# DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor



## TheBadger (Mar 12, 2013)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Leica-M9-M9-P-and-M-E-Type-220-Ahead-of-the-new-Leica-M-we-round-up-the-DxOMark-Scores-of-its-predecessors/Conclusion

This actually plays well for Leica, that just started shipping the new Leica M that comes with a CMOS sensor.
Leica: "Out with the old and in with the new!"


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2013)

now where did i put that bag of salt...


----------



## untitled10 (Mar 12, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> now where did i put that bag of salt...



+100 c;

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps >.>


----------



## TheBadger (Mar 12, 2013)

untitled10 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > now where did i put that bag of salt...
> ...



I can agree with you on that, but on the other hand, I'm glad such scientific studies exists. If it were not for them, who would scrutinize the camera makers and raise flags when their products don't match the hype (or the price for that matter)? Otherwise it's all subjective, relative, like art as you said. They could release a POS and brandish it like the best thing ever and all we can do is fight and debate in forums based on our feelings.

This is how we put these camera makers in line.


----------



## Pitbullo (Mar 12, 2013)

untitled10 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > now where did i put that bag of salt...
> ...



I might be wrong here, but isn´t the DxO marks´s test results only a "side effect" from the making of their RAW - converter, Capture One? Studying the behavior of lenses and cameras/sensors they can implement corrections in the raw converter and so on. This study of lenses and sensors also gives a score, the DxO mark score we all argue about.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps
> ...



Even Ansel Adams spent tons of time in the old-fashioned camera lab working on how to improve tech and get the most out of what he had.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > untitled10 said:
> ...


Zactly!
Best way to know when you're pushing the limits of your gear is to know what and where those limitations are.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > untitled10 said:
> ...


And not the best out of what someone else had or he dreamed about


----------



## infared (Mar 12, 2013)

DxOh-No!!!!!!! 
Useless outfit. ;D


----------



## meli (Mar 12, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps
> ...



hey maybe he's still shooting artfull glass plates and his 79 posts so far in this Canon gear forum were about them; ah no wait, they're not, they're about gear.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > untitled10 said:
> ...



Ansel Adams was a total gear head if he was around now he would be on these forums with a higher post count than neuro


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 13, 2013)

Another compelling reason not to switch to Leica.

But seriously...

Assuming their image quality actually is worse, it just means Leica buyers are probably putting more emphasis on portability, precision, quality workmanship and exclusivity. I don't think anything has changed here in the last 100 years. And despite a low ranking, you'd be a brave person to say that Leica's produce inferior results. Therefore, what's the use of the ranking anyway? Are they really meaningful in any useful way? 

Interestingly, the low marks didn't seem to have affected the brand's prestige or sales. The same might be said of Canon's marks vs Nikon. It would seem most people view DxO Mark as little more than a scientific curiosity. Not something you'd base a serious purchasing decision on.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ... I'm not challenging or disproving (nor am I capable of) what DxO claims, but I've never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX says. Their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ...
> ...


*Yes*, I am absolutely certain bcoz I never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX or some other xxx company says or claims and their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.


----------



## weixing (Mar 13, 2013)

Hi,
IMHO, if DxOMark use the RAW file produce by the camera to perform the calculation, the result is only valid for camera of the same brand.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ...
> ...


That is not a tautology


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2013)

The low score of the Leica CCD doesn't surprise me. But, I do think DXOMark's test results have always been skewed (as do most of us Canon people). 

And I still don't understand why so much emphasis is placed on dynamic range, color fidelity, and low noise...*at low ISO levels*. On any modern full frame camera (regardless of brand...well maybe except for Leica, haha)...the noise is so low below ISO 800, that it's extremely silly to worry about it. Even the noise on my 5 year old XXD body is so low below ISO 640, that it's almost absurd to think about. Autofocus performance and lens sharpness are really the only things left to think about, at the low ISO's. I get basically no detail loss at all, due to any obsessive NR I might dial in, in this range.

I mean, if we're going to worry about the noise and dynamic range of a sensor at the lower ISO range, then we're really talking about small, point-and-shoot sensors (and to some extent 4/3 sensors)...but definitely _not_ huge full frame sensors.

What counts most of all for me, is the noise performance, and how I can maximize it, _above_ ISO 1000 (since I enjoy doing nature and wildlife shooting, and don't use strobes very often). And starting around this range or a little above it...all of Canon's full frame sensors, pull ahead of all Nikon's sensors save one, the D4 (or the older and "better" D3s with its bigger pixels).

Perhaps sensors will see a revolution of improved performance soon...or perhaps not. I'm still mostly happy with what I've got now, as humble as it is.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 13, 2013)

Further proof of the irrelevance of DxOMark scores.


----------



## lol (Mar 13, 2013)

Wow, so much hatred for DxO? They're telling us nothing that hasn't already been widely reported throughout the years. The M9's sensor wasn't state of the art when it was new, and that was a lot of years ago now.

I think it does show for many people, you don't need to always be on the cutting edge. Once things get good enough, you don't look to upgrade unless something useful comes along with it. So even if the M9 sensor isn't the best, it does the job well enough for most.

As for DxO sensor scores as a whole, I do not think it fair to outright say their tests are wrong. They are only testing some factors and weighing them a certain way. Unless your needs exactly match those, then their overall scores will be of limited value. I believe their sub tests do show useful data but I wouldn't normally look at the overall score.


----------



## Alrik89 (Mar 13, 2013)

Who gives a s**t about DXO results?


----------



## David Hull (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, the low marks didn't seem to have affected the brand's prestige or sales. The same might be said of Canon's marks vs Nikon. It would seem most people view DxO Mark as little more than a scientific curiosity. Not something you'd base a serious purchasing decision on.
> ...



True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 13, 2013)

This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.

Maybe the Leica sensors are technically "inferior" in this or that way but I still like looking at the results some folks are getting. And I have to admit that I wish I could afford the M system. It would work well with my preferences.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...


You seem to be under some misguided impression that you know more than me, about what is relevant to my needs.


----------



## David Hull (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.
> ...



*I think that I have a some understanding and experience in digital photography.*

As do I and I have never found the so-called DR issues of any of the Canon products to be a significant limitation -- nor have countless thousands of others who use the stuff on a day-to-day basis for both professional and amateur work.

The particular value of this feature (like any other) is clearly dependent on what you shoot and how you shoot it (as you seem to allude). Over the years of discussing this stuff, and having significant personal experience with the gear in question, it has been my observation that most of these differences are significantly over hyped by individuals who seem to have specific agendas to promote. This is probably not the case with you, but there has been plenty of it about.


----------



## David Hull (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.
> ...



That sums it up right there IMO, there seem to be way too much focus on minutia, IMO.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 13, 2013)

Dxo and Ken Rockwell make photography what it is..."entertainment". Don't complain.
I have always loved the form factor of the classic Leica...low key and classy but good performers at the same time.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be under some misguided impression that you know more than me, about what is relevant to my needs.
> ...


Just bcoz I do not worship DxO or share your interest does not make me ignorant. But I do agree with you that you "don't know" what is relevant to me.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.
> 
> Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
> -h



I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant. When I mentioned lens sharpness and autofocus performance, I was saying that these are the *only* aspects of performance _I personally am left with when shooting at low ISO_, as noise or dynamic range don't concern me down there, because it's already very good. Perhaps read what I said again...No need to nitpick, is there?

Regarding dynamic range at low ISO...I disagree with you. I assume you are heavily into HDR work? People will always exposure bracket to produce HDR images, no matter how big a dynamic range the sensor can achieve. Why? Because they like doing it. They will always want to maximize the number of bits they get in a final HDR image, to ease their own mind, _and to essentially use as a creative toy later_. But at the end of the day, what they achieve merely becomes an 8 bit "painterly" cartoon before it gets printed or displayed anywhere as a jpeg. It's still not preserving dynamic range in reality as the eye/brain saw it (or in the future, as some very superior sensor saw it.) *It's artistically impressionistic of reality.* In the future, if there are display devices and software that can *accurately* display 32 or 48 bits of dynamic range (and they are widely adopted...and people actually enjoy viewing pictures/video on them)...ONLY THEN will maximum sensor dynamic range (at low ISO) be truely a valid issue...in my opinion. This would require a contrast ratio orders of magnitude beyond even the claimed "10 million plus" of OLED displays, etc. It would also require the display device's ability to reproduce luminosity equal to that of the sun, while also being able to reproduce a black that is literally zero light output. I won't hold my breath on this...nor will I quibble over the difference between 16 or 13 bits of dynamic range in RAW files...because mostly I produce prints.

Even if future sensors do achieve 18, 20, 24, 32, or 48 bits of dynamic range...most people will probably be paying $1k on photo software plugins that will squeeze the dynamic range back down so it gets represented on a print. It will still look cartoonish...and the more elements in the picture that actually stretched the dynamic boundaries, the more cartoonish it will look. Sure it can sometimes look great and artistic...but it's still not representing what your eye/brain saw, the way it saw it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > But I do agree with you that you "don't know" what is relevant to me.
> ...


Since you think I'm "fighting strawmen" why are you replying :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.
> ...


My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> My thoughts exactly ... Maybe he wants to covert us to DxO religion ;D



Haha, no doubt! I don't even disagree with DXO's findings...I just disagree with their desire to hold up Nikon as "the best" sensor...because they're weighting their entire score based on ISO 100. I find I rarely shoot at ISO 100, unless I'm using a tripod. Perhaps DXO should just change their name to "tripod marks the spot"? Or maybe "ND filter/HDR marky mark"?

I love doing slow paced landscape work, but springtime really screams out for fast-paced wildlife work...or at least slow paced wildlife when it gets too dark for fast paced...haha.

For me, the issue is, choosing between 5D3 and 6D. I'd prefer to spend less...and I've not tried the 6D yet. However, the recent "Popular Photography" review said that the 5D3 preserved a higher percentage of its detail between ISO 6400 and 12,800...than did the 6D. The 6D's detail fell off steeply above ISO 6400, where the 5D3's didn't see the falloff until above ISO 12,800. Then there's the superior AF sensor and fps of the 5D3. And supposedly the 6D can't AF in low light any better, if even as well...as the 5D3 (despite claims to the contrary, at least via the 6D's center point). So if used 6D prices also see a big fall soon...all of this points me toward the 5D3. (i.e., it would hold it's value better, and otherwise provide superior perfomance in every way.) Time and my own trial and error will tell.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2013)

Haha, I never said HDR is "irrelevent to everyone", and it looks like your own ego is in dire need of getting over itself, and perhaps a trip to the corner to cry it out?

Since you imply you are blessed with HDR gifts, please post your best work here, right now, and allow me to critique it. The proof will be in the seeing. I promise I will be thoughtful and perfectly objective.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



Cult...
I think that's more correct


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 14, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Ha ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 14, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Since you think I'm "fighting strawmen" why are you replying :
> ...


OK so you are the "strawman"! ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 14, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > OK so you are the "strawman"! ;D
> ...


You should ask the same question to yourself ... I get it that you like DxO and that it means a great deal to you or whatever and I respect your belief in DxO, but that does not mean you insist on calling others ignorant and impose your "religion" on others ... but if you insist on doing that, then you can expect a lot of people getting back at you like so many have done on this thread coz many of us *DO NOT CARE* about what DxO has to say ... but it seems like it is too hard for you to understand that. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 14, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> You may hate measurements or DXO or Nikon all that you want.


1. You seriously need to understand the definition of "do not care" and "hate" ... I never said I hate DxO ... looks like you are once again misguided by your assumptions.

2. I do not hate Nikon ... see my gear list below ... my everyday camera, lens combo is Nikon D7000 and 18-300 VR ... seems like misguided assumptions are your forte.


hjulenissen said:


> That does not give you the right to decide what will be discussed on a public forum, or how people will reply to your posts. If you feel bad whenever people mention "DXO", perhaps you should avoid actively clicking on a thread starting with "DxO..."?


You should practice what you preach. Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 14, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid
> ...


You clearly displayed, to everyone about, your utter ignorance by your misguided assumptions of my supposed "hate" of DxO & Nikon ... I think immature discussion and misguided assumptions seems to be your forte, so no point in discussing with you ... I'm outta here.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > That is not a tautology
> ...


Yes, but you are wrong in this case anyway. The statement is a general statement, nothing else.


----------



## BrettS (Mar 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, I respect what you believe in but insisting others are ignorant because they do not agree with your belief system is ________ well, better left unsaid
> ...



Flashing red light. Mikael Risedal sockpuppet warning.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 15, 2013)

Yes but their review of the new M 240 beats all the latest FF Canon's 

I wouldn't put too much faith in DxO reviews, they only tell part of the story.
Cameras don't make pictures - lenses do and Leica is about the best available...

ET


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 15, 2013)

I don't know why people hate DxO so much. 

Are you so surprised that Leica sensors are not that good? They put a 320K dot display on a several grands worth camera in an era where Rebels have 920K dot displays. People who buy a Leica are apparently not overly interested in these features, but this doesn't make DxO's findings less true. And the same is true for Canon's vs Nikon/Sony's sensors - just get over it.

It's like complaining because the Zeiss 100/2 MP costs double as much as tthe Canon 100/2.8 L - which also has weather sealing, IS, autofocus and 1:1 macro. People who buy a Zeiss lens are after different things from mere value for money and sharp pictures, and those things are not provided by other manufacturers. This doesn't make the Canon any less of an amazing lens, and doesn't make the Zeiss any less than a unique lens.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but you are wrong in this case anyway. The statement is a general statement, nothing else.
> ...


I don't believe, I know I am right. Next time you are better off to use words that you actually understand.


----------



## sanj (Mar 15, 2013)

"Doing the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "lalala" is not a good way to educate your self."

Hahahahaha. So True!!!!
I do not know anything about DxO but I know this: every study or review is made by a person or a team of persons and the reader needs to 1. Know that it is a study which could have errors and 2. It is a study which certainly gives information.

In the learning curve we need to understand everything that comes our way (including DxO) and filter out what we need. We cannot disregard any information or clue that comes our way. At least I cant. I am enjoying piecing 'photographic clues' together in life.

I embrace all studies including DxO. Having said that I must add that I have not yet visited their website as I do not find myself technical enough yet. Soon I will. And I am sure I will grow post that: I am sure I will learn something by believing or disbelieving them. Both ways...

Cheers.


----------



## sanj (Mar 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.
> ...



Yep!


----------



## sanj (Mar 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.
> ...



Absolutely!


----------



## Swphoto (Mar 15, 2013)

BrettS said:


> Flashing red light. Mikael Risedal sockpuppet warning.



Thought I was the only one thinking this...


----------



## ragmanjin (Mar 21, 2013)

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A [email protected]!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 23, 2013)

And I will reiterate again, that their ISO score is weighted toward the base ISO, and not at more moderate levels. And then there's the downsampling to 8 megapixels...certainly that helps the D800...a ton! It's also a meaningless method of scoring noise. 

Would anyone like to bet me a new series ii 400 or 600mm supertele lens, that DXO will somehow _not _ score the future high megapixel Canon 1 series camera's sensor, well below that of the Nikon D800? I mean, what's the closest it could get to their score for the D800E? 7 points? 12? 

If it scores less than 10 points behind the D800E, then in reality, it's actually 10 points ahead...and why give the 800E one more point just for not having an anti aliasing filter? The sensors are THE SAME... 

If average people like me can predict the outcome of a test, 6 months or more before the product is even announced in the public domain, while it is still a rumor...then you have to admit, it does smack of favoritism and intentionally skewed test results.

I mean, the little Nikon D5200 scores 2 points better than the 1Dx...GET F***ING REAL...That's like saying a Prius scores higher than a Ferrari 458 because it gets better gas mileage, or because the driver tends to obey the speed limit more closely. The test is just wrong, skewed to portray a "truth" that is too narrow in its scope to have the meaning that many think it does.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> And I will reiterate again, that their ISO score is weighted toward the base ISO, and not at more moderate levels. And then there's the downsampling to 8 megapixels...certainly that helps the D800...a ton! It's also a meaningless method of scoring noise.
> 
> Would anyone like to bet me a new series ii 400 or 600mm supertele lens, that DXO will somehow _not _ score the future high megapixel Canon 1 series camera's sensor, well below that of the Nikon D800? I mean, what's the closest it could get to their score for the D800E? 7 points? 12?
> 
> ...


+1 ... actually several people at nikonrumors echo similar sentiment, recently DxO ranked some Sigma and Tamron zoom lenses ahead of some of the better Nikon zoom lenses ... also the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 scores higher than Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 ... lot of the Nikon users are not very thrilled by it. I'm no expert at DxO scores but ranking Sigma 120-400 lens ahead of some of the Nikon lenses clearly shows that real world results and lab tested results are very different.


----------



## elflord (Mar 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> And I will reiterate again, that their ISO score is weighted toward the base ISO, and not at more moderate levels



Completely wrong, please review their method for ISO score. The dynamic range and color depth scores use base ISO. The ISO score is the highest ISO that meets a number of image quality criteria (the highest for which a certain noise level and dynamic range are maintained) 


> And then there's the downsampling to 8 megapixels...certainly that helps the D800...a ton! It's also a meaningless method of scoring noise.



Also not true. Normalizing to a common resolution is completely sensible unless you're always viewing 100% crops. The typical use case is to ultimately print images at the same size or otherwise rescale the image to the same size. To do otherwise is a "pixel peeping" approach. They have "screen DR" so that you can also see the per-pixel results, but these are not as meaningful.



> If it scores less than 10 points behind the D800E, then in reality, it's actually 10 points ahead..



I don't think so -- perhaps you can show us your industry leading benchmark that demonstrates this. 



> .and why give the 800E one more point just for not having an anti aliasing filter? The sensors are THE SAME...



The anti-aliasing filter obviously has some impact on noise properties of the image. You wouldn't expect an enormous difference but then the test doesn't show an enormous distance so I don't really understand this complaint. 



> If average people like me can predict the outcome of a test, 6 months or more before the product is even announced in the public domain, while it is still a rumor...then you have to admit, it does smack of favoritism and intentionally skewed test results.



Maybe it just means that average people can predict how well the next sensor from each major manufacturer will perform. Given the relatively slow trajectory in sensor improvements, today's performance is a pretty good predictor of tomorrow's performance. 



> I mean, the little Nikon D5200 scores 2 points better than the 1Dx...GET F***ING REAL...



Canon's low ISO noise hurts them because the aggregate score is heavily weighted towards low ISO performance. The 1DX has substantially better high ISO performance but that is not the only factor the overall score takes into account. The 1DX also has a number of features that are important to serious photographers, but these don't enter into the test either. 



> That's like saying a Prius scores higher than a Ferrari 458 because it gets better gas mileage,



Well, what do you mean by "scores higher" ? Trying to assign a single numerical "score" to something complex is always a difficult task. Here's one -- should a Mazda Miata score "better" or "worse" than a Honda accord ?

The reason they do report a single aggregate score is that many users do not want to dig deeper. But for those who are, they publish all the underlying measurements. 



> or because the driver tends to obey the speed limit more closely. The test is just wrong, skewed to portray a "truth" that is too narrow in its scope to have the meaning that many think it does.



The test is just fine. You are confusing the test with the score. You may disagree with the way the factors are aggregated, but they do provide their measurements for you so that you can get the most out of their tests even if you don't agree with the weighting scheme (or if you want to understand why the results came out the way they did). 

The notion that the test is intentionally biased in favor of Nikon is just silly. DxO devised their test score and methods before Canons struggles with low ISO performance became the elephant in the room.


----------



## elflord (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> +1 ... actually several people at nikonrumors echo similar sentiment, recently DxO ranked some Sigma and Tamron zoom lenses ahead of some of the better Nikon zoom lenses ... also the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 scores higher than Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 ... lot of the Nikon users are not very thrilled by it. I'm no expert at DxO scores but ranking Sigma 120-400 lens ahead of some of the Nikon lenses clearly shows that real world results and lab tested results are very different.



Lenses are a different matter -- DxO are the leading tester when it comes to sensors, but there are a number of sources who test lenses and appear to do a better job than DxO. Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily trust the popular opinion at a camera "rumors" site (which tend to be heavily stacked with "fans") over an objective reviewer.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

elflord said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > +1 ... actually several people at nikonrumors echo similar sentiment, recently DxO ranked some Sigma and Tamron zoom lenses ahead of some of the better Nikon zoom lenses ... also the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 scores higher than Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 ... lot of the Nikon users are not very thrilled by it. I'm no expert at DxO scores but ranking Sigma 120-400 lens ahead of some of the Nikon lenses clearly shows that real world results and lab tested results are very different.
> ...


Yes "Lenses are a different matter" but *lenses are an important part of a DSLR*, no lens, no photo! -- no one is disputing DxO being a leading tester of sensors, however real world photography requires lenses, but when a "leading tester" like DxO easily screws up on testing lenses, I too wouldn't necessarily trust "the leading tester's opinion, especially when what I need is a Camera *and a lens to take real world photos* (as I do not shoot brick walls and lab controlled environments ... my world is dynamic with light conditions changing from one moment to another and one place to another, thus requiring a camera and lens that can *do the job I need*, not just a camera which DxO says has a better sensor). By the way, the "rumors" site you refer to happens to have several intelligent and accomplished photographers from whom I have learned a lot, I know some folk would like to call them "fans" (in a manner that is not entirely respectful). DxO tests have not helped me to make better photos and neither did it answer any of my questions about photography, *however the "fans" at CanonRumors have helped out on numerous occasions, it is a place where I come to learn, seek advice from people more skilled than I am, share ideas and if possible, once in a while assist someone who knows less than I with a little advice that hopefully is helpful* so for me DxO test results are irrelevant, in saying that I mean no disrespect to DxO or the people who like/follow DxO ... However, I do engage in arguments with people who keep insisting that everyone must accept the DxO test results as the absolute fact ;D As I said before, a good image requires a camera *and lens* when companies like DxO or any other company gives out highly questionable test results, I do not necessarily refer to them as "objective".


----------



## elflord (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Yes "Lenses are a different matter" but *lenses are an important part of a DSLR*, no lens, no photo! -- no one is disputing DxO being a leading tester of sensors, however real world photography requires lenses, but when a "leading tester" like DxO easily screws up on testing lenses, I too wouldn't necessarily trust "the leading tester's opinion, especially when what I need is a Camera *and a lens to take real world photos*



On this we agree -- I don't give much weight to their _opinions_, but thankfully they do a good job at publishing their _measurements_ which I can read and understand. 

Your point that the sensor is merely part of the camera which is merely part of the _camera system_ is understood and well taken. That is why we don't just have sensor benchmarks -- lens reviews (measurements and qualitative/subjective reviews) as well as reviews of the bodies themselves (both the dpreview approach and more subjective testing) all factor into appraising gear. 

So I'm not trying to say that the sensor is everything, but I am pointing out that DxO do a pretty good job at benchmarking sensor performance. I also find hard cold numbers to be a refreshing alternative to exaggerated claims from manufacturers, fans, or new users trying to justify their purchase after the fact (instead of doing due diligence before the fact). 



> However, I do engage in arguments with people who keep insisting that everyone must accept the DxO test results as the absolute fact



Well, their measurements (unlike exaggerated claims from fans) are at least objective. You can argue about what the measurements mean (but even that requires some understanding, um, of what the measurements mean)



> ;D As I said before, a good image requires a camera *and lens*


 this we agree on


> when companies like DxO or any other company gives out highly questionable test results, I do not necessarily refer to them as "objective".


I don't see how this is related to the first point. Regarding questionable test results, it's not at all clear that DxO's all-over-the-map lens numbers point to any bias (lots of variance but not much bias! but it does shed some light on why their lens tests don't have the same stature as their sensor benchmarks). It's like seeing a leading quarterback play a bad golf game and then wonder if they really are a good quarterback. DxO's sensor benchmarks and methods have been studied and analyzed ad-nasueum and have stood up to scrutiny pretty well.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

elflord said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Yes "Lenses are a different matter" but *lenses are an important part of a DSLR*, no lens, no photo! -- no one is disputing DxO being a leading tester of sensors, however real world photography requires lenses, but when a "leading tester" like DxO easily screws up on testing lenses, I too wouldn't necessarily trust "the leading tester's opinion, especially when what I need is a Camera *and a lens to take real world photos*
> ...


I think you misunderstood my comment about "questionable test results" to mean "biased", I am not accusing DxO of being biased ... my point is that DxO does their testing in a certain controlled environment, lab or whatever but when we make photos in real world scenarios there are far too many variables that are simply not in the realm of any one company to accurately predict and test ... Let me give u a real world scenario I face on a regular basis, I make photos in the Middle East where harsh desert environment and unpredictable dust storms are constantly present, plus I have to deal with massive cranes (at our land rigs) that kick up dust so bad that it feels like I'm in the middle of a dust storm ... when I go to the offshore rigs it is water splashes and humidity I have to deal with and the people I photograph do not wait to pose for me, coz they are extremely busy drilling crew who have no time to stop and pose, plus I have to be mindful of not getting in their way. So in my case my needs are for a robust camera and lens combos that can also quickly auto focus and get the job done ... I do not need or care about a camera with a sensor that has scored higher and/or something that is going to help me get 2 or more stops of additional DR etc ... and I'm pretty certain DxO (no matter how objective or accurate they might be) is not going to test the camera in the conditions I face coz it is just not possible for them to replicate millions of variable conditions. But we get some DxO fans who, without knowing my needs, (and the needs of other photographers) comment saying Nikon D5200 sensor has scored higher than 5D MK III, therefore it is a better camera and that I must accept their "facts" else I am an ignorant person etc (BTW I am not accusing of of that). So just like me there are lots of people in CR who do not care about DxO test results coz people have been making great photos before DxO came along and will continue to make great photos even after they are gone. Therefore, regardless of DxO "trashing the Leica M9 sensor" (as I said in my first post on this subject) a good camera does not become bad bcoz of what DxO says ... so those who know why they need the Leica M9 will buy it regardless of some company "trashes its sensor". Its too bad that some DxO fans think that it is "foolish/stupid" to buy an M9 without ever using it, just bcoz DxO said so. But no disrespect to your faith in DxO.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


----------



## elflord (Mar 24, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I think you misunderstood my comment about "questionable test results" to mean "biased", I am not accusing DxO of being biased ... my point is that DxO does their testing in a certain controlled environment, lab or whatever but when we make photos in real world scenarios there are far too many variables that are simply not in the realm of any one company to accurately predict and test



Well, yes, of course -- they are in the business of measuring sensor performance, no more, no less.

This -- sensor performance -- is a really big deal to some people. I agree that for some shooting scenarios it may not be terribly important. (Actually, for what you do, some of digitalrev's reviews are probably more relevant!) 



> But we get some DxO fans who, without knowing my needs, (and the needs of other photographers) comment saying Nikon D5200 sensor has scored higher than 5D MK III, therefore it is a better camera and that I must accept their "facts"



Well, that's horribly ill-informed on their part. But I haven't seen these fans (are you sure they're not Nikon "fans" who would drop DxO like a bad habit if Canon started scoring higher than Nikon ?)

Anyway, the DxO score only tells us that the D5200 scored higher on the aggregate score, which in this case means that the sensor has less noise _at low ISO_. It says very little else about the relative merits of the two cameras.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 24, 2013)

elflord said:


> This -- sensor performance -- is a really big deal to some people.
> 
> 
> > I agree
> ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 24, 2013)

Ooops, not sure what I've done up there but the more I try to fix, the more boxes are showing up ... sorry about that :-[... usually I'm not that bad at it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A [email protected]!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.
> ...


Thank you professor, had no idea that "DxO measures signal/noise" :


----------



## georgecpappas (Mar 25, 2013)

There seems to be a lot of intensity and emotion trashing DXO when their test methods and criteria for results are very transparent and objective. They provide a useful resource as one (and only one) factor in helping photographers navigate the various tradeoffs in deciding what equipment to use and purchase.

That being said, their Leica M9 sensor review and conclusion is entirely consistent with that the industry and users have been saying since the M9 was released - it is a great camera with excellent image quality at Base ISO and its high ISO performance leaves something to be desired.

I have been a Leica M9 user for several years and love the results I get from the camera; I also use a Canon 5D3 and am very pleased with what I get from that. They have different strengths, weaknesses, and ideal applications.

DXO should be appreciated for the service (self-serving though it is) that they provide the industry. It is a helpful resource.

George Pappas


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 26, 2013)

georgecpappas said:


> There seems to be a lot of intensity and emotion trashing DXO


I don't think most people (including me) necessarily have any problem with DxO ... however, when DxO fans come to Canon users neighborhood using words such as DxO "*trashes*" etc there is bound to be some "intensity" brother ;D


----------



## georgecpappas (Mar 26, 2013)

Rienzphotoz,

I understand your point. However, this is point is much more about DXO Fans who are "anti-canon" fanboys than it is about DXO itself. Many of the posts on this thread were broadsides at DXO and were misplaced, IMHO.

Regards,
George


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.
> ...



great post

I would just like to tack "unless you are on crack" to the end of your last sentance


----------



## ragmanjin (Mar 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A [email protected]!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.
> ...



No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 29, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > ragmanjin said:
> ...



I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.


----------



## ragmanjin (Mar 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Obviously. I have very little experience with cameras.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 1, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > ragmanjin said:
> ...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 1, 2013)

Mr. Wickidwombat, thank you for appreciating my post.

As for the person who thought I was a complete idiot, well, I'm not. Everything I said is valid, and everything you said is invalid. So nah nah nah...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2013)

I think I would enjoy owning a Leica M9, if I had the disposable income. Perhaps by the time I have it, the sensor will be better. I just...would love to try that Noctilux...since apparently no one else will ever try to build a lens like that, at least not for a full frame camera.

I still want a really fast lens, the fastest ever...an f/.6. It would look ridiculous, and the price would be also. Seems like I recall Leica made a 90 or 95mm lens with an f/1 or faster aperture. Maybe it was Zeiss.

I searched, here is one, but it's not the 90mm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7

Here's an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed

*Wow, there were a lot of fast lenses...the top one is the one I was thinking of.

Leica ELCAN 90mm f/1.0*
Kollmorgen 153mm f/1.0
Zeiss UR 250mm f/1.0 !!!! (Can you imagine what that thing looked like? A giant bowl of glass???)


----------



## Aglet (Apr 6, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A [email protected]!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.


Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this. Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either. 
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those. To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.


----------



## ragmanjin (Apr 6, 2013)

Aglet said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A [email protected]!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.
> ...



I'm gonna start this off by saying I was always a journalist first and a photographer second. Deep, borderline-invasive research is in my bones. I've definitely combed DXO's tests and scores thoroughly before any camera review I've written, and often something seemed a little off.
The whole thing was exacerbated when I helped start up this large-format print shop up north http://www.counterfeitink.com (wait till the third banner to pop up on the homepage and you'll see my ridiculous cigarette-bearing face top left on the Canuck-style $5 bill) and got to see the results of all these cameras first hand. I was the one optimizing photos for print, doing the upsizing and re-sharpening, and priming the finished prints for delivery. When a camera that prints a perfectly sharp upsized landscape print at 4x8' with no noise or lack of dynamic range scores 8 points lower than a camera with no details in the shadows, noise at near-base ISO and smudgy-looking detail only a touch above its native resolution, there is a fault in the system.
I've since left that print shop and started up a medium format photography studio, specializing in large prints. I run photography lessons, edit other photographers' photos and I still write the occasional review. I know using Phase One — with even just the Schneider kit lens that's sharp enough to shave with — is like touching perfection, because it's my main setup on the job. I know where "the bar" is set.
I can't emphasize this enough: You can read all the books and studies you want on Irish boxing but it doesn't mean anything until you've been in at least your first handful of Canadian bar fights. Having used, tested and reviewed a huge range of these cameras, having made large prints for every soccer mom with an SLR, having cycled through my share of gear and having cycled through my share of assistants with their own wide range of cameras and lenses, I know an 85 vs. a 60 on DXO means literally almost nothing when you've really put a setup through a hard day's work.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it, either. Again, check out the DPReview Studio Comparison Tool or better yet, put Best Buy's über-flexible return policy to work and try a few out for yourself, side-by-side and you'll indefinitely come to the same conclusion.


----------



## LSV (Apr 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



This is the most awful insult I've read on CR. Please consider offering an apology.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?
> 
> I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.


I thought it was fun.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?
> ...



You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Boring is bad and will make peoples leave which I hope won't happen.

I made a joke about baby Jesus a couple of weeks ago and an American friend took offense. Im from Europe and it's not so serious there. I clearly embaressed my wide. Note to self: don't joke about guns, religion and politics.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



LOL. You got that right!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


But I still haven't forgiven you for badmouthing the 35L.


----------



## LSV (Apr 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I'm sorry. I was making a joke -- obviously not a good one.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 7, 2013)

LSV said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...


That actually makes it even funnier.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

LSV said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



Yes, sorry. We didn't know you were joking, so my apologies to YOU. And now that I know that, I feel bad, but on the other hand like Hobby Shooter said, makes the whole thing funnier.


----------



## Omega Broadcast (Apr 10, 2013)

Is this the supposed sensor in the Black Magic PRODUCTION CAMERA 4K?


----------

