# Why the DxO bashing?



## JumboShrimp (Feb 7, 2014)

In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?


----------



## hemidesign (Feb 7, 2014)

I don't even waste my time on this DXo crap... they're all Nikon fanboys and shit!
In the past, I've seen so many ridiculous reviews about sharpness and sensor quality in their website... hahahah, what a joke! 

samples of that crap below:

http://fstoppers.com/dxomark-rates-canon-1d-x-worse-than-the-three-year-old-nikon-d3s

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/07/25/new-dxomark-king-the-nikon-200mm-f2g-ed-vr-ii-is-the-sharpest-lens-ever-tested.aspx/ (everybody knows the Canon 300 2.8 II IS is the sharpest lens ever produced)

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00aBCm

http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/5d-mark-iii-d800-d4-dxomark-sucks-balls/





No, sorry.. not for me!


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?



Neuro, I believe that's your cue...


----------



## David Hull (Feb 7, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?



For the most part, it is what people do with the DxO results, their interpretations of them and the conclusions they draw from them that are the problem. The fundamental measurements are good but to try to roll that all into one single summary number is problematic.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2014)

Much of the time, their data is accurate, but many disagree with their lens testing methods, which appear to be a matter of someone's opinion but with no justification.

Where the big complaint comes in is in their assigning a numerical rating to a camera or a lens and refusing to tell us how they arrived at that number. Many times, the data may be the same, or even better for a lens, but it is rated lower than the competition. Why? They have been called out on this, and, in some cases, it was so blatant that they changed the rating.

When testing cameras, they only look at the sensor, and their rating reflects its performance in bright lighting at low ISO. A camera may fall down at high ISO, but that does not play into their rating. They down size the images to compare them. However, many want a high MP camera, not a 8mp camera. They may want to crop images. Their data or ratings don't tell you that there is a severe issue cropping a 36mp camera to 8mp because the individual pixels are very noisy.

That numerical value is used by people who do not understand the source (Its a secret), and then they buy a product and may find out it doesn't perform for their use. Others who use the product differently may love it.
If you read their test methods and realize the method used to conduct the test, you can then form your own opinion. Often, I find my opinion to be different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

Their Scores are biased, in both disclosed and undisclosed ways. Their Sensor Score is weighted toward ISO 100 (2 of 3 metrics are used only at ISO 100 despite being measured throughout the range), and they state the overall score is a 'weighted average' of the three subscores, but don't reveal the weighting. Their Lens Score is based on performance in 150 lux illumination (like a dimly lit warehouse), so a lens will score higher when tested on a body with better high-ISO performance (so, how is it a 'lens score'?); similarly, when comparing two lenses, a lens that's worse on all the optical measures (sharpness, CA, etc.) can get a higher Score than an optically superior lens, based on the bodies on which they're tested, again based on that 150 lux bias. That bias also means transmission is disproportionately weighted - the 50/1.8 II gets a higher Score than the 600/4L IS II for that reason. 

They lost a lot of credibility when they tested the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II and concluded the original/MkI version was better - that disagreed with everyone who'd used or tested both, and when called on that, they said there was no mistake. But, about a year later they quietly updated their tests of the MkII and now it shows better performance than the original. I suspect they've also botched the testing of the 17-40L - they 'show' it to be just about as sharp in the extreme corners as the center wide open (it's mush in the corners at f/4), and wide open it shows as sharper than the 16-35L II stopped down to f/8 (totally false).

With the exception of errors like the above, their Measurements are useful. But their Scores are biased (so I call them Biased Scores = BS, aka bovine scat). For sensors, they're not applicable across the range of uses, and for lenses the Scores aren't even mainly based on the measurements. 

A secondary issue is that review/comparison sites like Snapsort use the DxOMark Sensor Scores, without linking to the underlying measurements.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2014)

Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is ******* to failure.


----------



## rpt (Feb 7, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is ******* to failure.


Thanks! Lovely sentence. I am going to quote your words to a colleague. He wanted me to arrive at a single data quality number after analysing tens of columns in each of about five hundred or so database tables.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2014)

rpt said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is ******* to failure.
> ...



I love to tease Neuro that my 50F1.8 is better than his 600F4 because DXO rates it higher.... Regardless of how the ratings are determined, the entire concept is ******* to failure. You can not represent the superiority of a lens with a single number. There are so many factors which can't be rated this way, including "what are you going to use it for". If I want to take pictures of a eagle flying above the trees, the 600F4 is the way to go... but if I want to take a picture of Fluffy sleeping on my legs, it's a terrible lens... and then there is affordability, a highly personal criteria which negates all the technical merits because if you can't afford to buy it, does it really matter how good it is? Some criteria vary among the individual from day to day, such as weight... I would have no problem lugging an 800F5.6 around the local conservation area, but there is no way I am going to lug it for a two week backpacking trip in the mountains....


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2014)

rpt said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is ******* to failure.
> ...



Does he have an MBA, by chance?


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2014)

Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
Just watch. 

As for DxOmark's single numerical score, mostly useless.
Their raw measurements, however, provide a lot of useful and easy to compare information on sensor performance. As do their lens data, just do your own comparisons.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 7, 2014)

I cannot help but question the measurement methodology of a group who (either fraudulently or ignorantly) uses biased and misleading summary statistics to put forth claims about camera/lens performance. That is to say, if you don't analyze your data properly but staunchly claim to be fair and objective, then it is my obligation to question your data collection methods as well, because your entire process is now suspect. That is what any good scientist does.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their Scores are biased, in both disclosed and undisclosed ways. That bias also means transmission is disproportionately weighted - the 50/1.8 II gets a higher Score than the 600/4L IS II for that reason.


WOW! ... if DxO said that, it must be true ;D ... I am going to buy the EF 50 f/1.8 II and frame it in a fancy glass case and chant praises, worshiping its higher state of being daily ;D ... maybe it could lead to the birth of a new cult called the DxO worshipers ... unfortunately, I might be a bit too late, coz I'm told that something like that already exists ;D


----------



## rpt (Feb 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


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


Nope! An ordinary engineer like me


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 7, 2014)

rpt said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


What?  ... he is just an ordinary engineer and does not even have the highly acclaimed *M*asters in *B*ull$h!tting *A*rts? ... how dare he! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
> Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
> Just watch.



Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~*2* stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images *4-5* stops in post. 

The majority of Canon devotees, at least here on CR, seem to be fairly objective about the issue. It's widely acknowledged that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than Nikon/Sony sensors. The fact remains that people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. If low ISO DR is someone's only criterion for judging a camera's performance (and for a very tiny minority of people, that may be the case), they should choose something other than a Canon camera. But for most people, what matters is the performance of the system as a whole (camera + lenses + flashes + accessories), and that's where Canon usually wins. As Don Haines is fond of saying, who cares how many stops of dynamic range a blurry picture has?

Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops. Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

But for those who would like to persist in this debate, I have found a relevant example showing how an extra two stops of DR can keep the sunlit outdoors from blowing out when shooting an indoor candlelit scene...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

chromophore said:


> I cannot help but question the measurement methodology of a group who (either fraudulently or ignorantly) uses biased and misleading summary statistics to put forth claims about camera/lens performance. That is to say, if you don't analyze your data properly but staunchly claim to be fair and objective, then it is my obligation to question your data collection methods as well, because your entire process is now suspect. That is what any good scientist does.



DxO has the phrase "Image Science" as part of their logo, but their practices aren't consistent with that phrase. I'm most concerned by the 'black box' calculation for their summary Sensor Score and Lens Score (methods should be published), and by the fact that they released data which was incorrect, defended it, then subsequently changed it with no acknowledgement of their error. Also, I'm noticing that the more I delve into their Measurements, the more I find errors (for example, I just looked at the Canon 28-300L measurements and their actuance data shown visually as field maps are ~10% lower relative to the same data plotted on a graph as a profile).


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 7, 2014)

In my more cynical moments, I imagine that if DXO gave more glowing reviews of Canon lenses, the opinions of many people on this forum might change. ;D


----------



## Larry (Feb 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes …



Grapes make wine.

Gripes make whine? ???


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> In my more cynical moments, I imagine that if DXO gave more glowing reviews of Canon lenses, the opinions of many people on this forum might change. ;D



Probably true. But I have a slightly different perspective. 

Whenever I've looked at DXO results, I've been struck by how small the differences are that they are attempting to measure and quantify. 

DXO pretends these differences are significant because if they tested bodies and lenses and consistently wrote that for 99% of circumstances, you can't tell the difference. Well...that wouldn't help them sell their software or drive people to their website or give them free publicity through photography forums. 

Similarly, camera brand partisans magnify the importance of these small differences because it confirms their biases, regardless of which side they are on. Canon fans see it as confirmation that DXO is biased, Nikon fans see it as confirmation that their brand is better. The reality is that unless your primary subject is test charts, almost none of this matters.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Feb 7, 2014)

It appears that DPReview has a similar method (?) to that of DxO whereas DPReview gives a percentage outcome to their testing, such as 82% for a "Gold Award", etc. Looks like both folks give a single numerical rating to cameras and lenses, just using different approaches. Do you think that DPReview has more credibility than DxO? Is DPReview inherently more "accurate"?


----------



## Rams_eos (Feb 7, 2014)

I would say we should not mix DXO software with DXO ratings?

I am extremely happy with DXO software (despite the fact they removed Win XP compatibility without mentioning it clearly in DXO 9). I used it very successfully for Canon and Nikon raw processing.

For DXO rating, I am much more sceptical. With a friend we exchange camera (he has a Nikon D7000 and is a great fan of Nikon) and I totally agree that the end result (the image) is more pleasant with Canon that Nikon despite using a “crap “ Canon (specially for night shoots). But this is my subjective opinion.
We recently saw images of a professional event from this outstanding Nikon D800 (by DXO standards), and we both agreed that overall picture quality was very disappointing :-[.
But we don’t have the control i.e. 5D3 comparison.

So end result is what matters and DXO ratings are reflecting only a few per cent of that.
Deciding which camera to use based on that rating is a bit like choosing a car based the shades of colour you can get. It does not guaranty you will be happy using it.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot help but question the measurement methodology of a group who (either fraudulently or ignorantly) uses biased and misleading summary statistics to put forth claims about camera/lens performance. That is to say, if you don't analyze your data properly but staunchly claim to be fair and objective, then it is my obligation to question your data collection methods as well, because your entire process is now suspect. That is what any good scientist does.
> ...



This right here sums up my problems with DXO in a nutshell. They HAVE made mistakes in the past, ignored them, then quietly tried to fix them without a word. That's irksome. I'm not saying that their DR tests (or rather, Screen DR measurements) are wrong...they are just as valid as any other form of DR test, so long as the same method is applied with consistency. 

My problem is that DXO does not clearly explain all of their methods, and sometimes their methods seem sketchy. For example, Print DR is not actually measured, it is derived. Print DR is the "measure" (as they call it) used in scoring their camera sensor tests. But it is not a measure, it is a derivation from the actual Screen DR measure. Problem with Screen DR is, they don't actually publish the actual method by which they measure it, so not only do you have Print DR with is derived from Screen DR...you don't really know how Screen DR is computed. That's quite frustrating. (It gets even worse when you download DXO Optics Pro to see how it works, and find that DXO's algorithms result in FAR more noise with Canon CR2 files than ACR/LR, RawThearapy, or any one of various astrophotography tools...makes me even that much more suspicious that DXO doesn't really know how to properly process Canon CR2 files for optimal performance.)


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?



There is little fault in DxO's methodology, except for a few issues I have with them testing outliers in copy variation.

The problem with DXO is DXO's scores are stupid nonsense.

DXO scores are like rating a car by taking it's price, multiplying by it's horsepower and dividing by it's color in binary. Then situations like this happen:


Newbie: My sensor has the highest DXO mark score of any sensor!
Bystander: What are you using the camera for?
Newbie: Low light reportage!
Bystander: You do realize that you picked an 80 megapixel medium format back to do reportage. It delivers images at 3 seconds per frame, and has an iso range of 100-400 and absorbs only 10% of the light of a Canon rebel, that is the worst possible camera for your needs.
Newbie: No it's the best DXO says so!
Bystander: lol


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?



It should be noted that, in addition to all the valid reasoning offered by everyone else, that DXO's scoring system is not just invalid for Canon. It is invalid, period. Because they utilize only ISO 100 measures in several scores, and because they do not FULLY publish all of their algorithms and methodologies, it invalidates the process as a whole. Using DXO to find the best Nikon camera is no better, and the results are just as misleading for them as for any other brand.

For example, Print DR is an EXTRAPOLATION based on DERIVED data based on Screen DR, which itself is determined via an unknown formula...it is not actually a "measure", despite the fact that they claim as much. Print DR is also based on the assumption that images are downsampled to a standard 3200x2400 pixel size. When it comes time to edit RAW images, ALL RAW images are ALWAYS edited at 100% size. It's the nature of RAW. So when DXO says some Nikon DSLRs are capable of achieving more than 14 stops of DR, they are being extremely misleading to people who don't understand what those numbers really mean. There is NO camera that uses 14-bit ADC that can achieve more than 14 stops of DR. Technically speaking, because of required overhead, even if that overhead is minimized, one could never really achieve 14 stops of DR period, you would always attain something just a little less. 

Screen DR is the only valid measure of DR that DXO offers. In the case of the D800 and D600, the actual DR is ~13.2 stops, as much as 1.2 stops LESS than the 14.4 one might believe they have according to the Print DR extrapolation. The fact that Print DR IS an extrapolation means that even if someone downsamples their image by a considerable amount to 3200x2400 pixels, then tries to recover that extra 1.2 stops of information, it may not actually exist...Print DR is not a measure. It is derived, and therefor no one can really know for certain if a downsampled image from a D800 or D600 could actually achieve that much dynamic range. From an editing latitude standpoint...how much real-world freedom you have to push exposure around in post, you can only use DXO's Screen DR measure. The problem is, that measure is not shown by default, you have to find it yourself. 

DXO claims a scientific approach to measuring cameras. They really fail to provide that on multiple fronts. For one, they don't measure cameras at all...they measure sensors, and only sensors. That fails to factor in ANY other camera features, such a AF system, metering system, body ergonomics, or other camera capabilities that may be as critical, if not more critical, to final IQ than the sensor. Because they do not 100% fully disclose all details of every methodology and algorithm they use, they can't really claim to be scientific (or at least, not openly scientific.) The fact that they clearly seem to have changed some of their algorithms over the years, and sometimes explicitly to cover up errors they made previously, only debases their claim to using a scientific method even more. At the very least, if an error is found in their methodology, it should be clearly explained and not slyly covered up. 

Finally, as others have said...trying to reduce such a complex device as a camera to a single score that could theoretically be used for simple comparison of one camera to another is ******* to failure from the get-go....too many variables to consider, especially considering that DXO ignores the vast majority of them (i.e., all the non-sensor factors.) And don't even get me started on their lens tests...thats a debacle that puts their sensor testing to shame!


----------



## Roo (Feb 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Similarly, camera brand partisans magnify the importance of these small differences because it confirms their biases, regardless of which side they are on. Canon fans see it as confirmation that DXO is biased, Nikon fans see it as confirmation that their brand is better. The reality is that unless your primary subject is test charts, almost none of this matters.



+1


----------



## JumboShrimp (Feb 7, 2014)

If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
> ...


One of the better "synopsi" of the issue that I have seen in a while.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D those images show how much DR is available in my Nikon & Sony cameras ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> People bash DxO because during the time when DxO results have been shared around more and more widely talked about on the 'Net, they always favour Nikon/Sony.
> 
> As a result, all sorts of reasons have been created by the Canon fanbase as to why this is and how DxO is useless but rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, people would be lauding DxO.



LOL. Your ignoring the facts here, bub. I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.

It doesn't matter who DXO favors. Their science is too obscure, and the results are too skewed, to take any of their scores at face value without a significant dose of salt grains. It really has nothing to do with who they cater to, and everything to do with how they do things.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.




Agreed!

I have a D300s and a Nikon 200-400mm VRI, which is a nice lens by anyone but DXO's measurements. They tested the VRII model which is basically the same lens with improved VR and give it a score of 12! 
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-200-400mm-F4G-ED-VR-II-mounted-on-Nikon-D300s__614

Now, if you put it on a D7000, it jumps to 14. On a D3 its 17, and on a D700 its also 17. On a D4, it jumps to 21, on a D600, it jumps to 24, and on a D800, its 25!
This is why you don't compare lenses across different camera models, much less across different brands. Testing lenses on a camera body gives results that only apply to that body or one with the same sensor. In general, the test methods will give higher numbers with more MP. The lens itself did not change and is no better or worse just because its on a camera with more pixels.
The reason is simple, the MTF of a image is a product of the MTF of the lens, The Body, the monitor or printer its viewed on, and even your eyes. Raising the MTF of any of these things will improve the image as long as the others don't change. Of course, DXO does not USE MTF, just because the entire photography world uses it, they invented their own number, MPIX.

Now, if DXO wanted to compare lenses between Canon and Nikon, they'd test them all on the same Canon body. That would give you at lease some comparison, but it still would not be accurate, since manufacturers cameras recognize a lens model and may make subtle adjustments to exposure at the edges.

That's why most knowledgeable lens testers provide a warning note that says don't compare on different models or manufacturers, a lens test on a D300s is only good for a D300s, but may be similar for a body with the same sensor.


----------



## rpt (Feb 8, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


Ha! Ha! Ha!

Don, thanks for the beautifully crafted sentence. It settled matters for me.


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Aye. All this I know. Which is why I always say: Standard lens testing is useless! It has no real value, since output resolution is usually sensor bound. These tests don't really tell you anything about the lens, and they aren't comparable...so....what value do they hold? Personally, I just made the decision to ditch lens tests entirely and rely on model-generated MTFs to determine how good a lens is. You can actually garner a LOT of useful knowledge about a lens from a single MTF chart, not the least of which is corner performance. 

Anyway....


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 8, 2014)

This thread is a festival of misinformation.

First of all, every test is based on 3 stages: design, data collection, data interpretation.

DXO is quite transparent on the way they design the tests and collect the data. They are not transparent at all in the way they interpret the results and produce a verdict (score). Are they biased? Sure. Every test is. No test can possibly encompass every scenario and variable; the testers decide what to focus on - in this case ISO 100, 8 MP, blah bla. You may agree or disagree with their choices, but your disagreement doens't make the test "stupid", because your choice is not worth any more than theirs.

It must be noticed, for example, that they don't test lenses _per se_, but lens-camera combinations; this is why lens scores change camera-to-camera. The sharpness of the final output depends on camera AND lens and so this is why they do it. Again, you may disagree. However, every lens will perform differently on a D700 and a D800; testing a lens on a D700 and saying that it's great it's no indication of how it will fare on a 3x resolution body. In this sense their measurements are far more accurate. 

It should also be noted that their tests are based on a resized 8 MP file. This is why Canon's sharpness scores are often higher, and Nikon's scores are higher in most other fields. This is not the bread & butter of pixel peepers, but it can better reflect a real world scenario of printed pictures. Again, you may disagree, but it stands true that you need around 8 MP for a 300dpi A4 print, so how the final output will look like can be a more important information than a 100% crop. 

Ranting about something while swearing that it's useless and meaningless, is paradoxical and childish. For as much as I agree with most people saying that the way DXO interprets results is disputable and pretty much useless, the data they collect is quite good. You can have DR graphs at different ISOs, compare screen and print output from different cameras and lenses, etc. All of these data are freely accessible and everyone can then draw his own conclusions - probably a more interesting endeavour than just ranting about DXO's.

Every test is useful in its limited purpose. Ranting derives from 2 major causes:
- Incapability of understanding the test methodology, and thus both its usefulness and limitations: this leads to labeling as stupid.
- Results are not what one wants to hear: this leads to discrediting the tests, claiming bias and second interests, etc etc. 

I agree with those who thinks that, if it was the other way around, this forum would be full of DXO ambassadors. Same as the recent "conversion" of Scott Kelby to Canon has not raised any suspicions about the actual circumstances as they were presented; it has been a genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Feb 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> As a result, all sorts of reasons have been created by the Canon fanbase as to why this is and how DxO is useless but rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, people would be lauding DxO.



You know, I've quit this forum once, entirely because of this interminable, revisionist whining from you and LetTheRightTrollIn, and now I find myself having to sign up again just to address this drivel.

What's the _real_ problem with DxO?

*People like you*.

The fact is that nobody disputes that some Nikons and Sonys have a low ISO DR advantage. _Nobody_.

But that's not good for you and you OCD mission to be right at all costs: you and your like _have to_ bang away in a preposterous and utterly idiotic attempt to convince the world that _this is all that matters_.

Well get this through your head once and for all: *for the vast majority of Canon users (and - truth be known - most Nikon, Sony and Pentax users too), it doesn't matter worth a damn*.

But you simply can't accept that, can you? So instead simply letting DxO's findings stand for themselves, you have to make the DR difference into a crusade - for God knows what motivation, but it isn't healthy.

Again: _we don't care about DxO's findings. *They just don't matter*_. 

Clear enough yet?

And if it did eventually transpire that Canon started getting the upper hand in the DxO DR race, Canon users wouldn't be "lauding" DxO because it proved that they had better cameras now, but _purely to shut trolls like you up_.

Your tedious obsession with the trivial difference between Canon's and other sensors hasn't stopped us from taking thousands, millions of _incredible_ images; and besides, I've been able to open up shadows by multiple stops _cleanly and easily_ from my 7D simply because I know how to choose and use my Raw converters and pixel editors properly.

As Americans are wont to say, "sucks to be you" - but if you're seriously telling us that _you_ can't take great pictures with your Canon cameras, or more to the point that the number that are spoiled for want of better low ISO shadow DR is too high to accept, I'm going to call you a bare-faced liar.

*So, once more, for the avoidance of any doubt: the problem with DxO is obsessive, disingenuous, revisionist trolls like you. We're sick of having it shoved down our throats what should to be important to us, just because it's (supposedly) crucial to you*. 

(Doubtless this will be deleted, but while it stands, it makes the point).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> This thread is a festival of misinformation.
> 
> First of all, every test is based on 3 stages: design, data collection, data interpretation.
> 
> ...



That post was a mini-festival of misinformation...

The key points are:


DxO does not disclose their methods for deriving their scores, which renders their scores meaningless
Some of DxO's measurements have errors, which makes all of their measurements suspect
DxO does not acknowledge their mistakes and issue corrigenda, but rather silently modify the original data, rendering their scientific ethics questionable

I'm not saying their information is useless, but I do suggest people view their measurements with caution, and ignore their Scores. 

By the way, your recollection of facts is suspect, too. "A genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light?" Go back and re-read the Kelby conversion thread(s)...there was pretty broad support for the idea that he did it for the money.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> By the way, your recollection of facts is suspect, too. "A genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light?" Go back and re-read the Kelby conversion thread(s)...there was pretty broad support for the idea that he did it for the money.


NO!!!!!!! Tell me it isn't so!!!!! Come on now, who ever heard of a business doing something for money!


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key points are:
> 
> 
> DxO does not disclose their methods for deriving their scores, which renders their scores meaningless
> ...



On which I totally agree. In fact I have specifically addressed the difference between data themselves and their interpretation, as well as pointing out the need of accepting the limitation of any single test and understanding the useful information it provides without labeling the whole thing as pointless, biased or false.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.



Would you please post that raw file?


----------



## David Hull (Feb 8, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.



Nah.... it's not in French.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.



From your description, the scene would likely have had >15 stops of DR, supporting my earlier statement.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 8, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The key points are:
> ...


 
Mostly your post used the word rant many times and was a general insult to many of us who post here. Just stick to your opinions about the tests and stop trying to insult members. That's the stuff of Trolls.


----------



## tron (Feb 8, 2014)

I wonder too why the DXO bashing.

They are so reliable...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2.8-21mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___334_485_326_483


----------



## David Hull (Feb 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


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


So what. What I always find so interesting about these discussions is that at the end of the day, based on all the examples that people tend to put up (the photo you are referencing most likely no different) this superior "state of the art" sensor technology with all this extensive DR advantages has done very little to advance the state of "ART" with regard to photography. If it really produced the dramatic advances in Image Quality that the proponents always claim, it would have gained significant traction in the market place. If IQ were really a significant problem with Canon equipment as the Sony/Nikon proponents like to conclude, nobody would buy Canon product -- yet countless thousands of photographers have been able to use it with tremendous success despite this corner case limitation.

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it. 

The endless barrage of poorly executed example images just hasn't gained the traction they expected. The reaction to most of these (and there have been a boat load of them over the years) has been "yea... but why do I care". The best example of this is probably the oft quoted Fred Miranda review where the reviewer shot two pages of magnificent images in Yosemite and could not produce a shot where the DR of the camera was a limitation -- to do that he gad to shoot something way less compelling. Both sides seem to be reasonably satisfied with their choices. Do I wish I had the same low shadow noise that I could have with a Sony sensor probably yes, do I wish Canon would solve it -- probably yes. Has it ever gotten in my way, no not really.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2014)

David Hull said:


> I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.



Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then. 



neuroanatomist said:


> So, DxOMark has said Nikon has had better sensors for years, and the sales data show that Canon has sold more dSLRs and lenses for those same years, and continues to do so, as of the most recent data available. The straightforward conclusion from the above is that while DxOMark's Scores have a huge impact on the number of inflammatory posts on Internet discussion boards, they have no meaningful impact on the real world aggregate buying decisions of consumers.


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.
> ...



And 1.5 years from now, you'll still be saying the same thing, because nothing ever changes. On these kinds of forums, people see the tech and which tech is better than other tech, and nothing else, and because everything ultimately boils down to one competitive battle or another with humanity, there will always be a competitive battle. 

It really isn't about the IQ or the Art. It's *just* about the fact that Tech A has more DR than Tech B, therefor religiously speaking, Tech A must be better. All that matters to Tech A fanboys is that "they won". That's it. Even if their arguments are pure inanity, even if they come off as the worlds largest tools ever to walk the face of the planet, they really don't care...because "they won". Somewhere along the line, Tech B will have more DR or vastly more megapixels or somesuch, and the Tech B fanboys will go at it on the Tech A forums stoking the fire over there about how now "they won". It'll be just as disgraceful then for the Tech B boys as it is now for the Tech A boys. 

Meh. Competition. I really hate competition, especially when it isn't necessary nor useful. We aren't in a competitive sport...were artists (or at least, were supposed to be.) We should all be sharing our art, helping each other improve our art, and enjoying art. That's the entire point of having a camera in the first place, damn the technical specifications. That's why I think the Bird Photography thread in the image sharing forums is probably my favorite thread on this site...its never been anything but people sharing their art, complimenting others work, sharing ideas and techniques to get better shots, etc.


----------



## msm (Feb 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> hahaha... it is funny to read.
> 
> I'll repeat what I said before but make it briefer:
> 
> If Canon's cameras had of been king of the hill on DxO and not Nikon/Sony then you can bet that people here would be saying DxO is right and how good they are and Nikon/Sony people would have been whinging like you see people here whinging.



What is funny to read are people who think their photography will improve by buying a camera with better technical specs.

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2014)

msm said:


> If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.
> 
> And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.



I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 8, 2014)

Aglet said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.
> ...



As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > David Hull said:
> ...


Yep... Apple/PC, Chevy/Ford, Canon/Nikon .....


----------



## David Hull (Feb 8, 2014)

Aglet said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.
> ...


Then you shoot something else that you can shoot. For most of us, that's just not a huge disaster. The reality is that this whole DR argument is pretty much a non starter an any practical sense. 

As I said earlier, if it were the huge issue that people like yourself seem to think it is, nobody would buy the equipment but that isn't really what we see in the real world, now is it?


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2014)

David Hull said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



altho I participate in, I'm not ON the DR bandwagon.
My peeve is FPN, which contributes to low DR; a different but directly related issue.
I have low DR cameras that don't have serious FPN problems, I still like and use them. (e.g. Oly E410, Pentax Q)
Too many here seem to conflate and confuse FPN and DR when those issues can, and often should, be considered separately for their effects on an image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.



Exactly. The question isn't how often you have situations where 12 stops of DR isn't enough, it's how often that occurs when 14 stops _would be_ enough. Examples including the sun and deep shade prove nothing in this debate. 

As for FPN, in tens of thousands of shots with Canon sensors, I've not had even one ruined by FPN. But maybe my technique is flawed - I don't push my exposures 5 stops in post, and I don't shoot with the lens cap on. :


----------



## philmoz (Feb 8, 2014)

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.

How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???

Phil.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 8, 2014)

philmoz said:


> There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
> How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
> Phil.


Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
> ...



But how can you possibly get *more than* 14 stops from a 14 bit conversion?

Phil.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 9, 2014)

philmoz said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > philmoz said:
> ...


Becomes possible only where they downsize to "mask" the point of absolute black.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I may be wrong; but I thought current cameras (except perhaps Leica) used linear ADC from the sensor.

So if there were no noise introduced anywhere then the absolute maximum DR that could be captured from a 14 bit ADC is 14 stops.

So how can it be possible to have more than 14 stops from downsizing?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious here.

Phil.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
> ...



The 'screen DR' of the D800 is 13.2 stops. When an image with >13.2 stops of DR is captured at 36 MP, detail from the highlights, shadows, or both is irrevocably lost. If the 36 MP image is downsampled to 8 MP to yield 14.4 stops of mathematically calculated DR, how is the detail that should exist in the extra 1.2 stops of DR created? Do blacker blacks matter it they are completely devoid of detail?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.
> ...



In Sporgon's signature, there a link to his images. I recommend that you *not* click it, or else you might realize how asinine your statements are (assuming that would come as a surprise).

As for me, I've previously commented on my real world experience, which is entirely consistent with my statement. I frequently encounter scenes with >12 stops of DR...and those scenes almost never have <14 stops of DR.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > philmoz said:
> ...


That's right, there is not will be more texture in deep black after downsized. It's just a way of "artificially enhance" the numbers to appear more attractive. As they say: "Statistics is the whore of mathematics."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> That's right, there will be more texture in deep black after downsized. It's just a way to "smooth out" the numbers to appear more attractive. As they say: "Statistics is the whore of mathematics."



"More texture?" Texture has detail. From where did that detail come? Was it part of the original scene? Part of the original image? If neither, it's not only meaningless as additional DR, it's an artifact and as such, detrimental to the image.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > That's right, there will be more texture in deep black after downsized. It's just a way to "smooth out" the numbers to appear more attractive. As they say: "Statistics is the whore of mathematics."
> ...


Correcting: "There is not will be more texture..."


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

philmoz said:


> There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
> 
> How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
> 
> Phil.



Dynamic range has two key interpretations, and they are often conflated resulting in the kind of confusion you see here. 

Mathematically, dynamic range is simply defined as the ratio between the smallest and largest (or darkest and brightest) values of some measurable quantity*. In the case of photography, it is more specifically defined as the ratio between the RMS of read noise (read noise specifically, that's important) and the maximum saturation point of a pixel. *The reason the root mean square (or some similar average) of read noise is used as the "darkest" value is because read noise intrudes into and eats away at useful values below a certain level. When read noise is higher, the ratio decreases, thus reducing dynamic range. 

Another key interpretation is the *bit error ratio (BER)*. This has to do with noise in the signal at every measurable point between the extremes as defined above, not just in the shadows. When you hear someone say "a full-frame sensor has more dynamic range than an APS-C sensor", they are really referring to a lower BER. A full frame sensor like the 5D III has a full well capacity of ~68ke-, where as an APS-C sensor may have a full well capacity of 22ke-. The 5D III has three times the maximum signal power, meaning it has less noise at all levels, not just read noise but intrinsic signal noise as well. When DXO says an image gains dynamic range by downsampling, it is because the BER was reduced thanks to the averaging involved in downsampling. Not just in the deep shadows, but at all levels of the signal. 

*These two interpretations are basically two sides of the same coin, but there is a key difference between them that really matters: One has to do with the quality of the signal between the extremes, the other has to do with what the extremes are.* _Screen DR deals with what the extremes are. Print DR deals with the quality of the signal between the extremes._ Read noise has a direct impact on EDITING LATITUDE, and as far as photographers are concerned, that is synonymous with shadow and highlight recovery (really, shadow lifting.) Less read noise, regardless of the maximum signal strength or the amount of intrinsic noise in the signal, the more you can lift shadows without having them *look ugly* because of read noise. 

Screen DR tells you how many stops of dynamic range you have to work with when editing RAW. Print DR tells you how nicely the signal cleans up when you downsample to a specific size, but it really has nothing to do with editing latitude...it won't increase it...not in any way that will allow you to recover clipped highlights or shadows. You may have 14.4 stops or DR because the signal (the range of tones between the deepest black and the brightest white) is cleaner...lower error rate per pixel, less noisy. 

If you have a 14.4 stop scene that you try to capture with the D800 or D600 in a single frame, you will be clipping 1.2 stops of highlight and/or shadow detail. That 1.2 stops is lost, gone for good, never recoverable...because the SENSOR (i.e. the RAW image) only has 13.2 stops of DR. If you clip 1.2 stops of highlights, pulling down highlights in post will result in clearly blown highlights...you can make them gray rather than white, but those regions will always lack detail. If you clip 1.2 stops of shadows, lifting in post will eventually result in nothing but the stretching of read noise by 1.2 stops, you won't be recovering those lost 1.2 stops of shadows. The D800 is only capable of capturing 13.2 stops of dynamic range in a single shot, as far as editing latitude (the ability to lift shadows without also lifting noise so much that it affects the image) is concerned.

Finally, DXO is making a claim that isn't even backed up by measurements. Print DR is _*derived *_from ScreenDR...it is not measured:


```
DRprint = DRscreen * log2 sqrt(originalMpix/referenceMpix)
```

DXO uses a fixed formula for extrapolating what the noise level should theoretically be in an image downsampled from the original megapixel count of the sensor to the reference megapixel count (3200x2400, or 7.68mp, which is an 8x12" 300ppi 3:2 ratio print). Therefor, a Print DR or 14.4 is not based on actually measuring the dynamic range of a D800 image that was exported at full size from a RAW image, then actually downsampled to 3200x2400 pixels. It's a mathematic extrapolation, not a measure....even though DXO calls it a measure. (I'd be willing to bet _actually measuring_ the D800's 3200x2400 image would result in a lower dynamic range.)

Personally, this is one of my only real pet peeves with DXO's sensor tests. They _extrapolate_, _rather than measure_. (The other pet peeve is they _weight_...they give out bonuses when a camera "beats" a certain threshold...which skews the differences even more. Two cameras might actually be within the most minimal difference of each other from actual RAW measurements, but because of the fact that bonus weighting comes into play, a camera with a sensor that beats say a DR dB threshold by 0.1dB would appear to be quite a bit better than the competitor, despite the fact that the two are effectively identical as far as the human eye's capacity to observe differences is concerned.) 

If you care about editing latitude (which I believe is pretty much THE case here, that everyone is really concerned about editing latitude, given how much the shadow lifting ability of the D800 is brought into the discussion), then you should only concern yourself with DXO's "Screen DR" measure. Screen DR is an ACTUAL MEASURE...it is directly measured from the RAW image data itself, without any extrapolating or resizing or anything else inbetween. It is a REAL value, it is a REAL WORLD value, and it actually tells you something explicit that directly affects an actual post-processing ability you are probably actually concerned about. 

Ignore Print DR. It's mathematic magic that doesn't really tell you anything, and is only part of a larger <sarcasm> game of mathematic magic to reduce the complexity of digital cameras to a single number that supposedly tells you everything you need to know about comparing one camera to another on an IQ basis. </sarcasm>


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

Here is a pretty crappy image shot with a completely outdated tech Canon sensor, that many posters here will adamantly tell you is impossible to do. Now I know it is no award winner, but I also know it would get me out of the sh-t if it was an important moment. I just thought it might be interesting to post an actual photographic example of the appallingly bad Canon tech.

Anybody care to guess how many stops under exposed the image was? It was at a wedding reception and the on camera flash that I was bouncing hadn't recharged in time, so did not fire.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



With Canon equipment you have about 11 stops. It is usually 10.something, and the something is usually closer to .9 than not. For example, the 5D III has 10.97 stops of dynamic range...11 stops. A full stop is very meaningful when discussing DR...it is a DOUBLING of the ratio, another 3dB. You can't just round off the entire decimal fraction and call it an even 10. Your just as bad as AvTvM when it comes to facts man...as in, you pervert and twist them at will to win the argument.

And, just to make sure everyone knows where _MY FACTS_ are coming from:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> There, do you feel better now?



Does your distortion of facts, either through intentional obfuscation or simple lack of comprehension, make _you_ feel better? I just see it as rather sad and pathetic...


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



OMG. You really just don't get it. The 10.97 stops is SCREEN DR!!! That's *REAL *DR!! The DXO Print DR for the 5D III is 11.74 stops. The 10.97 is NOT an overestimation...it is THE REAL DEAL. I mean, I even included a screenshot of DXO's actual DR screen for you so you would know EXACTLY what I was talking about!

You are so off base, however, that you just aren't satisfied with that...you have to make up some further imagined discrepancy in order to reduce it by another full stop. That's just ridiculous! I ALREADY factored in DXO's MISREPRESENTATION OF PRINT DR when I said they had 10.97...I took that value from the only real measurement DXO has for DR! You don't need to factor in the misrepresentation *again*!

Do you get it now, why people rage against you so hard? You JUST AREN'T FACTUAL. Your misrepresenting the facts even worse than DXO misrepresents them, and that's _really_ saying something...


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > There, do you feel better now?
> ...



^-- Seriously --^

I....WOW....just WOW.... ???


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


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


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


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



You find it surprising? I lost what shred of remaining respect I had for dilbert when he called a Canon 'box lens' (DIGISUPER field lens for broadcast TV) a camera, and refused to admit he was wrong.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

That's a good explanation on the previous page JR, thanks for posting that for those who need it.

The only thing I'd add to that even if we know the RMS (or averaged) read noise numbers used for their base DR calculation, we would still have no clue as to HOW UGLY lifted shadows will look. That's what pushed-4-stops-lens-cap-on shots are for! 

If DxOmark would publish the peak-to-peak read noise, and they'd still likely have to do a compromise of that, or add a read-noise histogram to be more thorough, then we would have a more clear indicator of whether that noise is random in nature, and therefore subjectively less bothersome, or patterned, and therefore more difficult to mask.

E.g. In the case of the 7Ds I looked at, alternating vertical bands of (8 per, i think) pixels had different levels of read noise and this produces obvious stripe artefacts when lifting shadow areas. Since the ratio of read noise to signal there is already very low the read noise difference is made obvious.
In some other cameras the read noise is more uniformly distributed and is less obvious when lifting shadows.

Imaging Resource provides a different way of presenting the DR measurement, by providing DR figures at different signal to noise ratios, still likely based on RMS read noise, but it provides more of a spread of figures which can be helpful and they also publish more noise data as well, including individual RGB curves.

Here they are for the 7D, and the tiny-sensored Pentax Q.

www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/Z00100_ALO_OFF_acrauto_Step_2.gif
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/Z0125_ACRauto_Step_2.png

Even I'll say I'd take the 7D's file over the Q's file for lower overall (BER) noise on a real image - at least until I wanted to lift shadows, where the tiny Q's lack of FPN can then show the 7D how that's done.

http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Then throw in unit-to-unit variability and improvements that may be made during the mfg run of a given body and there are more things to argue about. For instance, my late model 40D, a model initially reputed to have some noise issues, provides noticeably less FPN in pushed files than my early production 7D or early 5D2 did, yet some claim noisy 40Ds and clean 7Ds or 5D2s.

So, back to DxOmark - or any site that does not define how they make those measurements or what baselines they use, even the uninterpretted the data provided is less than ideal or conclusive. (But it's still more informative than "real world pictures" for such matters) 
The best rough data from DxOmark on this is the FULL SNR curves because you can see how each sensor performs at each ISO and at a lot of different levels from dark to white levels.
/editorial


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> What fact am I distorting?



"And with Canon equipment, you're at about 10 stops of usable dynamic range."

"The DIGISUPER 75 is a camera."

Take your pick...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



House!

What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What fact am I distorting?
> ...



less, actually, if you are choosing high standards of SNR then only 8 or 9 stops for the 5d3 accordin' t' I-R

www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/Z000100_ACRman1_Step_2.png

edit: jeez, I don't know if that can be right, that really sucks!


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> That's a good explanation on the previous page JR, thanks for posting that for those who need it.
> 
> The only thing I'd add to that even if we know the RMS (or averaged) read noise numbers used for their base DR calculation, we would still have no clue as to HOW UGLY lifted shadows will look. That's what pushed-4-stops-lens-cap-on shots are for!
> 
> If DxOmark would publish the peak-to-peak read noise, and they'd still likely have to do a compromise of that, or add a read-noise histogram to be more thorough, then we would have a more clear indicator of whether that noise is random in nature, and therefore subjectively less bothersome, or patterned, and therefore more difficult to mask.



Aye! I totally agree! Some actual visual examples of the noise patterns, and a totally public methodology that explains how they analyze read noise, how they compute the average (is it actually an RMS? Is it a meadian? A mean?), would be much more helpful.

There is no question that the 5D III, 6D and 1D X greatly improved the quality of their read noise. The pronounced horizontal and vertical cross hatching of the previous generation has been considerably reduced, and what remains one is fairly hard pressed to find in an average lift (even at ISO 100/200). Thankfully, Roger Clark does produce visual examples of the noise patterns for all ISO settings, which you can find here (Note: These have been tonal compressed in order to maximize the noise patterns...keep in mind, this noise exists in the bottom couple stops of DR, and requires a SIGNIFICANT lift to become this visible in an actual photo):

1D X: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1dx/index.html
1D IV: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1div/index.html
5D III: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-5diii/index.html
5D II: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-5dii/index.html
6D: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-6d/index.html
7D: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-7d/index.html

(You can clearly see the 7D's vertical banding problem. The 5D II has much more pronounced banding at ISOs 100, 200, and 400. It also clearly has more noise at all ISO settings than either the 5D III or 6D, and the more random noise of the 5D III vs. the 5D II is quite clear. NOTE: The 5DII page includes ISO 50 at the top, so you need to scroll that page down a little bit more to compare ISO for ISO with any of the other cameras.)



Aglet said:


> E.g. In the case of the 7Ds I looked at, alternating vertical bands of (8 per, i think) pixels had different levels of read noise and this produces obvious stripe artefacts when lifting shadow areas. Since the ratio of read noise to signal there is already very low the read noise difference is made obvious.
> In some other cameras the read noise is more uniformly distributed and is less obvious when lifting shadows.



Aye, the 7D's vertical banding is pretty bad, but it is most pronounced at the lower ISO settings. Above ISO 800 (which is where most bird photographers live most of the time) it's invisible. (You can see this in Roger Clark's samples above.) ISO 400, ironically, tends to be the worst ISO for banding...I guess because it is still about as pronounced as at ISO 100, but you have two stops less DR. At ISO 100, because you have so much more DR, it is actually less of a problem.



Aglet said:


> Imaging Resource provides a different way of presenting the DR measurement, by providing DR figures at different signal to noise ratios, still likely based on RMS read noise, but it provides more of a spread of figures which can be helpful and they also publish more noise data as well, including individual RGB curves.
> 
> Here they are for the 7D, and the tiny-sensored Pentax Q.
> 
> ...



Hmm, I'd never seen the a2bart.com page before. That's a handy page! It is quite interesting in that you can actually see the Nikon range of cameras are clearly clipping the negative signal, vs. Canon which uses a bias offset and therefor preserves negative signal. I've been getting much more into astrophotography lately. Nikon cameras are called "star eaters" because they all clip the deepest shadows (they are gone for good, absolutely ZERO hope of recovering them, even with dark frames). This actually results in dimmer stars which could be recovered by the application of dark and bias frames, to completely disappear from the signal, rendering them "eaten" by Nikon. 

Canon cameras, on the other hand, keep the entirety of the image signal, including all of the values below the bias offset, and don't throw away anything. This results in more noise in Canon cameras at low ISO, however you can use dark and bias frames to nearly eliminate that noise, and almost fully recover the real image signal detail below the bias offset. For this reason, Canon cameras are used almost exclusively in the amateur deep sky astrophotography world (by those who aren't willing to spend $4000+ on a dedicated, supercooled CCD monochrome astrocam, that is), where SNR is often a mere fraction of what it is in normal photography, and every pixel counts.



Aglet said:


> Then throw in unit-to-unit variability and improvements that may be made during the mfg run of a given body and there are more things to argue about. For instance, my late model 40D, a model initially reputed to have some noise issues, provides noticeably less FPN in pushed files than my early production 7D or early 5D2 did, yet some claim noisy 40Ds and clean 7Ds or 5D2s.



I actually think it is a little ironic. The 5D II was a MASSIVELY POPULAR camera...yet it really had some BAAAD noise performance. The 5D III is quite a bit better (than both the 5D II and D800), all the way up through ISO 12800...and yet, it still doesn't get any justice. 



Aglet said:


> So, back to DxOmark - or any site that does not define how they make those measurements or what baselines they use, even the uninterpretted the data provided is less than ideal or conclusive. (But it's still more informative than "real world pictures" for such matters)
> The best rough data from DxOmark on this is the FULL SNR curves because you can see how each sensor performs at each ISO and at a lot of different levels from dark to white levels.
> /editorial



Aye, DXO's raw measurements (the actual measurements) are useful data. I don't really have a problem with DXO's data...I really just have a problem with how they interpret it, how they weight it (weighting has absolutely ZERO place in any system that aims to objectively compare anything), and how they try to reduce it all to a single scalar number.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.



As I said, some people just can't admit when they're wrong.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.
> ...


Fixed Pattern Noise


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.
> ...



Fixed Pattern Noise, it is the banding that can be seen if you process files badly, particularly if they are badly exposed files processed badly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



FPN = *F*ive-stops *P*ushed *N*oise


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



You can't do that, though. This is the fact twisting I'm talking about. Either that, or you somehow expect readers on an internet forum to keep up with your mentally internalized context switches that you never make clear. The discussion was about DXO DR measures! Not some random quote from some random guy about some random TV show that had an episode or two filmed with a 5D II. You took the discussion at hand, and dropped in a "quote" that was ENTIRELY out of context, about an entirely DIFFERENT CAMERA than has been used as an exemplar up through this point (hell, it's ALWAYS the exemplar...the debate is always between the 5D III and D800...5D III is implied, stated or not), and expect everyone to just go along with it? 



dilbert said:


> And if you're going to keep flinging that one up from time to time because you've run out of substance to debate, I'll keep reminding you that it wasn't my idea but someone else's who quite seriously knows what they're doing.



You can fling up all the "they seriously know what their doing" ppl all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they are random and out of context. It also doesn't change the fact that you never stated you were quoting anyone, or that the whole "10 stop" thing was from a separate frame of reference. You can't just mix and match contexts in a factual discussion like that. It renders the entire exchange utterly pointless, especially when you bring in out of context quotes or points without actually stating as much. 

Every discussion has a context. A context brings with it a broader basis of data, a frame of reference, and relationships that only have meaning within that context. Comparing a fact from one context to a fact from another context has no meaning. Different frames of reference, therefor they are not comparable. No one gives a crap if some random guy who filmed a House episode with a 5D II personally insists that "canon cameras" only have 10 stops of DR. That's an arbitrary quote, not a factual measure. It has absolutely ZERO meaning in the context of discussing DXO and the discussion DR numbers. Only DXO DR numbers have any meaning within the context of DXO.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Fixed Pattern Noise...... Is that when all sides of an argument yell the same thing at each other, yet nobody is listening, and even if they were, are too stubborn to change?


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



lol...that's actually rather accurate.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

@ JR
That's really interesting about Nikon and how they handle their black levels.
I remember seeing samples when their first "lord of the dark" came out, D3 or D3S?... and I could see the black levels were clean but certainly looked artificially so.
In comparison, I'm finding the more recent Nikon output to be more realistic in that area, at least for my purposes, but I've never tried astro' so this is really quite interesting and something I'll have to look in to when I can.

Thanks, also, for the reminder and links to Roger Clark's site. I'm glad he's keeping it updated (unlike mine) so will have to spend some time reading there as well.

And yes, laugh as some may about it, I can garner a fair bit of useful info very quickly from a "dark shot" by pushing it 4 stops and looking at the noise patterns. It tells me immediately what to expect if I have to push a file from it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> FPN = *F*ive-stops *P*ushed *N*oise


you are wrong again, it's FOUR stops


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



I was going to say that is accurate as well...but, were not actually yelling the same things...so at the moment, were some kind of oscillating banding noise.

BTW, when I posted that we should all be making art...five minutes after that, I actually went out to do some wildlife photography. I think this picture about sums up this thread:







Howling at the moon! (They actually were...big half moon was up in the afternoon sky, right where they were looking...there was a whole pack of them, at least five strong, one adult, and four younger ones...maybe yearling pups.)


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!


Oh ya, we almost forgot, you posted a pushed photo!
OK, tell us what it's from, ISO, processing done, and how reduced it is in size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > FPN = *F*ive-stops *P*ushed *N*oise
> ...



_Only_ four stops? Ok, sorry...my mistake. Pushing it only 4 stops instead of 5 makes all the difference in the world. I've never screwed up the exposure so bad I needed to push 5 stops, but 4 stops...well, I did that one time. One. 

I wonder if that's how many stops PBD pushed his image?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


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


Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!
> ...



I asked for guesses for how bad you thought it might be, but as a hint, it was a little more challenging than this, but then my exposure snafu was due to recycle time, not incompetence. I actually have the correctly exposed sister shot, I just threw this in for shits and giggles.


----------



## 2n10 (Feb 9, 2014)

[/quote]
Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here 
[/quote]

OK ;D












I thought I would throw in a Chipmonk and Jackrabbit to add variety for more sanity.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 9, 2014)

*Atheist:* I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it. 
*Believer:* You must believe in my religion, else your image is *******.
*Atheist:* But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
*Believer:* No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.


----------



## 2n10 (Feb 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> *Atheist:* I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
> *Believer:* You must believe in my religion, else your image is *******.
> *Atheist:* But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
> *Believer:* No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.



Very nice and accurate.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Example of picture taken with Canon camera that shows banding.... (Banding shows up in shadow detail of bird's right leg)


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You can't do that, though.
> ...



Sure, you "can" do it if you so please. You just _can't expect _to have a coherent, comprehensible discussion when no one else involved knows you've suddenly taken the discussion out of context. The joke is really on you here...but apparently you don't quite seem to get that. Your naiveté is apparently boundless...

...which begs the question why I am even trying...



dilbert said:


> I think you're calling "Foul!" because all of a sudden an argument was brought into the discussion that you know nothing about. Not my problem.



Well, yes...you made an argument that appeared to have to do with what we were discussing, and only *after the fact *did you disclose that it actually had NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. It is a simple matter of common courtesy to keep the people you are conversing with appraised of all the details, such as the fact that your quoting someone else from a different context entirely, and quoting an opinion rather than any kind of discernible fact, rather than making a quote of your own within the current context.

That would really be a foul, or at the very least, it'll foul up the conversation...which it clearly did. The conversation, or debate rather, has most definitely been fouled. Were now having a metadebate about how and why the debate could have become so completely fouled...which is really rather inane, when you think about it. (I'm sure there are a number of superb XKCD comics to epitomize the hilarity of the current state of this thread, come to think of it!)

Your clearly not interested in facts in proper context, or any level of decorum or common courtesy, however...you don't care that your random internalized context switches are unknowable to the outside world unless you have the courtesy to let everyone else know that you've switched contexts...which renders any discussion with you 100% entirely pointless, useless, and a total waste of time.

So...Ima get back to work on my ART now...tata! :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 9, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...
> 
> Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here



OK ;D












I thought I would throw in a Chipmonk and Jackrabbit to add variety for more sanity. 
[/quote]

It was clearly established (quite some time ago) that Squirrels are indecent folk ;D ... but I like the Jack Rabbit ... very nice image.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Example of picture taken with Canon camera that shows banding.... (Banding shows up in shadow detail of bird's right leg)



Fixed, but not patterned?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here



OK, taken with a Canon camera a 300 f2.8 and a MkII 2X TC and cropped.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Hmm. Maybe we should have a pointless debate about which breed of dog is cuter. It would be like the DR debate...only with the Cuteness Factor. Who has the best puppy-dog begging pout: Coyote or Husky? The cute-factor "noise floor" would be how much fang is showing...the more fang, the less cute. The cute-factor "maximum saturation" would be how big and puppy-dogish the eyes are. ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here
> ...



Nice! 

At least your feeder is in tact. I have an army of squirrels that hit my yard every day or two...the family from two houses down.  I call them "The Destros", because they truly live by their own moral code: DESTROY ALL ON THE PATH TO FOOOOD!!! They've ripped apart my bird seed feeders more times than I can count (and some of them were expensive...one was $40!)


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> That particular quote comes from Gale Tattersall - the guy that used the 5D Mark II for House where they used the 5D Mark II to shoot the final TV episode. So what you're now saying is that a well respected professional is wrong?



Do you realize that G.T. is in the motion picture business?
I.E., esp. given the time frame of the statement, thats comparing of what remains after the cameras internal conversation, the lossy compression and then the color grading on top of that are applied vs. raw sensor data?


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Here is a pretty crappy image shot with a completely outdated tech Canon sensor, that many posters here will adamantly tell you is impossible to do. Now I know it is no award winner, but I also know it would get me out of the sh-t if it was an important moment. I just thought it might be interesting to post an actual photographic example of the appallingly bad Canon tech.
> 
> Anybody care to guess how many stops under exposed the image was? It was at a wedding reception and the on camera flash that I was bouncing hadn't recharged in time, so did not fire.



OK, it's pushed fairly hard, hugely downsampled so hard to tell what body it came from.
But, whatever body it did come from exhibits horizontal and vertical banding almost evenly at the conditions of that shot and it's showing up as magenta crosshatch on her neck and some other areas. So it could be any brand of camera at this point.

In a bit of a leap I'd say its from an old digic 2, possibly digic 3 body, maybe a 20D or an early Rebel?

From the histogram, the red and green channels are showing a lot of quantization stretch, so you've pulled this from pretty low down and from likely moderate ISO.
maybe 800 to 1600, depending on the body.

With some of your PS talent you could still make a passable print out of this, ultimate IQ rarely required for portraits.

Exif is scrubbed except for "Ducky" and "Photoshop 3.08" ...

Heh! what kind of surprise are you tryin' t' pull here, bub? 
let's see you try that with a digic 4 camera


----------



## David Hull (Feb 9, 2014)

philmoz said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > philmoz said:
> ...


There are many ways to do this -- one thing to consider, for example, is some CD audio equipment that used 12 bit converters to get 16 bits of performance through oversampling or the so-called "1" bit designs that produced 16 bit equivalence. I don't think this is what is going on here though. I think if you pick the correct settings on the DxO presentation the Sony's measure out at about 13.8 bits of DR which is not surprising for a low speed SAR design.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> *Atheist:* I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
> *Believer:* You must believe in my religion, else your image is *******.
> *Atheist:* But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
> *Believer:* No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.


One more cartoon for your reading/viewing pleasure ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> It really isn't about the IQ or the Art. It's *just* about the fact that Tech A has more DR than Tech B, therefor religiously speaking, Tech A must be better. All that matters to Tech A fanboys is that "they won". That's it.



It's unfortunate that it often boils down to school-backyard "mine is bigger" - but as for dr, I (again) have to mention that I'm not a member of the "11 stops is enough" fangroup.

How do I know? Because Magic Lantern recently gained the dual_iso module boosting the dr to 14.5ev (iso 100 interlaced with iso 800) - and they've got auto-ettr to measure when it is required. That's why I know for what I shoot (let's say white furry animal in bright sunlight/shadows even w/ fill flash) I often require more dr, and for these scenes obviously bracketing is not an option.

It's not necessary all the time mind you, but another advantage of higher dr is more exposure safety - you don't need to (spot) meter 100% correctly if short on time which usually is the case if your subject is about to move away.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > *Atheist:* I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
> ...


...and this one is for appeasing the opposition


----------



## Roo (Feb 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


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



Nice one Rein 

And this is what happened after the Miss Universe contestants witnessed the DXO/DR discussion.....


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Which all really boils down to people beat up on DxO here because it doesn't make them feel good about the equipment they've bought.



No. I bash DxO because their numbers are MEANINGLESS.

Just because their are "formulas" and "calculations" does not mean the measurements are either accurate or correct. As an example I can come up with a formula that uses a standard IQ test, but some of the questions deal with color, so a colorblind person will always be handicapped and measured low. Has nothing to do with their intelligence, but does show that as a whole the numbers are really meaningless.

As an example... Which is a better Camera - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4?

Which is better? Sony Cybershot DSC-RX1 or Nikon D3X?

Nikon D5200 of Nikon D3S?

So remember... In terms of Raw performance...

If you bought a Nikon D4 when you could have bought a D600, you are an idiot
If you are a pro and still using the lousy D3X when you could be using a Cybershot DSC-RX1, you are a fool
Have a D3S instead of D5200? TOOL!

Afterall... That is what DXO said are better sensors. Which are actual better cameras?

Nikon D600 or Canon 1Dx???

And sorry... I have used both of those, and the 1Dx is 10x the camera the D600 is in what it can produce, though DXO tries to say the D600 has a sensor that is 15% better than the 1DX.

Again, just because there is a test, does not mean it is relevant... I can come up with a benchmark that says the Kia Optima and Ford Fusion are 40% better than the Lamborghini in engine performance based on fuel efficiency... Which do you want in a race? 

So tell you what - If you think DXO Mark numbers are so relevant - go out to Fashion Week in NY and find the Pro photographers... you know... the ones making the serious big bucks and try and trade them their D4, D3X etc for a D600 and show them the DXO marks and tell them how much better the sensor is in Raw Performance and see what they say. Better yet,video it and post it.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I was expanding on a point made earlier by Neuro. It was common courtesy to acknowledge that he made the original point. It also lets readers know that I have been following what had been said earlier in the thread. Beginners Guide to Debating, Chapter One. 

From the threads on CR it is clear there is a total misconception of the amount of EV range in a scene. No doubt this is partly stoked by people using reflective light meter readings. 

I could post a picture taken into the morning sun of a beached fishing boat, which, as well as exposing for the sky has absolutely zero noise or banding in the dark underside of the boat's hull, but as PBD has already posted a picture which trolls have taken zero notice of, I'm not going to bother. 

I'm not saying 11.5 stops is always enough. I'm saying that the difference between 12 and 14 ( or 11.7 and 13.2 if we are going to be anal about it ) is not a deal breaker. The difference between 12 and 20 would be a deal breaker. Why such a big jump ? Read what was written earlier.

Here's a link to a shot into the sun with the dreadful noise plagued 5D mkii (not one of mine). When you get beyond this start complaining about DR. 

http://500px.com/photo/35632728

It's also worth mentioning that to a certain extent, photography is defined by its limitation in DR. Reproduce a scene as we really see it and it will be quite boring as the human eye ( or to be more correct, the brain ) has around 24 stops due to our HDR computing ability.

Again you might find this an interesting read:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> It's not necessary all the time mind you, but another advantage of higher dr is more exposure safety - you don't need to (spot) meter 100% correctly if short on time which usually is the case if your subject is about to move away.



If you're going to use spot metering through your camera ' on the fly' as it were you are certainly gong to need all the exposure latitude help you can get 

In the film days the reason we bought spot meters was specifically _not_ to take one reading, but to take various reading from around the scene to get a range and average, or to take a reading from a grey card, again from the different illumination within the scene. 

Using spot as a one off meter reading can lead to real exposure error unless you have hit the correct reflectivity within the scene with your one reading.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It seems that people want to disbelieve in DxO



People disbelieve DxO because they are biased, inconsistent, and refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. Incidentally, people disbelieve you for those same reasons, among others.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Discussion out of context? Well obviously my lead in doing so set a good example for you as you henceforth have followed up with pictures of wolves baying at the moon. So +1 to me for being a trend setter that you've followed


The coyotes were, to this bystander, a bit of comic relief, not an actual part of the discussion.



dilbert said:


> I think you're calling "Foul!" because all of a sudden an argument was brought into the discussion that you know nothing about. Not my problem.



"All of a sudden" is the key phrase here. A legitimate discussion of the facts of this issue should not involve "all of a sudden." Throwing your counter-party off kilter with a confusing argument does two things: (1) it fails to advance your argument; (2) it serves as a concession that you had no legitimate reply; i.e. it's an admission that you perceive your own argument as weak.

The question before us was why the DxO bashing. That was largely settled with the answer "their measurements of sensors are generally fine, but their measurements of lenses are poorly explained, and their "scores" go beyond "crap" into the land of "misleading." (at least that's my take on it)

This led to the inevitable and perpetual debate about DR. To me, that question is something like this: Everyone acknowledges that D800 (and other Sony sensors) have more real DR than the 5D3 (and other Canon sensors); however, is it enough to make a difference in real-world photography?

This question can be addressed by breaking down the original question into its parts, which Neuro and jrista have been trying to do. These are the parts I see:

(1) What is the real-world DR difference between the 5D3 and D800?
(2) How common is it to find a scene which falls into the real-world DR of the D800, but not into the real-world DR of the 5D3? 

Part of "real world" performance has to do with the techniques employed by the photographer. Remember the early days of CD music? The engineers often used the wrong processing techniques, creating a CD that sounded truly bad. Analog fans used this as proof that digital was inferior, but it was just evidence that it was not being done correctly. If the photographer is not exposing properly (on either of these cameras) it won't generate useful examples. 

Dilbert, for future reference, citing an "expert" to support your factual assertion is risky. This is true for two reasons: first, "experts" often contradict themselves in different contexts. Second, there are many different experts, and your opponent may have a list of experts who contradict your expert. The question is not what the "expert" says, but why that expert says it.

And we're all still waiting for some real-world examples of (2) to be posted. (raw files, please)


----------



## David Hull (Feb 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



LOL +1


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



You epitomize my earlier point about "Team A"s arguments purely being for the purpose of "winning" the competition more than I ever thought possible. Thanks for literally personifying the point for me. Now I can ignore the rest of this debate and do something interesting.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

For some people, winning an argument is a matter of life and death... for others, it's even more serious!

When a thread goes nuts, call out the squirrels


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Here's an army of ground squirrels for ya:














There were dozens of holes, each filled with about 5 prairie dogs!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When a thread goes nuts, call out the squirrels


We all know how that goes down ... the indecent Squirrels expose their nuts ;D ... if I'm not wrong, the last time, wasn't it the same DxO discussion that prompted many people to show case Squirrel nuts? ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> In the film days the reason we bought spot meters was specifically _not_ to take one reading, but to take various reading from around the scene to get a range and average, or to take a reading from a grey card, again from the different illumination within the scene.



Thanks for the information, I'm really not experienced with spot metering as the eval metering on the 60d is very good and with a bit of experience I was always able to guess a good ec.

Unfortunately, the same metering module put on the 6d is more erratic, and that's why I have to think about other means of getting a correct exposure - which is difficult when in a hurry, that's why I'm happy about as much dynamic range as I can grab, for example the +1/3-1/2 stops added by Magic Lantern.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Unfortunately, the same metering module put on the 6d is more erratic,



+1; you're not the only person to find that; I'm finding the matrix metering (pattern) almost 'erratic' too. It's as if it's trying to be too clever in certain lighting conditions. It also seems to react to blue by underexposing but I believe it doesn't have colour metering. 

Certainly the matrix on the 5D behaved differently to the mkii which behaved differently to the 6D. I would recommend trying average metering mode - where there is nothing in the metering icon box. This is actually centre weighted, and should be more predictable but not 'intelligent'.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > In the film days the reason we bought spot meters was specifically _not_ to take one reading, but to take various reading from around the scene to get a range and average, or to take a reading from a grey card, again from the different illumination within the scene.
> ...



I have always used Canon's spot meter mode when doing landscape photography. I follow the same basic methodology that Sporgon outlined. I meter, with the cameras built-in meter, to determine the true dynamic range of the scene, by metering the brightest highlights (usually not the sun, but say clouds or sky near the sun) and the deepest shadows, then computing the difference in EV. I may also meter some midtone areas to know where they fall within that range. Knowing the actual dynamic range of the scene is helpful for landscapes, as it tells you exactly how much GND filtration you need. If the scene is 12 stops, I'll use a 1-stop GND. If it's 16 stops, I'll use a 1- and a 3-stop GND filter. If it's 20 stops, I'll use the 2, 3, and 4 stop GND filters...and will usually mix hard and soft grad in some fashion.

I've been out of landscape photography for a while now (I really need to get back into it more), but back when I did it regularly, I was actually able to fairly accurately guage the tonal range of a landscape just by looking at it (and maybe framing it by making two L-shaped corners with my hands). Being able to gauge DR just by looking at a landscape is very helpful in those situation where the lighting may only last seconds, so you can drop in the necessary filtration and get the shots, rather than have to spend many minutes metering and calculating. It doesn't have to be exact...all that really matters (at least with landscapes) is that you compress the DR to fit within the limitations of the camera (i.e. compress the histogram so it isn't riding up either edge.)

Landscapes are a bit unique in this respect, with the ability to control DR with filters. If you need more DR for other kinds of scenes, then usually the only way to get it is with more sensor DR or the use of HDR processing.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that Canon's iFCL metering is highlight-weighted. The 6D, and for that matter the 7D (the first camera to get iFCL) will change the metered exposure as highlights change. Even if the highlights are only point highlights (say specular sparkle off a car or off water) that will affect metering. The camera is trying to preserve those highlights. For some people, that's a godsend. For others, it results in what they call erratic behavior. 

For me, since I rarely shoot at anything below ISO 800, the changes in highlight tonality don't really matter much...I'm almost always lifting darker midtones a couple stops anyway, and at ISO 800+ there really isn't any banding noise to be a problem. If you shoot at lower ISO settings, then you might want to increase EC a bit, because specular highlights are bound to be blown regardless, and they really don't matter all that much. 

The 5D II behaved differently because it had a monochrome metering sensor that was not highlight weighted. The 7D was the first with iFCL, which stands for Focus, Color, Luminance metering. Technically speaking, anything with iFCL (which includes the 7D, 6D, 5D III, and some of the newer Rebels) are actually a LOT more intelligent than the 5D II meter. Once you learn why the meter behaves the way it does, it should help you to work with it, rather than against it.


----------



## MLfan3 (Feb 9, 2014)

actually DXO marks is a great site and they do all right.
for that we should respect them.
however , the way they rank all sensors is plain silly.
they put too much weight on base ISO DR, so some people do not like their site(not all of us can or do use a tripod all the time).
that all said , most of their sensor measurements are correct maybe except lowlight sports part of their scoring.

I have both the 6D and the D800E(the A7R too) and even resampling the D800E files to 12mp , it is still not as clean as the 6D file.
But they obviously rate the D800E better for lowlight sports(I do not know what they mean by sports, though).
other than that most of their sensor quality assessments are correct , and I have to respect their hard work.

when you go to DXOmark site , just shun their over all ratings, just read detailed graphs and numbers in measurement section.
I personally read lowlight score , color depth and DR, and to me color depth and lowlight scores are much more important than DR score.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When a thread goes nuts, call out the squirrels



This has been a very "interesting" discussion which I have learned a lot. The only thing I can add is yet another squirrel.  

This gal likes to hang out with me when I'm working from home. She comes down a tree outside of my office window and stares at me for hours. I guess she's looking for a hand out.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2014)

Jon, thanks for that info on the 6D. It explains a lot ! No doubt it's in the instruction manual :-[

Isn't CR wonderful ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> actually DXO marks is a great site and they do all right.
> for that we should respect them.
> however , the way they rank all sensors is plain silly.
> they put too much weight on base ISO DR, so some people do not like their site(not all of us can or do use a tripod all the time).
> ...



That is exactly the problem with DXO though. They have some measurements, but their scores are actually primarily based on weighted extrapolations derived from measures, not the measures themselves. The low-light sports "rating" is based on a mathematic extrapolation, not actual measurements of the D800's noise.

What you've said about resampled D800E files, and how they are still noisier than the 6D, is something I've stated for a while (I've poked around with some D800 files, and experienced the same thing relative to 5D III files.) I even mentioned as much in an earlier post of mine in this thread. It's one thing to use mathematics to extrapolate how much noise might exist in a downsampled image, and another thing to actually measure the noise in the downsampled image. DXO only extrapolates, they don't measure, so their results aren't real world, they are purely theoretical.

There is always a gap between theory and reality, though...we all know that.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Jon, thanks for that info on the 6D. It explains a lot ! No doubt it's in the instruction manual :-[
> 
> Isn't CR wonderful ;D



This might be helpful:

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/iFCL_metering.do


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> I have always used Canon's spot meter mode when doing landscape photography.



For landscape I use Magic Lantern's auto-ettr module, unlike Canon it meters in raw (via a switch to lv) and then *exactly* sets the most ettr metering, save some configurable specular highlight clipping you're ok with.



jrista said:


> Once you learn why the meter behaves the way it does, it should help you to work with it, rather than against it.



In this case, I have to persist that this method worked very well with the 60d, but often fails with the 6d... moving the frame just a bit often results in a very different exposure, and no way the overall highlights changed.... I simply do not remember this happening with the crop camera.

Another issue I think I'm about to pin down to the metering is that the camera underexposes in low iso & makes me use 1/3-2/3 ec all the time to harvest the full dynamic range, but on high iso this leads to clipping. My speculation: Canon's metering seems to be so "intelligent" to save some dynamic range as an error margin in low iso and stops doing that when the dr is scarce.



Sporgon said:


> +1; you're not the only person to find that; I'm finding the matrix metering (pattern) almost 'erratic' too. It's as if it's trying to be too clever in certain lighting conditions. [...] I would recommend trying average metering mode - where there is nothing in the metering icon box. This is actually centre weighted, and should be more predictable but not 'intelligent'.



I might very well start to do that ... at least as a test. Until now, I'm very lazy and don't use exposure lock but the quickest method on the 6d: Af with the center point, recompose, shoot. With center-weighted metering I'd have to press a back button all the time after af'ing which is a tiresome delay that can lose me shots. And of course it doesn't work at all when trying (6d: emphasize "try") to track something off-center.


----------



## LSV (Feb 9, 2014)

I think, at this point, I and probably others, would like to hear from the Original Poster. We've heard passionate answers with supporting claims and counter arguments. Is the OP satisfied with the answers and with which explanations does he agree? I learned a lot and big thanks to CR members for the education.


----------



## msm (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > actually DXO marks is a great site and they do all right.
> ...



Well if you check their low light criteria (which I think very few actually do) and their graphs you will see that it is actually the color depth that limits the low light rating for Canon cameras, not noise. 

Then one can debate how relevant their low light criteria is, are there anyone in reality who don't think the 1DX don't deliver good image quality at ISO 3200 because of less than 18bit "color depth"? Personally I think dynamic range and noise in the shadows is the biggest issue at high ISO, and the the 1DX satisfies DXO low light DR criteria almost up to 10000 measured ISO (ISO 12800 in camera).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a pretty crappy image shot with a completely outdated tech Canon sensor, that many posters here will adamantly tell you is impossible to do. Now I know it is no award winner, but I also know it would get me out of the sh-t if it was an important moment. I just thought it might be interesting to post an actual photographic example of the appallingly bad Canon tech.
> ...



What, no guess at the number of stops underexposed it is?

Anyway, it was five stops under exposed and all the heavy lifting was easily done in Lightroom. As with most of my illustrative images it was the 1Ds MkIII, along with iso 200, 1/40 sec @ f3.2 with the 100mm Macro IS. 

It is funny, to most of us this is clearly a throw away error, but as my interest was peaked and I am doing some printing, I just printed a crop of the worst areas at a full print size of 16" X 24", it is totally usable. I did do a little more processing to it, but nothing major or time consuming, a simple Gaussian blur layer with a mask and a more appropriate curves layer, I also did a magenta HSL adjustment. I know that if the image was important I could do a lot more work to it, and use all kinds of plugins and extras, to get that final few percentage points out of it, but the truth is even with bog stock basic Lightroom you can effectively work images five stops under exposed if absolutely necessary.

Now I, and the Canon combatants here, have never said that Nikon/Sony sensors don't have more DR, we have also (to my recollection) never said we wouldn't like more. However correct use of the camera specifically regarding exposure, and more critically, competent post processing, can mitigate even problem images much more than any of the DR/Sony/Nikon fellowship would have you believe. To say stuff like Canon sensors have "around 10 stops of usable DR", or "8.7 stops", or "I have had real issues with slightly below midtone banding", just displays your complete lack of post processing ability.

Here is my reworked print file with adjustments as stated above, all of this is easily done in Lightroom, you can even do the Gaussian blur layer by using reverse clarity on a brush.

And below that the original without adjustments just exported to jpeg.

P.S. The "Ducky" and "Photoshop 3.08" did not come from me.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Anyway, it was five stops under exposed and..just displays your complete lack of post processing ability.


5... That's pretty good, and you certainly know how to make good use of Photoshop to clean it up.

I'd have no hesitation about pushing files from your 1ds3, a camera with a rep as one of the better low ISO performers made, or even my faithful old 40d. (anyone ever hear me complain about my 40D?)

But there are only 2 bodies I've experienced that are horridly noisy; the 7D, and the 5D2 that I had.

I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained.

Even doing this as a proof does not exempt the fact that some bodies have a lot of FPN and are not suitable for any push-processing in post, certainly not if you have to do a lot of that. Unfortunately for me, I had both of those bandy bodies and stupidly kept them when I should have just returned them. They did have some other redeeming features, and still provided plenty of usable shots, but frustrated the &%^$*[email protected]#! out of me when I had to push low ISO files.

And yes, I'm no Photoshop guru, but neither should I have to be. Far quicker and better for future-proofing to just choose better tools that don't require me to fix such things in post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> And yes, I'm no Photoshop guru, but neither should I have to be. Far quicker and better for future-proofing to just choose better tools that don't require me to fix such things in post.



Ahhhh, so you often set manual exposure for a flash shot and the flash fails to fire, or for various other reasons you frequently underexpose by 4-5 stops? PBD's shot was clearly a rare exception. If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, it was five stops under exposed and..just displays your complete lack of post processing ability.
> ...



I did nothing in Photoshop that I couldn't do in Lightroom to that file. Indeed the heavy lifting was done in Lightroom, a vastly simpler and cheaper product. But don't forget, that processing was only "needed" because of a flash misfire, not an intrinsic sensor limitation or fault.

The 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkII are a hairs breadth away from each other regarding shadow noise and FPN, maybe half a stop, at absolute most a full stop, that still leaves four stops of lift capability in 5D MkII files. Send me some RAW files, 7D and/or 5D MkII, I don't care, I'll even do another video on what I did to them. The 1Ds MkIII has such a good rep because people who owned them invested the time to maximise their output, we don't flit from camera to camera chasing a magic bullet, there isn't one. In the immortal words of Arno Rafael Minkkinen, "Stay on the f*cking bus." If you want the best for your photography you have to learn it all, starting with exposure! But that includes post processing, yes you do have to learn it. Sure if other cameras have a metric that is much better for a personal style, be that DR, frames per second, size, whatever, then it makes sense to get it, but that does not mean that cameras with slightly less DR, fps, are bigger, etc are not very capable tools in others hands. Yes, the Sony sensor has more DR than the Canon one, but it is not a huge difference and it shouldn't be a serious limiting factor to image making. Yes we all want "more", DR, fps, smaller, lighter better AF etc, but the way you guys harp on about it you make it sound like it is impossible to get a good image with a Canon sensor, when that is very far from the truth. 

I understand you struggle with the 7D and 5D MkII, but you need to realise that is because you don't expose with them properly or process them properly the vast majority of the time you have "issues", you can't give the opinions you give without people counterbalancing your opinions with those facts.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



To add to this, the 7D, 5D II, and 1Ds III are all part of Canon's last generation of cameras. While they were excellent cameras in their time, they no longer represent the best technology Canon has to offer. It is really a little sad that so much of the advancement that Canon really did achieve with the sensors in the 1D X and 5D III and 6D has been lost in the DR debate, but that really is the case.

PBD has done a WONDERFUL job making the best out of a bummer of a situation...a flash misfire. DESPITE banding noise in the shadows, he was able to perform a rather remarkable 5-stop recovery. That can't be dismissed out of hand, not if you wish to remain objective. It's quite a feat! His image here is an excellent counter to the banding noise ridden "examples" that you get from the DR fanbase that exhibit Canon IQ in the WORST POSSIBLE light imaginable. PBD has wonderfully demonstrated how GOOD things can be even in the worst of situations with the careful application of basic skill in a very affordable tool like Lightroom.

But here is the kicker...the 6D? The 5D III? The 1D X? They are all MUCH BETTER than the 1Ds III and 5D II! The noise at all ISOs on those cameras was a lot worse than it is on any one of the aforementioned cameras. Banding on all three has been reduced considerably, and exhibits a more natural granular appearance rather than the horrid magenta crosshatching that the prior generation exhibited. Color fidelity at higher ISOs has improved considerably, especially with the 6D. Dynamic range at higher ISO has also improved (and Magic Lantern extracts another half stop at all high ISO settings, and can apparently provide as much as 14.5 stops at ISO 100!)

If your having problems with the prior generation of Canon DSLR cameras...and your _*certain*_ the problem is not yourself (you can only progress personally in skill if you are willing to admit your own faults, as only then can you correct them)...then you have to consider that you could solve your problems by moving up to the newer, current generation of Canon DSLR cameras. While they may not have been "groundbreaking" by providing two additional stops DR at ISO 100, they still made some considerable improvements in IQ, greatly mitigating or eliminating the most grievous IQ issues that the prior generation exhibited.


----------



## 2n10 (Feb 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...
> ...



It was clearly established (quite some time ago) that Squirrels are indecent folk ;D ... but I like the Jack Rabbit ... very nice image.
[/quote]

LOL, thanks


----------



## Aglet (Feb 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.



Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. 

out of the following Canon cameras i've owned & used

3x 350
4x 400
2x 450
2x 1000

1x 40
2x 60

1x 7
1x 5d2

8x G series

9x various PnS

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN. Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.
7D's metering was good, tho occasionally clipped highlites a bit much.
5D2's metering would, on occasion, just be wildly out, usually underexposing, not that it mattered _most_ of the time.
No complaints about the other 22 "raw generators."
Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?" A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
> ...


I see, so you are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
> ...



I know I and others should just ignore this post, but I'm going to reply because you may give the impression to someone reading it that the 5D digic 4 cameras are in some way inferior to the others, and this is just not the case. 

It _is_ true that if you lift zero data ( ie total black) from the 5D II there is more FPN than with the digic 2 and 5 camera. ( I don't have a digic 3 camera). I do I know this ? I have compared them after reading the 

No, I can't be bothered. In normal photography it just doesn't have any relevance.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
> ...



But _other _people don't seem to have this problem in their final-output photos. How do they avoid they it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
> ...



I owned both the 7D and the 5DII, and in tens of thousands of shots I didn't have a single one ruined by FPN (note: none were shots with the lens cap on). Your cameras may have been defective, or I had cameras with magic FPN-proof sensors, or I just exposed and processed my images properly. The first is possible, the second pretty implausible, the third is most likely. 

Specifically regarding the 7D, Roger Clark stated, "_Thye 7D camera has *lower* fixed pattern noise *at ISOs less than 800* than many other Canon cameras tested, including the Canon 1DX._" Maybe Roger has a 7D with one of those magic sensors, too? Not that I have any issues with my 1D X, either... 

But you can keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> t ignore this post, but I'm going to reply because you may give the impression to someone reading it that the 5D digic 4 cameras are in some way inferior to the others, and this is just not the case.



I know I should also ignore this post  but reading this people might think it's about the digic processor, but afaik the pattern noise has more to do with the general layout of the camera (pcb), the number of readout channels and how fast the data is read. Canon seems to have concentrated on improving this problem though, at least from what I can tell using 60d->6d.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.
> ...



I think, as always, you are the one aiming for dramatic effect, after all you have taken Neuro's quote completely out of context, which was, a badly exposed image, something we know you are prone to.

People who found the fpn from the 5D MkII and 7D to be particularly problematic are the ones who tended to underexpose, which is outdated advice originally intended to preserve highlights from clipping, *and* who then who didn't take any time at all in working out the best way to process those underexposed files.

Remember when you said _"I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained."_

Well my reply still stands _"Send me some RAW files, 7D and/or 5D MkII, I don't care, I'll even do another video on what I did to them._"

You didn't get the results you wanted because you didn't take the time to learn to use them. We could turn your comment _"Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?" A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch."_ 180º, have you noticed the cameras you get better results with are the ones programmed to look after people who don't know what they are doing? The bodies where user input is far more important you can't get results from. Now what does that say?


----------



## sdsr (Feb 21, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained.
> 
> [....]
> 
> And yes, I'm no Photoshop guru, but neither should I have to be. Far quicker and better for future-proofing to just choose better tools that don't require me to fix such things in post.



Since this is a thread about DxO (albeit a different branch of it) I though I would mention the improved "prime" (I think that's what they call it - I don't have it here in my office) noise reduction component of the latest version of their software. The other day I ended up with a badly underexposed photo of one of our cats, who was posing in a rather dramatic way - I inadvertently took the first shot, with bounce flash, before I was in the same room as he was in, so of course it bounced in the wrong place, missed him altogether and I ended up with a rather dark image. I rather liked the result nevertheless, but also thought I would see what would happen if I tried to brighten it. As I had taken it with my 5DIII rather than 6D, there was a little visible banding in the noise which I couldn't quite remove in LR (not that I tried terribly hard). I then tried it in DxO, selecting "prime" noise reduction mode and the banding vanished completely, and automatically, with no further tweaking on my part. Whether that would help with the banding you're complaining about I have no idea (I've never used a 7D, and have no idea how underexposed your problem photos are, let alone how much you want to brighten them), but what it did for me certainly didn't require guru status.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2014)

sdsr said:


> The other day I ended up with a badly underexposed photo of one of our cats...



Dammit, man, you can't just say that and then not post your cat photo on the Internet!!


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 21, 2014)

Perhaps this thread should be put out of its misery - well, after the cat picture is posted.  This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 21, 2014)

gruhl28 said:


> This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.



I see you're new around here.  

Welcome to the forums!


----------



## sanj (Feb 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> gruhl28 said:
> 
> 
> > This has to have the highest ratio of arguing to useful, informative comment of any thread I've read on this forum.
> ...



hahahha


----------



## JumboShrimp (Feb 21, 2014)

Original Poster (OP) is back and thank you all for the (sometimes) informative, but always entertaining, discussions. I know I'm bucking the trend, but I sort of like a single numerical equipment rating. Bottom line evaluation, so to speak.

There was little or no comparison to what the folks do at DPReview, though. Seems to me that DxO and DPReview basically have the same procedural rating system. DxO gives a number, whereas DPReview gives a percentage and an award, such as 89% Gold Award. My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.

Any opinions/comments comparing methodology and results between DxO and DPReview?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.
> 
> Any opinions/comments comparing methodology and results between DxO and DPReview?



The big difference is that DPR's % score attempts to rank the *camera* (build, ergonomics, IQ, AF, etc.), whereas DxOMark's score is for the sensor and only the sensor. Pair a great sensor with poor autofocus, you get great DR and low noise...and a blurry image. DxO doesn't care, to them it's still great. DPR would mark down the overall score due to the poor AF. 

Since people buy cameras, and not bare silicon sensors, DPR's single number score is a bit less useless than DxOMark's sensor score.


----------



## jrista (Feb 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.
> ...



It's also a lot clearer that DPRs ratings (which are conveniently percentages, something everyone fully understands) are subjective, based on the reviewers experiences as well as technical tests with the camera.

This is in contrast to some arbitrary number that requires you to go investigating HOW that number is derived, something the very vast majority of DXO viewers DO NOT do. That scalar number is a black box output that does not factor in enough information in order to be truly accurate, and yet it is boldly claimed to be "scientific". It may well indeed be produced via a scientific process, but the number is otherwise utterly meaningless, yet given all to much precedence, by the unwary general public. 

That's the danger of DXO...their bold claim to science and yet black box effect.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ..you are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010.



Yes.
The 6D and 70D are noticeably improved for low ISO pattern noise so my gripes are confined to Digic 4 SLR bodies. OTH, Digic 4 PowerShot G11 (& G12?) behave pretty well.




neuroanatomist said:


> [..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.



If 20+ other Canon bodies (let's not even consider the Exmor sensored bodies), often used the same way, did not produce objectionable FPN when pushed then how can you conclude that's a user fault? The 7D is KNOWN to have stripey shadows with only a small push that you can even do in DPP. Too bad you don't have yours yet so you could provide a lens cap shot so we could see if it had stripes or not.

e.g.
7D non-pushed
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP 
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9770.msg176368#msg176368




Marsu42 said:


> ..pattern noise has more to do with the general layout of the camera (pcb), the number of readout channels..



very true. I've identified image noise under some circumstances with my old 40D that seems to be directly related to electronic system noise, most likely an onboard voltage regulator. If I could clean that power supply up i'd have more useful 1600 and 3200 iso on that one.
Digic 4 is only fingered as being the processor in the most egregious DSLR FPN culprits, PowerShots G11 & 12 are Digic 4 and cleaner than the SLRs at base ISO.




privatebydesign said:


> People who found the fpn from the 5D MkII and 7D to be particularly problematic are the ones who tended to underexpose, which is outdated advice originally intended to preserve highlights from clipping..



I don't understand how that is outdated advice.
Keeping highlites just short of clipping is how to retain highlite detail; they're not being exposed as a midtone.
Push the rest up as desired, or even further, as in this example from my 60D which survived just fine with a manually exposed shot to retain cloud detail while pushing the rest up in post.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.msg154889#msg154889




> Well my reply still stands "Send me some RAW files, 7D and/or 5D MkII, I don't care, I'll even do another video on what I did to them."



I haven't forgotten. when I can make the time I'll prep a file for you to work on. I'd like to see if you can process the stripes out without losing detail. Likely will be one of the 7D sunset shots from link above.



> .. have you noticed the cameras you get better results with are the ones programmed to look after people who don't know what they are doing? The bodies where user input is far more important you can't get results from. Now what does that say?



it says nothing conclusive. I generally shoot difficult scenes in manual exposure to retain highlite detail levels where I want them so how can an unused comsumer camera's AE features possibly matter?




sdsr said:


> tried it in DxO, selecting "prime" noise reduction mode and the banding vanished completely



I do have DxO 9 but haven't run any of the old stripey files thru it. I have seen improved results on some of my older hi ISO files that it did a nice job on. Thanks for letting me know it worked for you; I have some 5d2 files and 7d files I hope it can fix without excess time spent doing so.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
I need to get back to what's important to me in an image.


----------



## jrista (Feb 22, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.
> ...



The 7D is by far at it's weakest at ISO 100. I think Neuro is more like myself in that more often than not, he's shooting at a higher ISO. Past ISO 400, banding is pretty much non-existent, meaning all of the ISO settings between 400 and 3200 are pretty usable. By ISO 3200 itself and again the camera isn't all that usable. 

I don't think anyone denies that the 7D has a banding problem at low ISO. That's well known. At ISO 400 sometimes you don't even need to push anything at all, and banding can be a slight problem in the midtones. 

The 7D isn't really a landscape or studio camera, though. It's an action camera. It's an ok one, but lacking the very high ISO capabilities of a FF camera, it's limited in it's usable scope in that arena. The 70D has demonstrated some clear improvements in the area that the 7D used to dominate. It definitely has less noise, it's sharper, more usable at ISO 400 and 3200 (even though it actually has slightly more noise, it's less revolting noise). Not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin.

I think in the long run, between the improvements made in the 70D and even more so the improvements made in the 6D, the next DSLRs from canon should be pretty good on the noise front. If there was ever a "biggest complaint" against the 7D, it would be it's poor handling of noise, in general. Second to that would be the perceived softness due to the AA filter. (Ironically, I personally love the 7D's AA filter, as it's a godsend for bird photography...no moire at all, especially with a big white...but most people are limited to smaller/cheaper lenses, so I understand the outcry for a weaker AA filter.)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?



Canon has sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Feb 22, 2014)

I think people overthink this stuff. If your client or your audience worked for DXO or are have a serious mental disorder concerning pixels, sure, you may have an issue. But since content still rules all.... As long as you can deliver results to your audience's standards, everything else doesn't matter. If you are your own audience, you are welcome to argue with yourself. ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > If customers are willing to buy their "recycled" 70D sensor, what is the problem?
> ...


Are you suggesting that DxO worshippers are jealous that Canon has "sold tens of millions of cameras with 'recycled' 18 MP sensors"? if so, I agree ;D ... I think they are just jealous that their "oh so superior DR capable" senors aren't flying off store shelves as much as Canon's "recycled" sensors ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


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



Mostly I think they're frustrated that tens of millions of people seem to ignore what they perceive as the only important feature of a camera, namely an extra two stops of low ISO DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Well if Canon can do that then they'll have a lens that has closer to linear performance with respect to DR along the ISO scale (a linear degradation of DR with ISO is concurrent with theory on the matter.)



Touché. 



dilbert said:


> I'd almost be willing to bet that IQ won't be specifically addressed in the next round of sensors for FF either because Canon will have been focusing R&D efforts on getting DPAF working on FF sensors instead.



If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so. They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they _gained_ market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR. Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so. They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they _gained_ market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR. Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.
> ...



Sounds like they made the right decision.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon felt that sensor IQ needed to be addressed, they'd have done so. They've had a low ISO DR gap for years, and for most of those years they _gained_ market share at the expense of their competition with more low ISO DR. Those who incessantly beat the low ISO DRum can't seem to grasp that what matters most (or exclusively) to them is far less important (or even irrelevant) to the vast majority of camera buyers.
> ...


In my office one of my co-workers explained to me why she bought a Nikon D600: because the salesman told her that "all pro photographers use only 24 megapixel full frame cameras" ... she shot less than 1000 images with that camera in the last 15 months, now her awesome DR capable sensor just sits in her house doing nothing, other than ooze oil. I too have plenty of real life silly/childish stories why people bought a Nikon or Sony camera, it proves nothing other than make us look foolish for resorting to rather lame examples to prove our point.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
> I need to get back to what's important to me in an image.



Easy for you to say, now that you have a Sony A7....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 23, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Only in CR or similar forums did I ever come across a few people talking about what kind of noise is there in some dark/unimportant area of the image or some posterization in the OOF area etc ... unfortunately, now I've begun to look for those issues, instead of concentrating on the most important aspect of the image i.e. subject matter, the message the images conveys, composition etc :-[
> ...


 ;D ... I wish my Sony a7 can solve all my photographic problems, but unfortunately there aren't enough native lenses to take advantage of its sensor (and I'm not too keen on getting FE the 35 / 55 mm prime lenses) ... but I like it bcoz it is very portable, yet full frame, so I carry it with me daily now.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 25, 2014)

> The McNamara fallacy, named for Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven. (See the example below.)
> 
> It refers to McNamara's belief as to what led the United States to defeat in the Vietnam War—specifically, his quantification of success in the war (e.g. in terms of enemy body count), ignoring other variables.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy


Also read this book:

How to Lie with Statistics:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728



> Amazon.com Review
> "There is terror in numbers," writes Darrell Huff in How to Lie with Statistics. And nowhere does this terror translate to blind acceptance of authority more than in the slippery world of averages, correlations, graphs, and trends. Huff sought to break through "the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind" with this slim volume, first published in 1954. The book remains relevant as a wake-up call for people unaccustomed to examining the endless flow of numbers pouring from Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and everywhere else someone has an axe to grind, a point to prove, or a product to sell. *"The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify,"* warns Huff.
> 
> Although many of the examples used in the book are charmingly dated, the cautions are timeless. *Statistics are rife with opportunities for misuse, from "gee-whiz graphs" that add nonexistent drama to trends, to "results" detached from their method and meaning, to statistics' ultimate bugaboo--faulty cause-and-effect reasoning.* Huff's tone is tolerant and amused, but no-nonsense. Like a lecturing father, he expects you to learn something useful from the book, and start applying it every day. Never be a sucker again, he cries!
> ...


----------



## AquaGeneral (Mar 8, 2014)

I'm unsure if this deserves a new topic, so I will post this here.

I was just casually looking through my Facebook feed and saw a new DxO Mark post. It compares the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED (link). 

I've noticed a few times that certain lens scores do not match up with the actual sub ratings they receive. This latest post takes that a step further. The Sony lens receives a higher score than the Canon, yet in the sub-ratings (sharpness, transmission, etc), the Canon beats it in every category. 

Being a trio of zoom lenses though, the rating varies also by focal length (plus of course aperture). DxO Mark's data however also only proves that the Canon copes throughout its range better than the other two. Notice the Canon's graph has less a smaller red zone than the other two here.

Does anyone know what's going on here?

Edit: I also just noticed the Nikon has 1 point more than the Canon, even though it also has a worse score in every measurement!


----------



## jrista (Mar 8, 2014)

AquaGeneral said:


> I'm unsure if this deserves a new topic, so I will post this here.
> 
> I was just casually looking through my Facebook feed and saw a new DxO Mark post. It compares the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED (link).
> 
> ...



DXO "scores" should be ignored. DXO scoring is weighted, and how they weight (especially for lenses) is difficult to discern or else completely unknown. It seems rather clear that they have certain brand affinities and brand aversions. DXO seems very averse to Canon, despite the fact that, as you say, their lens measures clearly show that Canon lenses perform exceptionally well and should technically "score" higher. 

The general rule of thumb with DXO is to simply ignore the scores, and read the measurements. There is still some danger in that, however, as not all their measurements are actually measured. Many are derived mathematically from actual measures, which implies a certain amount of assumption goes into many of DXO's measurements...an assumption of ideal behavior (which, for anyone familiar with reality, is rarely ever ideal.) 

Two key "measures" you should steer clear from are the T-stops for lenses (the way it is used, it rates lenses by absolute transmission, and does not normalize the results for comparison...hence the reason a 50mm f/1.8 beats a 600mm f/4, despite the fact that the latter is a vastly superior lens.) The other is Print DR for sensors, as even though it is called a measure, it is not. It is a weighted derivation based on the actual underlying DR measurement: Screen DR. 

Last, beware that DXO has been known to change their scoring mechanisms behind the scenes without being clear why, when, or how...so sometimes information changes without prior disclosure, and god only knows why.

DXO information needs to be taken with a healthy dose of salt. It isn't always reliable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2014)

AquaGeneral said:


> I'm unsure if this deserves a new topic, so I will post this here.
> 
> I was just casually looking through my Facebook feed and saw a new DxO Mark post. It compares the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED (link).
> 
> ...



Everyone makes assumptions, some logical and some not, some correct and some false. Your assumption was to look at the DxOMark Lens Score, then look at the optical metrics below it, and assume that the Score was based on those measurements - that's a logical assumption, but false. DxOMark's assumption that underlies the Lens Score is that everyone does all of their photography in a dimly lit warehouse or similar lighting - that's both illogical and false. 

The Lens Score is based on 'performance in 150 lux illumination'. That means the most important factor is the lens' F- or T-stop, and the second most important factor is the Sensor Score of the body on which the lens is being tested. Yes, the sensor is their second most important factor scoring a lens. Thus, when compared on the same Canon body, the 50/1.8 II gets a higher score than the 600/4L IS II. Similarly, a set of f/4 lenses on different bodies will be ranked according to those bodies' Sensor Scores - that's what you're seeing on the page you linked.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 9, 2014)

OK Ive established from this thread and others that DxO is a dirty word on this forum. My question then is its easy to find fault but what alternatives for measurement are the experts on this site putting forwards? 

I know how we measure in cinematography (again though finding a concensus is nigh on impossible) and most of that is using industry standard measurement tools. We MTF lenses on and off axis, project them, test f or T stops and shoot tests using a variety of lens charts and subject matter, we test sensors for dynamic range using a device made by Arri which they devised with the Frauhofer Institute, we use Macbeth Charts and were able to project in a theatre a set part of the image area to see various types of noise and we have a chart that enables us to gauge resolution of the sensor (using the same high performance lens). Is all of this perfect? No but if all the tests are conducted in the same way regardless of lens or sensor and in the case of cameras you follow manufacturer guidelines (raw conversion etc) then its the best you can hope for. 

Any manufacturer is aware of the strenghs and weaknesses through there own extensive testing but they cannot cover every eventuality that a photographer or cinematographer may put the equipment through.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 9, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> OK Ive established from this thread and others that DxO is a dirty word on this forum.



Not so at all, it's far more nuanced than that.



jrista said:


> DXO "scores" should be ignored. DXO scoring is weighted, and how they weight (especially for lenses) is difficult to discern or else completely unknown. It seems rather clear that they have certain brand affinities and brand aversions. DXO seems very averse to Canon, despite the fact that, as you say, their lens measures clearly show that Canon lenses perform exceptionally well and should technically "score" higher.
> 
> *The general rule of thumb with DXO is to simply ignore the scores, and read the measurements*. There is still some danger in that, however, as not all their measurements are actually measured. Many are derived mathematically from actual measures, which implies a certain amount of assumption goes into many of DXO's measurements...an assumption of ideal behavior (which, for anyone familiar with reality, is rarely ever ideal.)
> 
> ...



The consensus (i.e. JRista and Neuro -- does any other opinion really matter on this topic?  ) is that their *measurements* of sensors are often accurate, but they then apply *arbitrary weightings *to get a final score. Their lens measurements have been not so great.

There seems to be general consensus that DXO's software is excellent.




> My question then is its easy to find fault but what alternatives for measurement are the experts on this site putting forwards?


For measurements you certainly can look at DXO: just make sure you understand their methods so you can place them in context. If you're looking for a simple score to rank equipment, I'd urge you to give up on that hopeless task. There are plenty of web sites that test and rate gear; read them all and make of it what you will.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 9, 2014)

JRista and Neuro -- does any other opinion really matter on this topic?

How do both of you measure performance of lenses & sensors? 

As for DxO the comment that there lens measurements are not that great they should be straight forwards. MTF readings if the same device is used don't recognise a manufacturer just a reading. On a projector the graticule is the same and its straight forwards seeing lateral aberrations / colour fringing etc, pin cushioning / barrel distortions etc. and whether the lens has even field illumination.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> JRista and Neuro -- does any other opinion really matter on this topic?
> 
> How do both of you measure performance of lenses & sensors?
> 
> As for DxO the comment that there lens measurements are not that great they should be straight forwards. MTF readings if the same device is used don't recognise a manufacturer just a reading. On a projector the graticule is the same and its straight forwards seeing lateral aberrations / colour fringing etc, pin cushioning / barrel distortions etc. and whether the lens has even field illumination.



For lenses I'm considering purchasing, I take a gestalt approach - synthesizing reviews/tests from multiple sites. The reality is that it's not hard. For me, lens choice depends first on the required focal length, second on the max aperture needed, third on optical performance, fourth on other factors (AF, build, etc). The first two considerations often render the others moot. 

As for how I measure performance of lenses I purchase, that's a combination of lab-type testing with ISO 12233-based charts (the largest I have costs more than some L-series lenses) and real-world evaluation. 

Lens tests are straightforward in theory, but devilishly difficult in practice. Very few testers can empirically measure lens MTF (Lensrentals, Zeiss, and a few others have the necessary equipment). Everyone else uses a camera to test lenses, introducing another set of variables. 

The issue with DxOMark's lens measurements (not Scores, which are BS) isn't really the way they do the tests, it's that they sometimes screw them up badly, and when they do, they deny it. That was the case with the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS vs the MkII, for example. They recently tested the Canon 17-40L, and they show at f/4 it's nearly as sharp in the corners as in the center (vs. the mushy wide open corners everyone else sees), and it's sharper wide open than the 16-35/2.8L II stopped down to f/8. So either they borrowed God's own perfect 17-40L for their testing, or they screwed up again.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 10, 2014)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is ******* to failure.

My problem with DXO is that they like to come up with a single number which somehow is supposed to rate how good a lens is. This does not work. This does not even work for a particular use....

Use taking pictures of birds as an example.... Is the bird small or is it large? Is it near or is it far? Is it stationary or is it flying? Are the wings moving real fast like a hummingbird or slow like a soaring raptor? and we haven't even touched lighting conditions, cameras, of focal lengths yet.... Good luck trying to create a rating number....

With the DXO ratings, low light performance is of paramount importance. That is why they rate the 50F1.8 (Canon's least expensive lens) as better than the 600F4II (Canon's most expensive lens). 

Your needs, your preferences, and your budget are far more important than any magic rating number.


----------



## jrista (Mar 10, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> JRista and Neuro -- does any other opinion really matter on this topic?
> 
> How do both of you measure performance of lenses & sensors?
> 
> As for DxO the comment that there lens measurements are not that great they should be straight forwards. MTF readings if the same device is used don't recognise a manufacturer just a reading. On a projector the graticule is the same and its straight forwards seeing lateral aberrations / colour fringing etc, pin cushioning / barrel distortions etc. and whether the lens has even field illumination.



I measure what I own by the quality of my results, especially when I've reach the point where I am pushing the limits of my equipment. It's at the limits when you truly and fully understand the quality of something.

I gauge the presumed quality of what I intend to buy by absorbing _and discerning_ every potential scrap of information on said intention from every possible source man has devised.  Never base your decisions on a single source, that'll just get you into trouble. Use as many sources of information as you can find, and always keep a critical eye on the details (especially the hidden ones.) Don't take anything for granted, be skeptical until you see actual evidence for any argument or conclusion offered by a reviewer. (The Digital Picture reviews are an excellent resource, he is a great reviewer, and he always offers both subjective as well as objective data to back up his claims.)

It helps to have at least a basic theoretical understanding of cameras and lenses as well. There are limits to how useful your average lens test can be, regardless of who does it, because output resolution (the measurable resolution of images used to gauge the performance of each lens) is limited by the lowest common denominator...these days, that is usually the sensor. Many lenses are capable of resolving FAR more detail at faster diffraction-limited apertures than you might otherwise glean from the average lens review, because the upper bound on resolution is the sensor. There is no such thing as lenses outresolving sensors or sensors outresolving lenses...the two work in concert to produce a photograph, and the resolution of the photograph is the RMS of the resolutions of the lens+sensor. Increase the resolution of either, output resolution increases...however increase the resolution of the least capable, and output resolution will benefit most. IF your sensor can only resolve 50lp/mm, it doesn't matter how good the lens is....120lp/mm, 170lp/mm, 250lp/mm...your standard lens test will always show the "lens" resolution is less than 50lp/mm. Because it's sensor bound! If there was anything to know about lens reviews, that would be it.

In the end, the technical specifications are really, ultimately, not nearly as important as reviewers often make it seem. Photography equipment today is so vastly superior to nearly everything we had in the past (with the possible exception of large format film digitized with high end, high resolution drum scanners), we are utterly spoiled by the highly accessible and easily usable equipment often available at our fingertips on a moment's notice.

Here is another approach. If you cannot entirely describe in both technical and artistic terms exactly why any given piece of your current equipment is holding you back, then your not ready to move to the next level. When you know your equipment backwards and forwards, and fully understand every advantage and disadvantage, every pro and con, and can clearly define your NEED for something more...then and only then should you upgrade, but at that point you should have the skill to filter the useless technical jargon from the useful technical gems. When you can clearly articulate your need for larger pixels or a larger frame/FOV or thinner DOF, then you have a clear reason to upgrade. If you don't know why larger pixels are better, you might find it useful to push your skill with smaller pixels or a smaller sensor until you see how and why they may be holding you back. (Sometimes that realization can't be realized in a box...it's often helpful to compare your art to others art, especially the art of those that inspire you...ARTISTIC comparisons can often help you glean a deeper understanding of WHY one technical tidbit or another has value.)

It's pretty rare that the minute technical details that organizations like DXO putter around with actually have any real _meaning _to people's ART. It may have meaning to some people's addiction to collecting the most advanced technological gadgetry known to man...but when it comes to art, there are millions that make do just well, hell far more than "well", with lowly little devices like a Canon 350D. Art is the expression of what you see in your head. Technology _sometimes _makes it easier to realize that vision, but when it comes to digital, more often than not, more important than the hardware is the software, and more important than the software is how you use it. Just go digging through 500px sometime. The volume and quality of works with 90+ ratings made with equipment many of us today would label "UTTER CRAP" is astonishing. It's *how you use* what you have, not necessarily _what_ you have. 

Technology is not the artist, it's just the brush. Don't get too wrapped up in the technology. Sometimes you just need *a *lens and *a* camera, and to let you ideas flow.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2014)

JRista
This goes to the heart of my earlier post testing only gets you so far, yes it can point out the obvious but the closer the technical aspects get the differences become subjective. Manufacturers can never replicate every eventuality and they are not artistic creatives (as oppsed to technical creatives which they may be). 

For all the advancement many find high contrast, super sharp images less than artistic and revert depending on needs to lenses in particular with perceived flaws such as flares, ghosting, veiling glare, softer edges etc. as many of these lenses tend also to be "warmer" than modern lenses, but hey if we were all the same life would be boring and stories either in single images or moving images would become dull.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Why the DxO bashing?
> 
> The bashing are performed by insecure brand owners.
> here are all details about DXO meassurements *regarding sensors*
> ...



Interesting reading. You may notice that the article's author, Peter van den Hamer, goes on to describe some of the problems with DxO's sensor analyses, such as the *low ISO bias* of the sensor score (one reason I call them Biased Scores = BS), the fact that measuring color depth (i.e. chroma noise) at low ISO is basically meaningless (and yet it's a major factor in the Sensor Score), their confusing nomenclature for the subscores (e.g. Sports Score), etc.

He also takes issue with DxO's refusal to divulge the way they calculate the overall score. He has come up with an approximation which he suggests is usually to accurate to within 1-2 points: DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2. He also states, "My guess is that the actual formula is non-linear and may use (under some conditions) coefficients of 5/5/5 rather than 4.3/3.4/4.4." His suggestion that the 'master formula' which DxO uses may be modified under some conditions further supports the claim that DxO's scoring is *biased*.


----------



## jrista (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nalle Puh said:
> 
> 
> > Why the DxO bashing?
> ...



Couldn't have said it better. They are biased. That's the problem. Has nothing to do with the brand affinity of the readers (well, not this one, anyway).


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 10, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Why the DxO bashing?
> 
> The bashing are performed by insecure brand owners.
> here are all details about DXO meassurements *regarding sensors*



We are all brand owners.... Some Canon, some Nixon, some Sony, some Olympus..... That is a meaningless statement.

DXO numbers are not reliable to compare objects in a specific brand. You can't reliably compare Canon to Canon, you can't relieably compare Nikon to Nikon, you can't reliably compare Sony to Sony. If you can't compare in the same brand, then trying to compare cross brand is really asking for trouble....


----------



## sdsr (Mar 10, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Why the DxO bashing?
> 
> The bashing are performed by insecure brand owners.



Well, maybe. But I currently own Canon FF & APSC, Sony FF and Olympus Micro 4/3, and have previously owned Nikon and Pentax.... 

Others have explained better than I can the various biases (i.e. the criteria they use) of their evaluation process, but even leaving that aside, by trying to reduce all of this to a single number they're making the same fundamental mistake that everyone else makes when doing so (and not just in this context, of course), namely trying to reduce measurements of properties that are incommensurable to some point on a common scale and, in the process, omitting some properties altogether. For instance, the five qualities of a lens that they explicitly provide numbers for (sharpness, transmission, distortion, vignetting and chromatic abarrations) may each be measurable, but they're not measurements of the same sort of thing on the same scale, so you can't just add them up (you might as well try to add your weight to your height - it's a conceptual absurdity). And if you care about coma, say, or bokeh (try measuring *that*!), well, they don't seem to figure in at all. 

To the extent other sites do this, their scores are absurd too, for the same reason. I'm not sure why DxO's has become the reference, though, often invoked by other reviewers, bloggers, etc. Maybe it's in part because, to an untrained, casual observer, the presentation looks so scientific - lots of charts and numbers and nothing as preposterous as testing a lens on a camera or a sensor in a lens/camera, or as vulgar as showing actual photos taken with any of the equipment reviewed (or am I missing something?). To state the obvious, you can only take a photo by putting a sensor in a camera and attaching a lens to it; how any one of these components "performs" (in some weird sense of the term) in isolation hardly matters. Which is why the most useful (to me, anyway) review sites provide photos (preferably comparative) to prove their points, and why ultimately there's no substitute for trying equipment first-hand. It doesn't matter if lens A has a better score somewhere than lens B if, for your purposes, you can't see a difference that matters.

Oh, and like many others, I think DxO's software is good (probably the best for noise reduction).


----------



## Botts (Mar 10, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Oh, and like many others, I think DxO's software is good (probably the best for noise reduction).



I'd argue for automatic distortion correction as well.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 11, 2014)

Botts said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and like many others, I think DxO's software is good (probably the best for noise reduction).
> ...



Well, when I asked about noise reduction software last year, I was lambasted for it. According to many (on CR anyway), there's no such thing as noise reduction, only image softening. I tend to disagree very much, even with the NR available from Adobe. I've not tried DXO...perhaps if they offered it free to Canon owners in return for their bias against the brand, I would opt to try it out?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...


I use noise reduction on many images, I guess some people would like to argue that it is not noise reduction and that it is is only "image softening", maybe it makes them look intelligent if they use an alternative word then what the software developer has chosen to name it ... I know some people call landing the flight a "controlled fall" coz it makes them look intelligent ... maybe they are just pessimistic people who cannot build any useful software or hardware but would like to come across as intelligent people with "clever" words to describe everything - or maybe they just want attention ;D


----------



## infared (Mar 11, 2014)

Botts said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and like many others, I think DxO's software is good (probably the best for noise reduction).
> ...



Yes...I'd agree...there lens correction is very good (unless you own Panasonic or Olympus lenses...no modules), but I would argue that NIK Define is just as good, if not better for NR. I think DxO "Prime" is overrated and basically amounts to extremely time-consuming image softening....but I am open to hear from anyone with a more positive experience than I have had with it......


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> It is so interesting to see all the excuses.
> One company has lower DXO scores due inferior read out and higher noise, less QE , lighter CFA . less good electronic signal chain = *older sensor tech that was at the peak 10 years ago* and before other companies start to make cmos sensors.
> *Now some people here are busy with trying to trivialize measurements* as DR, low read out noise, high color resolution because Canon can not keep up in the sensor development with others.
> And that is what DXO shows today


There we go :


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 11, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> It is so interesting to see all the excuses.
> One company has lower DXO scores due inferior read out and higher noise, less QE , lighter CFA . less good electronic signal chain = *older sensor tech that was at the peak 10 years ago* and before other companies start to make cmos sensors.
> *Now some people here are busy with trying to trivialize measurements* as DR, low read out noise, high color resolution because Canon can not keep up in the sensor development with others.
> And that is what DXO shows today


You don't get it.... They are bashing DXO in general. The flaws and bias apply to all manufacturers.


----------



## Roo (Mar 11, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Nalle Puh said:
> 
> 
> > It is so interesting to see all the excuses.
> ...



Given the antagonistic writing style and that the member/posts have been removed I guess the serial pest that shall not be named has been back again lol Good efficient work mods!


----------



## jrista (Mar 11, 2014)

Roo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Nalle Puh said:
> ...



Aye. He's been around for a while...he just kept his mouth shut until now. Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...


----------



## Eldar (Mar 11, 2014)

It's his second alias in three months. He was mikea in December. Edward (eml58) gave him a good beating and off he went. Reappeard as Nalle Puh (Swedish for Winnie the Pooh) and apparently he's gone again. Can't say I'll miss him. But on the other hand, he does stur up some good discussions


----------



## zim (Mar 11, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It's his second alias in three months. He was mikea in December. Edward (eml58) gave him a good beating and off he went. Reappeard as Nalle Puh (Swedish for Winnie the Pooh) and apparently he's gone again. Can't say I'll miss him. But on the other hand, he does stur up some good discussions



true true, and his spelling *is* getting better


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> [Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...



This is what they say about cat herding....

Cat Herders


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 11, 2014)

My complaint has always been, the numbers, while calculated, are irrelevant, and I have never seen ANYONE provide any reasonable proof of meaning.

As a test:

Which would you rather own and which will provide a better picture:

Nikon D3s or a Nikon D3300

According to DXO Marks these cameras score the same. 

Is the D3s a better camera?
Will it produce better images?

If you chose the D3s, and since DXO gives them the same score, you have some 'splainin to do


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2014)

Roo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Nalle Puh said:
> ...



Wow! He was found out without having used "motive" in any of his posts? Looks like the mods have been working overtime! ;D ;D


----------



## rpt (Mar 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > [Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...
> ...


Hilarious!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 11, 2014)

You mean Whinnie the Pooh was He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ??? ?

*BOY* I am gonna get me one of those Zeiss Otus 58 1.4s !! Have you seen what that lens has done for his photography ?

Who said "gear doesn't matter" ? :-X


----------



## Eldar (Mar 11, 2014)

rpt said:


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


+1000!


----------



## Roo (Mar 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > [Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...
> ...



Absolute gold!!


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > [Wonderful...the cat is out of the bag, and you know what they say about herding cats...
> ...



LOL


----------



## jrista (Mar 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> You mean Whinnie the Pooh was He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ??? ?
> 
> *BOY* I am gonna get me one of those Zeiss Otus 58 1.4s !! Have you seen what that lens has done for his photography ?
> 
> Who said "gear doesn't matter" ? :-X



You guys do realize he used the name Nalle Puh on multiple occasions previously, right? 

And I agree, the Otus was like his "yellow sun"...it supercharged his photography.


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 12, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It's his second alias in three months. He was mikea in December. Edward (eml58) gave him a good beating and off he went. Reappeard as Nalle Puh (Swedish for Winnie the Pooh) and apparently he's gone again. Can't say I'll miss him. But on the other hand, he does stur up some good discussions


I'm pretty sure I have seen him with yet another alias a while ago. That makes three at least.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > It's his second alias in three months. He was mikea in December. Edward (eml58) gave him a good beating and off he went. Reappeard as Nalle Puh (Swedish for Winnie the Pooh) and apparently he's gone again. Can't say I'll miss him. But on the other hand, he does stur up some good discussions
> ...


I wonder why he is so desperate to be on this site ... but again, I too am on a rumor site discussing all kinds of not so essential stuff :-[ ... I guess the only consolation/justification for me is that I am not banned ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Botts said:
> ...



I'll defer to your expertise on that  How come you didn't come to my defense back then? Or maybe you did, I forget.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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


 ;D ;D ;D ... actually I don't even know which thread it was ... sorry, next time I shall come to your defense .. but I charge a very nominal fee for defending other people's posts, I was thinking a Sony 10-18mm lens ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


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



Haha, is that supposed to be a good lens?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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


Its an ok lens for Sony's crop sensored mirrorless cameras ... I was planning on buying it, to use, for times when I don't want to take my 5D MK III + 16-35, especially during business trips ... also recently our office moved to the downtown area of the city where there lots of skyscrapers, so I wanted an easy to carry/portable lens to capture the landscape of the concrete jungle here + I plan on getting the Sony a6000 during the end of April or early May, so the Sony 10-18 would be a nice fit for that camera, meanwhile it can also be used as a 12-17mm full frame lens on my Sony a7.


----------

