[Rondec]

Thanks for some coherence and sanity here. With no negativity intended to the OP, this is one of the most fake camera gear evaluations or review or dumbass opinions I've read since Ken Rockwell dissed the *DS. Anyone who makes sports shooting pronouncements based on DxO Marks sports scores hasn't a clue about what matters in shooting sports, much less showing real shots for cred. Another Internet expert. Yahoo.

M

I don't really understand the internet's reliance on DXO Mark scores to make decisions with regard to camera gear. Even the "bad" cameras have better scores than were available five or six years ago.

I do wish that Canon was a little more competitive when it comes to sensor tech. It feels like they are sort of stuck in place, while the rest of the industry has moved forward somewhat. In particular, their APS-C cameras still are pretty close (with regard to sensors) to where the 7D was at. Other things have moved forward and matured. Their cameras are very nice, they just lag some in that area (mostly in dynamic range).

[BrianR]

DxO scores are handy but I'd say they're frequently misused and minor differences are weighted far too heavily. If differences like a 'sports score' of 1082 vs 1216 are deciding factors then you're pretty spoiled by choice.

Might have been a more worthwhile review if there was evidence he'd actually handled and used the cameras. We can get dozens paper reviews of gear without leaving the comfort of Pentax Forums.

[Rondec]

DxO scores are handy but I'd say they're frequently misused and minor differences are weighted far too heavily. If differences like a 'sports score' of 1082 vs 1216 are deciding factors then you're pretty spoiled by choice.

Might have been a more worthwhile review if there was evidence he'd actually handled and used the cameras. We can get dozens paper reviews of gear without leaving the comfort of Pentax Forums.

That certainly wouldn't be visible in real world shooting. The difference in dynamic range at base iso (1.5 stops versus the K3 and 2 stops versus the K5 II) probably would be visible in post processing, if your focus is landscape.

[Miguel]

Their cameras are very nice, they just lag some in that area (mostly in dynamic range).

After 100,000 shots (sports, landscape, closeup, products, birds) with Canon gear, publications, commercial sales, easy-to-access service, world-class AF and lens selection, and third-party lens and software support--dynamic range isn't a significant driver in evaluating photographic gear for me. It's something real for sure, but tends to be overstated on the Internet where minor differences get blown out of proportion. Few people are able to take high-quality shots in which it matters anyway.

M

[MadMathMind]

I do wish that Canon was a little more competitive when it comes to sensor tech. It feels like they are sort of stuck in place, while the rest of the industry has moved forward somewhat. In particular, their APS-C cameras still are pretty close (with regard to sensors) to where the 7D was at. Other things have moved forward and matured. Their cameras are very nice, they just lag some in that area (mostly in dynamic range).

Problem is that the application of their technology is limited to their own products, since I don't think they're vending to anyone else. Sony's huge into the semiconductor business, so they're not just making camera sensors; CMOS is their thing. Even then, sensors can be sold in different sizes to Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.--and that's just the P&S and SLR markets. There's also phones and an assortment of imaging products. Canon has to move a lot cameras to recoup their investment in sensor development. It's why I think it was foolish to make their own; obviously they had reasons I am not privy to, but using a 3rd party vendor for specialized electronics and chips works really well for most of the CE industry. Heck, TVs and audio equipment are basically assembled from components from 10+ different suppliers (SoC is from one company, DACs from another, room correction from another, etc.).

[BrianR]

That certainly wouldn't be visible in real world shooting. The difference in dynamic range at base iso (1.5 stops versus the K3 and 2 stops versus the K5 II) probably would be visible in post processing, if your focus is landscape.

For sure that's going to be noticeable at base iso. Their full chart shouldn't be ignored though, by iso 400 the 7d mkii has pretty much caught up with both k3 and k5ii for DR. Leaving this out of the discussion like the article does is, in my opinion, terribly misleading. I don't think they can make the assumption that the readers of this article know the landscape score is sometimes only relevant at the base iso.

I'm not arguing for or against one camera here- just that the DxO results, especially these snapshot scores and especially especially the overall score, can be used in misleading ways that don't help anybody. Additionally, I do agree with the article's goal of encouraging people to not ignore non-canon/nikon brands, I just think it's done poorly.

[dakight]

It's food for thought, just don't choke on it

[Rondec]

For sure that's going to be noticeable at base iso. Their full chart shouldn't be ignored though, by iso 400 the 7d mkii has pretty much caught up with both k3 and k5ii for DR. Leaving this out of the discussion like the article does is, in my opinion, terribly misleading. I don't think they can make the assumption that the readers of this article know the landscape score is sometimes only relevant at the base iso.

I'm not arguing for or against one camera here- just that the DxO results, especially these snapshot scores and especially especially the overall score, can be used in misleading ways that don't help anybody. Additionally, I do agree with the article's goal of encouraging people to not ignore non-canon/nikon brands, I just think it's done poorly.

You are correct. I do feel that base iso is probably most useful for landscape shooters. Someone who is willing to lug a tripod around with them in order to be able to use iso 80 or 100. If you are doing snaps, or sports shooting, you certainly won't notice the difference.

I think DXO Mark Scores are a very small portion of what should make your decision on what camera and lenses you should buy. It seems objective, because there is a solid number you can hang your hat on, but in the end it is just a statement about camera performance in certain situations. I think things like ergonomics, portability are under valued because they are hard to quantify.

[panoguy]

What bothers me is that it's maybe saving a nickel, which makes me wonder where else they (Nikon) saved money.

Really, the D750 is a great sensor in a body that has to tiptoe around the other cameras in the (very crowded) Nikon full-frame lineup. One of the saddest things is how accountants spec out the cameras for so many brands.

Meanwhile, to address the original, linked article; I think the premise is good, but the arguments are faulty (way too many apple/orange comparisons) and actually only damage the initial idea. It's a good thing there isn't a commenting function on that page, or the fanbois would have a field day over there!

[mee]

After 100,000 shots (sports, landscape, closeup, products, birds) with Canon gear, publications, commercial sales, easy-to-access service, world-class AF and lens selection, and third-party lens and software support--dynamic range isn't a significant driver in evaluating photographic gear for me. It's something real for sure, but tends to be overstated on the Internet where minor differences get blown out of proportion. Few people are able to take high-quality shots in which it matters anyway.

M

I think so too.. at this point, As an unpaid enthusiast/hobbyist, I'd rather look at price and the system as a whole to see if it meets my needs than internet charts nitpicking a point here or there -- all of the major systems out there today are going to allow one to generate really gorgeous images.

[Miguel]

It seems objective, because there is a solid number you can hang your hat on, but in the end it is just a statement about camera performance in certain situations.

It seems objective, but it is a proprietary methodology, marketed as a product.

A couple of months ago Tom Hogan wrote some insightful words about DXO.

" First, they are presenting themselves as impartial, numeric oriented testers (e.g. the scores). Second, they are presenting themselves as reviewers (e.g. “If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option.”). Third, they sell their test equipment and software test suites to camera companies (Nikon, for instance, but I don’t believe Canon is one of their clients). Fourth, they present themselves as the best demosaic option, better than the camera makers’ options (e.g., DxO Optics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes...ptics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes..."

DXO reminds me of the Meyer Briggs personality tests. If you've worked for a corporation for a number of years as I have, sooner or later you have to deal with some well intentioned but semi-evil HR initiative to give everyone a "voluntary" Meyers Briggs test. In my experience, the rationale is to develop sensitivity to "diverse" working styles, but in practice it's just another way for management to put people in boxes so you can be sorted with a "use by" date. Anyway, Meyers Briggs is not science, it's a parlor game that they have collected a lot of data about over the decades. The weight of the data and the use of the Meyers Briggs tool lends an air of authority, especially when it is given by management in big companies. But it's as truthful and as much fun as horoscopes--for better or worse.

DXO is quoted by enough well meaning people so that the collective perception holds truthiness. All it does is make some people who own the highest ranked gear feel a big better about their choice(s) in the short term.

Me, I look at images and then make my judgements.

M

[Rondec]

It seems objective, but it is a proprietary methodology, marketed as a product.

A couple of months ago Tom Hogan wrote some insightful words about DXO.

" First, they are presenting themselves as impartial, numeric oriented testers (e.g. the scores). Second, they are presenting themselves as reviewers (e.g. “If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option.”). Third, they sell their test equipment and software test suites to camera companies (Nikon, for instance, but I don’t believe Canon is one of their clients). Fourth, they present themselves as the best demosaic option, better than the camera makers’ options (e.g., DxO Optics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes...ptics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes..."

DXO reminds me of the Meyer Briggs personality tests. If you've worked for a corporation for a number of years as I have, sooner or later you have to deal with some well intentioned but semi-evil HR initiative to give everyone a "voluntary" Meyers Briggs test. In my experience, the rationale is to develop sensitivity to "diverse" working styles, but in practice it's just another way for management to put people in boxes so you can be sorted with a "use by" date. Anyway, Meyers Briggs is not science, it's a parlor game that they have collected a lot of data about over the decades. The weight of the data and the use of the Meyers Briggs tool lends an air of authority, especially when it is given by management in big companies. But it's as truthful and as much fun as horoscopes--for better or worse.

DXO is quoted by enough well meaning people so that the collective perception holds truthiness. All it does is make some people who own the highest ranked gear feel a big better about their choice(s) in the short term.

Me, I look at images and then make my judgements.

M

I just have a hard time looking at images and telling what kind of results I would get with a system. Is an image a composite (HDR), or is it a single image run through a program like Topaz? Was there much noise reduction?

The reality is that when you look at images, what you see is the result of a mixture of a photographer's skill, lighting, glass, and post processing (or the lack there of). Very few folks post straight of camera jpegs, although some do.

At the same time, DXO Mark's scores do seem to indicate something that I see in real world shooting. That is to say, when a camera like the K7 gets a poor score compared to the K5, I found it's images much more difficult to process than later cameras. I wouldn't buy a camera purely based on DXO Mark scores and certainly not a lens, but if the score indicates that a given sensor is a dog compared to others currently available, it certainly would give me pause. I definitely don't see them as being on an anti-Canon witch hunt. Nikon's cameras really don't score much differently than Pentax and Sony cameras with the same sensors, so I think their methodology is consistent.

In the end, it is free information. You can see the graphs that show the differences and decide if those differences in sensors will make a difference to you in the way that you shoot. I do think the guy who posted his comparison that was linked either didn't understand the numbers or, was just pretty heavily biased towards Pentax.

[hjoseph7]

Sensor this sensor that. I shot with Canona before and those cameras have great picture quality. I mean by things that you see with your very own eyes not a bunch of charts. I switched to Pentax for other reasons

[Miguel]

This all said, I think there is a fairly decent likelihood that the next high-end Canon DSLR or mirrorless perhaps will sport a Sony sensor.The Canon G7 X bridge camera has a Sony sensor. I've read a quote somewhere from a Canon exec saying that they are planning to include both internal and external design bids to meet sensor requirements. While Apple has no love for Samsung consumer electronics products, they sure seem to love their processing chips for iPhones and iPads.

M

[Miguel]

I just have a hard time looking at images and telling what kind of results I would get with a system. Is an image a composite (HDR), or is it a single image run through a program like Topaz? Was there much noise reduction?

The reality is that when you look at images, what you see is the result of a mixture of a photographer's skill, lighting, glass, and post processing (or the lack there of). Very few folks post straight of camera jpegs, although some do.

I think evaluating a camera system based on its sensor is simply myopic--DXO stuff aside. Photography is more than that and so is a camera system.

My preferred methods of evaluating a camera system depends on the context of use that I require. If I’m interested in how accommodating the image file is with my post-processing tools and methods, then I’ll download a sample raw file from one of the test sites we all know, or I’ll contact another photographer and ask is he or she can upload a raw image to my Dropbox.

I don’t need DXO to tell me that the 7D’s files are noisier than hell--a sample file download suffices just fine. And then I can see if my post processing skills can tame the noise while minimizing artifacts etc. Surely this is no different than when you are shooting a landscape in challenging light--from your excellent shots I doubt that you use the green button, but rather are manipulating exposure, ISO, and shutter to get it right. And then later doing some software tweaks beyond the Auto button.

While I’m certainly cognizant of how doped up an image online can possibly be, I'm not seeking out random images. My needs from a camera system are diverse beyond what DXO can convey. Because having excellent AF is a requirement for me, I want to see action and wildlife shots taken by skilled photographers using excellent glass. Not just the cherry shot, but the sequence of 10-12 shots from which that cherry came. That will convey the AF system’s behavior in the hands of someone skilled outside of a lab. I just don’t shoot much sports or birds in a lab and I figure that DXO must have both a FIFA game going and Angry Birds as their reference model.

Again, AF and file handling are just two of so many attributes that matter. I also look at FPS rates, lens system depth and breadth, ergonomics, size and weight, costs, and even weather resistance.

At the same time, DXO Mark's scores do seem to indicate something that I see in real world shooting. That is to say, when a camera like the K7 gets a poor score compared to the K5, I found it's images much more difficult to process than later cameras. I wouldn't buy a camera purely based on DXO Mark scores and certainly not a lens, but if the score indicates that a given sensor is a dog compared to others currently available, it certainly would give me pause. I definitely don't see them as being on an anti-Canon witch hunt. Nikon's cameras really don't score much differently than Pentax and Sony cameras with the same sensors, so I think their methodology is consistent.

This to me is unconvincing. You are essentially using DXO to either validate your own findings or you’re trusting DXO to understand your shooting requirements better than yourself. It’s analogous to having someone validate their perceptions about you based upon your Meyers Briggs type or zodiac sign.

Agreed that DXO is not overtly anti-Canon and yes, their methodology may be consistent, but perhaps they are measuring the wrong things or the right things wrongly. As a parent of two teenagers, I’ve seen them work well and hard answering a question that differs from the one on the exam. The DXO sports scores come to mind here.

In the end, it is free information. You can see the graphs that show the differences and decide if those differences in sensors will make a difference to you in the way that you shoot. I do think the guy who posted his comparison that was linked either didn't understand the numbers or, was just pretty heavily biased towards Pentax.

The creators of horoscopes provide lots of freely available impressively laid out graphics and charts. At best it’s some kind of art form and it’s nonsense for many. Just like DXO.


M