Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: DxOMark 2010

  1. #1
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default DxOMark 2010

    I have been poking around the DxOMark site:

    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php

    Something interesting...

    Nikon 50mm f1.8D (el cheapo)
    - on D3X: peak score = 54
    - on D700: peak score = 37
    - on D300s: peak score = 30
    - on D90: peak score = 29

    Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII (pro glass)
    - on D3X: peak score = 61
    - on D700: peak score = 38
    - on D300s: peak score = 32
    - on D90: peak score = 32

    Seems to say that:

    1. The D3X is head and shoulder above the rest - regardless of what lens you throw at it.

    2. D300s don't get you much more than D90.

    3. D700 - from the above score - worth it?

    Interesting...

    What do others think? How would you read the data?

    (Sorry, I am a Nikon user and so is more familiar with their range. Not sure how it is for Canon.)

  2. #2
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,393

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Look: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=789493
    Last postings.. read about the test procedures and the normalization. DXO mark is not the holy grail, it's just a technical benchmark. Differences less than 5 points cannot be recognized with naked eye.
    Last edited by Octarine; 4th November 2010 at 09:36 PM.
    EOS

  3. #3
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Differences less than 5 points cannot be recognized with naked eye.
    Exactly! The diff between the D300s and D90 is less than 5 points for most of the lenses.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Across the Causeway
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    I'm going to add fuel to the flame by directly linking from DxOMark's website:

    http://j.mp/cJoNZj

    Looks like Canon has done itself poorly now. A full-frame camera beaten by an APS-C camera. What gives?

    No, I'm not zealous with Canon-bashing: in fact, I hypothesized that their marketing departments have overworked their engineers to this point:

    (Working conditions in a Canon factory)

    Somewhere, the engineers must've rebelled and produced more & more piss-poor cameras compared to either Nikon or Pentax. (I've discounted Sony products, just 'cause.)

    Anyway, I sincerely hoped that Canon either cut their prices or fire their thick-headed management/marketing department. We don't need to do this pixel race.

    Further links:
    http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dxoma...anon-5dmarkii/
    http://k-rumors.com/pentax-k-5-bette...anon-5dmarkii/
    Last edited by sougen; 6th November 2010 at 02:34 AM. Reason: Simply put it, it's almost 2:26 AM here, and I felt that Canon has done very badly recently.
    EOS 450D|Dual Kit Lens|EF 50mm F/1.8 II|Minolta 135mm MD Tele-Rokkor|Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
    Flickr

  5. #5
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    Exactly! The diff between the D300s and D90 is less than 5 points for most of the lenses.
    Agreed that both bodies are not too far apart in terms of performance, but there are a lot of features (not measurable by performance) that a number would still choose D300s...

    I'll just mention one... I'll feel safer to take the D300s to freezing temperature or really wet climate than the D90... Of course, not everyone would visit countries with winter climates.

    DXO points only help you see the performances clearly... not the other important features that commands higher prices on higher grade bodies... Lets not forget all that.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  6. #6

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Some treat it like the holy grail though....

    Heck, its been like that since the D100/D70/300D times.

  7. #7

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    are the figures accurate??

    i've read through the argument of "cars" and "motor parts" in the other DXO thread here
    the thing is i want to know the pure performance of the essential components - the sensor

    are the figures accurate?? are they scientific and objective??

    are they funded by any particular camera maker which might result in a bias test?
    For passion or prestige? A trend or a niche?

  8. #8
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,393

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by renzokuken View Post
    are the figures accurate?? are they scientific and objective??
    Any bogus tests should have been revealed by now, given the fact that there are more than one institution / lab / website doing such tests. You can simply compare dpreview with DXO to find obvious discrepancies.

    are they funded by any particular camera maker which might result in a bias test?
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/...Mark-s-sponsor
    If Pentax 'wins' over Canon then I guess the latter one has not funded these results
    EOS

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    It is really interesting to find out how DXO conduct these tests, if the Pentax can beat the 5DM2, I wonder what would be the justification for the price tag of the FF. Personally I am not a fan of such figures, just like statistics, these figures are just meant to stir up issues in the community and perhaps achieve a certain outcome.

    Oh well, Pentax or Canon, both still produces great cameras, as long as pictures are pleasing to the eyes, figures don't matter
    Canon 5D Mark III | 5D Mark II | 24-70L | 70-200L II | 50 f/1.4 USM | 580EXII |

  10. #10

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    here is the time where the people who put down other brands (e.g. pentax) should continue to believe in dxomark to eat their own cake.

    frankly speaking, who cares. it's just a bunch of numbers, which doesn't translate to the pictures taken. whether it is a piss poor camera (based on dxomark rating) or a good camera, there are users who make good use of each model. while yes, i admit that having more DR, having more color depth (whatever that is) is useful, and the numbers can be used roughly and loosely to make purchase decisions, photography is about taking pictures, not about measuring numbers.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    351

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    well dont forget that the K5 is so much more recent than the other cameras you are comparing it to. technology gets more advanced, quality also will become better. so probably the K5 figures are just a start to what we may expect in the future. so what exactly is their tests relative to? ten years later and it will change all over again.
    Gripped A500 kit | Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 | 50 1.8 | Minolta 70-210 4 | HVL-42AM

  12. #12

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    here is the time where the people who put down other brands (e.g. pentax) should continue to believe in dxomark to eat their own cake.

    frankly speaking, who cares. it's just a bunch of numbers, which doesn't translate to the pictures taken. whether it is a piss poor camera (based on dxomark rating) or a good camera, there are users who make good use of each model. while yes, i admit that having more DR, having more color depth (whatever that is) is useful, and the numbers can be used roughly and loosely to make purchase decisions, photography is about taking pictures, not about measuring numbers.


    I believe many are now saying that this particular cake is unleavened bread.


    I continue to eat my coarse bread; better for the gut they say . The DXO values don't reflect everything we see from real photos out of camera. They bashed the K7 for the high ISO performance, but ignored the amount of detail retention that was there and how any user can opt to do NR in PP.

  13. #13
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    So here something serious derived from the DxOMarks numbers: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...acturers.shtml

  14. #14

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    i don't think it's fair to denounce dxomark just because the numbers are hard to believe

    nor do i believe that it's right to evaluate cameras's performance solely base on numbers

    we need BOTH to keep each other in-check hence it is not fair to totally dismiss any camp

    what i'm hinting on is that
    yes the photographer is more important than the camera in terms of IQ and composition
    he is responsible to try his utmost best to set the correct settings and framing to get The Shot. The photographer is important

    but when i'm researching online on cameras (which include dxomark)
    i'm doing it as a consumer, as a buyer, as a customer

    i want to make an informed decision for my purchase
    and i want to make sure that my money is put to good use

    my setup is cheap as compared to many of you
    but this amount of money is very valuable to me and i don't want to waste it away on an impulse purchase, or on stuff which is over-hyped by marketing gimmicks

    and that's why i look at figures
    all in all
    i haven not regret my purchase
    it's just that sometimes i find numbers intriguing, and i want to probe
    i'm not putting the blame on my system when i failed to get the shot i want. but more of, whether i put the right money in the right company, which manage to maximize both shareholder's wealth and consumer/product value, and not at the expense of each other

    according to the link provided by UncleFai

    This graph clearly shows that camera manufacturers “game the system” by increasing the ISO without the photographer's knowledge.
    if the above turns out true for example
    as a consumer, i might think twice if i were to choose between 2 lenses of similar focal lengths but different maximum apertures

    any follow up on that?
    i wish to be informed as a consumer
    Last edited by renzokuken; 7th November 2010 at 11:05 PM.
    For passion or prestige? A trend or a niche?

  15. #15

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by sougen View Post
    Somewhere, the engineers must've rebelled and produced more & more piss-poor cameras compared to either Nikon or Pentax. (I've discounted Sony products, just 'cause.)

    Anyway, I sincerely hoped that Canon either cut their prices or fire their thick-headed management/marketing department. We don't need to do this pixel race.
    Nikon implements strong in-camera RAW NR for specific cameras. Here is the definitive proof that in-camera RAW NR is applied to the D90/D5000 as compared to the D300/D300s.

    Even well regarded Pentax experts acknowledge Pentax and Nikon implement in-camera RAW NR. Also here:

    "To "look a gift horse in the mouth", what you are missing is that the actual improvement in apparent sensor performance of the K-x over the others at these high ISO's is just a matter of some extra clever Noise Reduction (NR) applied to the raw data that can't be turned off. The K-x images are very slightly softer than the others, which accounts for its improvement that can be seen. It also has an excellent DR in the very deep shadows, but that isn't revealed in these tests as the blacks aren't boosted enough."

    "You are correct, the Canon 500D which does not do Noise Reduction (NR) to raw at all has the most detail (and noise), while the Nikon D5000 which does the most (uncaught by testing) NR to raw has the least detail and a slight amount less noise, where the K-x fits somewhere between. "

    This is a widely known FACT discussed everywhere. You can also find other detailed proof and analysis here, here and here. Nikon/Pentax/Sony achieve high dynamic range at low ISO by truncating low-level signal during the digital-to-analog conversion performed by the electronics; this is not a serious issue 'cos most of the signals are noise anyway.

    Canon has been quite obstinate and not implemented in-camera RAW NR 'cos (a) they do not want to lose the astrophotographer crowd (b) they probably want to implement this across the board and struggle with high fps cameras like the 1D3/1D4 etc.

    As for the pixel race, read what sensor designers like Eric Fossum has to say:
    "There has been a lot discussion on pixel count (all else being equal) and the effect on image quality. Generally it seems the perceived image quality goes up with pixel count, assuming the SNR suffers according to shot noise predictions. The human eye seems to be doing something to process the image and make it loook better than math would suggest."
    And here is the proof with RAW files why the 7D trashes all preceeding APS-C cameras. Also, bear in mind the latest Sony A55 and Nikon D7000 spot 16 MP APS-C sensors. It is rumored the Sony A700 replacement will be equipped with a 24 MP APS-C sensor.

    IMHO, I am all for in-camera RAW NR 'cos it's always the end product that counts. If it can save photographers time during post-processing, why not? In-camera chromatic aberration removal, vignetting removal are all highly valued by me even though they are just for jpeg files.

  16. #16

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    As for the original topic, I dismiss DXOMark's scores for specific lens-camera combo etc. They try very hard to win more support over their competition (like Adobe Lightroom) by generating all kinds of silly hype. From a recent survey at DPReview (17987 distinct votes), more than 55% of their readers use Adobe products while only 2.5% buy DXOMark software. DXOMark even got so worried that they once dissed Adobe products. Sorry, DXOMark has only earned contempt from me.
    Last edited by doodah; 8th November 2010 at 07:30 AM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    thank you doodah for the detailed and insightful explanation

    i appreciate it truly
    For passion or prestige? A trend or a niche?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by doodah View Post
    As for the original topic, I dismiss DXOMark's scores for specific lens-camera combo etc. They try very hard to win more support over their competition (like Adobe Lightroom) by generating all kinds of silly hype. From a recent survey at DPReview (17987 distinct votes), more than 55% of their readers use Adobe products while only 2.5% buy DXOMark software. DXOMark even got so worried that they once dissed Adobe products. Sorry, DXOMark has only earned contempt from me.
    Interesting, guess I will never visit that site again
    Canon 5D Mark III | 5D Mark II | 24-70L | 70-200L II | 50 f/1.4 USM | 580EXII |

  19. #19

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Hi, I am more interested in the final IQ than just the component that will contribute towards
    making the final IQ. If a component has a high score and the others are not, resulting in a poor IQ, then it is not wise to buy that camera. I judge only on the final IQ based on all the contributing factors in a system.

  20. #20

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    one more thing as well. This is provided that the iso used is indeed the iso used. Who is to say that various brands iso 6400 is the same as everyone else`s iso 6400 or is there a Industrial Standard for iso?

    what i have been noticing is that when DXO produces a result not shared by general public, its not taken seriously. But when it produces results that is somewhat expected then almost everyone refers to it.
    You wont see me much less remember me but i am the guy who makes you look good.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •