Interpretation of DxOMark results

[usayit]

If you want to compare image quality from 2 different cameras, look at the actual images they've taken, not some mathematical deconstruction that attempts to explain them.

Agreed.. I found this resource very helpful:

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

They have a good list of samples.... in the same lighting /studio for easier comparison with your own eyes.

 

[Derrel]

Damn all that science at DxOMark!!! It's so scientific, so consistently applied, and so impartially evaluated! The entire web site at DxOMark must be a conspiracy to punish one camera brand at the expense of others. My camera of choice fares poorly when tested....boo hoo hoo....same old chit...

 

[analog.universe]

I think there can be such a thing as "too much science" when it comes to creative equipment. Assuming the experiments are sound, and the data collected is accurate, it still only describes very specific functions of the camera in very fundamental terms. Of course there's value in this data, but I don't think it should be too large a portion of the decision making process. The camera with the most accurate sensor will not necessarily be the one that allows every photographer to get the best pictures. It will allow some photographers to get the best pictures, either because they interface well with the gear, or because their relationship with the gear isn't important to them. I think for most people however, interfacing well with the gear, and being able to use it intuitively... even preferring subjectively the results of a less accurate capture, is what gets them the best pictures. An audience looking at your photos is not going to say "I wish that sensor could've captured 12 stops instead of 11.3, ruined the shot", they say "Sweet landscape". But only if the photographer can forget about their camera and actually worry about the landscape!

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, too much accurate information about equipment performance/capabilities/characteristics is a bad thing. It's better not to know how your equipment really measures up. Keeps cognitive dissonance at a minimum to not know how badly your gear is, compared with what's also available on the market.

 

[analog.universe]

Hey... I said there's value in the information... it is worth knowing. But it is not a measure of whether or not a camera is the right one for you... it is one factor among many to consider, and in my experience, not the most important one. Of course you should research technical information, but not at the expense of hands-on experimenting and viewing actual images produced.

 

[enzodm]

So, it is not only in the Beginner forum that it is difficult to keep threads on track...

I think we are all convinced that, in taking one picture, the photographer has the most impact on the result. And also that a camera is made of many components and features, with different weights in personal choices.
Said that, DXOMark helps me in understanding about some of them -those more quantifiable. I could also check some example to understand the impact of those differences on real images. By the way, comparing K5 with 60D on a couple of the mentioned resources somewhat confirms DXOMark (at least on high ISO).
What is missing is the impact these measures may have on my own pictures - since I'm a bad photographer, I suppose I could not gain much from 1ev more, although better ISO corresponds to something I'm able to exploit, possibly better low light pictures. But if 50D is not much better than my current camera, I'll wait. I'll go with 60D in the future (or 70D with a Sony sensor ).

Derrel: are you still shooting 5D?

 

[Garbz]

My point of contention is on DXOMark's lens rankings. For instance, the Canon 50 1.8, on the 1DsIII, at f2.8, outscores both the Canon 1.4 and 1.2L. Really?

Well do they in practice too? e.g. The 85mm f/1.4 is an orgasmic lens in terms of the image quality it produces, but it's sharpness is actually quite poor in the measurements. What people perceive as image quality is not necessarily reproducible on an MTF chart.