[Rondec]

I know DxO scores sell cameras, at least with the stat obsessed. But has anyone every looked at a photograph
and thought, "I like that picture. It looks like it came from a camera with a DxO score of 88."?

I can tell you that if there is a big difference in sensor performance, it can make a difference in how usable a camera is in a variety of situations. I found the K5 to be a big bump over the K7, while the K5 II and K3 were at best a lateral movement.

[falconeye]

DXOMark has a nice methodical approach, but they have three small issues. First is lack of inclusion of metamerism index in the score* and the second is lack of measuring the resolution. The first is important because of overall color quality and you can sacrifice it to get a bit better iso performance. The second could account for noise filtering in RAWs, which, when applied, would yield a higher ISO score, but not better image quality. Third, is the grain size. Classic example of how it mattered would be original four-thirds cameras. Their sensors had low noise, but larger grain and the pictures looked terrible at high iso, despite having relatively low noise, mathematically speaking. Old nikons had quite a bit of noise, but they had small grain and people liked the way images looked.

I agree DxO has minor issues in their methodology. But none of those you mentioned.

1. Metamerism: It is checked to remain above some threshold DxO says above which differences remain invisible. I agree it should influence the score though.

However, you cannot sacrifice metamerism to get a better score. True, broader (more white) filters reduce luminance noise. But they increase color noise and worsen the color depth score. It's a rather clever balance actually.

2. Resolution: It is printed bold, no need to check #pixels of a sensor.
DxO checks for noise being white noise (i.e., with no raw processing taking place and that there can't be a raw grain size, always 1 px). All noise blocks you see in images are from raw demosaicing and/or JPG processing. DxO tests before demosaicing.

One of the true minor issues for instance is that DxO does not test against fixed pattern noise in scaled down images, i.e., they don't verify their scaling law which only applies to random white noise.

[dane.dawg]

If Pentax received third party lens support they probably would be King in the aps-c market.
I do not believe the Pentax 150-450mm can compete with the Sigma 150-600mm or tamron 70-200mm, but this is only my opinion!

[K David]

GuessTheFormat

I decided to do ten and see how I performed. I got 9 correct. What I looked for were highlight detail, diffraction softness, and depth of field.

What surprised me was, yes, how little difference there is. It would be interesting to do this with film -- 4X5 v. 6X7 v. 135.

[biz-engineer]

I decided to do ten and see how I performed. I got 9 correct. What I looked for were highlight detail, diffraction softness, and depth of field. What surprised me was, yes, how little difference there is. It would be interesting to do this with film -- 4X5 v. 6X7 v. 135.

When photos are downsized to a postcard, the difference between formats is washed out. Enlarged at 120x80cm, compact and u4/3 do not look so good...

[SpecialK]

I know DxO scores sell cameras, at least with the stat obsessed. But has anyone every looked at a photograph
and thought, "I like that picture. It looks like it came from a camera with a DxO score of 88."?

Never. Nor brand.

[biz-engineer]

I know DxO scores sell cameras, at least with the stat obsessed. But has anyone every looked at a photograph and thought, "I like that picture. It looks like it came from a camera with a DxO score of 88."?

Well, yes and no. High end cameras tend to be used by more skilled photographers (pro), so when we look at photos from these cameras, there is a larger number of high quality photographs. But we can also find ugly photos taken by expensive cameras. Anyway, for a given camera format, what is really different is the handling and features of a camera , beside the sensor performance. And the difference of performance of lenses blow away the tiny differences of the sensors. Between f2.8 and f8, the difference is 8 times (800%) the amount of light. But you can still discuss the 8% difference of dxo score between the D7200 and the K-3, while the difference between an APS and FF is 100%.

[cxdoo]

If Pentax received third party lens support they probably would be King in the aps-c market. I do not believe the Pentax 150-450mm can compete with the Sigma 150-600mm or tamron 70-200mm, but this is only my opinion!

It definitely won't be able to compete on price.

[Rondec]

Does anyone know for sure who makes this sensor? I thought this was an updated D7100 sensor, which would say that Toshiba made it. The one in the K3 is a Sony made sensor.

[kenspo]

Does anyone know for sure who makes this sensor? I thought this was an updated D7100 sensor, which would say that Toshiba made it. The one in the K3 is a Sony made sensor.

Sony in all the coming cameras.

[audiobomber]

Does anyone know for sure who makes this sensor? I thought this was an updated D7100 sensor, which would say that Toshiba made it. The one in the K3 is a Sony made sensor.

FWIW, I've heard that the D7200 sensor is made by Sony.

If you look at the DXO scores for the a6000, it does a bit better than the K-3 in SNR, and matches the D7200. The D7200 beats the a6000 for DR, which is what you would expect with 14 bits vs. 12. There is some argument about whether the DXO score for the D7200 is correct, because supposedly dynamic range goes beyond what a 14-bit sensor should manage. Frankly I don't know anything about it, maybe Falk can explain.

I don't think any of the sensor score differences between these three matter in real life photography.
Nikon D7200 versus Sony A6000 versus Pentax K-3 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

[Rondec]

FWIW, I've heard that the D7200 sensor is made by Sony.

If you look at the DXO scores for the a6000, it does a bit better than the K-3 in SNR, and matches the D7200. The D7200 beats the a6000 for DR, which is what you would expect with 14 bits vs. 12. There is some argument about whether the DXO score for the D7200 is correct, because supposedly dynamic range goes beyond what a 14-bit sensor should manage. Frankly I don't know anything about it, maybe Falk can explain.

I don't think any of the sensor score differences between these three matter in real life photography.
Nikon D7200 versus Sony A6000 versus Pentax K-3 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

I can see a difference in dynamic range at base iso between a K5 II and a K3 (measures about one EV), and it does make a difference some times in landscape photos (it can be the difference between going HDR and just using a digital graduated ND). Other than DR, there really isn't much difference between these sensors.

[D1N0]

Let's wait for dpreview. They gave the Samsung NX-1 a whopping 87% I doubt they will do the same for the D7200 (probably 84%)

[Stavri]

Hmmm..... What sensor is being used in the D7200 does anyone know?

I thought at first it was an improved Toshiba sensor, similar to the D7100. Since its not confirmed the rumors have it to be more of a Sony sensor, similar to the D5500..

[audiobomber]

Let's wait for dpreview. They gave the Samsung NX-1 a whopping 87% I doubt they will do the same for the D7200 (probably 84%)

Unlike DXOMark scores, DPR scores are highly subjective and vary over time (83% this year would not score the same next year). DPR scores are no indication of anything except the reviewer's personal opinion.