# 5DS scores at DXO **now posted**



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2015)

When will DXO drop the chaos bomb on the interwebs?

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

My guess: if the score eclipses the D810, they will announce late on a Friday and effectively bury the story. 

If the score is less than the D810, it will be announced on a Monday morning. 

- A


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

I see scores for both ... 5Ds = 0 ; 5DsR = 0 ... seems legit  maybe they mounted the camera with the display side in direction to the test charts and did not realize yet ... ;D ;D


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jul 5, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

I too wish to see the scores then move on with my life. as I know it will be biased on canon.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

I've been too busy shooting and enjoying my 5DSR to give a flip


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

It will score lower than the 5d mkiii.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



brianftpc said:


> It will score lower than the 5d mkiii.



I wouldn't go _that_ far. The sports/ISO score should be lower, but DXO loves them pixels.

Not that I care. It's DXO, after all. I just want to see people overreact to anything they say -- which is a certainty to occur.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

They're probably just fine-tuning the new algorithm.

If MFR = Canon, COMPOSITE_SCORE = DXOONE_SCORE - [*tbd*]


----------



## meywd (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



3kramd5 said:
 

> They're probably just fine-tuning the new algorithm.
> 
> If MFR = Canon, COMPOSITE_SCORE = DXOONE_SCORE - [*tbd*]



Or waiting for the a7R II to release and score the 5Ds(r) lower


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 6, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



meywd said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > They're probably just fine-tuning the new algorithm.
> ...


I don't really care about their sensor "score". I don't sell sensors, I sell images which are created by capturing light. If I want good images I need to light my subject well and have good composition. This is what my clients want and expect. They couldn't care less about all the mental masturbation that goes on in photography forums.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

It calls job security. 

Anything better than Sony, they would find themselves in the unemployment lines ;D


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



3kramd5 said:


> They're probably just fine-tuning the new algorithm.
> 
> If MFR = Canon, COMPOSITE_SCORE = DXOONE_SCORE - [*tbd*]



I agree their algorithm likely can't handle the ratings and need to figure out a new one since all of these new cameras are reaching about the same scores. I don't really care about the scores. Never influenced my purchase decision and never will.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



StudentOfLight said:


> I don't really care about their sensor "score".



Yah, their scores are hardly relevant. They individual measurements are interesting, however, to me.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > When will DXO drop the chaos bomb on the interwebs?
> ...



5 weeks only ? You are talking about France  ... even in Germany we get more  (28-30 working days is usual here)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



1982chris911 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



And pretty soon in Greece everyone will get 365 days!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*

The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.

Teaser: They're lower than the D810 and the 5DS ranks slightly better than the 5DS R, mainly because of ISO performance.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Canon Rumors said:


> The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> 
> Teaser: They're lower than the D810 and the 5DS ranks slightly better than the 5DS R, mainly because of ISO performance.



You are such a tease. Did they rate ISO/Sports at the pixel level and give it a 7D2-like score for that metric?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Canon Rumors said:


> The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> 
> Teaser: They're lower than the D810 and the 5DS ranks slightly better than the 5DS R, mainly because of ISO performance.



Also: I'm super geeked that we finally have a number. Scarecrow's crazy gas from _Batman Begins_ is about to be unleashed on the interwebs. This site and so many like it are going to melt down from the forum traffic this will generate.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Canon Rumors said:


> The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> 
> Teaser: They're lower than the D810 and the 5DS ranks slightly better than the 5DS R, mainly because of ISO performance.


My guess is they'll rate it between 85 and 87. I'll be surprised if it scores higher than 89. Regardless I'll get one later this year, either by mid-September or if that's not possbile then November-December time.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



StudentOfLight said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> ...



Hyper-short attention span TL/DR Nikon fanboys will have their fun with an overall score and dynamic range like they always do, but I think others (including Canon folks) could make a fair beef about the Sports/ISO score.

The 5DS represents a step forward in resolution but at a pixel level represents a step back in noise. Bryan Carnathan makes a fair point that downsizing 5DS pictures to 5D3 resolution mutes this difference to some degree, but you get my point: all those pixels don't come without some tradeoff.

Some would argue that SoNikon's climb up the megapixel ladder in 2012 didn't come at the cost of _anything_ IQ-wise (other than hard drive space) -- moving from the D700 to the D800 tripled the pixel count, tacked on 2 more stops of DR and the high ISO performance improved.

I think -- reasonably or not -- the Canon faithful were hoping the 5DS sensors would similarly raise the bar on _*all*_ metrics. So I think the DXO news will drop like a lead turd. A ton of people will (correctly) poop on DXO's charmingly incoherent methods, and the others will have a tantrum and threaten to leave Canon. :

Everything old is new again.

- A


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

Lens Sharpness scores is what I'm most interested in. I like to have the ability to crop or reframe photos. Many time I shoot landscape and crop and frame the shot in portrait to give it a different look.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



bmwzimmer said:


> Lens Sharpness scores is what I'm most interested in. I like to have the ability to crop or reframe photos. Many time I shoot landscape and crop and frame the shot in portrait to give it a different look.



DXO may be the name for sensor scores, but they are outright batsh-- crazy with lens testing. Their lens findings are inane, contradictory, and eye-rolling. Plastic fantastics outperforming big whites, the same exact lens being stellar on a Nikon rig and disappointing on a Canon one, etc. 

Surely, LensRentals, LensTip and Photozone will upgrade their reference rigs to 5DS and report proper resolution testing. I trust those folks far more than DXO.

Here's Roger's basic take on the resolution bumps you might see with a 5DS and 5DSr over a 5D3:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests

But, if your mind is made up: you may not have your DXO data on lenses tomorrow. As I'm sure you know, DXO tests individual combos of lenses and bodies and may not report that right away. That kind of dole that out over time.

- A


----------



## benperrin (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Canon Rumors said:


> The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> 
> Teaser: They're lower than the D810 and the 5DS ranks slightly better than the 5DS R, mainly because of ISO performance.


It's amazing how bad the dxomark logic is. Most people would take better defined details even if that means the noise is also better defined. What that doesn't take into consideration is that noise reduction software has more room to play with on an image that has more definition. And of course that resolution advantage gets completely lost at 8mp (or whatever they downsample to) which is something you'd probably never do if you were interested in a high mp camera. The logic of trying to make all sensors confine to a magic set of rules is insane at best. We all have different needs for our cameras, some only want to prints 4x5 inch prints, others 3 meter prints, others need to crop heavily and most probably just want to share images on the web. Some only shoot at iso100 others are consistently at iso3200.

Lesson: forget dxomark and find the camera that suits your needs. These magic numbers that dxo pull out of their butts are meaningless in the real world.


----------



## PhotoCat (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Canon Rumors said:


> The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> 
> Teaser: They're lower than the D810



This is to be expected since Canon hasn't made much progress in the dynamic range department for 5DS & 5DS R.


----------



## traveller (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

DXO mark's credibility has been damaged even amongst Sony and Nikon users by the way they manipulated their own testing system in order to give their new "ONE" a score of 85.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



traveller said:


> DXO mark's credibility has been damaged even amongst Sony and Nikon users by the way they manipulated their own testing system in order to give their new "ONE" a score of 85.



Did they manipulate their testing system, or did they just decide to score a post-composited image as a "sensor"?


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



dilbert said:


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


Aren't the lens elements themselves plastic? Cheap lenses also have cheap coatings. It's not impossible, but if it happened someone would figure out how to use cheap materials to make big expensive telephotos. I.e., it's not physically impossible, but it's nearly impossible economically.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



StudentOfLight said:


> My guess is they'll rate it between 85 and 87. I'll be surprised if it scores higher than 89. Regardless I'll get one later this year, either by mid-September or if that's not possbile then November-December time.



HEHE! Did you have a big bowl of _Optimist-O_s for breakfast? 
That'd be quite a score jump for Canon, I don't think they're quite there yet but, eventually, we'll see.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



benperrin said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The sensor scores for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have been completed. They'll be posted tomorrow.
> ...



The general advice is good; you're butt-wrong about real-world-meaningless.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO still not posted*



Aglet said:


> The general advice is good; you're butt-wrong about real-world-meaningless.


I'll stand by my statement I think dxomark scores are meaningless. Selection of glass and technique will have more impact on images than picking a camera based on made up scores. Try a camera and if it works for you then great, if not get another. There is no magical number that can tell you what you should buy or use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



dilbert said:


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



Yes, dilbert...obviously DxO's lens scores make perfect sense to you given what you have in common. DxO gives higher scores to lenses because of more dynamic range...so apparently both you and DxO believe that lenses are cameras. 




dilbert said:


> Does it matter what it is made from?
> 
> Shouldn't all that matters when scoring a lens's performance be based on its optical properties?
> 
> If a plastic fantastic lens can render an image without CA, no vignetting and be sharp from center to edge, why shouldn't it score really really well?



Oh, so you believe that DxO's Lens Scores are based primarily on the lens' optical performance in metrics like sharpness and CA? Why am I not surprised? : :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

The problem dilbert, is that they are NOT following that logic in lens scores. How many times do I need to cite the 500mm lenses comparisons/scores of the Canon vs. Nikon and they specifically said they scored the Nikon lens the same as the Canon, despite it not performing as well as a lens, simply because of the superior DR of the Nikon camera used for the Nikon lens (I think it was the D800 and 5D3). 

Obviously that is complete garbage to a scientist and I do contend it has absolutely no real-world usefulness. Or, better, the SCORES don't reflect reality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



dilbert said:


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



What will be interesting to see if if they allow the rumored in-camera HDR from the A7000 to be scored as a "sensor," or whether that's a benefit they'll hold for themselves with some flimsy requirements (like it be stored in a .DNG container).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

No scores yet. Bummin.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



3kramd5 said:


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



Right! Why hasn't Olympus' multi-shot feature been given the same "we'll allow it" consideration? Canon's in-camera HDR? Magic Lantern dual-ISO?

None of it should be reported, including the DXO One's composite score. Tell me how the sensor takes individual shots.

- A


----------



## windycitywilly (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

here are the scores i think


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



windycitywilly said:


> here are the scores i think



Someone is yanking down the scores as fast as you guys can link them.

These are NOT up on DXO's site right now.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



ahsanford said:


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



They're hand waving and calling their files "raw" (.dxo super raw plus). Since they clearly are not raw, I presume they carved out a specific file type for which they'll allow composites, a file type only they themselves produce. That being said, even if they start allowing HDR images from other makes, I agree: it's silly if it's not done with a single exposure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



3kramd5 said:


> They're hand waving and calling their files "raw" (.dxo super raw plus). Since they clearly are not raw, I presume they carved out a specific file type for which they'll allow composites, a file type only they themselves produce. That being said, even if they start allowing HDR images from other makes, I agree: it's silly if it's not done with a single exposure.



Well, they are 'RAW' even if only DxO's own software can open them. But the 'regular' RAW files from the DxO One are saved in DNG containers.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > They're hand waving and calling their files "raw" (.dxo super raw plus). Since they clearly are not raw, I presume they carved out a specific file type for which they'll allow composites, a file type only they themselves produce. That being said, even if they start allowing HDR images from other makes, I agree: it's silly if it's not done with a single exposure.
> ...



I'd _love_ to see the DXO disclaimers on that score:

1) "If it is windy day, the sensor score is still valid but you will have a blurry shot. That's not our fault."

2) "If your subject is moving -- tell them to stand still. (Our blurry shots will still be gorgeous, though.)"

3) "Using photoshop to composite multiple shots for more dynamic range is cheating. Your camera's sensor score was just docked 5 points for even considering that idea."

4) "I carry an epi-pen because my doctor says I am allergic to impartiality."

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **today** (i.e. 7/8/15)*


And it is now official on their site:

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

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > They're hand waving and calling their files "raw" (.dxo super raw plus). Since they clearly are not raw, I presume they carved out a specific file type for which they'll allow composites, a file type only they themselves produce. That being said, even if they start allowing HDR images from other makes, I agree: it's silly if it's not done with a single exposure.
> ...



The .DxO "superrawplus" is a composite of 4 individual frames combined using desktop software. We might as well call a 32-bit photomerge RAW.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



3kramd5 said:


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



Exactly. If Canon ever releases RAW HDR files, DxO will score them as a separate sensor, right? RIGHT?!?


----------



## jrista (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



3kramd5 said:


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



Agreed. This is the reason I don't care for DXO. They have always been doing sketchy things, and that clearly won't be changing any time soon. 

In strait-out-of-camera comparisons, i.e. Screen DR, i.e. the files as you will actually edit them in a raw editor, the 5D III scores 10.97 stops of DR, the 5Ds scores 11.08 stops. :\ Seriously hoping the 5D IV hits the streets with something exciting in it...I want to be excited about a Canon DSLR again...it's just been a borefest lately... :'(


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



neuroanatomist said:


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


They are in full force comparing raw hdr score with normal scores of other cameras and calling is as a scinece.
"DxO, the same company behind DxOMark, has introduced DxO ONE, a new pocket-sized connected camera designed to capture images with a quality and caliber previously unobtainable in a one-inch sensor camera. The DxO ONE camera’s score of up to 85 puts it on par with many DSLR cameras, such as the Nikon D7200 and the Sony A7S (both with a score of 87), and is well above such Canon DSLRs as the EOS 5D Mark III (81) and the 7D Mark II (70)."

It is pretty clear that, DxO is cooking the numbers to suit their objectives for long time.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 8, 2015)

Regardless of the overall scores, performs very similar to the 5DIII when looking at the measurements. Makes me think that limiting to ISO 6400 was not about sensor performance but rather file size at higher ISO.

Only real difference I see when scrolling the "measurements" is that DR is slightly greater with the 5Ds/sr ISO 100-800.

So, when scaling down to 8 MP, not much of a reason to upgrade. But...if you want 50 MP...ok then....


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 8, 2015)

The trouble with the BS That is DxO is that they present their data 'well' and are now quoted by many other sites on the web.

I find it interesting that when Pentax introduced the K3 with the 24 MP Exmor sensor in it they lost nearly a stop of that golden DR - according to DxO the 16 MP Exmor equipped K5 had a DR of 14.1 stops and the new K3 dropped to 13.3 stops. Thus the new K3 scored lower in overall score than the K5 ( about 80 against 82). When Nikon introduced the 24 MP Exmor equipped D7100 that cameras DR also dropped against the 16 MP D7000, but the overall score managed to go up slightly. However the D7200 uses a Toshiba 24 MP sensor with higher DR, and so the score of that camera has gone up considerably. 

So on the face of it Pentax aren't concerned with the loss of a stop of golden DR, and a drop down the DxO scores, whereas Nikon are. 

As for the DxO 'one' sensor score from multiple sampling on the raw; well, stroll on.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



ahsanford said:


> 4) "I carry an epi-pen because my doctor says I am allergic to impartiality."



Oh man -- I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this! Hilarious!


----------



## Click (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



ahsanford said:


> "I carry an epi-pen because my doctor says I am allergic to impartiality."



;D ;D ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........



It's like the editors of these websites are sleeping. DPReview and Petapixel still haven't picked up the story yet.

This will generate thousands of page views for them -- you think they'd be more on it.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........
> ...



DxO says: "Canon delivers a 50 MP camera that delivers image quality that's just about as good as our new DxO ONE iPhone camera attachment."


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

Thank you for keeping track of it, but I fear this has unleashed a 100 page forum nightmare.... 

For the record, I couldn't give two damns what DxO scores. Nothing against them or their system per se. I just love the camera. I'm very happy with it so far. Specs and bench scores do NOT tell a story. The hands and eyes of a capable photographer do. 

Don't put your faith in benchmarks.





ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > OH GOOD LORD..... HERE WE FREAKIN' GO .........
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> DxO says: "Canon delivers a 50 MP camera that delivers image quality that's just about as good as our new DxO ONE iPhone camera attachment."



DXO says: "In 2015, Canon finally delivered a full-frame camera to compete with Nikon's APS-C camera."

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DxO says: "Canon delivers a 50 MP camera that delivers image quality that's just about as good as our new DxO ONE iPhone camera attachment."
> ...



Tony Northrup says "In 2015, Canon finally delivered a full-frame camera capable of producing satisfactory instragram photos of static subjects in good light."


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

LOL! But seriously, Would anyone REALLY be that surprised if that DxO One "outscores" say, a Canon T6i .... 




neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Thank you for keeping track of it, but I fear this has unleashed a 100 page forum nightmare....
> 
> For the record, I couldn't give two damns what DxO scores. Nothing against them or their system per se. I just love the camera. I'm very happy with it so far. Specs and bench scores do NOT tell a story. The hands and eyes of a capable photographer do.
> 
> ...


DxO lost lot of credibility with their marketing drivel of 1" sensor matching rest of world. Probably Bill Clauff measurements are the ones people are going to quote a lot.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

Be it known:

I see no lenses yet tested yet with either camera. Bear in mind, a Sigma 50mm ART on a 5D III scores a 35.

The 55mm Otus on a Nikon D810 scores a 48.

The D810 has 64% MORE pixels than the 5D III.

How long does DxO delay lens testing since the numbers for my 5DSR plus my 20 year old Canon 135L f2 are going to match or perhaps beat that Zeiss/Sonikon combo...

Fun!!!


----------



## Corneria (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



bdunbar79 said:


> The problem dilbert, is that they are NOT following that logic in lens scores. How many times do I need to cite the 500mm lenses comparisons/scores of the Canon vs. Nikon and they specifically said they scored the Nikon lens the same as the Canon, despite it not performing as well as a lens, simply because of the superior DR of the Nikon camera used for the Nikon lens (I think it was the D800 and 5D3).
> 
> Obviously that is complete garbage to a scientist and I do contend it has absolutely no real-world usefulness. Or, better, the SCORES don't reflect reality.


Sorry, I don't get the problem. DxO presents lens scores -in combination with- cameras. So if you have a 'superior' body with a 'inferior' lens (Nikon), that can give you the same overall result as a 'inferior' body with a 'superior' lens (Canon).

Sounds more 'real-word' to me than just lens tests. Unless you already have a body and are not interested in other brands, this is not super-interesting. But this way you can compare the end result of several systems. You'd have no usage to hear that a Pentax lens is 'vastly superior' to anything on the market while their cameras are garbage (for example of course), if you want the best overall result.

If I misunderstood you, I'd like to hear what you mean.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



Corneria said:
 

> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem dilbert, is that they are NOT following that logic in lens scores. How many times do I need to cite the 500mm lenses comparisons/scores of the Canon vs. Nikon and they specifically said they scored the Nikon lens the same as the Canon, despite it not performing as well as a lens, simply because of the superior DR of the Nikon camera used for the Nikon lens (I think it was the D800 and 5D3).
> ...



I'm sorry, I think you missed the point. Lenses don't have DR. Do they? The lens got an equal score because the photo, on screen, had more DR than the 5D3/500 combo. See the problem?

What should have been examined, and ONLY examined, are things like sharpness, CA, etc.


----------



## msm (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Fun!!!



What I find fun is how fanboys who "don't care" about DXO flock to these threads like flies on shit with their ridiculous conspiracy theories


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



Corneria said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem dilbert, is that they are NOT following that logic in lens scores. How many times do I need to cite the 500mm lenses comparisons/scores of the Canon vs. Nikon and they specifically said they scored the Nikon lens the same as the Canon, despite it not performing as well as a lens, simply because of the superior DR of the Nikon camera used for the Nikon lens (I think it was the D800 and 5D3).
> ...



Please explain the importance and/or relevance of dynamic range to a *Lens* Score.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> How long does DxO delay lens testing since the numbers for my 5DSR plus my 20 year old Canon 135L f2 are going to match or perhaps beat that Zeiss/Sonikon combo...



With a mere 12.4-stops of DR, Canon lenses just can't compete... :


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Be it known:
> 
> I see no lenses yet tested yet with either camera. Bear in mind, a Sigma 50mm ART on a 5D III scores a 35.
> 
> ...



My favorite DXO bit is the same Zeiss Otus lens getting a +11 point higher rating for the Nikon (a massive difference) solely because of sensor resolution.

I am curious to see if that trend holds when the same Otus lens is put on a 5DS.

- A


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jul 8, 2015)

DXO's graphs are extremely helpful (especially their lens sharpness field maps). Their overall scoring however is NOT and just adds confusion. Just utilize it as a tool for specific bits of information you need when comparing two lenses or camera bodies.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > How long does DxO delay lens testing since the numbers for my 5DSR plus my 20 year old Canon 135L f2 are going to match or perhaps beat that Zeiss/Sonikon combo...
> ...


Sorry Canon, you don't qualify for the discretionary DxO points bonus... :'(


----------



## RGF (Jul 8, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


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



Let the defense begin. Excuse, attack, deflect, ... 

The tests are what they are. They measure something, important in some case but for real world photography not sure what they measure ..


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 8, 2015)

According to the DxO measurements the 5Ds pixels are not very good at all. Their published measurements claim the 6D pixels are superior in every metric, including color sensitivity. Even the 7D Mark-II with its DPAF pixels is also claimed to perform slightly better at pixel level? 

Can someone please pass the salt shaker. I need a two pinches of salt.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2015)

RGF said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Canon, you don't qualify for the discretionary DxO points bonus... :'(
> ...



Yes, indeed, let the defense begin. I'd love to see DXO defend its decision to score as "sensors" composite images, but only from its own hardware.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

I tend to appreciate the Lens metrics like "P-MP" (perceptual megapixels). That's about it. A 135L f2 resolves 20 p-MP on a 5D3. That's 90% of sensor maximum. The 70-200 2.8 Mk II resolves 21 on the same camera. Or, 95% of max resolution. (again all DxO numbers)

The Otus 55 on a Nikon D810 resolves 33MP, roughly 90% of sensor maximum. (we have to go to the German guys because Nikon can't make a lens that can do that, but I digress) So the Sharpest lens (3rd party) on the highest resolving DSLR camera (pre 5DS) resolved 33MP.

Sooooo When the 70-200 Mk II shows 40+ P-MP resolve on the 5DS .... Funny will happen.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030

Nevermind. It's official. The DxO One is a better camera than the 5D Mk III. And only a mere 2% below the 5DS.

Well, Sh!t ... I gotta go return my 5DSR now.


----------



## quod (Jul 8, 2015)

msm said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Fun!!!
> ...


+1000 Yes Neuro, you're at the top of the list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030
> 
> Nevermind. It's official. The DxO One is a better camera than the 5D Mk III. And only a mere 2% below the 5DS.
> 
> Well, Sh!t ... I gotta go return my 5DSR now.



Yeah, knowing this would happen, I didn't even bother with a 5Ds. I thought about the DxO ONE, but I'll wait for the next iteration, when any kinks have been worked out. I plugged ONE into the DxOMark Score algorithm and determined that their second camera will be the DxO NEGATIVE FOUR.


----------



## BRunner (Jul 8, 2015)

Nice to see that 5DS(R) isn't so color blinded as latest releases from Canon (started by 1DX and still present in 7DII). It's almost on pair with 1DIV, unfortunately it still doesn't reach metamerism heights of kings of the hill 1Ds3 and 1D3...


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 8, 2015)

I think some are misinterpreting certain people's responses to DxO anything. I for one just find it amusing entertainment. I don't care what they do. People like me are content knowing we have the best cameras for what we need and do. I don't want to speak for Neuro, but I'm pretty certain he feels the same. This stuff is just good for a few laughs. If DxO tomorrow revised the score to a 96, beating the D810, it still makes ZERO difference to us.

That said, a DxO ONE getting a higher overall score than a 5D3 even with it's own admittedly substantially worse ISO performance (by it's own tested score metrics).... THAT is something to raise an eyebrow at. That's what makes all this so funny.

And I'll be the first to admit, I'm actually interested in looking more closely at that little sucker. I'd rather pocket that with my phone than an EOS M for simplicity. And that is NOT because of it's score. I was curious about it the day it was announced. But to tell me (effectively) that it's a better overall camera than my 5D3? I want some of what they smoke over there... What else do those scores represent??


----------



## psolberg (Jul 8, 2015)

as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded. 

as expected, the fanboys will discredit DXO until such time as they publish a favorable outcome, then DXO will be all that matters.

as expected, real photographers will care little, and just use a tool for the job and move on. This is just a camera. Not a religion.


----------



## DArora (Jul 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> That said, a DxO ONE getting a higher overall score than a 5D3 even with it's own admittedly substantially worse ISO performance (by it's own tested score metrics).... THAT is something to raise an eyebrow at. That's what makes all this so funny.



Agreed. I don't follow DxO myself. But at least they are accepting that DxO ONE is scoring 70 with standard RAW vs 85 with SuperRAW in their shady testing system. 
From DxO One FAQ:


----------



## psolberg (Jul 8, 2015)

quod said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



probably the best summary of this and other board's threads on DXO and canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

As expected, the SoNikon fanboys will continue to turn up here like bad pennies, full of support for DxO's BS (which is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, Bad Science, and Bovine Scat, among other things).


----------



## scyrene (Jul 8, 2015)

psolberg said:


> as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded.
> 
> as expected, the fanboys will discredit DXO until such time as they publish a favorable outcome, then DXO will be all that matters.
> 
> as expected, real photographers will care little, and just use a tool for the job and move on. This is just a camera. Not a religion.



Generally the criticism of the company's scores seems pretty well-supported (I've not used the website much, so I can only go on the web chatter). Can you address their points rather than labelling them all 'fanboys'?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> As expected, the SoNikon fanboys will continue to turn up here like bad pennies, full of support for DxO's BS (which is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, Bad Science, and Bovine Scat, among other things).



Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
Only thing that is the same old bad penny here is you.

Sure their overall scores are a bit 'interesting' but you full well known lots of individual numbrs are not based on bad science, biased or bovine scat, but like any political operative you handily toss everything together and obfuscate while portraying yourself as the bastion of clarity, straightforwardness and all.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 8, 2015)

scyrene said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > as expected, they are not really going anywhere fast. It was a rushed sensor pushed to just deliver the most pixels per unit area they could and they succeeded.
> ...



How about you provide the specifics? Where is everyone criticism all of their scores?
I only see fanboys doing that (regarding the sensor stuff that is, I have seen more reasonable people complain about their lens test scores, especially before they re-did them, there was a lot of WEIRD stuff their for lenses, even the specific details stuff not just the overall stuff)

Sure the overall sensor ratings and maybe even the overall low light sports score are questionable, but they present a ton of detailed scores too.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



Are you seriously asking me to find people who are critical of DXO's canon scores? I'm not sure why you need help?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
> Only thing that is the same old bad penny here is you.
> 
> Sure their overall scores are a bit 'interesting' but you full well known lots of individual numbrs are not based on bad science, biased or bovine scat, but like any political operative you handily toss everything together and obfuscate while portraying yourself as the bastion of clarity, straightforwardness and all.



Sure, and we have learned members like psolberg quoting individual numbers like DR "in the mid 14's" for SoNikon sensors. Never mind that is only a mathematical determination following downsampling to 8 MP, never mind that the cameras can neither capture nor record >14-stops of DR. 

Any individual or organization that doesn't publish their full methodology, that defends erroneous data and then silently corrects it months later, is conducting bad science. The problem isn't that DxO is doing these things – companies do that and much worse all the time. The problem is that DxO promote themselves as being, "...known and respected for [their] deep knowledge on the science of image processing," and even used 'image science' as part of their logo – and their science is...bad.


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 9, 2015)

I don't want to argue for or against their methodology... but - excepting the D3s - you have to go back to 2008 to find a ff Nikon camera with an overall score that's comparable with the 5DS. Therefore, when measured using the DXO yardstick, Nikon's cameras are consistently better than Canon's.

I see this as a bit like IQ tests - all they _really_ demonstrate is how good the subject is at answering IQ tests. Nevertheless, people who do well in IQ tests do _seem_ to be smarter.


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030
> 
> Nevermind. It's official. The DxO One is a better camera than the 5D Mk III. And only a mere 2% below the 5DS.
> 
> Well, Sh!t ... I gotta go return my 5DSR now.



If I make the equipment and the test, you can assured that my equipment would score on my test


----------



## captainkanji (Jul 9, 2015)

It would help if DXO removed the body cap when testing.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

My problem with DXO is simple.

It does not matter if it is for lenses or sensors.... ( they test CAMERAS, not sensors)

It does not matter who the manufacturer is.

A camera/lens combination is a complex system. It is used by a wide range of people with very diverse goals, skills, and preferences. Any attempt to reduce this to a single metric (score) is ******* to failure because that metric will not be appropriate to the vast majority of users...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
> ...



Never mind you know about normalization and the fair way to relatively compare cameras and we've already gone over that, but more obfuscation, big surprise.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Many of so-called SoNikon fanboys have shot Canon longer than you.
> ...



lol you're really butt hurt over this DXO score no? Why do you care so much? Find peace in your photography. It is not a competition or a soccer match. You've shot canon's "limited" DR for this long and clearly you're ok with the results. Don't let somebody with 2 more stops bother you. I think what you need is not more DR or better tone curves: you just need to stop making gear a religion.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.



You want a defense of the methodology? How about this.

In the lens testing, the most heavily weighted factor is the T-stop value. This is done because everyone knows that a faster lens is better than a slower lens and this helps the lens rating metric to properly reflect that. 

Since fast lenses are obviously better than slow lenses, it only makes sense that the 50F1.8 (Canon's lowest lost lens) would be rated better than the 600F4.0 II lens (Canon's most expensive lens) and fortunately, DXO numbers show this to be true.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 9, 2015)

Being a Canon fanboy 8), who the f cares about the DxO score. In the film era, how many people were really talking about so-called "best film" because no one judged a photo based on the film that was used.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.
> ...



just checking, but we're still taking sensor ratings which are done without lenses right?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man the irony. You just discovered one of the many problems of DxOmark scoring.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



In the quoted post they're talking about lens scoring, which is a function of many things including sensor DR.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.


----------



## Perio (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> As expected, the SoNikon fanboys will continue to turn up here like bad pennies, full of support for DxO's BS (which is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, Bad Science, and Bovine Scat, among other things).



On the top of bad science, there is conflict of interest since the release of DxO One.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.



No, but then you wouldn't, would you? Just because Lance Armstrong doped in some of his races, doesn't mean he did in others. At least he finally admitted his mistakes, something DxO has failed to do.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Still, I see no reason why their lens methods cast any views on sensor scores. Even if the reverse is not true, the 5DS isn't being judged on a lens.



It's just two parallel discussions.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 9, 2015)

I did a studio shoot with my DSR + 135L this weekend. I was looking at an image in LR and thought "Damn this looks incredible! Super sharp eyebrows and lashes and every detail beautifully preserved. Couldn't have looked better" Then I suddenly realized "Holy crap I'm only looking at 40% of the frame!" It was actually a bit freaky how much fine detail this thing yanks in. Even if I had framed in that same shot 50-60% tighter with my 5D III (effectively matching pixel for pixel what I was looking at), I still think the DSR would have retained more detail.

Again, the scores don't matter to me. I know when I look at comparison shots 5D III to 5DSR, I get a very noticeable jump in results that I'm very happy with. It's not fanboy-ism. It's just being a very happy customer like many others who own canon.


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

Perio said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As expected, the SoNikon fanboys will continue to turn up here like bad pennies, full of support for DxO's BS (which is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, Bad Science, and Bovine Scat, among other things).
> ...



Nothing like the fox who watches the hen house


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



And what percentage are not from someone like neuro?

List a specific claim. I don't feel like digging and wasting my time over nonsense.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.
> ...



I said regarding the sub-data on their sensor tests, not their overall sensor scores or anything at all to do with their lens scores.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I'm beginning to think that some people are paid to login here and comment on Canon cameras by Canon and that anything that speaks negatively about Canon and its products are therefore insulted and derided. Otherwise there's no other way to make sense of certain comments.



I think it's possible that some people will staunchly defend their platform of choice in a manner comparable to religious fundamentalism, no direct corporate affiliation is required. It could even be a neurosis.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I'm beginning to think that some people are paid to login here and comment on Canon cameras by Canon and that anything that speaks negatively about Canon and its products are therefore insulted and derided. Otherwise there's no other way to make sense of certain comments.


Just like you are trolling the forum putting down anything that is Canon.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


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


 This is probably true. Canon if you are out there. I will always say good things about you to everyone if you send me a free 1DX or 5DSR.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 9, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



bdunbar79 said:


> I'm sorry, I think you missed the point. Lenses don't have DR. Do they?



Well... they can have a contrast limit so that's kind of like DR and will have an effect on actual DR.



> What should have been examined, and ONLY examined, are things like sharpness, CA, etc.



all that is available, at least in comparative form rather than absolute dimensional numbers, for tested lenses for a given platform. The raw data is very useful.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 9, 2015)

BRunner said:


> Nice to see that 5DS(R) isn't so color blinded as latest releases from Canon (started by 1DX and still present in 7DII). It's almost on pair with 1DIV, unfortunately it still doesn't reach metamerism heights of kings of the hill 1Ds3 and 1D3...



Actually, if DxOmark's correct, I think the 1000D is Canon's color king.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-1000D---Measurements#measuretabs-7


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 9, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*

According to dxo, 5DS scored 82 in Sensitivity metamerism index and 5DSR scored 74 only. I guess there is a science behind this.


----------



## dufflover (Jul 9, 2015)

benperrin said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'm beginning to think that some people are paid to login here and comment on Canon cameras by Canon and that anything that speaks negatively about Canon and its products are therefore insulted and derided. Otherwise there's no other way to make sense of certain comments.
> ...



Which makes no sense if they shoot Canon.
I (overall) really enjoy using my 70D, but I don't make excuses (as a semi-technology enthusiast) it is behind the competition a bit in some sensor aspects.
I stuff up the pictures more than it's weaknesses; but I don't make excuses for where it's sensor is weak.
It takes really nice pictures I like to look at; but I don't make excuses for where it's sensor is weak.

And yes, I will continue to keep giving criticisms rather than make excuses for it like some of the fanboys seem to. DxO is about these technical measurements so if you want to talk about the camera overall, a DxO related thread is NOT the place for it.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 9, 2015)

On to the actual 5ds/r sensor metrics.
nothing new, no big improvements, same surface area performance we've seen from Canon for a very long time.
The increased pixel density will certainly be of some benefit to those who need it, as it does come with a slight per-pixel improvement at base iso.
The biggest improvement, other than 51MP, is that the thing likely has more usable DR than bodies prior to the 7D2, simply by virtue of significant reductions in fixed pattern noise.

2 yrs ago I decided to use 36 million superior pixels and am glad I did not wait for this. 
OTOH, I would not be disappointed with a 5ds if I didn't know what I was missing on the other side of the paddock. ;D

edit: hey, 5ds has per-pixel performance very close to that of my much-liked old 40D! 
that's an absolute sensor performance improvement of ~1.33 stops in only 8 years.
Way to go, Canon.


----------



## mlhplt (Jul 9, 2015)

So they are only 1 and 2 points better at overall score than the innovation king DxO One SuperRAW Plus with its 85 points. OK DxO.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

mlhplt said:


> So they are only 1 and 2 points better at overall score than the innovation king DxO One SuperRAW Plus with its 85 points. OK DxO.



They have stated the composited DXO One files outperform the 5D3.

They do not have a single L lens in the top *300* of all lenses they've tested. I'll drop the mic there. 

- A


----------



## Viggo (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And that is of course very different from claiming DR of Sonikon is the ONLY way to get anything decent enough to bother pointing a camera to anything.... :


----------



## TheJock (Jul 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030
> 
> Nevermind. It's official. The DxO One is a better camera than the 5D Mk III. And only a mere 2% below the 5DS.
> 
> Well, Sh!t ... I gotta go return my 5DSR now.


Ohh damn, I wasn’t aware of this _immense _ DxO One camera (no surprises there really), now my saving for that 5D3 has reached a level which means I can buy this new _incredible _ camera immediately, decisions decisions………………….ohh wait, I have a line of existing lenses that fit a 5D3 but not a DxO One! Damn, looks like I’ll need to miss out on that superior camera ;D


----------



## krisbell (Jul 9, 2015)

I think about 90% of all posts in this thread that denigrate DxOs figures refer to the (quite clearly ludicrous and biased) score of the DxO One. However, a handful of spurious figures shouldn’t detract from some interesting component scores, and while the methodology may be pseudo-scientific, so long as it is the same methodology between systems (and particularly within manufacturers) then it is useful to compare certain aspects of a sensor. FWIW, and in the limited number of systems I have had lots of experience with, I have found DxO to pretty closely resemble my own take on them. Canon never claimed the 5DS to be a giant stride in all aspects of sensor capture other than resolution, and in this regard it is a success - and this has been reflected by DxO giving it the highest score (for a Canon).


----------



## BobHope (Jul 9, 2015)

Wow so much hate for DXO Mark. 

I have run my own tests Nikon vs Canon as myself and my family own both types of gear, and I can replicate every result that DXO produce. 

I even managed to replicate an interesting flaw in their testing, one lens showed better sharpness at f16 than all others, I replicated this and discovered that this lens did not actually stop down to F16 but was still at F11 giving the erroneous result. 

I have found them to be extremely reliable, and these new figures they have posted pretty much match exactly what everyone else is saying. 

For example, they say that the low light score, ie the ISO performance is behind that of the D810, but very similar to that of a 5DMKIII 

DP Review example pics show exactly this. 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

They say the dynamic range is behind that of the D810, but improved from previous Canon cameras. 
DP Review examples show the same thing. 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7

What all these results show is that unlike Sony and Nikon, who have managed the feat of giving you more pixels and better iso and better DR all in the same full frame package, Canon have simply scaled up the 7D MK II's crop sensor with all its compromises. It is not a great leap forward in technology, and the upcoming Sony 42Mpix backlit sensor is probably going to destroy it. 

An interesting point, I tested Nikon D810 with 24-70 vs Canon 5DMK II with 24-105 lens, I found that the Nikon at 70mm resolved the same as the Canon at 105mm. As a *system* this is what matters when producing a file. And that is what DXO Mark scores showed this. They also showed that the Nikon 24-70 would suffer CA in the corners, and that is what I found. 

So I expect that now there is a system that has 50mpix and some great lenses, you will see Canon lenses up top with some of the best performing sharpness scores, and I think we will see the big white telephotos finally showing just how sharp they are on a sensor that can resolve all they can give.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

Aglet said:


> 2 yrs ago I decided to use 36 million superior pixels and am glad I did not wait for this.
> OTOH, I would not be disappointed with a 5ds if I didn't know what I was missing on the other side of the paddock.



OTOH, there are people like Sporgon – a photographer with substantial talent (I've seen his website...and I've seen yours) – who bought and used the 36 MP Exmor along side Canon gear for some time. His three word review of Exmor: "I sold it."




dilbert said:


> I'm beginning to think



Doubtful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


> Wow so much hate for DXO Mark.
> 
> I have run my own tests
> 
> I have found them to be extremely reliable



Yes, their extremely reliable data show that the 17-40L at f/4 is as sharp in the corners as in the center. Their extremely reliable data showed that the 70-200/2.8L IS was superior to its MkII successor, and when challenged they defended that conclusion...until a year later when they silently updated their data without admitting their mistake. 

I do find their measurements generally useful, as long as they are viewed with the understanding that there are glaring errors in some of their data. I find their Scores to be useless and misleading.


----------



## sanj (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


> Wow so much hate for DXO Mark.
> 
> I have run my own tests Nikon vs Canon as myself and my family own both types of gear, and I can replicate every result that DXO produce.
> 
> ...



Then if you have so much experience with these different systems how do you explain the DxO scoring of APS sensors against FF ?

On many of the Sony or now Toshiba crop sensors DxO has them equal to, or even higher than, FF sensors. Yet if you use a 'higher rated' crop sensor alongside an 'inferior' FF sensor the FF is significantly better in terms of colour _definition_, tonal _graduation_, overall definition, practical resolution......the list goes on. 

Likewise the extra DR of the Exmor sensor (and I guess Toshiba from what I have seen of the D4 data) is of little practical value outside of artificially raising shadow data, so the 'scores' are biased to this end result - which is of little use to the majority.


----------



## dufflover (Jul 9, 2015)

Ever since the D800 came out people have countlessly demonstrated practical use of the higher DR and particularly cleaner shadows, even if the change itself doesn't make-or-break the image (in which case I'd like to see people defend paying premiums on their lens choices). Hey I can easily say really high ISO shooting is stupidly artificial too or the differences in ISO noise between the brands, or heck crop and FF are of no use to the majority either.
(no, sadly I don't either which would be nice )


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 9, 2015)

sanj said:


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



Because when people like DxO run a business based on spreading nonsense and lies about something you care about, you can't just take that sitting down. They are an active force and the passive approach isn't going to be very effective at counteracting the loads of misinformation being spread.
I'm sure there are lots of people entering the hobby who look at DXO scores and think they're very smart for doing so, when the opposite may be true.
Yes, a sceptical mind should see theough it, and there may even be some good information to be had, but all too often people come on the internet just wanting to do a minimum of reading to verify they aren't making a bad choice, these are the bread and butter of DxO and various Youtubers, and it's important that the common culture they see when dipping their toes into photography doesn't take everything at face value.


----------



## K (Jul 9, 2015)

In photography, seeing is believing.

There are many side by side RAW comparisons of the 5DS vs D810 - and the IQ of the 5DS is superior, and not just in resolution. 

This goes for lens tests too. 

At the end of the day, all that matters in photography is the final output. What you can SEE and how the image LOOKS. Based on this, Canon does NOT lag behind Nikon or Sony at all. In many ways, they are superior.

You can choose to believe some contrived pseudo-scientific tests from DXO to formulate a numerical rank for sensors and then base the IQ result on that OR..... you can simply look at RAW images from both systems side by side and see for yourself. If a person has a shred of honesty in them, and isn't blind - they'll find that Canon is either equal or better in many situations by just looking at the real world output - photos!. 


Remember folks,* DXO rates the D3300 better than the 1DX*. That's all you need to know.


Now, if your photographic technique is solely based on severely underexposing at ISO 100, then pushing 3+ stops in post to achieve washed out ( "recovered" ) images - Nikon/Sony is for you. No question about it.

For everything else, Canon is the choice.


----------



## sanj (Jul 9, 2015)

9VIII said:


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



In that case, it may be better not to log onto their website and ignoring them. Discussing only gives them publicity. IMHO.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...



For a group of people who don't respect DXO, CR members sure spend a lot of time commenting on it. ???


----------



## mskrystalmeth (Jul 9, 2015)

Oh Canon No! IF you cannot beat an Old 36.3mp Sensor from a few years back, How can you beat the New Sony 42.2mp Sensor coming out very soon. Canon..What did you do wrong? lol


----------



## benperrin (Jul 9, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people read DxO website and measurements when they do not believe in them. Have not believed in them for years...
> ...


I think it's just that people dislike misinformation but like sanj said the best course of action is probably to ignore it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2015)

I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.


----------



## BobHope (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > Wow so much hate for DXO Mark.
> ...



If you look at those scores, lets compare the 5DMK III to the D7100 for example. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-D7100___1009_795_865

You will find the scores again match up with reality, the Nikon has very very slightly better colour depth, much better DR and much worse ISO performance. 

And if you look at DP Reviews published Raw files and try to push the shadows for the 5d Mk3 you will see it has a horrible performance, with lots of noise, but worse is the banding which is almost impossible to automatically remove. 

And if you look at the high iso studio shots for the D7200, you find it has poor ISO performance over iso 800 and the 5DMK III twice as good - which is exactly what the DXO numbers show. 

And you talk about overall resolution and practical definition, well, again if you check DXO's number you find they accurately represent this - and that the same sigma 50mm lens is sharper on the Canon Full frame cameras than it is on the APS-C Nikon camera. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__202_865_201_795

Again we can see with our own eyes that DXO's numbers are accurate, and in fact there are many measurements where the the Full frame camera beats the APS-C camera and that is accurately represented. 

The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure, but the reality is Canon are using sensor technology 10 years out of date and desperately needs to build a new chip fab plant, and this is the price they are paying for this lack of investment. 

And regarding DR being useless, it is incredibly useful in the real world ! I have taken photos of birds in flight where I have been able to recover the details of their eyes and the colour of the irises, bringing the photo to life. I no longer need a fill flash to shoot in direct sunlight. I can get beautiful backlight shots and bring the eyes and the face back into balance without banding or noise or loss of skintones. I can shoot weddings in a dark church and have the couple and the sunlit stained glass window all exposed perfectly.


----------



## blanddragon (Jul 9, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.



+1 Totally agree.


----------



## mskrystalmeth (Jul 9, 2015)

...and to CR...Why didn't you post the Entire Comparison Results. Nikon D810 VS Sony A7r VS The Canons? CR...You edited out the full results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.



Exactly. Biased Scores. Bad Science. BS.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And here is your massive error: you are not objective, so you "put things down where and when they deserve to be" based on *YOUR* needs or expectations. You seem unable to grasp the simple idea that other people's needs and expectations may differ considerably from yours. For example, some people believe life's too short to risk shortening it by riding a fast motorcycle, while others believe life's too short not to enjoy it to the fullest, even with considerable risk.

Summary: You are not the arbiter of objective truth on this or any other matter. Of course, neither is anyone else. It is a matter of selecting the right kit for your needs and budget. Even Neuro has said (prior to the 5Ds) that if he were primarily a landscape shooter he'd probably use a D8x0.


----------



## sanj (Jul 9, 2015)

"And regarding DR being useless, it is incredibly useful in the real world ! I have taken photos of birds in flight where I have been able to recover the details of their eyes and the colour of the irises, bringing the photo to life. I no longer need a fill flash to shoot in direct sunlight. I can get beautiful backlight shots and bring the eyes and the face back into balance without banding or noise or loss of skintones. I can shoot weddings in a dark church and have the couple and the sunlit stained glass window all exposed perfectly."

I agree.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


> The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure



That composite score is by and large what people like to poke fun at. And really, that's what it is: poking fun; nobody real is genuinely offended by DXO Mark, and even those of us who find their scoring wonky/inconsistent tend to appreciate the underlying data. 

But even some of the data makes me go "huh."

For example, for testing dynamic range, they use a pretty nifty rig with controlled lighting and a series of ND filters. From their description: "We use filters having different light absorption levels ranging from 0% to 99.99% in order to test across a dynamic range of 4 density steps (= 13.3 f-stops — a dynamic range *much greater* than today’s digital cameras)."

But then their results show several cameras with DR *significantly *higher than their testing methodology can possibly measure (e.g. 14.8 f-stops)


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jul 9, 2015)

[... recently overheard (yes, in the late 1800's) in a smoke filled brasserie along the left bank...]

Manet: Did you see the latest DXO results? That new brush sure kicks *ss!

Monet: Oh ya. But it's a flawed study. It's a French company that did the testing and you know how we can't be trusted to test anything coming from outside France, right?

Renoir: Hold on a moment. Have you seen my latest painting? It was made using one of those new wowy-zowy brushes.

Manet: I didn't like it. It sux, frankly. The background wasn't as smooth as the ones I paint and your skin tone and resolution aren't as good as they should be. Besides, my old brush set still can put paint to canvas and my work can blow your's out of the water!

Renoir: Ha! Hardly. Or as they say in America - "not even!" How many women do you expect to woo, how many strangers to you expect to impress, and how many paintings do you expect to sell if you don't keep up with the latest developments in the Great Brush Race? Huh??

Manet: Well that's it! I'm convinced. My next paintings will all be made using these new brushes. But what do I do with all my old paintings that were made with clearly inferior brushes? Do I burn them, hang them on urinal walls or give them away to the English who have no taste in anything?

Monet: Ah cr*p! I'm outta here. Y'all are such morons.

[/sarcasm]


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

In all of this, NOBODY! denies that Sony/Nikon has more DR than Canon. Likewise, though depending on the type of photography and conditions you shoot in, the utility of having more DR ranges from "it will have little effect" to "gotta have it" there isn't anyone who would complain if the DR was increased.

Nikon having the best DR does not make it the best camera. Likewise, Canon having the best AF does not make it the best camera. You can not focus on one aspect and use it to represent the entirety. It is as failed of a concept as the earlier lens example where we fixated on aperture and came to the conclusion that the 50F1.8 is superior to the 600F4IS II. There are so many variable to consider that the statement is meaningless. You can't even say that one is better than the other for birding.... is the bird 200 feet away or is it 2 feet away?

The problem is boiling a camera (or a lens) down to a single metric and not revealing how that metric was obtained.

Since photography is a collection of diverse goals, needs, and resources.... having a single metric means that the score will be biased. If you calculate the metric based on the needs of a landscape photographer, it will be biased against studio photographers. If you calculate based on the needs of studio photographers, it will be biased against wedding photographers..... and so on.... and so on..... and so on.... You can't win!

You people can argue the details until the cows come home and there will be no resolution. The problem is the concept. The details are meaningless under a faulty concept.


----------



## Coldhands (Jul 9, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't get too worked up over it. However, it is incredibly disrespectful, IMO, to the scientific community. I have to disclose EVERYTHING in my scientific writings, especially for patent filings. The methodology, experiments, all the quality assurance, editing, data reviewing, everything must be disclosed. For them to claim they are scientific is just plain wrong. If they are going to claim so, the least they can do is hold themselves to it, which they never have. That's the irritating part and it really has nothing to do with cameras or lenses.



I think this statement neatly encapsulates the sentiment among the science/engineering members here.

It's analogous to the way I get angered about things like alternative therapies, the "Food Babe" (and her ilk), anti-vaccination, etc. They claim to be science-based when in reality they are pseudo-science at best.

Does it affect me directly? No. But it irks me to think of the people who don't have the background to be able to recognise real science from this junk.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jul 9, 2015)

Gawds! you sound so French. Really. You do. And that's a good thing, too.

I've seen where Anglo-Saxons can argue over a topic without fully understanding where their data is strong and weak, nor how it was generated in the first place.

It's easy to argue numbers, but more difficult to argue reality.




Don Haines said:


> ...You people can argue the details until the cows come home and there will be no resolution. The problem is the concept. The details are meaningless under a faulty concept.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > BobHope said:
> ...



Looks like you missed your bus again. Nobody is talking about their measurements per se, but the SCORES. The scores are what have little value, if any. I also hate SOME of the measurements. But those at least I can read and draw the correct conclusions.


----------



## krisbell (Jul 9, 2015)

K said:


> Now, if your photographic technique is solely based on severely underexposing at ISO 100, then pushing 3+ stops in post to achieve washed out ( "recovered" ) images - Nikon/Sony is for you. No question about it.
> 
> For everything else, Canon is the choice.



Urgghh what a terrible load of nonsense. I have to always Expose to the Right when shooting with a Canon to get round the poor noise performance characteristics of the 5DIII (one of Canon's best models). With a Sony, I can choose a normal exposure, or if the scene has a massive dynamic range, I have the ability to under expose slightly, safe in the knowledge that _if required_ I can lift shadows by several stops without running into the sort of problems that a Canon does. With Sony I have the flexibility of choice, with Canon I dont - its as simple as that, and anyone that says this isnt one advantage of a Sony sensor (albeit one whose importance will vary greatly between individuals) is deluding themselves.

I push almost every single image I produce by 3+/- stops in post in some portion/part of the image, and I have not had anyone comment about how washed out/recovered the images are.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure
> ...



Looking at what bobhope stated earlier in the full post, those measurements do not, in my experience, do not come through when making the practical application. So in other words in things like 'colour depth' it doesn't matter one jot if the crop is fractionally ahead; in practice after enlargement and data manipulation etc the FF is way out in front.

However the sentence that has been quoted here is what really drives me nuts over the "two stops extra" measurements. 

All that two stops in buried in the very extreme base of the sensor; it is not linear across the data. As we all know, exposure is not linear, one stop more is twice the light and so forth. So when bobhope states that it is "two stops more so four times in fact" he would only be right if the extra DR was at the highlight end of the sensor response, and it most certainly is not. In fact his argument is the complete antithesis of what is really happening: because that extra "two stops" is right at the low light base line, it is really more akin to saying it has an extra three quarter stop overall, and this is how I find it works in the field. 

How often do we hear people on this forum saying they've done a two stop lift in post and image if they had that amount extra in reserve "aka the 'two stops extra' on the Exmor sensor " ? It doesn't work like that due to the point I made above. 

So I should add it is for this reason that I believe the the biase on DR that goes towards the final 'score' is very misleading to the buying public and anyone else who looks to DxO for sensor performance.


----------



## surapon (Jul 9, 2015)

Dear Teachers and friends.
Now, I am very confuse---I Pre-Order Canon 5DSR, From My local Camera shop, for 2 month, Still not come yet---But He has 8 , 5DS in stock.
Now From this post, DXO said that, for Overall score= 5DS = 87, 5DSR= 86----WHAT WILL I DO ?
 Should I forget about Canon 5DSR, and go to get 5DS to day ?.
Please help me answer this question. Because Next Month, I will have a beautiful Vacation at Yellow Stone Park and around there for 7 Days, And I want to use this Camera.
Thank you, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

Finally. DXO Fever has set in. 

I must admit that I am disappointed in how slowly it set in yesterday. But I went to bed, woke up, and I see the chaos bomb has well and truly gone off.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Finally. DXO Fever has set in.
> 
> I must admit that I am disappointed in how slowly it set in yesterday. But I went to bed, woke up, and I see the chaos bomb has well and truly gone off.
> 
> - A



I have a bowl of popcorn, a fully charged iPad, a laser pointer, and a kitten.... I'm set for entertainment and waiting for someone to post squirrel pictures with 15 stops of DR.....


----------



## retroreflection (Jul 9, 2015)

Dear Friend Surapon

DXO scores have nothing to do with it. 
You have decided that a 5DSR will be the optimal next step beyond your current bodies. You also have decided that the 5DS is suboptimal by a tiny fraction. We know that you could enjoy the trip with your current gear, but you have the cash, so why not make the trip better?
It is an easy leap to say 5DS for the trip is much better than no 5DSR for the trip.

You should have a week prior to departure to get to know your new friend. That date is the drop dead date for the decision. Have a frank discussion with the shop,"If you can't deliver the R by "X", then I will take one of these in stock. Is that deadline acceptable for you, or should it be even earlier?"

If you get the S, you can just keep it and be happy with a great camera, or many on this forum would be happy to buy it at a minor discount when your R does come in.


----------



## sanj (Jul 9, 2015)

surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and friends.
> Now, I am very confuse---I Pre-Order Canon 5DSR, From My local Camera shop, for 2 month, Still not come yet---But He has 8 , 5DS in stock.
> Now From this post, DXO said that, for Overall score= 5DS = 87, 5DSR= 86----WHAT WILL I DO ?
> Should I forget about Canon 5DSR, and go to get 5DS to day ?.
> ...



I don't have either, but if were you I would wait for the R. This is based on what I have read on internet. Have a great time at Yellow Stone! Wow. I just returned from NY, will post few photos for all to see.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Finally. DXO Fever has set in.
> ...



Right?

I will spend my morning hooking up my iPhone + DXO One combo onto my Arca Cube, which I will then weld on to a 5000 lb ingot of steel -- because who uses tripods? Then I will take a higher quality shot of a forest than my 5D3 can -- just as soon as I erect a wind baffle as large as the Cliffs of Dover to stop those pesky leaves from moving during my 4 exposures of magic.

And did you hear, all of our lenses are now ranked 250 spots higher because _we now have more pixels to rate them with!_ My venerable 50 f/1.4 USM now outperforms the Nikon-mount Zeiss Otus lenses. I always knew those things were overrated.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 9, 2015)

Surapon,

I initially pre-ordered the 5DS then changed a week later to the R. I'm really happy I did. I haven't had any problems with moire or nasty edges. I was concerned with getting a lot of false detail like I have seen in many Exmor images (comparing lack of LPF), but the 5DSR looks really smooth there. I'm glad I got it because I think I would have kept wondering if I'd stuck with the 5DS. Figured if I got the R and had problems I could always sell it and get the S. Stick with what you got and don't read DxO scores. They don't take pictures. You do.



surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and friends.
> Now, I am very confuse---I Pre-Order Canon 5DSR, From My local Camera shop, for 2 month, Still not come yet---But He has 8 , 5DS in stock.
> Now From this post, DXO said that, for Overall score= 5DS = 87, 5DSR= 86----WHAT WILL I DO ?
> Should I forget about Canon 5DSR, and go to get 5DS to day ?.
> ...


----------



## BobHope (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


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



Sorry, you are wrong, you *can* boost exposure by an extra 2 stops or 4 times in post across the whole image. 

This is how the dynamic range is calculated by DXO mark. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Dynamic-range-and-noise-source

It's the readout noise of the Canon sensors that is causing the problem. Although this article was written in 2009, it is worth reading as Canon has not really progressed since then, this is due to the chip architecture where all the ADC is performed off the chip leading to greater noise. 

Back in 2009, the Canon and Nikon scores were very close, but Canon have stood still and hence their overall score has lagged. People seem to think its some sort of DXO conspiracy, but I don't think that sentiment adds up, how could they have predicted canon making almost no progress all this time ? 

Some examples of DR: 

Here is an image I took at iso 200 when I was testing my better beamer flash and totally screwed the exposure. Obviously not the right way to photograph but it shows you how far you can push modern sensors. 



DSC_8236_Original by Piston Heads, on Flickr

Here it is pushed 4 stops in post. No noise reduction has been applied. 



DSC_8236 by Piston Heads, on Flickr

Here is a real world example where I exposed correctly and still needed the Dynamic range. I was able to use the dynamic range so that I could recover both the sky and the iris colour of a bird in flight. The eyes are pushed 4 stops in post and appear totally black in the original image. 



Hobby_Eye_Level_Flight Thursley Common by Nature Ist, on Flickr

Sorry, no squirrels.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


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



Sure, real world application and laboratory measurement may not meaningfully correlate. For example, DXO suggests that the 36MP exmor has "two-thirds of a stop better image quality" than the 5DS (meaning they're boiling down "image quality" to something measurable in stops). One might conclude then that if two images are set side by side of the same scene taken exposed identically, the one recoded with the exmor will look nearly twice as good as the one taken with the 51MP canon. Clearly that's not the case.


----------



## dadgummit (Jul 9, 2015)

DXO scores are usually rubbish but always remember this quote as it is always correct:

The best camera in the world is the one in your hands when you need to take the shot. 





surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and friends.
> Now, I am very confuse---I Pre-Order Canon 5DSR, From My local Camera shop, for 2 month, Still not come yet---But He has 8 , 5DS in stock.
> Now From this post, DXO said that, for Overall score= 5DS = 87, 5DSR= 86----WHAT WILL I DO ?
> Should I forget about Canon 5DSR, and go to get 5DS to day ?.
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


> Sorry, you are wrong, you *can* boost exposure by an extra 2 stops or 4 times in post across the whole image.



Whether you can boost exposure across the whole image depends on where the tones lie; you can't quadruple the exposure of saturated pixels. With low read noise, you can meaningfully (i.e. without noise becoming subjectively destructive) boost the shadows from sony sensors more than from canon sensors.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



It's possible, unfortunately that page isn't dated, and I can't find any updates to their test equipment. It's possible they don't even test it optically anymore.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


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



This is the crux of the matter. ^^



BobHope said:


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



I would never dispute that in this particular exposure situation the exmor isn't far ahead. It is. Simple.

However this does not mean that in even a moderately exposed scene the 'IQ' of the exmor / toshiba etc is better than Canon. 3kramd5 summed it up perfectly. 

As far as I'm aware dxo don't advertise 'landscape' score as 'boy did I really f**k up' score.


----------



## sanj (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I agree with your logic. Really do! But I prefer the speed of the 1dx to get me the fast moving shots I like to photograph. Getting the shot is that matters to me with modern sensors, the difference is not much comparing 'equal' cameras. I have never logged on to DxO website, but would want Canon to lead in all tests everywhere.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? Every thread in which they're mentioned? Read back through this one even. I just want to hear a cogent defence of their methodology, rather than a 'critics are all fanboys' ad hominem.
> ...



LOL.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> In all of this, NOBODY! denies that Sony/Nikon has more DR than Canon. Likewise, though depending on the type of photography and conditions you shoot in, the utility of having more DR ranges from "it will have little effect" to "gotta have it" there isn't anyone who would complain if the DR was increased.
> 
> Nikon having the best DR does not make it the best camera. Likewise, Canon having the best AF does not make it the best camera. You can not focus on one aspect and use it to represent the entirety. It is as failed of a concept as the earlier lens example where we fixated on aperture and came to the conclusion that the 50F1.8 is superior to the 600F4IS II. There are so many variable to consider that the statement is meaningless. You can't even say that one is better than the other for birding.... is the bird 200 feet away or is it 2 feet away?
> 
> ...



+1 Well stated Don


----------



## scyrene (Jul 9, 2015)

BobHope said:


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



Nice hobby  On a practical level, you can recover bird eye irises with Canon images, as they are so small and smooth you can aggressively raise the shadows and denoise on the small area of the eye, I do that sometimes. The result overall is similar.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> As far as I'm aware dxo don't advertise 'landscape' score as 'boy did I really f**k up' score.



Indeed.



> A value of 12 EV is excellent


http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

DxO says it themselves, Canon has excellent dynamic range. It's only the fanboys comparing "the size of their gear" that have any desire to say differently.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

I totally missed this in the DXO writeup:

_"What’s more, our industry standard tests have shown these are the best sensor results yet for a Canon chip, with the 5DS cameras offering a small step up for image quality against other full-frame semi-pro models such as the EOS 6D and EOS 5D Mark III."_

I thought that was just a fun/clumsy set-theory dig on the 5D3, but a few clicks later... Wow. See attached.

To DXO: [a kiss to my fingers for the masterpiece move]

- A


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jul 9, 2015)

Just one question to let me know if I understood DXO Metrics correctly.
1) DXO evaluates separately Lenses [features] and Sensors [features]
2) DXO downnsamples the images captured by each sensors to their "standard" 8MPixels size so, even if our eyes sees more noise-per-pixel in a 100Mpixels image than in a 10Mpixels one, DXO will rank the ISO performance at the same level (provided the inherent technology is the same or "ceteris paribus")
3) So, it seems that DXO evaluates the technology level of the sensor regardless its resolution, even if most of us think that resolution is one of the features of a sensor
4) On the other hand, if a potential customer wants to know from DXO the performance in terms of sharpness of a Lens, the sensor's resolution matters in DXO tests.


I don't care about resolution and I think that a 16 Mpx Full Frame would be more than enough for my needs, but I would like to ask to my fellow CanonRumorsFriends whether my understanding is correct: is it true that DXO Metrics states that a change in a sensor's resolution 
1) has no impact the Sensor performance
2) has a positive impact on the Lens + Camera performance?

If so, it could seem a bit misleading.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 9, 2015)

surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and friends.
> Now, I am very confuse---I Pre-Order Canon 5DSR, From My local Camera shop, for 2 month, Still not come yet---But He has 8 , 5DS in stock.
> Now From this post, DXO said that, for Overall score= 5DS = 87, 5DSR= 86----WHAT WILL I DO ?
> Should I forget about Canon 5DSR, and go to get 5DS to day ?.
> ...


Dear friend Surapon. The measure "overall score" of DXO Mark is totally random and useless.

On the other hand, the following individual measures:
COLOR DEPTH
DYNAMIC RANGE
and LOW-LIGHT ISO
They are useful when comparing cameras with the same type of RAW file, the same processing software, and the same resolution.

According to DXO, the only difference is the performance at high ISO settings, because everything else is a technical draw. I'd rather not have concerns with moiré and aliasing, and choose Canon 5DS when they can add sharpness on the computer but can not totally eliminate the moiré that is already in the image.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

JohanCruyff said:


> I don't care about resolution and I think that a 16 Mpx Full Frame would be more than enough for my needs, but I would like to ask to my fellow CanonRumorsFriends whether my understanding is correct: is it true that DXO Metrics states that a change in a sensor's resolution
> 1) has no impact the Sensor performance
> 2) has a positive impact on the Lens + Camera performance?
> 
> If so, it could seem a bit misleading.



Yes and yes.

From DXO: "Sensor Overall Score does not show a camera’s: Resolution, i.e., its ability to render fine details."

And the lens scores are heavily weighted by sensor resolution. The same lens on two different cameras gets very different scores. 

This might explain why the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM is ranked _*1,064th*_ of all lenses tested. 

- A


----------



## drs (Jul 9, 2015)

DXO tells clearly that one should first pick the resolution needed, and compare only similar models to each other. Otherwise, this test would crash the camera, if one would look only at the score. With 101 points given at max currently to a 19MP camera ;o) -- my favorite one.

However, most of the time my "old" 5dm2 has enough dynamic range for the material I need to shoot. Having said that, two stop more and I would be excited. To lift my exposure only about one stop would eliminate a lot of noise from the start.

My excitement for the 5ds is not broken, but cooled off a little bit, after the test. 

As a side note: I enjoy that the Canon has a low ISO range, which is honest. No messed up raw -- not so much as other cameras. The comparison to Sony and Nikon shows clearly that all that "beginner" ISO talk is not a quality talk, which proofs the point I make since long. Nearly 10bit color around the top ISO end, that's not even point and shoot quality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



None, but does it pass the giggle test that the D3300 is a better camera?

Maybe it depends on how you personally define "general-purpose."

Their description of the composite score: "Measures camera performance for a *general-purpose use camera* based on a combination of three use case scores."

If someone said "grab either a D3300 or a 1DX, but I'm not going to tell you what you're going to be shooting or in what environment," I would personally grab the 1DX, because it would be better in general. For a known case, like I'm shooting portraits in controlled light, I may grab the D3300. 

Joe Sixpack's definition of "general-purpose" may differ.

I don't believe cost plays a roll in DxO's scoring.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I totally missed this in the DXO writeup:
> 
> _"What’s more, our industry standard tests have shown these are the best sensor results yet for a Canon chip, with the 5DS cameras offering a small step up for image quality against other full-frame semi-pro models such as the EOS 6D and EOS 5D Mark III."_
> 
> ...



'Cuz, you know, they're not biased at all, right? ???


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 9, 2015)

Well thank God for DxO. All this time I was falsely laboring under the assumption my 5D Mk III was a full professional grade camera. Now I know the D810 assuredly is and my 5D III assuredly is NOT. Thanks to DxO crew for clearing that up. (See? It's not anger. We're laughing at them. That's all)


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Well thank God for DxO. All this time I was falsely laboring under the assumption my 5D Mk III was a full professional grade camera. Now I know the D810 assuredly is and my 5D III assuredly is NOT. Thanks to DxO crew for clearing that up. (See? It's not anger. We're laughing at them. That's all)



You don't even get a pop up flash on the 5DIII


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I totally missed this in the DXO writeup:
> 
> _"What’s more, our industry standard tests have shown these are the best sensor results yet for a Canon chip, with the 5DS cameras offering a small step up for image quality against other full-frame semi-pro models such as the EOS 6D and EOS 5D Mark III."_
> 
> ...



Isn't that just based on Canon's classification system though?


----------



## jrista (Jul 9, 2015)

I really wish there was a way to unsubscribe from a thread you've participated in. The only way to stop getting notified when a thread drops off the cliff is to delete all your posts...which is annoying.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I totally missed this in the DXO writeup:
> ...



Nope. Although it varies by geography, Canon Europe lists the 5-series as "EOS dSLRs for Professionals" (and last I checked, DxO is in France and France is in Europe).

http://www.canon-europe.com/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/professional/

Canon USA doesn't categorize the bodies, and at Canon Australia only the 1D X is listed as Professional.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Well thank God for DxO. All this time I was falsely laboring under the assumption my 5D Mk III was a full professional grade camera. Now I know the D810 assuredly is and my 5D III assuredly is NOT. Thanks to DxO crew for clearing that up. (See? It's not anger. We're laughing at them. That's all)
> ...


Pop up flash.....

What a useless feature......

I haven't used that feature since... well.... five minutes ago.....


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> I really wish there was a way to unsubscribe from a thread you've participated in. The only way to stop getting notified when a thread drops off the cliff is to delete all your posts...which is annoying.



Weird, I never get any notifications unless I click notify at the bottom. Is unnotify not working?


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> I really wish there was a way to unsubscribe from a thread you've participated in. The only way to stop getting notified when a thread drops off the cliff is to delete all your posts...which is annoying.



I don't subscribe to threads. Just check messages


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Actually Canon USA does, well sort of, classify bodies, actually CPS does. Some bodies count more than others for status points and some bodies can not be included in the list.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Canon USA = you are correct sir (I was just there). It's not on Amazon or B&H spec sheet metadata, either.

- A


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

Maybe we should all chip in a few coins and buy the nice folks at DxO some flowers (wilted) or a basket of fruit (rotten) as a thank for the all entertainment they are providing us ;D


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Hmmn, you appear correct. I could swear I remember seeing the 5D3 described as semi-professional on Canon's own website (either Canon USA or CPS USA) in the past though.


----------



## jrista (Jul 9, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish there was a way to unsubscribe from a thread you've participated in. The only way to stop getting notified when a thread drops off the cliff is to delete all your posts...which is annoying.
> ...



I mean in the "Snow new replies to your posts" section of the forums. I've got a bunch of threads that keep popping up in there that I just don't want to be notified about anymore...but they just keep cropping up. There is no way to remove a thread from showing up in that list. I never actually subscribe to email notifications for anything, so the notify thing doesn't apply here.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Bet you weren't using it 'professionally' ;D


----------



## BL (Jul 9, 2015)

Was playing around with DxOs comparison tool, and saw this:

Not terribly surprised, but good god... at least Canon's effort is keeping up with 1" sensors! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

RGF said:


> Actually Canon USA does, well sort of, classify bodies, actually CPS does. Some bodies count more than others for status points and some bodies can not be included in the list.



Oh, ok. Since the 5DIII, 5Ds and 5DsR are worth more points than the 1DsIII and 1DIV, I guess that makes the 5-series _more_ professional than the 1-series.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I was 

easier to use the pop-up than to walk 2K over to the main building and then come back with a "real" flash.....

I suppose I could have used my phone.......


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jul 9, 2015)

And, what is the best Sports Camera via DxO?

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Sports


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



'Phone's the answer. Add a DxO One to it and you won't need a 5Ds :-X


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

macVega said:


> I respect the french for fine inventions like red wine and rectrum love, but DxO is dangerous for photography



That's true for DXO, but is it also true for DXO's partners?

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3673531883/dxomark-eos-5ds-r-sensor-is-highest-ranked-canon-sensor-yet

- A


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jul 9, 2015)

I don't understand the methodology. I remember seeing many people remarking that if the 5DIII had as many megapixels as the Nikon D8xx, it would score similarly, yet the 5DS has more MP and still got a lower score.

So I'm very confused about how they generate their scores.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I don't understand the methodology. I remember seeing many people remarking that if the 5DIII had as many megapixels as the Nikon D8xx, it would score similarly, yet the 5DS has more MP and still got a lower score.
> 
> So I'm very confused about how they generate their scores.



*For lenses*, absolutely. Their methodology strongly weights the resolution numbers. Expect to see great L lenses' scores go from ordinary on a 5D3 to stellar on a 5DS with all those pixels. It's the same lens, but in their weird minds, the 'potential of that lens is more fulfilled' on a higher resolving sensor. 

(I actually don't mind ranking body+lens performance like that, but then _only showing the lens in their summaries with a ranking based on a body+lens test_ is nuts. A great lens is effectively punished for having the misfortune of being mounted on a lower res body. It's misleading at best.)

*For sensors*, they claim resolution doesn't drive their ratings.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> So I'm very confused about how they generate their scores.



Of course you are, because it's an undisclosed 'black box' calculation. I have seen some approximations and guesses for their formula:

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

2) DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 4*(ColorDepth) + 5*(DynamicRange) + 2*log2(ISO) + 2*(SONIKcoeff) – 4*(CANcoeff)

I have my suspicions as to which is closer to the truth.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm very confused about how they generate their scores.
> ...



2) needs new logic to be fully functional. 

IF sensor = sony ANDIF body = DXOONE ANDIF filetype = superrawplus, SONIKcoeff=1.8, ELSE SONIKcoeff=1


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Canon USA does, well sort of, classify bodies, actually CPS does. Some bodies count more than others for status points and some bodies can not be included in the list.
> ...



what about the 1Dx? Top score. Remember I said "sort of", not precise scoring.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

RGF said:


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



In the USA, CPS appears to be a money-making device for Canon. The points seem to correlate best (within a category) with approximate market value, or depreciated original MSRP. No other reason the 5DsR is worth 1 point more than the 5Ds.


----------



## RGF (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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



I am not saying that the CPS are precise. Only having fun pointing out that CPS is back door, granted not accurate but never-the-less a way that Canon separates cameras and lenses into more vs less valuable.

Looking at bodies produced about the same you get some idea ranking - as you say by price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

RGF said:


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



Given that it's Canon *Professional* Services, one could argue that anything on their list constitutes Pro gear, including the 7D and 40/2.8. 8)


----------



## benperrin (Jul 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I have a bowl of popcorn, a fully charged iPad, a laser pointer, and a kitten.... I'm set for entertainment and waiting for someone to post squirrel pictures with 15 stops of DR.....


This has my vote for best comment yet!


----------



## RGF (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm very confused about how they generate their scores.
> ...



I thought it was random number + 30 points if Nikon and 5 points if Canon ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

macVega said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > macVega said:
> ...



Sure, but didn't they strike a deal to use DXO's data in their reviews? 
_
"World-leading photography website dpreview.com has adopted DxOMark, powered with DxO Analyzer image quality evaluation engine, for its photo gear reviews. This partnership confirms DxOMark's unique position as an independent camera and lens testing laboratory for leading photography press publications and websites."_

http://www.dxo.com/us/image-quality-evaluation/partners

I don't know how much that marries them to their results, but it's pretty easy to correlate DPR's sensor scores to DXO's if one wanted to.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

Hmmmm...and DPR reviews are incorporated into Amazon's product pages...because Amazon owns DPR. Manufacturers can certainly offer large retailers whatever terms they choose, with obvious implications for that retailer's profits. I'm sure DPR wants you to think they're impartial...just as DxO wants you to think they're doing good science. I know one of those isn't true, I'm not sure about the other.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 10, 2015)

And you'll notice the top review on Amazon of the 5DS & 5DSR is mine 8)

DPR paid me well.... Nothing. Lol



neuroanatomist said:


> Hmmmm...and DPR reviews are incorporated into Amazon's product pages...because Amazon owns DPR. Manufacturers can certainly offer large retailers whatever terms they choose, with obvious implications for that retailer's profits. I'm sure DPR wants you to think they're impartial...just as DxO wants you to think they're doing good science. I know one of those isn't true, I'm not sure about the other.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 10, 2015)

And by the way, I figured I would cut the vitriol in here with something a bit more lighthearted. I popped an SD card with 5DSR pics into my 6D (took it with me on my 11th anniversary trip with wife today) and I got this LOL


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 10, 2015)

I tend toappreciate the manner in which DPR breaks down full reviews. Really lets you dig into their scoring mechanism. Again, sometimes I concur, sometimes not. But unlike DxO, you can get your head around what they are doing and the 12 part breakdown (the bar graph tables they use on Conclusion pages) is really cool



neuroanatomist said:


> Hmmmm...and DPR reviews are incorporated into Amazon's product pages...because Amazon owns DPR. Manufacturers can certainly offer large retailers whatever terms they choose, with obvious implications for that retailer's profits. I'm sure DPR wants you to think they're impartial...just as DxO wants you to think they're doing good science. I know one of those isn't true, I'm not sure about the other.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 10, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



ritholtz said:


> According to dxo, 5DS scored 82 in Sensitivity metamerism index and 5DSR scored 74 only. I guess there is a science behind this.



Hmm that's weird the 5Ds gets much higher metamerism than the 5Dsr.
Would they really have used a different CFA in each model?
Could the double AA on the sr really alter the color that much???
I wonder if maybe they mistakenly copied over the wrong data for the 5DsR metamerism from some other camera.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 10, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > The "headline" DXO figure appears weighted towards DR, but the reality is 2 stops of DR is 4 times better, so it does skew the headline figure
> ...



That's not what they do for the DR test itself where it's just clipping point and black frame.
You are probably looking at what maybe they use for the tonal range and color sensitivity plots?

Anyway back to the DR though, don't forget the DR Print scores are normalized to 8MP output, you don't get any sort of 14.8 stops at the 'per-pixel' level.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



I dunno, this is what they say they do, unless there is a superseding page (I can't find one, but that does not mean it does not exist, or that the protocol hasn't changed without mention).



> The filters are made of pure optical glass with no structures that can be measured as noise. (While other image quality measurement solutions make use of printed targets, we believe such targets are inappropriate for noise measurement testing, as the intrinsic noise pattern of the print paper may be recorded by the tested camera and then confused with the camera’s own noise pattern.)
> We place high-density filters on neighboring positions to limit reciprocal illumination of the patches.
> The light box (placed behind the target) is composed of two fluorescent daylight spectrum tubes with a diffusing sheet on top, achieving a perfect uniformity on each filter. The luminance is about 1500cd/m2.
> We use filters having different light absorption levels ranging from 0% to 99.99% in order to test across a dynamic range of 4 density steps (= 13.3 f-stops — a dynamic range much greater than today’s digital cameras). When shooting such a chart, the sensor of the camera being tested sees a wide range of light levels, with a 1/10,000 ratio from minimum to maximum. For comparison, a printed target dynamic is typically 2 density steps (6.65 f-stops), which is inadequate to simulate high dynamic range or back-lit scenes.
> ...



So yes, they aren't counting from their fancy stop wedge (essentially), but rather using it to measure noise from which they deduce dynamic range



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway back to the DR though, don't forget the DR Print scores are normalized to 8MP output, you don't get any sort of 14.8 stops at the 'per-pixel' level.



Whoops. Yes. I with they'd show screen by default rather than the down sampled number. Regardless, they still don't have enough range on the tool to measure some of the numbers they publish.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, there are people like Sporgon – a photographer with substantial talent (I've seen his website...and I've seen yours) – who bought and used the 36 MP Exmor along side Canon gear for some time. His three word review of Exmor: "I sold it."


just cuz sporgon didn't find any advantage in fitting an alternate platform into his workflow does not negate the real advantages of an alternate platform.
Someone's who's used to working with or around the shortcomings of their chosen platform may utilize similar methods on the alternate platform and that can bypass those advantages.

My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, their extremely reliable data show that the 17-40L at f/4 is as sharp in the corners as in the center. Their extremely reliable data showed that the 70-200/2.8L IS was superior to its MkII successor, and when challenged they defended that conclusion...until a year later when they silently updated their data without admitting their mistake.
> 
> I do find their measurements generally useful, as long as they are viewed with the understanding that there are glaring errors in some of their data. I find their Scores to be useless and misleading.



I've also discovered erroneous lens data on their website. Instead of bleating about it incessantly on some web forum, I informed them, and it was corrected within a few weeks after exchanging some email. Perhaps they respond more quickly to some suggestions than others.'


----------



## benperrin (Jul 10, 2015)

Aglet said:


> My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.


If you couldn't use the 5d2 either you were trying to shoot fast moving objects or the problem was you. Having owned that camera since it came out I can say it is a fantastic camera capable of amazing images. I certainly wouldn't curse it.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 10, 2015)

The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).


----------



## Aglet (Jul 10, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.
> ...


My 5d2 was, IMO, a large chuck of photographic fecal material with inconsistent metering, lots of noise and banding from shadows to midtone, and only worked reasonably well in full manual mode. My 7d was similarly loathsome for IQ altho it had a wonderfully capable AF system and pretty quick handling. They both paled in comparison to my 40D and older Rebels in the usable IQ department, so ya, I couldn't use it.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 10, 2015)

Aglet said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...


Well the smiley at the end of your post says you may be using sarcasm but it is hard to tell when online. I had the 30d and my friend had the 40d and I can tell you right now that the 5d2 is a much better camera. I'll still be using it as my primary camera until my a7rII arrives and will still find it to be a fantastic camera. It does produce hot pixels during long exposures which can be annoying although it's not the only camera that suffers from that problem. If a very average photographer like myself can get decent images out of it I don't think it's the camera that is the problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

9VIII said:


> The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).



In the past, I've defended DxO against claims of direct brand bias. Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII. 

Maybe if Aglet asks them nicely, they'll fix that mistake, too. I guess he didn't notice them staunchly defending their initial 70-200/2.8 L IS vs MkII results that they changed a year later, probably he was too busy cursing at his inability to use his 5DII.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pretty disappointing to see the post today showing DxO comparing the 'Professional' D810 to the 'Semi-professional' 5DIII.


Just noticed that the 5dsr is also semi-professional. Oh well it's just a label.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 10, 2015)

Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...


----------



## sanj (Jul 10, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > My 5d2 fit into the same, "I sold it" rating. After I cursed it for most of the time I had it. It's really just as valid.
> ...



Some may not curse Exmor. Each to his own...


----------



## jd7 (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Makes sense. dpreview likely doesn't have the in-house talent to properly engineer sensor tests for their camera reviews so rather than try to make up their own, they're using a well recognised 3rd party.



I'm glad you said "well recognised" rather than "well respected". I'm not even sure of the basis on which DxO claims its scores are "industry standard" (http://www.dxomark.com/About/What-is-DxOMark).

As Neuro has already pointed out, if you claim to be doing "scientific" testing, you should make your methodology crystal clear. Anyone with the gear and the inclination should be able to independently repeat the tests DxO is doing to see if he/she gets the same results. But no one can do that because no one knows how DxO arrives at its scores. It's bad enough trying to reduce a camera or lens to a single score when different people will use them for very different photographic purposes, but I guess a lot of reviews try to do that sort of thing. But for an organisation to try to set itself up as a credible testing organisation and then not explain its methodology is ... well, no one should take it seriously.

It may be that the results of some of DxO's sub-tests (for want of a better description) provide useful info, but the fact is DxO promotes its camera scores and lens scores as an important part of its test results. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...



Sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 10, 2015)

jd7 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Life is too short to waste it on DxO ...
> ...


+1
DxO? *yawn*
let's go out shooting with what we have


----------



## Treblid (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).
> ...


A photographer is professional or unprofessional. A camera is simply the tool that can make the photographer's life easier or more difficult. A camera does not make the photographer more or less professional. Digitalrev's pro-photographer/cheap-camera challenge shows how the creative and technically proficient photographer can still produce surprisingly good images from really meager equipment. 

In summary, a camera is a tool when working properly just does what it is programmed to do. 

p.s. Sometimes photographers are also tools but that's another discussion entirely


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2015)

Treblid said:


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



Au contraire ! It has been conclusively proved here on CR that the 6D is not professional. It doesn't have two card slots and specifically doesn't come with a guarantee of reliability when shooting weddings in the rain.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I think you should go watching gymnastics a little bit more often, because the scoring system has changed a while ago  
It is the same as with figureskating: 
They don't get just one score anymore but a summary of multiple points and factors for individual parts of thier exercise, because there was *too much cheating in the background*. The scoring system was restructured *and laid open for all to see* because of that. 

And that is life, too.


----------



## Treblid (Jul 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

To me a professional service provider takes full responsibility for delivering on the spec required and taking all reasonable steps to mitigate risks.

So a 6D was not able to work in certain situations. Have 1D-X and 5D-III bodies never failed? In every case was the camera at fault or was the photographer not adequately prepared for the situation(s). 

Jerry Ghionis shot a wedding with an iPhone, which placed 4th in a major competition but this was only possible because of his expert knowledge on lighting, posing and people skills, and the fact that he was prepared for the 
situations that the event entailed. When someone needs wedding pics they hire a photographer, not a fancy camera with attached monkey to push button.

A certain well known photographer tripped and fell when walking through a stream while hand-holding his 500L and 5D-III. The 500L was okay but the 5D-III's lens mount was ripped out due to the impact. Was the 5D-III "not professional" enough or did the photographer not exercise necessary caution to mitigate risks of falling and damaging his equipment?

Cameras are not professional or unprofessional they have more-features or less-features, which can make a photographer's life easier or more difficult. A photographer can be professional or unprofessional in the way they conduct themselves and how they treat clients/co-workers and in the speed and quality of the work they deliver.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 10, 2015)

Treblid said:


> Jerry Ghionis shot a wedding with an iPhone, which placed 4th in a major competition but this was only possible because of his expert knowledge on lighting, posing and people skills, and the fact that he was prepared for the
> situations that the event entailed. When someone needs wedding pics they hire a photographer, not a fancy camera with attached monkey to push button.


Jerry didn't shot a wedding with an iPhone, he took a couple of images on the iPhone after he had captured the shot with his usual gear. But yes the photographer is the most important part of the equation in general but there are times where gear certainly does help.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


And harder for us to understand because their system is *NOT* laid open and inconsistencies are sometimes too much obvious (and already discussed to end).



> Does anyone want to say that the 5DS deserves a better score than the D810?


Again it depends to the weighting of that unknown scoring system.
I am surely not saying that the Canon sensor is better. And I am the last to say they should not improve. 
Maybe I'd prefer other parts of the design to be improved than you. 
But I am also not the one saying that ISO 100 to 400 is "normal" as you do. It was in the film days, as higher ISO films were much worse compared to high ISO on sensors. But I shoot a lot above ISO 800, so it is not normal to me - anymore.
And then it comes to the system argument: A Camera is not only the sensor.

And as long as DxO does not reveal their scoring methods, as long as they measure lenses by including the sensor performance, as long as they keep producing inconsistencies their reputation will not become better to me. Maybe they should just concentrate on makeing outstanding software and stop publishing scoring tables.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2015)

Treblid said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Treblid said:
> ...



I was joking.

Of course the 6D is professional when used in a 'professional' way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

Treblid said:


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



I agree with the sentiment (both of them, actually  ). 

The issue is not in the labels, but in the lack of logic and likely bias behind them. Shall we declare the 1D X a Pro camera, and the D4S as 'Semi-pro'? Clearly not. 

To the extent that people use DxOMark as a research tool, it's an issue (and I suspect many do because reducing camera performance to a single number makes it easy for them, and yes I used 'camera' intentionally there). Given the state of professional photography, I suspect there are more D810s and 5DIIIs in the hands of amateurs than professionals. For some, that 'professional' label influences purchasing decisions. 

The problem is broader than that, though. It's obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that like the D4S and 1D X, the D810 and 5DIII/5Ds belong in the same category (whether that category is pro or semi-pro). Nikon Europe places the D810 in the professional category, likewise Canon Europe places the 5DIII/5Ds in the professional category. Nikon Europe doesn't categorize the D750. Yet DxO made the conscious, intentional decision to categorize the D810 and D750 as 'pro' and the 5DIII and now the 5Ds/R as 'semi-pro'. When a supposedly 'independent' (which implies impartial) organization displays that kind of brand-specific bias in one area, that suggests a corporate culture that tolerates such bias...and may allow it to spill over into other areas. Their entrée into selling cameras and their artificial inflation of their own product's ranking in their own black box scoring system belies their independence and impartiality, and further erodes their credibility.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And that is life.
> 
> When you watch olympians compete in gymnastics, do they get one score out of 10 or do they get multiple scores for each aspect of their performance? Answer, one score out of ten.



Answer: wrong. 

And that is life in dilbertland.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

A pro will use the right tool for the job... based on several factors, including affordability. That might mean getting a 1DX, a rebel, or a GoPro.... How DXO chooses to label a device does not matter.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 10, 2015)

Aglet said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinions vary. But given how widely the 5DII has been praised, I have to place your experience as an outlier.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > benperrin said:
> ...



Yes, Aglets's relationship with the 5DII might raise some eyebrows. I've used one since 2009, the 5D alongside it and on its own since 2005. I now use a 6D as well. I just don't know where he's coming from in this 'banding in skies' which he has often referred to, many 'noise and banding in mid tones'. 

However I do think it's fair to say the 5DII isn't particularly forgiving of incompetent operation when compared with some other cameras. Read into that what you will.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 10, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > benperrin said:
> ...



I like a lot about the 5d2, but the metering and the AF is pretty useless for everything I use a camera for. But the IQ, handling, functions and everything else is veryvery good.


----------



## mskrystalmeth (Jul 10, 2015)

Poor Canon Spinners. 

I must remind the Canon Fan Boys.

When DXO reviewed the ever new Canon Duo's ...They were tested against...the Ever Old Sony 36.3mp Sensors from a few years back...NOT...the new Sony 42.2MP....So, if Canon cannot beat the old testing and ratings...Give up CANON! lol It is so true to the real photographers out there...That Canon Produces, old dusty sensors. Canon has always lag'd behind the Sony Sensors in their own products and Nikons.


----------



## erjlphoto (Jul 10, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



dilbert said:


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



Understand your point, but Canon does not make a big white 50mm f/1.4 lens for comparison. I own the old 50 f/1.4 and that would not be hard for ANY other lens to beat


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

mskrystalmeth said:


> Poor Canon Spinners.
> 
> I must remind the Canon Fan Boys.
> 
> When DXO reviewed the ever new Canon Duo's ...They were tested against...the Ever Old Sony 36.3mp Sensors from a few years back...NOT...the new Sony 42.2MP....So, if Canon cannot beat the old testing and ratings...Give up CANON! lol It is so true to the real photographers out there...That Canon Produces, old dusty sensors. Canon has always lag'd behind the Sony Sensors in their own products and Nikons.



I'm sorry... This is a private thread. It's intended only for _everyone in the world but you._

You might want to check out the forums at DPReview. Now _those_ folks now how to bring the cutting insights that you are so fond of.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> When it comes to camera sensor scores the problem here is that DxO publish numbers that some people here don't like and rather than accept the numbers are an aggregate of others, they dispute them and their formulation. There's no evidence to show that the numbers are wrong and there's no evidence of bias - if there was any evidence of bias then it would be trivial for someone else to set up a similar facility to DxO and publish contradictory results. Nobody has, not even anyone from CR.
> 
> So jump up and down and shout all you like about the numbers being wrong or biased, etc, but until you've got your own test rig set up and are producing a better set of results than DxO, grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.
> 
> DxO have got respect from a lot of people that have a lot better credentials than those complaining here on CR but I won't be one to deny people their opinions but remind people that until they've got evidence to show DxO are wrong in how they score sensors, what they're saying is just an opinion and everyone has one of those...



It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....

You can not come up with an aggregate number without introducing bias. If I feel that colour depth is more important for my style of photography and you fell that DR is best for your style, we will agree that all the measurements are good, but never agree on how the aggregate score is calculated. This is the flaw in DXO... they went beyond taking measurements and introduced bias.....


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> It's not the individual numbers, it's how they are put together to get an aggregate score. DXO would be better off if they just left things as the numbers for particular aspects....



+1. I've been saying this for some time. I don't really have an axe to grind with their metrics (save perhaps their perceptual MPix with lenses), I just can't stand their aggregate scores which categorically disregard the varying needs of photographers. Some folks live in a high ISO world while others live in the studio or on a tripod. It stands to reason they'd have different needs with their gear.

DXO would be a far more respected site if they had the following operating plan:

1) Collect data.
2) Describe your methods.
3) Report data on just the individual metrics.
4) [ crickets ]

Leave out the aggregate score. This thread never would have happened if so. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Dilbert, I don't think that's what he means. In _this_ case, it's not a _brand_ bias so much as 'all photographers all over the world would only want _this_ kind of camera' bias. How they roll up the aggregate score weights things in a way not everyone might want.

A concert photog is probably far far far more concerned about high ISO performance than how much DR the rig has at ISO 100. A studio portraiture person might more heavily prioritize color. A landscaper, on the other hand, might love DXO's aggregate score as it is. Everyone's needs are different.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.



> ...the Sensor Overall Score describes the results of measurements only on sensors and is essentially related to image noise (for example, a difference of one f-stop offsets the Overall Sensor Score by approximately 15 points)...



Image noise has a more significant impact on sensor score than color depth, for example. That's called bias. It's perfectly fair for them to set up their own biases (another word could be 'weightings'), I just wish they'd disclose them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is DxO ONE SuperRAW™ getting its own separate score a 'measurement only on sensors'?? It's perfectly reasonable for them as a private company to test whatever/however they want, but it ruins their credibility as independent/impartial testers.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Dilbert, you are thinking details and I am thinking concept. The details are correct. The concept is flawed.

The very nature of assigning weight to various aspects of camera performance introduces bias. If your needs align with the scoring criteria, it will be helpful. If your needs conflict with the scoring criteria, it will not be helpful. Due to the nature of photography, there are a lot of divergent paths to follow and that means that for most people, the aggregate score is either useless or counterproductive.

There is no way to come up with an aggregate number that will serve all disciplines. Forget the Canon/Sony/Nikon bickering... even if you stay with one manufacturer, it does not work.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 10, 2015)

I would like to understand the low iso scores of the 5DS/5DSR. My understanding was that the larger pixels of the 5DIII and 6D were what gave them the low light capability. The 5DS/5DSR have smaller pixels yet get similar iso scores to the 5DIII and 6D. How are they achieving roughly twice the iso score of the 7DII with a similar pixel size?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

jthomson said:


> I would like to understand the low iso light / high iso scores of the 5DS/5DSR. My understanding was that the larger pixels of the 5DIII and 6D were what gave them the low light capability. The 5DS/5DSR have smaller pixels yet get similar iso scores to the 5DIII and 6D. How are they achieving roughly twice the iso score of the 7DII with a similar pixel size?



Great question. See edit I made above. Otherwise I was getting confused with your question versus the other parts of it.

If my edit is what you meant, yeah, we were expecting 7D2 levels of noise at higher ISO with this sensor based on Maeda-san's comments after the 5DS rigs were announced. I was bracing for a step _back_ in high ISO performance compared to the 5D3 for sure.

But TDP and now DXO are saying the 5DS is on level with the 5D3 for high ISO. Just speculating, here are two possible reasons:

1) Is it possible DXO doesn't test SNR at the pixel-level? TDP found that the 5D3 _does_ outperform the 5DS in higher ISO at a pixel level, but when you downsized the 5DS shots, it tempered the noise to the point where they thought the 5D3 and 5DS were on level terms. As for DXO, I've seen no specifics in their Sports/ISO method, but perhaps they also downsize their shots for their ISO/Sports like they do for dynamic range? That might explain how the 5DS fared so well vs. the 5D3.

2) Is the explanation in the processing power? Two DIGIC 6 chips in the 5DS should be able to pull-off more than than one DIGIC 5+ in the 5D3, but I don't know if that's for handling noise nearly as much as those 50 MP files.

I am admittedly not a sensor-whiz. Can anyone with a EE background or boatloads of technical experience on this front help us out?

- A


----------



## RGF (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.
> ...



Nothing like the fox watching the hen house


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This is the flaw in DXO... they went beyond taking measurements and introduced bias.....
> ...



If this were an academic publication, it would be DxO's obligation to reveal their methods so we can determine whether there is bias. The fact that they don't do that is suspicious.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).
> ...



Does it really matter whether they hiss words of seething hate or are just willfully ignorant?
The forgotten stepchild is still subject to abusive behavior, even though not beaten with a stick.
How long has DxO actually been around? It looks like they didn't start writing reviews until 2008, with the D3x already being the ultimate camera (so good that Canon has yet to "equal" its level of BS).
It's entirely possible that they set out from the very beginning to use a scoring system with two useless metrics that Nikon had already demonstrated they were going to continually inflate.
It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy, if they're a bunch of butthurt Nikon fanboys (all Nikon fanboys are inherently butthurt after watching Canon beat Nikon to every technological advancement that mattered in the past 25 years) then they would be just as eager to do this as continually dropping "Canon sucks" leaflets across the sky.

Canon should go ahead and start an "independent laboratory" that reviews cameras based on image quality at ISO 6400, buffer performance, and the ability to adjust aperture in live view.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 10, 2015)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-5DS-5DS-R-Review-New-top-ranking-Canon-EOS-sensor/Canon-5DS-5DS-R-Comparison-3-EOS-5DS-vs-Nikon-D810-vs-Sony-A7R


> The Nikon D810 and the Sony A7R, for example, both offer around two-thirds of a stop better image quality




Some people who support DxO try to say that you should just ignore the overall score and "dig deeper". Obviously DxO doesn't feel that way.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ...
> There's no evidence to show that the numbers are wrong and there's no evidence of bias - if there was any evidence of bias then it would be trivial ...


Really?
Okay. I'll leave the field of arguing up to you...
Again: I am not saying that Canon sensors are equal to EXMOR sensors or else. 
I only say that puting DxO values into argumentation makes the one using them look foolish.
Because they are scientifically wrong. Especially because the method is not laid open.

If you still feel to be right, although DxO have discredited themselves and if you want to continue to defend them just because their numbers are fitting into your arumentation, then okay, so be it. 
Makes you look like having a no arument at all in my eyes. But of course you'll see it different. So be it.



> So jump up and down and shout all you like about the numbers being wrong or biased... stop acting like a spoiled child.


Funny. To me this looks like you're describing the look into your own mirror. But so be it. 
Gn8 mister always right.
: : :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need scores to show that there is bias, you need only their description of the scores.
> ...



I agree completely. Calling it raw so that they can present it relative to single exposures is indefensible


----------



## topdog (Jul 10, 2015)

the only thing that matters will be the results of real life photo comparisons and experiences. no amount of arguing or debating is gonna settle anything


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

topdog said:


> the only thing that matters will be the results of real life photo comparisons and experiences. no amount of arguing or debating is gonna settle anything



Yes it will.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> topdog said:
> 
> 
> > the only thing that matters will be the results of real life photo comparisons and experiences. no amount of arguing or debating is gonna settle anything
> ...



No it won't.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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



This is how you get 16k+ posts, people. 

That's just the sort of laser-guided rightness we need.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 10, 2015)

Let's face it many people just like arguing. Sadly that also applies outside this forum. I'm looking for photos not arguments. I've read about 5 posts in this thread and that's enough for me, I'm un-checking it. 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Let's face it many people just like arguing. Sadly that also applies outside this forum. I'm looking for photos not arguments. I've read about 5 posts in this thread and that's enough for me, I'm un-checking it.
> 
> Jack


Fortunately, we have a film which covers how to post on this forum......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 10, 2015)

Classic....



Don Haines said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Let's face it many people just like arguing. Sadly that also applies outside this forum. I'm looking for photos not arguments. I've read about 5 posts in this thread and that's enough for me, I'm un-checking it.
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Many engineering and science-oriented companies strive for that same level of integrity. The fact that DxO is not willing to do so as well is a strong indicator of their lack of confidence in their methods.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Will the people will stop hating a corrupt politician, because he has made public its methods to steal the money of the country he governs?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


You aren't getting it....

It doesn't matter what the formula is. It's the fact that they move from recording and reporting all the sub-scores (which is good), to creating a formula for overall ranking....

It does not matter what the formula is. Having it is a bad idea and does a dis-service to everyone.

Put a landscape photographer, a wedding photographer, a portrait photographer, a sports photographer, a news photographer, a bird photographer, a studio photographer, and a cat photographer in the same room and those 8 people will come up with 8 different ways to rank which one is the best camera.

A fair rating system and a universally accepted single rating number are mutually exclusive because different needs require different weights on different metrics. IT CAN'T BE DONE!


----------



## benperrin (Jul 11, 2015)

topdog said:


> the only thing that matters will be the results of real life photo comparisons and experiences. no amount of arguing or debating is gonna settle anything


That's the thing. I know that people here generally dislike Tony Northrup but he already did a comparison test between the 2 cameras and found the 5ds to be better. According to dxomark the d810 should be a much better camera. It simply isn't true. And at least with TN he posts his methods for coming to his conclusions and even tells people that if there was an error with his methodology, to tell him the correct way to do it and he'll re-do the test.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> You aren't getting it....
> 
> It doesn't matter what the formula is. It's the fact that they move from recording and reporting all the sub-scores (which is good), to creating a formula for overall ranking....
> 
> ...


+1 I agree


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Some would (those on the receiving end the the theft)


----------



## scyrene (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Special pleading.
Burden of proof.
Appeal to authority.

That's a logical fallacy trifecta!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that the bias against Canon is intentional, they can't "fix" something when it's functioning just as they intend (as smear campaign and propaganda).
> ...


nope, didn't bother looking at that lens on DxoMark, could tell by using it. 
_*I sold it.*_


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinions vary. But given how widely the 5DII has been praised, I have to place your experience as an outlier.



yes, I may have had an outlier of a camera, considering it was one of the earliest ones.
I sure left a bad taste tho. As did every other Digic 4 body I had except the G11.
I'm not re-hashin' that; my opinion, based on personal experience with those products, hasn't changed. The Digic 4 era was, to put it mildly, seriously disappointing to me because of serious FPN issues. It drove me to ABC.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> A fair rating system and a universally accepted single rating number are mutually exclusive because different needs require different weights on different metrics. IT CAN'T BE DONE!



sure they can, they're only rating sensors so it's simple shortcut and if you don't like it then they've provided all the base measurement data for you to compare yourself.

Try fit a single score rating to a whole camera, then your opinion's perfectly valid.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

so this has turned into a DxO-bash(ing).. again.

Don't overlook the fact that the _5ds series provides no technology advance from Canon._
It merely presents a different mix of trade-offs with a slight enhancement in in-camera processing ability which provides only a minuscule absolute improvement over previous generations of Canon sensors.
FWIW, that's just fine for many people who've wanted more pixels to play with.
At least Canon has FINALLY got the message that FPN was not a feature everyone wanted.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > A fair rating system and a universally accepted single rating number are mutually exclusive because different needs require different weights on different metrics. IT CAN'T BE DONE!
> ...


ISO? DR? Colour depth? how would you rank them and with what weights? And why only low ISO? What about high ISO?


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Don, most sensor metrics interact with each other so, yes, you can come up with some kind of simplistic scoring system. it's not perfect but if someone's interested in comparing 2 similarly ranked sensors they can do so from the base data.

go ahead, show me 2 similar sensor scores from different mfrs where you think there's some egregious flaw in individual metrics. I DARE YOU. 

They bias the weighting towards low ISO because that's where overall design and implementation really matters to the maximum achievable results. At higher ISO, similar size sensors perform very similarly, it's just physics, so how would you propose to evaluate that and rate, rank or score that when most hi ISO shot performance is due to raw conversion NR?


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 11, 2015)

+1000 Don. 

It can not be done. It is for this reason why DxO beclowns itself when it takes it's useful individual metrics and mysteriously compiles them into a magical overall score that says Sony is an "A" student and Canon is a "C" student (at least according to when I got grades in high school. An 81 was a high C ) It is THAT moment when DxO goes from scientific journalism to editorial opinion. While I love the Sony A7s, DxO Claiming It the top "Sports" camera is just patently hillaious. And it gets that dubios ranking simply by having the most bad-ass high ISO performance. If you want to rank that model as the best ISO, say so. But saying Best Sports is a real stretch.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2015)

Aglet said:


> At higher ISO, similar size sensors perform very similarly, it's just physics, so how would you propose to evaluate that and rate, rank or score that when most hi ISO shot performance is due to raw conversion NR?



DxO does analyses on raw data (with the exception of their not-raw-superraw, presumably), so it's raw-conversion and NR independent.



PureClassA said:


> ... a magical overall score that says Sony is an "A" student and Canon is a "C" student (at least according to I got grades in high school. An 81 was a high C )



It doesn't work that way. The score isn't a percentage and there is no ceiling. 70-80 isn't "C range," nor is 90-100 "A" range.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


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


They are bragging about this on their website about it being equal to crop cameras (d7200/7d2) and science behind this achievement. I think, they created a raw hdr of 4 pics. Can they beat even best of Exmor scores/numbers by creating composite of 6 or 8. Why did they stop with hdr of 4 pics. 

" The DxO ONE camera’s score of up to 85 puts it on par with many DSLR cameras, such as the Nikon D7200 and the Sony A7S (both with a score of 87), and is well above such Canon DSLRs as the EOS 5D Mark III (81) and the 7D Mark II (70)."


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 11, 2015)

Yeah the four shot RAW HDR file scored like everyone else's one shot RAW was a red flag. What I DO like is that someone managed to come up with a RAW HDR (if I'm understanding correctly what they're producing). Granted, we can all shoot 3-4 RAW frames and merge them LR or PS into a final TIFF or JPG ... but making and KEEPING a RAW HDR file... pretty nifty. Would like to see more on that



ritholtz said:


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


----------



## EDK (Jul 11, 2015)

The rumor is that there are no rumors from Canon


----------



## weixing (Jul 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah the four shot RAW HDR file scored like everyone else's one shot RAW was a red flag. What I DO like is that someone managed to come up with a RAW HDR (if I'm understanding correctly what they're producing). Granted, we can all shoot 3-4 RAW frames and merge them LR or PS into a final TIFF or JPG ... but making and KEEPING a RAW HDR file... pretty nifty. Would like to see more on that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi,
Once you combine 4 RAW image to produce a single RAW file, it's not RAW anymore... it's just an image save in RAW format. That's why a lot of serious Astrophotographer don't use Nikon camera in the past as Nikon applied some sort of NR in the RAW file which cannot be turn off in the camera (not sure about the current Nikon model).

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah the four shot RAW HDR file scored like everyone else's one shot RAW was a red flag. What I DO like is that someone managed to come up with a RAW HDR (if I'm understanding correctly what they're producing). Granted, we can all shoot 3-4 RAW frames and merge them LR or PS into a final TIFF or JPG ... but making and KEEPING a RAW HDR file... pretty nifty. Would like to see more on that



It's not 'a RAW HDR file'. It's four separate RAW images stored a single file container (kind of like a zipped folder), that are opened and combined on your computer...but only by DxO's software.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2015)

jthomson said:


> I would like to understand the low iso scores of the 5DS/5DSR. My understanding was that the larger pixels of the 5DIII and 6D were what gave them the low light capability. The 5DS/5DSR have smaller pixels yet get similar iso scores to the 5DIII and 6D. How are they achieving roughly twice the iso score of the 7DII with a similar pixel size?



I would still argue this is hardware and not testing methodology. The big factor here is the sensor size. Equal pixel size on a bigger sensor produces less noise overall at equal technology. Even if the per-pixel noise is the same. The pixels could also have higher quantum efficiency on the 5Ds. Maybe the pixels' QE is much higher also than vs. the 5D3 or 6D? It's hard to tell until sensorgen (my favorite site) lists data/measurements.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to understand the low iso scores of the 5DS/5DSR. My understanding was that the larger pixels of the 5DIII and 6D were what gave them the low light capability. The 5DS/5DSR have smaller pixels yet get similar iso scores to the 5DIII and 6D. How are they achieving roughly twice the iso score of the 7DII with a similar pixel size?
> ...


IIRC, sensorgen just uses DxO data and does curve fitting to come to their figures. Their number will always agree with DxO because the source is pulled from DxO. 

So far, according to DxO's reported measurements, the 5Ds cameras are underwhelming. The 5Ds' pixels are performing slightly worse than those of the 7D-II, and clearly worse than the 6D. It's quite disappointing that a camera 6 months newer than the 7D-II and without the split pixels is somehow performing worse. (see attached)

Anyway, I'm quite skeptical of the published results and will definitely wait for Roger Clark's analysis before making any sort of purchase decision. Who knows, perhaps the 5D-IV, 6D-II or A7R-II will provide the right mix of features for my future needs.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 12, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jthomson said:
> ...



I'm talking about the 12.4 stops of DR for print DR. Sorry.


----------



## RGF (Jul 12, 2015)

let me ask a naive question -- 

Let's assume that the DxO measures are correct and the Sony sensors have better dynamic range, ....

In the end, so what ? How much of a difference really matters? Does DxO measure anything that really matters or are the difference small enough not to be important except in a few rare cases?


----------



## benperrin (Jul 12, 2015)

RGF said:


> let me ask a naive question --
> 
> Let's assume that the DxO measures are correct and the Sony sensors have better dynamic range, ....
> 
> In the end, so what ? How much of a difference really matters? Does DxO measure anything that really matters or are the difference small enough not to be important except in a few rare cases?


That is the hot debate. For some it probably is important, for others not at all.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jul 12, 2015)

Take a look at Ken Tanaka's comments which are found just under the main body of the article ->

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/reigning-%C3%BCbercamera.html

That might help answer some of your (and perhaps a very great many other people's) questions.

It pretty much sums up what's "meaningful" and what's not.

For myself, I've found the cheap, small Sony A6000 to be a superior image making tool to the much more massive 5D Mk-anything. It'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in APS-C format cameras when Sony intro's it's A7000 (or whatever they're going to call it) next month.



RGF said:


> let me ask a naive question --
> 
> Let's assume that the DxO measures are correct and the Sony sensors have better dynamic range, ....
> 
> In the end, so what ? How much of a difference really matters? Does DxO measure anything that really matters or are the difference small enough not to be important except in a few rare cases?


----------



## Corneria (Jul 12, 2015)

*Re: 5DS scores at DXO drop **tomorrow** (i.e. 7/8/15)*



bdunbar79 said:


> Corneria said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Ok, can you point to where it states that DxO measures 'DR of lenses'? I have never seen that.

If you mean the lens scores in combination with a camera, then that's logical. A camera has DR, lens delivers aspects like sharpness; so as a whole system you have things like DR, ISO performance, sharpness, vignetting, etc. But still, I haven't seen that in their tests either, so I'd appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction of the 'wrongdoings'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2015)

Corneria said:


> If you mean the lens scores in combination with a camera, then that's logical. A camera has DR, lens delivers aspects like sharpness; so as a whole system you have things like DR, ISO performance, sharpness, vignetting, etc. But still, I haven't seen that in their tests either, so I'd appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction of the 'wrongdoings'.



In DxO's own words a requirement for the Lens Score is, "_growing linearly with the sensor dynamic range, measured in f-stops, for a perfect optic._" 

As you say, they 'score' lenses in combination with cameras. But while you and I know that, I suspect we're in a small minority of people who view their comparisons. Even the way they present their scores is, IMO, deceptive. They show the DxOMark Score on top of a list of lens-specific metrics, giving the impression that the score is a composite of those metrics, when in fact that score is better described as suitability for taking pictures of flat subjects in a dimly-lit warehouse. 

DxOMark's Lens Score calculation is even more of a black box than their Sensor Score (more of their Bad Science = BS) but looking over their numbers it's evident that the two most important factors are sensor score and lens transmission. Thus, as below you can compare two excellent lenses, where one is sharper, has slightly higher trasnmission, and has much less CA, and see that DxO gives them the same score.


----------



## RGF (Jul 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Corneria said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean the lens scores in combination with a camera, then that's logical. A camera has DR, lens delivers aspects like sharpness; so as a whole system you have things like DR, ISO performance, sharpness, vignetting, etc. But still, I haven't seen that in their tests either, so I'd appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction of the 'wrongdoings'.
> ...



Don't understand why the Canon and Nikon both got the same score.

Canon wins or ties on metric

Higher resolution on a lower resolution body.

Better T value (vs published F stop)

Less distortion

Similar vignetting 

Lower CA

Oh, I forgot. 5% penalty have the name Canon on the lens or body :


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2015)

The other example Neuro always brings up is below. Same camera body, and the big white wins each metric other than transmission (which you could argue should be reported as an accuracy to its listed max aperture rather than it's pure T-Stop value), yet it gets a lower score.

Now, reporting the actual T-stop of the lens is absolutely useful if you are buying a lens, but using transmission to state one lens with a completely different max aperture is better than other is insane. 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 12, 2015)

Another bizarre one, the "battle of the 500s."

The canon has significantly better sharpness (even with a significant sensor resolution disadvantage), significantly better CA, yet the DR of the D800 body is enough to give the lenses a tie score.

However, the Sony which ties or bests the Nikkor everywhere but the small transmission deficit loses by 3 points in aggregate to despite being used on a platform with roughly the same DR as the D800. 

Is t-stop really weighted so significantly that .2 knocks adds 3 points?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Is t-stop really weighted so significantly that .2 knocks adds 3 points?



It's not just DR, it's the Sensor Score - the D800 beats the A99 by 6 points. That also speaks to their wonky undisclosed BS (biased scores, bad science)...they state a 15-unit Score difference is about 1-stop of performance. That means the D800 should be ~0.4 stops 'better' than the A99. But, the D800 is 0.3 stops better for color depth, 0.4 stops better for DR, and nearly a full stop better for ISO. 

So it seems they don't even follow their own description of how their sensor score works. That's BS.


----------



## Corneria (Jul 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> In DxO's own words a requirement for the Lens Score is, "_growing linearly with the sensor dynamic range, measured in f-stops, for a perfect optic._"


Hmm... Ok, I have no clue what they mean by that. Also, I take back my earlier comment about the "score for lens + camera", because they don't have any 'metrics' or any aspects about the camera stated, but they do give a "lens score" where they apparently measure some unknown aspects about the camera. I'd be fine if they would give scores for the camera+lens combination, but they should be more transparent about the camera scores then...


ahsanford said:


> Now, reporting the actual T-stop of the lens is absolutely useful if you are buying a lens, but using transmission to state one lens with a completely different max aperture is better than other is insane.





3kramd5 said:


> Another bizarre one, the "battle of the 500s."
> 
> The canon has significantly better sharpness (even with a significant sensor resolution disadvantage), significantly better CA, yet the DR of the D800 body is enough to give the lenses a tie score.
> 
> ...


Yes, I tried to understand the logics of their overall scores, but it is very vague. I have no idea what they do with the weights of the different 'metrics', but I do remember reading somewhere on their website that they look at the sharpness of the whole spectrum. So if a lens would be marvellous on f/8 but horrible on f/2.8 while another lens would be 'okay' at the whole spectrum, the former would have a higher sharpness score but a lower overall score. Or it was an overage for the sharpness score, I'm not sure.

Anyway, personally I don't look at the overall score, for example because of that transmission with equal(?) weight as sharpness. Also, I don't care about vignetting or distortion (except for ultra wide lenses). What I do like DxO for, is their sharpness graphs, those are very handy! I do wish they had a more user friendly menu though. I think www.slrgear.com has the nicest sharpness 'widget' (although I don't think the rest of the website is very user friendly), and they had them for many years.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 13, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Is t-stop really weighted so significantly that .2 knocks adds 3 points?



A t-stop of 4.3 is brighter than a t-stop of 4.5.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 13, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Is t-stop really weighted so significantly that .2 knocks adds 3 points?
> ...



Doh. Serves me right for trying to juggle screenshots of multiple pages while posting about them on a phone.

That makes it even more inane; the Sony matches or bests the Nikkor in every listed metric (and like the Canon tops the Nikkor in sharpness in spite of a large resolution deficit) and loses by 3 points.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 13, 2015)

Can I ask a slightly tangential question? The Lightroom HDR feature saves as a .dng file. I totally get that multiple exposures combined can't be considered truly 'raw' in the sense of unmodified sensor data, but the dog file acts more like a raw than a jpeg in terms of how aggressively you can postprocess it. So how does this work? What's going on? Is it like this Dxo thing, in that it's several raw files saved together, or what? I don't know much about file formats :/


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2015)

Spock said:


> Let me see if I understand this correctly....
> 
> Device A scores higher on every metric, yet device B achieves a higher aggregate score....
> 
> To defend such a system is illogical....



Spock, you should probably leave the thread for your own safety.

You and DXO Scoring in the same thread is analogous to putting matter and anti-matter in a room together.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2015)

Are DxO wearing red shirts in this scenario?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are DxO wearing red shirts in this scenario?



Sorry, had to. 

(This thread is there, isn't it?)

- A


----------



## Eldar (Jul 13, 2015)

Just saw this from our good friend Tony; 
http://northrup.photo/canon-5ds-r-dxomark-scores-why-you-shouldnt-care/


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Just saw this from our good friend Tony;
> http://northrup.photo/canon-5ds-r-dxomark-scores-why-you-shouldnt-care/



My mind just exploded. Everything he said made sense, and it was a reasonable position.

Tony Northrup has been kidnapped. I'll alert the authorities.

- A


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jul 13, 2015)

Northup's review of the D810 vs. 5DSR was a favorable review for the Canon well before DXO scores came out. He also is not a fan of DXO's scoring methods and preaches to disregard many of it and only focus on certain scores and data points which I totally agree with.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> My mind just exploded. Everything he said made sense, and it was a reasonable position.
> 
> Tony Northrup has been kidnapped. I'll alert the authorities.
> 
> - A


You obviously didn't see his previous video about the d810 vs the 5dsr. He previously said that he thought the Canon was better and the extra megapixels makes a difference (at least for some people). I know people love to bash TN but I've found that he's one of the least biased people on the internet. And the amount of abuse that him and others like him have to take is amazing. He's much better than those Sony "artisans" who are just painful to watch due to the amount of bs flowing from their mouths.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2015)

benperrin said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > My mind just exploded. Everything he said made sense, and it was a reasonable position.
> ...



Talk about over your head. That was uh, kinda his point.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 14, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I don't know, everyone I talk to seems to point out that TN is full of it. I always point out that he tries to be as logical as possible. If this was sarcasm there was no easy way to detect it and no need for you to be so rude about it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2015)

Ok, just kidding. Sorry.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 14, 2015)

No worries. To tell you the truth I often find internet lingo hard to detect. It's not as easy as a face to face conversation. Just one of those things.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2015)

Oh yeah I agree. I have to re read my posts sometimes. Thank you.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 14, 2015)

Agreed that TN is pretty straight in all his comments. He seems open to criticism from his followers and is trainable in that he will re-do tests or re-think positions when errors are discovered. The trouble seems to be that he usually does not go back and re-edit old videos. He recently pointed out himself how beat-up he had been because his video review was critical of certain aspects of the Fuji XT-1. His video was made based on the original firmware release. Fuji has since addressed essentially all his criticisms with firmware updates. Yet, critics complain that TN doesn't know what he is doing since Fuji has none of the issues he points out in the video. Different firmware = different camera.

All that said, I do question how deeply he investigates the parameters surrounding focus tracking ability of various bodies. It seems to be more of a "just out of the box" test without fine tuning. Since he shoots a lot of BIF I would assume he has his 5DIII and 7DII pretty well dialed-in. Other bodies maybe not so much.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 14, 2015)

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dxomark-test-canon-5ds-sensor-is-far-behind-the-sony-a7r-sensor-quality/

Wow...
SAR should be ashamed for supporting DxO brandwashing everywhere but a short, lame, tacked on disclaimer at the end of the article.
It's an extreme analogy, but the same dilemma: If people die because a murderer likes media attention...
(And no I don't think "Canon" or "the 5Ds" would be "people" in this analogy, it's more along the lines of logic dying at the hands of click-bait. They may as well be proclaiming that Unicorns were discovered in North Korea.)


http://northrup.photo/canon-5ds-r-dxomark-scores-why-you-shouldnt-care/


> So, how do you pick between the 5DS-R and the D810? Pick the Canon or Nikon lens system first, then get the body that matches. Glass is generally more important. Then, stop looking at charts at start shooting.



Tony's article is a nice surprise. Well done.


----------



## emko (Jul 14, 2015)

so looking at the numbers 5DS has more detail because it has more megapixels but the Nikons have more DR and less noise just like it was expected what exactly is wrong with these results? yes the rating number is stupid but the other numbers are really not. IF you need MP and don't need DR or use higher ISO Canon is a great camera for you and the results show that but if you need MP DR and ISO you can get that at 36MP currently and 42MP with the new Sony sensor.

I am trying to figure out if i want to switch to A7RII but that Camera is really bothering me with the battery usage and the NON RAW files or switch to a Nikon with that sensor but then i cant use all the Canon glass i have


----------



## emko (Jul 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Well good for TN stating "note that dynamic range only impacts your picture if you raise the exposure in your photo in post processing, or if you raise the shadows".
> 
> Hopefully we are now getting past the point where the way to test a sensor's "IQ" on the Internet is to underexpose by about six stops and then push in post, and see which copes with it best.
> 
> Very, very misleading for the vast majority of applications.



its not about the 6 stops its that when you push the shadows at all on Canon sensors you get noise and patterns faster then on a Nikon, oh and sometimes you don't even need to touch the shadows and you can see the noise.


----------



## emko (Jul 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



are you suggesting that Canon shadows are as clean as Nikons really? come on 

Canon is even known for that pattern noise "banding" it has in shadows


----------



## Eldar (Jul 14, 2015)

Yes, the shadow noise is better on Exmor. But the 5DS/5DSR is in my view close enough. I was visiting a friend´s summer house the other day and kind of liked his dining area. This is shot handheld, with the 11-24mm (did not bring a tripod), in available light. As can be seen in picture one, which is RAW to JPEG with LR defaults, this is massively under exposed, due to the highlights in the background and the histogram is pretty full.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 14, 2015)

Here is a quickly processed version, done on my laptop.

Exposure +1.50
Highlights -100
Shadows +100
Whites +55
Saturation: +12
Blue luminance -35
Noise reduction luminance 25

I can live with this ...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 14, 2015)

benperrin said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > let me ask a naive question --
> ...



In particular bad photographers shooting landscapes at noon need as much DR as possible 8)

I wonder why everybody debates DR but nearly nobody as much the color depth problem - which is much more important for photography IMHO. This is the area in which digital photography still falls really back behind good film. 12, 14 or 16 or a few more bits of color depth is nothing compared with the analogue color rendition of a fine classic film (Velvia!). National Geographic photographer Norbert Rosing who is famous for his arctic themes told recently in a German interview that he is working on a new book based on his latest analogue slides. He stressed the fact that only film yet can render the subtle color changes in snow/ice landscapes in a satisfying way. I am just an amateur but sometimes reside to analogue slides exactly because of the same reason. So I think color rendition is the most important area in which digital photography still needs to improve.


----------



## ksgal (Jul 14, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Just saw this from our good friend Tony;
> http://northrup.photo/canon-5ds-r-dxomark-scores-why-you-shouldnt-care/



And I just read the comments.. and came across this:

Tony Northrup July 14, 2015 at 11:47 am

*"The focusing of the a7R II definitely won’t be the same–at least with the beta versions, you can’t select the autofocus point while using adapted lenses…

Let that sink in. During a portrait, the camera might decide to focus on the nose or ear, and not the near eye, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Without being able to select the focusing point, adapted lenses are good only for the most casual snapshots or when manual focusing."*

Makes the camera a total non starter for me - I like my glass, and while I do covet a mirrorless Sony, I think this emphasizes to me that it will be an addition, not a replacement, in my bag - and with a Sony lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


> > I am trying to figure out if i want to switch to A7RII but that Camera is really bothering me with the battery usage and the NON RAW files or switch to a Nikon with that sensor but then i cant use all the Canon glass i have
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait and see how good/bad the battery is. I keep two batteries on me at all times but never need the second one unless I've forgotten to recharge.



The manual states (on a full charge basis at 25°C, default brightnesses and display quality, with Display All Info enabled, AF-S enabled, shooting one frame every 30 seconds, and cycling the power once every 5 minutes):
~340 stills using the LCD
~290 stills using the EVF


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2015)

ksgal said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw this from our good friend Tony;
> ...



If true, that really renders all the comments about AF speed improvements with 3rd party (e.g. Canon) lenses moot. But a) it's with a prerelease version and b) it's TN, so let's wait and see.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> If true, that really renders all the comments about AF speed improvements with 3rd party (e.g. Canon) lenses moot. But a) it's with a prerelease version and b) it's TN, so let's wait and see.



It seems like a strange limitation. I imagine it would be harder to use them all than to force-select just one. 

Shrug, I plan to use mine mostly on MF or with the zeiss 25 f/2, so I don't really care.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 14, 2015)

ksgal said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw this from our good friend Tony;
> ...


This is exactly what I noticed in DPR focus test review video. Everyone is very upbeat about AF with third party lens (Canon) in comments section. But in test video, it kept on focusing nose every time without failing. Not sure if they really trying to focus on noses.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 14, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Here is a quickly processed version, done on my laptop.
> 
> Exposure +1.50
> Highlights -100
> ...


Hi Eldar,
It looks very nice. Is there any need for pushing more than this in real world use. I also noticed some kinda of orange color caste while pushing shadow slider on dxo optics. How do you adjust color casts?
Using DPP, I am able to brighten shadows by adjusting mid tones in gamma adjustment graph by -2 stops. Is it same as pushing shadow slider? DPP sliders can only go from -5 to +5 instead of -100 to +100.

Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> DPP sliders can only go from -5 to +5 instead of -100 to +100.



Canon's poor DR again?


----------



## Eldar (Jul 14, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a quickly processed version, done on my laptop.
> ...


Ritholtz, I´m not the right person to ask for advice on post processing. There are hundreds on this forum better than me. I just posted this as a rather extreme example. Very bright sky in the back ground, only natural light and lots of very dark shadow inside etc. I don´t believe I have ever tried to make a usable picture of something worse than this. It is clearly not noise free, but I think the result, after just a couple of minutes playing on a laptop, is quite good.

I have never really used DPP, so I cannot comment on that. If I decide to work more on the remaining noise issues on the image I posted, I transfer it to my iMac, which also has a calibrated Eizo monitor and play around with the noise reduction capabilities LR provide.


----------



## asmundma (Jul 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ksgal said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



This is most likely not true, as it currently works on my A7s and metabones adapter with a Canon 70-200 2.8
Why should they take it away ?


----------



## asmundma (Jul 14, 2015)

Give us the raw files for download and we will tell you ..... ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 14, 2015)

1st Nikon (maybe)
2nd Nikon
3rd Canon


----------



## benperrin (Jul 15, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> Hi Eldar,
> It looks very nice. Is there any need for pushing more than this in real world use. I also noticed some kinda of orange color caste while pushing shadow slider on dxo optics. How do you adjust color casts?
> Using DPP, I am able to brighten shadows by adjusting mid tones in gamma adjustment graph by -2 stops. Is it same as pushing shadow slider? DPP sliders can only go from -5 to +5 instead of -100 to +100.
> 
> Thanks



I often use this method to correct colour casts. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09XC9WGTLyc

Basically just adding the opposite colour back in on a new layer using the colour blend mode and something awesome called 'Blend If'. If you've never used blend if before it's one of the best features in photoshop.

I forgot to add that I made an action for this long ago so it's a rather quick process.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 1st Nikon (maybe)
> 2nd Nikon
> 3rd Canon



I'd go Canon, Canon, Sony. The last one has a smoother look to it which may be from greater downsampling or pre-cooked NR, but *shrug*


----------



## benperrin (Jul 15, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I'd go Canon, Canon, Sony. The last one has a smoother look to it which may be from greater downsampling or pre-cooked NR, but *shrug*



Yeah that's my guess but I can't be sure.


----------



## R1-7D (Jul 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw this from our good friend Tony;
> ...



Not kidnapped; he's the same TN, as always. I quoted Neuro and got back a defence of DxO:

http://northrup.photo/canon-5ds-r-dxomark-scores-why-you-shouldnt-care/#comment-313

I'm debating collecting all the blatant examples crappy/non-sensical DxO scores and posting them to further my point, but I have stuff to do tonight. Maybe when I have more time later on. Even if I do, however, I doubt I'd change his mind. I just hope some people out there have the sense to look at both sides of the coin before taking what DxO says as gospel.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ksgal said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Agree with Neuro. We should wait for production releases.

Besides, Tony Northrup was wrong about Fuji mirrorless systems in the pass.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jul 15, 2015)

TN's Fuji review was not a mistake. It was accurate and based off the latest firmware that was available at time of review.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 1st Nikon (maybe)
> 2nd Nikon
> 3rd Canon


agreed, there's more color noise in the 3rd sample, as I'd expect from a Canon CMOS sensor, but I don't normally use PNG, not sure how it responds to low levels.
edit: there's also a significant overall difference in saturation &-or white balance so that's gonna muddy things up to the point of making the reverse true but I'll stick with my first guesstimate.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 15, 2015)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 1st Nikon (maybe)
> ...


Guys it's Sony Exmor vs Canon not Nikon vs Canon. Just FYI.


----------



## caMARYnon (Jul 15, 2015)

Exmor (green)
Exmor (green, more details in shadows - 36Mpx)
Canon (red, less details 22Mpx)


----------



## jd7 (Jul 15, 2015)

Another vote for:
Exmor
Exmor
Canon

When do we get the answer, Sporgon?!


----------



## jd7 (Jul 15, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> This is a bit of fun, so here are two shots, one on the exmor and one on the 6D, both at 100 ISO this time (because I took both these myself!).
> 
> The first image is shot on either the exmor or Canon. In each case the shot was under exposed to preserve the highlights in the clouds, so there was nothing blown. Each was then raised two thirds of a stop in raw before conversion. This time I have converted straight to png to avoid the posterization seen in the other examples.
> 
> So, which is which ? Both have been raised two thirds stop. Images two and three are 200% crops this time, so you can really get to see that dreadful noise in the Canon image.



OK, I'll play again ...

Canon
Canon
Exmor


----------



## caMARYnon (Jul 15, 2015)

Exmor-exmor-canon


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jul 15, 2015)

exmor (not sure)
canon
exmor - more detail


----------



## Eldar (Jul 15, 2015)

???
Exmor
Canon


----------



## zim (Jul 15, 2015)

Canon
Exmor
Canon


----------



## benperrin (Jul 16, 2015)

So are you going to put us out of our misery already? I think you've proven your point about the differences between the cameras.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 16, 2015)

zim said:


> Canon
> Exmor
> Canon



Me too, because I was entirely wrong last time, so I'm taking my initial guess and switching it


----------



## zim (Jul 16, 2015)

;D Yey

The only way I could guess was by looking at downloaded image colour which I find is generally different from colours within a web browser


----------



## benperrin (Jul 16, 2015)

What happened to this thread? The examples got deleted. Why?


----------



## benperrin (Jul 17, 2015)

Ok I just noticed that Sporgon is now gone. Sad to see someone that was being so helpful leave the community.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 17, 2015)

I only care what the image looks like in real world shooting.
It's here, so let the games begin.



Canon 5DS has arrived- game changer by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## benperrin (Jul 17, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I only care what the image looks like in real world shooting.
> It's here, so let the games begin.
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! Congrats. Have fun playing with it this weekend!


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Here is a quickly processed version, done on my laptop.
> 
> Exposure +1.50
> Highlights -100
> ...



Looks quite nice downsampled. Personally, though, I wouldn't be too terribly happy with the color splotch in the lifted shadows under the table at full size, and more importantly, in a larger print. Same old Canon slotch.... :\ I really wonder if they will fix that at some point...


----------



## Eldar (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a quickly processed version, done on my laptop.
> ...


Agree, but, aside from the little noise reduction i applied, I have done nothing to fix it either.


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I think that pretty much sums up a large part of my interest in Exmor in a nutshell right there!  There isn't ever anything to fix in the first place with an Exmor. The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go. 

I don't have to think about ETTR when making the shot, I don't have to worry about clipping highlights, I don't have to worry about fixing color blotch or removing bands or recovering DR. With the Sony's I've used, it's just take the shot, adjust exposure and maybe color to taste and style...that's it! 

The Sony cams outside of the A6000 haven't performed as well on the AF front, I still generally prefer my 5D III for AF critical applications. Very interested in the A7r II + Metabones + EF 600/4 though....really wonder how that will perform.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I was so negative to start with and almost expected to be dissapointed with the 5DSR. Instead it has proven to be quite an improvement. Still not perfect, but with all the rest that makes up a camera&lens package, I'm happy. The image I posted is clearly in the extreme end of what I do. If the point was to use it for something more than a weekend memory, I would have brought a tripod and some lights. But of course, I run into high contrast situations quite often, so I will still be eagerly awaiting the next releases and cross my fingers for the 1DX II.

I will still assess the A7R II, with the metabones also. My prime interest is manual focus with my Zeiss lenses, but I will of course also try the long whites.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 17, 2015)

Here's my first photo at 1 am. Needless to say, not idea outdoor lighting. But... wow!
Lens was my old 24-105L at f11, so not cutting edge.



5DS test 1 camera display © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Screen shot all the in LR6 zoom magnification. It defined the periods in U.S.A. That's pretty good. 



5DS testing Camera display zoomed © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Ok I just noticed that Sporgon is now gone. Sad to see someone that was being so helpful leave the community.



+1000 
it was because of a disgraceful post by someone he thought was a mod


----------



## Eldar (Jul 17, 2015)

zim said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I just noticed that Sporgon is now gone. Sad to see someone that was being so helpful leave the community.
> ...


If someone has his true identity, he should be encouraged to come back. He truly adds value.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 17, 2015)

Eldar said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > benperrin said:
> ...


He's (fortunately - up to now) still a forum member, just deleted his posts on this thread.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 17, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Guys, thanks for the comments you have been making. I wouldn't leave CR, simply because the cool guys here easily out weight the bad. Unfortunate that in this instance one of the bad happens to be an administrator. I'll leave the site owner to deal with that, and perhaps increase this administrators dose of evening primrose oil. 

However it has reminded me that I have been drawn into posting too much, and I've trimmed some of my stuff out. And sanj, love your response ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I'm glad that our Sporgon friend is back. 

In fact, I agree with several points that the CR moderator did, but his words were harsh, and without politeness, as someone who had a bad day. :-\ Today is a new day, and we will continue discussing amicably, including the DR at ISO100. :


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> I think that pretty much sums up a large part of my interest in Exmor in a nutshell right there!  There isn't ever anything to fix in the first place with an Exmor. The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go.
> 
> I don't have to think about ETTR when making the shot, I don't have to worry about clipping highlights, I don't have to worry about fixing color blotch or removing bands or recovering DR. With the Sony's I've used, it's just take the shot, adjust exposure and maybe color to taste and style...that's it!
> 
> The Sony cams outside of the A6000 haven't performed as well on the AF front, I still generally prefer my 5D III for AF critical applications. Very interested in the A7r II + Metabones + EF 600/4 though....really wonder how that will perform.


DR difference between latest rebel and Sony a6000 is 1stop. Do you think, one going to see this much difference between sensors with only 1 stop extra DR.


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think that pretty much sums up a large part of my interest in Exmor in a nutshell right there!  There isn't ever anything to fix in the first place with an Exmor. The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go.
> ...



With the A6000, it is over stop (PrintDR 11.96 -> 13.14; ScreenDR 11.17 -> 12.34), plus significantly higher quantum efficiency, plus 11fps, plus a much better AF system, plus smaller and lighter (mirrorless), pocket portable (I can drop the camera and a couple lenses into the pockets of my birding slacks, which have some extra pockets on the legs). 

The AF system and frame rate are the real big bonuses with the A6000. Were talking 11fps vs. 5fps, and 25/179 point AF system vs. 19 point AF system. 

So, for all of you "It's the full package that counts" guys out there...the A6000 trounces the Canon options in the same price range. In every category, not just dynamic range, it delivers better. The way I account for dynamic range...at full RAW image size in Lightroom (no downsampling here, it is no longer RAW if you downsample and edit), the difference in DR is 1.17 stops.

The only thing I don't like about the A6000 is that it doesn't work as well with my Canon lenses when adapted via Metabones. I'm hoping the A6100/A7000 will resolve that issue. But it's the SOLE issue, and I only have it because of my existing Canon lens collection.


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Difference in DR is 1.1 (13.1 vs 12) stops. A6000 is going to write 12bit raw with 11 fps shooting. You are going to end up lower DR than even Canon sensor. But my question is, are we going to see all those advantages (The signal is so clean SO deep, you just don't ever have to think about having to fix an issue with the data. It's clean, pristine data, stops and stops deeper than any Canon could ever go) you mentioned between d6000 vs 760d sensor with approximately 1 stop DR difference.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 17, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> A6000 is going to write 12bit raw with 11 fps shooting. You are going to end up lower DR than even Canon sensor.



I doubt 12bit RAW will matter in practice as, in my experience at least, it's not terribly common to be shooting >8fps and ISO 100 at the same time.


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Delighted, Sporgon your one of several posters here who's work I genuinely admire, in fact to go out and try things I've never tried before namely stitched panos of different types, got a lot of fun giving that a go.
So from an amateur to a pro thanks for not buggering off! ;D


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



I feel this is just digging for negatives in the Sony to complain about.  If you actually use these Sony cameras, and dig around in the utter depths of their signals, you would understand what I am referring to when I talk about the clean data. 

Sony data can be lifted far more than the stops difference in DR between a Canon. I've lifted A7r data as much as seven stops. That is far beyond the literal differences in dynamic range between any two cameras. The A6000 is still an Exmor. It's the Exmor technology that delivers clean, low noise data. The dynamic range increases because the STDev of noise drops. But there is a lot more to it than that. 

The characteristic of the noise changes as well. I don't like lifting my Canon data more than two stops...not because the random noise looks bad (it looks fine)...but because of all the other kinds of noise that show up in Canon data. The blotching and the banding and everything else. This is the area that DXO doesn't cover with their tests, and while some people seem to think that if DXO DID cover it, the noise characteristic realm, that it would paint Canon's in better light. I think it would actually do exactly the opposite, because the noise characteristics of Canon cameras are rather poor.

You might get away with a a two stop lift in a DR-heavy scene (where you've ETTRed heavily) without any hint of banding. If you are really good about debanding, you MIGHT be able to pull the data up three stops. You could easily pull up four, five, maybe even six stops with an A6000, and easily six stops or more with an A7r/A7s, not a hint of banding, not a hint of blotch, not a hint of hot pixels, nothing. Just low STDev random noise.

Oh, as for 12 stops of DR. It doesn't matter as much in practice, not that I've seen. Canon cameras don't even support 12 bits of data in the RAW information coming off the sensor (downsampled images are not telling you about the per-pixel signal actually being read off the sensor and converted to digital numbers...you have to reference the Screen DR/SNR measures for that.) At least the A6000 is fully utilizing every single bit their ADCs support with extremely clean information. Additionally, the data isn't even really 12-bit. It's 11+7 bit encoded. The lossy 11+7 bit encoding doesn't bother me much either (I would certainly prefer true RAW, and it sounds like Sony is working on that.) On rare occasions I've seen situations where that results in some slight artifacting. The article that used RAW Digger to demonstrate the problems with the compression algorithm used the worst possible kind of data there is for it, star trails. In all my time using Alpha series cameras or working with Alpha series RAW data, I've NEVER seen that level of artifacts. Most of the time I work with astro images from Alpha cameras, and I've never seen compression artifacts. I've seen some slight amounts of posterization at the bottom of the signal in dark black background skies in a few cases. Stacking usually cleans most of that up as well. Overall, I'm happy to trade off a couple bits of output precision for the very clean data and all the other features. I have no complaints about the IQ coming from Alpha series cameras. (And, as most people here know, I have a lot of complaints about the data I get from Canon cameras. :\)

I like the pocketable size in particular...I love my 5D III and 600mm f/4 lens. I hate that I cannot safely bring them to work every day without worrying about someone damaging it, or stealing it, because I miss too many opportunities. A pocketable, ultra light weight camera with a high frame rate and excellent IQ is currently at the very top of my value list. Canon doesn't have anything that competes with all of those features at the moment. And I no longer have any interest in waiting for Canon to catch up...I don't even know if they are trying, or are even interested in making a camera that could compete with the A6000. If I knew Canon was interested and trying, that's one thing...but the EOS M isn't even being brought to the states, and the specs have been fairly lackluster. Taken as a whole package, the A6000 is a phenomenal deal, and it STILL has more DR and the ability to recover shadows much, much deeper than any Canon camera on the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> I feel this is just digging for negatives in the Sony to complain about.



Yeah, no one ever does that regarding the Canon system. :


----------



## benperrin (Jul 18, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Guys, thanks for the comments you have been making. I wouldn't leave CR, simply because the cool guys here easily out weight the bad. Unfortunate that in this instance one of the bad happens to be an administrator. I'll leave the site owner to deal with that, and perhaps increase this administrators dose of evening primrose oil.
> 
> However it has reminded me that I have been drawn into posting too much, and I've trimmed some of my stuff out. And sanj, love your response ;D



Sorry for jumping the gun Sporgon. Glad you are still around. I was enjoying your practical example of the image quality of the Canon vs the Exmor.


----------



## asmundma (Jul 18, 2015)

jrista said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Think you nailed it (them). Love your sientific way of arguing based on facts. But there one more thing, video in Sony camras, crunching Canon. That what made me start to investigate into Sony.


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Hahaha. Thank you. But perhaps I was too harsh. Maybe the Mod was going through a tough day. Nice to see that you are still around.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 18, 2015)

sanj said:


> Hahaha. Thank you. But perhaps I was too harsh. Maybe the Mod was going through a tough day. Nice to see that you are still around.



Actually I don't think you were too harsh. When I have a bad day I don't dump on people if I'm in a senior position to them. This guy has actually got involved in inappropriate postings for an admin before anyway. 

I'm a great believer in letting someone take enough rope.........


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha. Thank you. But perhaps I was too harsh. Maybe the Mod was going through a tough day. Nice to see that you are still around.
> ...



I agree here...having seen that post for myself now, that was unbecoming of a mod. Bit surprising...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 18, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, thanks for the comments you have been making. I wouldn't leave CR, simply because the cool guys here easily out weight the bad. Unfortunate that in this instance one of the bad happens to be an administrator. I'll leave the site owner to deal with that, and perhaps increase this administrators dose of evening primrose oil.
> ...



As I said Ben, more good guys than bad here. Thanks for your support.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 18, 2015)

jrista said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to comment Jon. I know we don't always see eye to eye on the Exmor / Canon tech but arguments must be balanced on each side.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 18, 2015)

Speaking of DXO...
I tried to load a 5DS raw file into DXO Pro 9 Elite. IT WON'T LOAD. Went to their chat and found I'll need Pro 10. NOT HAPPY! The chat guy was good, but the company failed.
DXO flaming...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Speaking of DXO...
> I tried to load a 5DS raw file into DXO Pro 9 Elite. IT WON'T LOAD. Went to their chat and found I'll need Pro 10. NOT HAPPY! The chat guy was good, but the company failed.
> DXO flaming...



Try it with an older major version of ACR...then contact Adobe for help.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of DXO...
> ...


DXO issue. Lightroom is perfect.


----------



## RGF (Jul 18, 2015)

jrista said:


> Oh, as for 12 stops of DR. It doesn't matter as much in practice, not that I've seen. Canon cameras don't even support 12 bits of data in the RAW information coming off the sensor (downsampled images are not telling you about the per-pixel signal actually being read off the sensor and converted to digital numbers...you have to reference the Screen DR/SNR measures for that.) At least the A6000 is fully utilizing every single bit their ADCs support with extremely clean information. Additionally, the data isn't even really 12-bit. It's 11+7 bit encoded. The lossy 11+7 bit encoding doesn't bother me much either (I would certainly prefer true RAW, and it sounds like Sony is working on that.) On rare occasions I've seen situations where that results in some slight artifacting. The article that used RAW Digger to demonstrate the problems with the compression algorithm used the worst possible kind of data there is for it, star trails. In all my time using Alpha series cameras or working with Alpha series RAW data, I've NEVER seen that level of artifacts. Most of the time I work with astro images from Alpha cameras, and I've never seen compression artifacts. I've seen some slight amounts of posterization at the bottom of the signal in dark black background skies in a few cases. Stacking usually cleans most of that up as well. Overall, I'm happy to trade off a couple bits of output precision for the very clean data and all the other features. I have no complaints about the IQ coming from Alpha series cameras. (And, as most people here know, I have a lot of complaints about the data I get from Canon cameras. :\)



what does lossy 11 + 7 bits encoding mean.

I understand lossy and bits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


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



Lightroom 5 is perfect for opening 5Ds files?


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, as for 12 stops of DR. It doesn't matter as much in practice, not that I've seen. Canon cameras don't even support 12 bits of data in the RAW information coming off the sensor (downsampled images are not telling you about the per-pixel signal actually being read off the sensor and converted to digital numbers...you have to reference the Screen DR/SNR measures for that.) At least the A6000 is fully utilizing every single bit their ADCs support with extremely clean information. Additionally, the data isn't even really 12-bit. It's 11+7 bit encoded. The lossy 11+7 bit encoding doesn't bother me much either (I would certainly prefer true RAW, and it sounds like Sony is working on that.) On rare occasions I've seen situations where that results in some slight artifacting. The article that used RAW Digger to demonstrate the problems with the compression algorithm used the worst possible kind of data there is for it, star trails. In all my time using Alpha series cameras or working with Alpha series RAW data, I've NEVER seen that level of artifacts. Most of the time I work with astro images from Alpha cameras, and I've never seen compression artifacts. I've seen some slight amounts of posterization at the bottom of the signal in dark black background skies in a few cases. Stacking usually cleans most of that up as well. Overall, I'm happy to trade off a couple bits of output precision for the very clean data and all the other features. I have no complaints about the IQ coming from Alpha series cameras. (And, as most people here know, I have a lot of complaints about the data I get from Canon cameras. :\)
> ...



It just refers to how the compressed data is actually encoded into the ARW file. The information is "encoded"...in other words, it is not simply "stored" as is from the sensor. 

I honestly don't know why Sony is doing this. It's hurting the maximum potential of their cameras. It's called cRAW, Compressed RAW, and it is currently the only "RAW" option on all current Sony cameras. Because the data is LOSSY compressed, technically speaking, the data is most definitely NOT RAW. It's much more akin to JPEG than RAW. 

That said, outside of certain kinds of images, such as star trails (which seem to exhibit compression artifacts worst by far), and maybe potentially around thin strait lines in images...like power lines...the compression artifacts are extremely difficult to see in most cases. Generally speaking, the differential in compressed pixel values is lower than photon shot noise (although not always), so the artifacts end up just getting drowned out. Under very low signal strengths, and (at least according to reports) when using ETTR in very high signal strengths, you can sometimes see artifacting. It's called posterization by most, but I think that is the wrong term. Compression artifacts is the right term. 

Anyway. To demonstrate how little it seems to matter:







A7r and 5D III. Which is which is obvious. This is about a seven stop or so shadow push between the exposure and the shadows sliders in LR. The A7r data, despite the most precise pixel data being encoded with only 11 bits, clearly has loads more dynamic range than the 5D III data, which is encoded with a full uncompressed 14 bits. 

The cRAW algorithm does apply an S-log like curve to the 14 bit data coming off the sensor first. Then it applies black point clipping. This effectively preserves the full dynamic range of the original data, but compresses it into a 12-bit range. Then it encodes two pixels in a block (I think it's a 32 pixel block) at the 11 bit precision, the rest are stored as 7 bit deltas from those first two. So, 11+7 bit encoding. Why they don't encode the first two with the full 12 bits is beyond me, but, that's how it works.

Anyway...it's lossy compressed. _That is certainly *not *ideal_. Sony seems to have heard the complaints about it, and is apparently working on a firmware fix...although who knows when that will arrive. However in practice, the results are still better than Canon's 14-bit RAW images, where around three bits of data are just lost to noise anyway. The difference is that the Sony data starts out with significantly more precision *and* _usable information_ than the Canon data. Compression costs you some precision...however it does _not _cost you the usability of the information (except in a few extreme circumstances...i.e. don't buy a Sony camera if you want to do star trails! )


----------



## scyrene (Jul 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Lightroom 6 opens 5DsR files if that helps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2015)

scyrene said:


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



Of course it does – v6 is the current version of LR, it supports the newly-released 5Ds. For DxO, the current version is v10, which also supports the 5Ds. Older versions (LR v5 and DxO v9) do not support the 5Ds. 

Yet according to Keith, '_Lightroom is perfect_,' while '_DxO failed_'. Something failed alright, but not software or a software company. Keith's problem in this case is purely a wetware failure.


----------



## RGF (Jul 19, 2015)

Only 28 page of mostly DxO bashing ... come on, let's go for 100 pages.

After all there must many more faults we can find about DxO.


----------



## zim (Jul 19, 2015)

RGF said:


> Only 28 page of mostly DxO bashing ... come on, let's go for 100 pages.
> 
> After all there must many more faults we can find about DxO.



The irony is I think their software is really good, but those scores..... Oh good grief ;D


----------



## K (Jul 22, 2015)

The 5DS can't do a 7 stop lift.

Final judgment, it is garbage.

Buy Nikon.

The end.

:


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ksgal said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



According to one post, it's not true.

"Just got the A7 this morning and i have been doing a few quick auto focus tests with the Canon 24-70 F4

First test was with the commlite outside *just with single point focus set* and it performed really well very quick there was just a very small lag when going from close to far focus, the performance was far better than the sony FE 24-70 on my A7R and it seemed as fast as my nikon d750 with a variety of lenses on.Now i tried it inside with a dimly lit room, the performance went way down lots of hunting and at times you could hear the lens motor ticking away making small changes back and forth not so good.Turning the lights up a bit in the room and it was able to lock focus but again there was a fair bit of hunting.Also the commlite suffered from reflections if the was a strong light source from above like a light.

I then tried the Metabones Mark III outside very fast even a hair quicker than the commlite it felt as quick as the D750 to be honest.Trying it inside and it was definitely better than the commlite it was able to lock focus better although at times it still hunted trying to lock yet other times you could move it around the room at it would lock instantly so from an early quick test indoors i would have to say the auto focus is a bit inconsistent but very usable just after that i tried my A7r with the 24-70 FE and it was about the same in the same dimly lit room.Also the reflection problem isn't as bad as on the commlite.

Ill have to check to see if i am able to update the firmware on the metabones see if that improves things any, the mark iv version would probably be better still.

Over all very impressed the 24-70 works very well i mainly shoot landscape so auto focus speed isn't that important to me."


----------

