DXO: 7D vs. D5000

[Derrel]

Well, the DXO Mark system explains their system exceedingly well.
DxOMark metrics

1>Resolution>SNIP>
2>.SNIP> So before comparing cameras with DxOMark Sensor, it is important to first determine the resolution you are looking for (which largely depends on the size of the screen or the print you intend to use or produce). Once you choose an appropriate resolution, the DxOMark Sensor scale becomes a fair and powerful tool with which to make comparisons."

UH--Reichmann MISSED that point in his article. He whiffed,and missed. Strike One.

3."DxOMark Sensor scale is based on three photographic usages—Studio, Landscape, and Action photography. The three scenarios are equally weighted in the DxOMark Sensor scale results. If photographers are more inclined towards a specific scenario, they should look at the individual metric that best meets their needs—i.e., Studio photographers should primarily consider Color Depth and Dynamic range, Landscape photographers should primarily consider Dynamic Range and Color Depth, and Action photographers/Photojournalists should pay most attention to Low-Light ISO and Dynamic Range."

**Strikes two and three for Reichmann's article. He failed to understand the rules of the game, entirely.

I read the Michael Reichmann L-L article quite some time ago. Nice essay he wrote, but flawed in light of the specific, clear instructions on HOW to USE the data properly. He says he "Sees things" he cannot agree with coming from scientific tests? Have a look at this:

diglloyd: Infrared Contamination

and then read what those keen Recihmann eyes saw in the Leica M8 Review under the Image Quality section:

Leica M8 Review

"The point that I wish to make though is that the new M8 is as adept as any film-based Leica in capturing that hard-to-pin-down Leica lens goodness. This had been my major anticipated concern with the M8 in between seeing it at Photokina and when the production test sample arrived at my door. Would it do justice to the best of Leica's lens family? It didn't take more than a handful of prints to see that my apprehension was unfounded. And, when a photographer friend who has an extremely critical eye, and who is a long-time M series user came over and viewed my initial batch of prints, the first words out of his mouth were – "These are simply Leica photographs. You can see right through to the lens quality. There's nothing at all digital about the look. ".

"I agree. In terms of being transparent to what the lenses used can deliver, I found it hard to find any performance aspect wanting. The smooth large-field tonalities, coupled with the bitingly sharp microcontrasts that are both hallmarks of Leica images, are all there. As for colour rendering, that's harder to report on because a raw file is capable of so many interpretation. Certainly the wide gamut reported on elsewhere in this review shows a very rich palette to be available. I did find on more than one occasion that colour saturation was higher than I expected, or am used to. This may well be a profile issue rather than anything else, and I expect it to become sorted out before long. My friend Nick Devlin, a long-time Leica photographer, called it Leicachrome. An apt name. Nothing that a bit of tweaking with the saturation control can't deal with though."

WOW---the Leica M8, the camera with the absolutely horrible,horrible Magenta Cast issue that caused Leica such humiliation...somehow, Reichmann's super eyes missed the fact that almost anything black appeared to have a magenta cast. And he says the DXO Mark data is somehow untrustworthy?

 

[inTempus]

WOW---the Leica M8, the camera with the absolutely horrible,horrible Magenta Cast issue that caused Leica such humiliation...somehow, Reichmann's super eyes missed the fact that almost anything black appeared to have a magenta cast. And he says the DXO Mark data is somehow untrustworthy?

To be fair, from that same article at the bottom:

There was an image quality problem discovered by early Leica M8 owners which is now being extensively discussed on net forums. On a personal level this has reflected badly on me because, though I did mention in my review that the camera suffered from poor low light auto white balance, and had excessive infrared sensitivity, my review did not mention the green blob / banding and purple response issues.

Well – it did. I discovered these during my initial testing and put them in my review. I then sent my draft review to Leica, as I always do with manufacturers, for their comments. The company subsequently requested that I hold off mentioning these latter items because they were looking into them and hoped to have a response in short order. I acquiesced to this request, not wanting to delay my review, and expecting that I would be able to publish a follow-up quickly that not only mentioned these problems but also their potential solution.

This did not happen. Instead, after the problems because obvious to new users and were being discussed openly on net forums, Leica eventually published a statement, which was issued to some other web sites, but not to this one. At least one such site thus was able to claim credit for waiting to publish their review "while Leica worked closely" with them to resolve it. How nice for them.

Unless you have reason to believe he's not being honest about having discovered the problem in his testing, then it appears he did but removed those comments at the request of Leica.

If anything, I think it's sketchy that he removed his observations of what turned out to be a big problem and gave a glowing review of a camera that caused many grief.