DxOMark 2010


UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,454
39
48
Singapore
#1
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.)
 

sougen

New Member
Dec 6, 2008
86
0
0
Across the Causeway
#4
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/dxom...-5-beats-the-sony-a55-and-the-canon-5dmarkii/
http://k-rumors.com/pentax-k-5-better-than-the-sony-a55-and-even-better-than-the-canon-5dmarkii/
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#5
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.
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,591
0
0
48
#6
Some treat it like the holy grail though....

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

renzokuken

New Member
Sep 13, 2009
567
0
0
#7
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?
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,543
33
48
Pasir Ris
#8
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/About/DxO-Labs-DxOMark-s-sponsor
If Pentax 'wins' over Canon then I guess the latter one has not funded these results :sweatsm:
 

zozzcyx

New Member
Aug 19, 2010
156
0
0
Singapore
#9
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 :)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#10
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.
 

Mar 9, 2010
351
0
0
Clementi
#11
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.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,951
90
48
#12
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. :bsmilie:


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.
 

renzokuken

New Member
Sep 13, 2009
567
0
0
#14
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:

doodah

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2007
2,044
0
36
#15
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. :)
 

doodah

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2007
2,044
0
36
#16
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:

renzokuken

New Member
Sep 13, 2009
567
0
0
#17
thank you doodah for the detailed and insightful explanation

i appreciate it truly :)
 

zozzcyx

New Member
Aug 19, 2010
156
0
0
Singapore
#18
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 ;)
 

henry soh

New Member
Aug 29, 2008
851
0
0
#19
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.
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#20
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.
 

Top Bottom