and yourself.



Northstar said:


> IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!



DxoMark.com is separate from the main DxO.com site. DxOMark isn't in the business of testing, that would be DxOLabs. If you think the lab techs are the ones writing the reviews... and plugging the information into the DxOMark site, you are wonderfully naive. Do you think the engineers at GM or Ford are wasting their time plugging in performance numbers on their companies respective websites, or that they double check the websites to make sure the published numbers matched what they tested on the bench, or that they personally make sure that the foreign GM/Ford sites are properly translated? Of course not. DxOLab's technicians have better things to do, and real work to accomplish, like making sure the data they collected translates into real world improvements in their software.

At the end of the day DxOMark is nothing more than a public forum and service that DxOLabs is under no real obligation to provide information to. The fact that they translate their pages as well as they do is amazing, and better than 99% of foreign sites I've visited. The fact is... accidentally getting a number wrong in a product review is pretty meaningless, they aren't selling the products they review, if they were... that would be a completely different matter.

Ever read an auto magazine? They are constantly doing tests, collecting data, etc. I often find that the written article will have at least one discrepancy from the data table. Does that make the people who review the cars idiots? Does that mean that we shouldn't trust them when they say that the 2012 Camaro out performs the 2012 Mustang, that it rides nicer and is more forgiving in corners? Of course not, and although the person writing the (car) article was probably present during the testing... he probably wasn't the one setting up the testing equipment or verifying the numbers. 

Jobs get delegated, if you're in the legal field, or advertising, sure, the wrong word or number might get you fired... as there is often a great deal of money riding on it. The same can't be said for DxOMark, which is just a free service that was born out of DxOLabs legitimate business, they have no need to strive for excellence in their web translations, their current incarnation is just fine, occasional errors and all.



Northstar said:


> they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison.



The 5D3's ISO sensitivity for 50 and 100 is exactly the same (tested at an actual ISO 80). The raw files get flagged for Canon's software to process differently, but the way DxO tests the raw files there is probably no difference between the two. Canon software pulls it down a partial stop. Basically Canon's ISO 50 is a software cheat, so who gives a damn. In reality the 5D3 really does only go down to it's 100 setting, which is effectively ISO 80. Long story short, that quote of the 5D3 going down to ISO 100 could have been a mistake, or it could have been deliberate... since the raw files are identical except for some flagging that tells Canon's software how to process the "ISO 50" file.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde


----------



## Northstar (May 16, 2012)

What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo? What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.


----------



## YoukY63 (May 16, 2012)

Northstar said:


> What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo? What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?


Then I would have prompted several typos and incorrect informations from other highly respected websites such as DPReview or PhotoZone. Because yes, I already found some (especially incorrect infos) on these websites too. Even in American or British websites. About characteristics that can matters to people, not a stupid mispelling. But who cares, they are just few mistakes as everybody on earth can do.




Northstar said:


> The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't.
> 
> But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.


Since it did not happened, as you pointed out, do you plan to apologize to DxO people for trying to make them look like fool and stupid? :


----------



## Wrathwilde (May 16, 2012)

Northstar said:


> What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo? What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?
> 
> The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't.
> 
> But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.



(And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.)

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures. See quotes below...



Northstar said:


> *All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process.*





Northstar said:


> they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50



As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother... when the best course of action would be to share them on the DxOMark forum, where the mods can actually see the issues being brought up about their articles and reviews, research them to find out if they actually are mistakes or not, and correct them if necessary.

I can tell you right now that if DxOLab's testing procedures were as worthless or as suspect as people like you, and some others on this forum, make them out to be... then the software they use that compiled data for, namely DxO Optics Pro, would be absolutely worthless... instead of the kickass software it is. You may disagree with their numbers and testing procedures, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and that is reflected in the ability of their software to maximize image quality for the Camera's and Lenses they have run through their testing procedures. If their tests weren't exceedingly accurate, their software would suffer horribly... something I don't think most of the people here complaining about DxO's testing procedures seem to grasp. If their testing is worthless... then their software would be too, that's obviously not the case.

Which isn't to say that their overall camera score isn't biased toward certain sensor attributes, just that the actual measurements from their testing has to be exceedingly accurate to generate the results DxO Optics Pro is capable of.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde


----------



## Northstar (May 17, 2012)

> Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures



yes..still feel that way. but not just from a two typos and an error. It's an accumulation of what I consider many "head scratching" reviews/tests they have made. As one example, I mentioned their crazy 70-200 2.8 is ii review where they give it a dxo score 10%-40% lower than OLDER model sigma, nikon, and sony 70-200's....even though the newest canon is widely considered one of the best ever by most others.

also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors. 

also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon. I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses. another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.

I have others but I'll stop there..




> As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother.



because there are people on CR that might be interested.

also... you said their product is not the information, but their software.... yes, I obviously know that. my point is that when they present information in a review or from a test, then their product becomes the information...and the info(product) should be accurate and typo free.

some have said, give them a break, everyone makes mistakes....yep, I get that too. BUT, as an almost 15 year veteran of corporate america, I can tell you that most professionals that are very good at their job, and produce presentations or reports for a client or their boss, don't typically make multiple mistakes on one page Some professionals that are average at their job or don't pay much attention to detail probably would make this type of error....and there you have it.

also...yes, I'm writing in "quick mode" so don't take the easy shot at my writing/grammar


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2012)

Northstar said:


> also...i think they weight their methodology to favor nikon sensors.
> 
> also, they consistently score nikon lenses higher than canon. I once search the highest dxo scored camera lenses (canon nikon only) and found that 17 to the top 20 scores were nikon lenses. another head scratcher in my opinion when you read other review sites.



No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores:

[quote author=DxOMark]
The DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.
The Optical Metric Scores consider the classical or standard measurements used to rate the performance of a lens, such as resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission and chromatic aberration.
[/quote]

The lens score is dependent on the camera used. Nikon sensors score higher, ergo Nikon lenses score higher. Simple. 

Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon. 

Personally, I find the DxO _Measurements_ quite useful, and their Scores rather useless.


----------



## Northstar (May 17, 2012)

> No head scratching needed. If you read and comprehend their testing procedures and scores, it makes perfect sense. About lens scores: DxOMark Score considers the overall performance of a lens plus its performance when used with a specific camera body.



yes...I understand. But, to post a "score" for the old nikon 70-200 paired with the a 5dx at 27, and the current canon 70-200 is ii with a 5d2 scores an 18, would imply that the nikon lens (the old model) is roughly 50% better than the new canon. this is where I take issue...the scoring for lenses and cameras isn't accurate, and implies a significant advantage to nikon which is just not the case....simple.




> Check out the optical metric scores - of the top 5, three Canon, one Nikon



good point


----------

