FINALLY a good DxOMark rating system review

[pixmedic]

A well-written article describing how DxO Mark tests sensors is here, on The Luminous Landscape web site: DxOMark Camera Sensor

This article about DxO Mark has some really good graphs that show the performance of sensors over time (a decade), and also explains what some of the tests measure, and what the results mean.

Earlier article explaining the DxO Mark testing procedures:DxOMark Sensor For Benchmarking Cameras

As Hogan's article says, be wary of assigning a lot of weight to the "Overall Score", especially if you have no clue about the other measurements. It's interesting that Hogan tries to discredit DxO Mark numbers, but then in the same article, uses their data to back up and verify empirical observation that hundreds of thousands of users, and he himself, have made. He bashes on one hand, then he goes on to use the same testing procedures and their data to advance several of his points of view. He basically validates different types of DxO Mark measurements, but does warn about the "Overall Score" being looked at in isolation. Yeah...no $hi+ Thom...that's why there are multiple metrics tested, over the entire ISO range of the cameras under test.

So Thoms articles are pretty much like DxO mark reviews....pick and choose the minor bits of relevant data but ignore the overall message because it's biased and useless.

 

[astroNikon]

......pick and choose the minor bits of relevant data but ignore the overall message because it's biased and useless.

This thread is biased and useless ...

 

[Overread]

Eh the problem with DxO is that most people only like them when they talk nice about the camera(s) they own. As soon as they give a lower score to their camera people hate DxO. I think a few years back it was all Canon ruling hte roost and Canon users loved it - now they hate DxO and Nikon love it.

In general my problem is that the score is almost pointless since the technology (and ergo the goal posts) are constantly in state of flux and often advancing. The only way they could do a credible review in my view would be to have dynamic scoring on a sliding scale so that as the highest quality increases the score range increases and the previous scores get modified to remain in-line with the newer releases. Otherwise we do get to the daft point where its only tiny differences which almost defeats the point of the score system unless we are really nit-picking.



Of course the other side is that there are a core of people who hate any form of testing. They only care about photos they don't care about technicalities or going into detail about them. It's just something they are not interested in and fair's fair they don't have to be but they will oft get all uppity in DxO threads.

 

[Derrel]

I am going to give this thread a TPF Mark Score, overall, of 66.

Back when Canon was ahead of Nikon in sensor performance, the entire internet was awash with Canon users crowing about their brand's superior sensor performance, and it WAS TRUE. Now that SOny and Toshiba have eclipsed Canon's sensor performance, the web is filled with Canon users trying their best to discredit DxO Mark's science

But Thom's main advice seems sound: don't look at the overall sensor performance score as the be-all, end-all. Instead, look more closely at all of the test result data that is in the graphs! There is plenty of information in every DxO Mark sensor test summary. He's mentioned this point before, multiple times: do not look only at the "overall score" because that's not a good way to compare things that might or might not be of interest to every shooter. For example: do you shoot at base ISO, or at elevated ISO levels?

For people who shoot at elevated ISO levels, the full-frame sensor cameras have very real, easily-seen, and easily-measured better results than ANY crop-frame cameras have.

The data graphs at DxO Mark also show what we know: that as ISO is doubled, dynamic range, and color depth, goes down. In many cases, as ISO is doubled, dynamic range drops about one EV value with each EV increase--but that is not always the case! The sensors that have the lowest noise, and the best color richness at elevated ISO settings have the HIGHEST scores on the DxO Mark Low Light/High ISO scores.

As the DxO Mark data shows, the 7D-II's dynamic range is decent at elevated ISO levels. And it seems that the sensor does pretty well on noise at elevated ISO levels. But the color depth is not really all that good at base ISO--buuuut, once the ISO levels get into the higher range, the 7D-II is on par with the D7100. So, for many people who want a fast-firing camera with deep buffer at $1799 or whatever, the 7D-II makes good sense, and offers a really good value.

None of the points immediately above really jump out when one says, "Overall score, 70." But a careful perusal of the multiple graphs of the 7D-II's sensor results show that it has been optimized for a certain type of use.

 

[astroNikon]

My camera is the BEST camera that I'm currently shooting with. DxO or not.

 

[gsgary]

The only thing that matters is how your photos look in the real world all these tests mean nothing

 

[JTPhotography]

I like DXomark. I think if everyone read it before buying a DSLR, canon would go belly up. Their tests highlighttbe superiority of nikons sensors. They recently rated the new 7d equal to the 5 yr old d300s.

 

[Overread]

Are D300 really that bad? I mean if that's the case why would anyone go with Nikon if they are really that shockingly poor. I mean yeah they might be doing ok now, but I can't help but feel that its a fluke

 

[gsgary]

Are D300 really that bad? I mean if that's the case why would anyone go with Nikon if they are really that shockingly poor. I mean yeah they might be doing ok now, but I can't help but feel that its a fluke

Most Nikon users forget they were helped by Sony when Nikon sensors were crap in low light

 

[Braineack]

I like DXomark. I think if everyone read it before buying a DSLR, canon would go belly up. Their tests highlighttbe superiority of nikons sensors. They recently rated the new 7d equal to the 5 yr old d300s.

They both came out at the same time (late 2009) and rate just about the same when you compare them... With the 7D having about a half stop better EV in DR throughout the ISO range.

 

[JTPhotography]

Are D300 really that bad? I mean if that's the case why would anyone go with Nikon if they are really that shockingly poor. I mean yeah they might be doing ok now, but I can't help but feel that its a fluke

Most Nikon users forget they were helped by Sony when Nikon sensors were crap in low light

Doesn't matter how, why, or when the Nikon sensors got better (substantially better), they are better.

 

[JTPhotography]

I like DXomark. I think if everyone read it before buying a DSLR, canon would go belly up. Their tests highlighttbe superiority of nikons sensors. They recently rated the new 7d equal to the 5 yr old d300s.

They both came out at the same time (late 2009) and rate just about the same when you compare them... With the 7D having about a half stop better EV in DR throughout the ISO range.

No, they rate the NEW 7d, the Mark II, equal to the D300s. I had the original 7d before I switched to Nikon. It was a good performing camera with a horrible sensor.

Canon EOS 7D Mark II DxOMark test score: identical to the 5 years old Nikon D300s camera | Photo Rumors

 

[Braineack]

Have you seen the test images from one...

 

[JTPhotography]

No.

 

[gsgary]

Are D300 really that bad? I mean if that's the case why would anyone go with Nikon if they are really that shockingly poor. I mean yeah they might be doing ok now, but I can't help but feel that its a fluke

Most Nikon users forget they were helped by Sony when Nikon sensors were crap in low light

Doesn't matter how, why, or when the Nikon sensors got better (substantially better), they are better.

Only at very high ISO they are not better than my A7