Even DXO Mark involves software processing. How else do we get numbers?

You may claim to be an engineer, but you don’t seem to fully grasp cameras and photographic systems.

Many of the things that the “ignorant” people you’ve whined about on this forum have said things that are perfectly valid. It takes social skill and knowledge of the things they are talking about to decipher what they’re getting at sometimes. But that doesn’t mean that all of the things they observe don’t have valid reasons. You can learn something from everyone if you just listen.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and listening. But you don’t seem to be doing the same. You’re much to anxious to attack the messenger without analyzing the message. You may not agree with me, but do you understand why I’m saying what I’m saying? It’s NOT because ignorance.

Maybe there’s a reason for what I’ve observed. Maybe it’s hardware, maybe it’s software. But I never found a way around it with software, and software is how I and everyone else work with digital files. ACR is part of my very efficient work flow. If there’s other software that doesn’t reproduce the same issues I’ve seen, I’m curious why.

Do YOU have answers to my questions? Do you have reasons for the things I’ve observed? Or are you going to assume I’m ignorant and remain ignorant yourself?

DXO Labs does make DXO Optics software, which they sell for a pretty penny. They have re-purposed their results into a website which they’ve generated a lot of publicity with.

They are soliciting “partners” on their DXOmark.com site, and they do not have any current partners listed. They do NOT advertise any analytical hardware for sale.

Highly specialized, yep…they no doubt are. Respected? By who? Only amateur photographers from what I can tell.

I can read the results perfectly well. That’s why I’m saying they aren’t very accurate. On further analysis, I think what’s missing is they haven’t given much weight in their stats to how these cameras behave at the extremes of luminance and saturation, and they seem to give a lot of weight to signal to noise. They are going about things in a methodical way, which is a good start, but something is obviously missing from their results.

Again, your opinion would be a lot more valid if we saw some work. I have nothing to hide. I’m also not calling you an idiot, which you seem so quick to call me. You seem to come out with a lot of things with out qualifying them.

I can borrow a 1dsmkii and prove my point pretty easily. But really, you can see the things I’m talking about all over the web. Are you disagreeing with me? I can’t even tell, since you don’t respond directly to what I say.

Same with DXO…where’s this hardware you’re talking about? Where’d you come up with that?

I came up with the FACT that DXO sells software because they advertise it on every DXO Mark page.

Ok, here’s something very specific: pick a specific camera and check out the “full CS” section. They map out colors from a color checker (they show 19 color values, which is quite odd actually). They give an option of viewing at different luminance levels, but only up to 70. The probably I had with the canon’s red accuracy happens above 70, for real world objects that aren’t matte like a color checker. A lot happens in those 30 points before and up to clipping.

Does DXO Labs take this into account? Their results don’t seem to.

They also list the D2x and 1dsmkii as being about the same for dynamic range, with the edge going to the Canon. But does DXO take into account the horrid patterned noise in the shadows that the 1dsmkii has? Shoot identical, low contrast shots with both cameras and boost them 1-2 EV and you’ll see what I mean. There’s noise in the shadows on both, but the 1dsmkii has lines through it that make it impossible to just filter out.

Testing in a scientific manner is wonderful. However, when the tests in the lab don’t match the real world results, something is wrong. If you can show me where these results are indicated in the results and scores on the DXO Mark site, I’ll stand corrected.

Their software cannot fix the sensor nor the image pipeline so what are you blubbering about?
It is like saying that Adobe’s CS3 or 4 or Apple’s Aperture is able sell a fix for a SENSOR and image pipeline AFTER said image has left the camera – duh!

Anyhow, believe as you wish and if you are as naive to believe that any Company does not have a vested interest in promoting their own products, then you are even dumber than your post conveys.
The French are known to have great Optical Labs and since NOT ONE Manufacturer has challenged their results so far as I know, then you might be dreaming or unable to decipher their clear results.

The consistent Scientific Results plus how they achieve them independently plus how EACH type of sensor in a Manufacturer’s line performs points to a consistency that YOU perhaps do not get or are unable to fathom.
Perhaps you continue with shooting and leave analyses to others!

Have good day in more thought, pal.

Last point – the RED channel shortfall that I observed referred to the NEW Canon MK4, so reread what I stated in D3s -vs- MK4 and perhaps look at the results from the Vancouver Winter Olympics yourself.

WHAT is the chromatic opposite of RED in a RGB array?

Anyhow, this is getting tired and boring – do as you wish and no ill feelings towards you or anyone here BUT quit jiving us here.
I have been in computers and using plus making graphics and photographs for too long to argue with people.
Adobe 98 is the older standard and sRGB is the newer – simple as that. Some prefer one, others prefer the other – so no arguments here. I actually prefer CYMK for printing and RGB for displaying something.
They BOTH (Adobe 98 and sRGB) need to be replaced though and all the calibration in the world will not fix a lousy LCD monitor if it cannot display the complete color spectrum.

After you calibrate your monitor and your workflow, you still have ambient light to deal with unless you work in a pitch black room – LOL!
Calibration is an overstated and misused item, so not hung up on it.
I prefer consistency to calibration often, providing the output is accurate and repeatable.
To get the calibration based upon the limitations of your monitor, means that you have choked the width and breadth of the color spectrum to the least common denominator (your lousy monitor) – figure that out now.
Have a great day in new thought!

Like you seem to have noticed, the older Canons did not cope well with reds. In my experience very saturated, properly exposed reds (say a rose) would clip in the highlights far too early and if you tried to recover this information it would not be there. With my old D2x, I could shoot things with the same strobe set up, same aperture at the same 1/250th sync, and I’d get a usable image. To get anything like the same image from the 1dsmkii, I’d have to underexpose by a minimum of 1.5 stops and then tweak a whole lot in post. And that made things very difficult, since there was more visible noise in the shadows on the 1dsmkii files. Sometimes I’d have to do very invasive manual manipulation–things that should NOT have to be done in a studio.

Boosting the exposure of base ISO raw files from the 1dsmkii, the noise in the shadows had a pattern of noise that showed hard lines at right angles to the sides of the frame. All digital cameras can display this kind of noise, but it came on way to early with the 1dsmkii. The noise from my D2x was random and grain like. If it showed up, it wasn’t so bad, and I could tone it down with noise reduction software. With the 1dsmkii, I had to clone it out.

I’ve used five different 1dsmkii units in the studio and out of the studio and they all performed the same way. I’ve used two different D2x units in and out of the studio and they performed the same way.

Looking at DXO’s results, I can’t see any indication of this behaviour. What does that tell me? That DXO’s methodology is not valid to any accuracy of more than 75%. That’s not terribly useful.

DXO is a company that sells software. The software will perform some neat tricks to correct lens issues. These issues are superseded by the availability of better and better lenses. ACR and other software produce much more color accurate results and incorporate better into an efficient work flow.

The purpose of the DXO site isn’t scientific. It isn’t a photographer’s Guinness Book of sensors. It isn’t even for the public benefit.

The purpose of the DXO site is to sell software.

They don’t really care how accurate their results are, as long as they seem to match the general consensus enough to validate their methodology and in so doing, validate their analytical skill, which is used in making their DXO Optics software.

The funny thing is, the models we’re all quibbling over are probably NOT the models that most benefit from their software. People with crappy bodies and mediocre lenses are the prime target for this software. But if they can get the “pros” talking about their brand and analysis, they can add perceived value to their product.

DXO is basically one big publicity stunt for DXO Optics. Any critique of it should be viewed in that light.

It ‘dumbs’ us all down as photographers in a time when such wonderful tools are being released and Technology is expanding at such a rapid pace that instead of admitting that they cannot comprehend what is being described or delivered, they act like they know about it here.
Talking heads indeed.

Again we see all this ignorant drivel here about measuring sensors like they are monolithic blocks – duh!
A camera sensor is compromised of several elements including light gathering items that are NOT flat, hence you cannot measure them VIA specs., as you do NOT have all the variables – FACTS!
The DXO Mark is measuring MEASURED output FOR EACH camera’s sensor ATTACHED to a working camera and NOT the sensor by itself.
The problem arises when people try and tell you that they have a reasonable explanation for the RESULTS when in fact they have NO facts from ANY camera manufacturer to make any assessment whatsoever.
If this is NOT obvious to you, then I prefer to leave all of you alone in your own ignorance.
How do you measure the square area or even the area of an item that is not flat, but is variable due to pitch and then also has microlenses on there?
Are the sensors by themselves or are they compromised of SEVERAL elements?
Since we do NOT have the individual elements of the imaging pipeline to measure then we are measuring OUTPUT in a working camera.
If you cannot confirm the specs YOURSELF, then any discussion about this is your stupidity, as there is NOTHING for you to personally calculate or measure!

People get angry when their own fallacies in argument are pointed out, so sorry to offend you.
Perhaps you need to NOT comment on what you obviously DO NOT understand and thus I leave all of you alone.
Ignorance is indeed ‘bliss’ for some of us.
Explaining the results without knowing what is being measured is what makes you a fool.

No one is blowing smoke. They’re giving it to you straight, at least as they see it. And you appear to be horribly misguided. The kind folks who’ve commented only tried to put you back on track.

Some of what they said is completely opinion. But you’re insisting your opinion is right when you’ve got some technically bad info, and a bad attitude. Seriously, check your damn attitude or take it someplace else if you can’t. Like biker bar or something. The internet is a cowardly place to be a jerk.

Uh, I shoot Nikon and prefer it on all fronts. Why wouldn’t I be able to “deal with that”?

My comments weren’t to insult you. They were to point out that you come off like an argumentative jerk. I was hoping you would get that, but you don’t. Much like most of the one way argument you’ve been having. Unfortunately, you’re subjecting the rest of us to it.

But…not anymore.

It is a test that favors Nikon and you cannot deal with that.
Nothing more to say then.

Prints have NOTHING to do with DXO results as they are measuring SENSORS and factors dealing with that.
Printing is a FUNCTION of your printer, the ink, the paper and the resolution of your printer plus the color accuracy and tonality of your workflow and the original subject matter plus the image photographed.
Go find another sucker to teach.
Digressing to name calling perhaps is a sign that you never really understood the factors being discussed or even the graphs and data presented by DXO.
Perhaps if you did, you would understand why full frame or FX – EVEN at a lower megapixel beats a cropped sensor or DX at a higher megapixel.
That is borne out in the tests even within the Canon ranks and thus you are blowing smoke.
Printing is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation while DXO is a Scientific measurement – perhaps YOU learn the difference of that yourself.
Bye!

You still don’t sound like you grok color calibration in the real world. I’d be happy to explain.

And DXO is an interesting tool and their current numbers match my real world experience. But on the older cameras I think their numbers don’t correlate to the output I’ve seen. Their methodology seems sound, but their results don’t seem to bear up to prints in the real world. Just like prints from an uncalibrated space sometimes look right, and sometimes don’t.

Seriously lay off the coffee and check your attitude.

“I’ve already pissed myself!” isn’t a good enough excuse to avoid the bathroom. You NEED to calibrate your monitor with a hardware tool to get consistent results. Can you get ok results without doing so? Just as well as you can hit the center of a dart board with lots of practice. But you’re not shooting darts, your making pictures!

Get a freakin calibration tool and fix your monitor, so you can spend less time HERE and more time out shooting. Which is where I’m off to!

Then realize that you can’t calibrate output sources. They do what they do and are pretty fixed in their capabilities. (Well, ok light on RA4 paper printers take calibration, but they do so as part of their own set up and you’d be an idiot to mess with that).

You DO absolutetly need to calibrate your monitor. This is because it has a lot of color that it can’t display and you need a profile that’s going to help your computer display the colors it CAN produce at the proper luminance levels adjusted to an objectively correct hue.

You can’t calibrate your inkjet–don’t bother. You can’t change the calibration on your laser printer. You better not try to screw with your RA4 printer…is there an output format you’re using that I’m missing? Do you have a USB loom or something?

If you’re screwing with anything besides your monitor, you’re either clueless, or you’re working on broken/inferior equipment. Or you’re trying to get it to do something it just won’t do (produce out of gamut colors?)

If you want to email me at my website, I’d be happy to explain. But you’re really just embarrassing yourself right now, since you obviously have only read about these things.

Canon’s IQ has come a long way. They used to be horrible at reds at every ISO. They seem to be a bit better than they used to be. But Nikon has not stood still.

I’ve shot extensively with all three of those cameras and from an image quality standpoint alone, I’d take the D2x any day. Oh, correction, I shot with the 1dsmkii, not the 1d. I can’t say anything about the 1dmkii having never used it. But the 1dsmkii and the 20D make files that look like garbage when compared to what I pulled out of my d2x. Even at higher ISO.

I had the option to go with either, and I still will use either and sometimes have to. But I really prefer Nikon’s interface, build, speed, and image quality.

Comparing the D3s and 1Dmkiv is, to me, like comparing a 2010 Corvette ZR1 to a Bugatti Veyron. They’re both incredible pieces of gear. I’d never turn down a Corvette–they’re pretty and fast.

But objectively, the Bugatti is in a whole other world. That’s the D3s. Sure it needs 100 octane (good lenses) and room to stretch it’s legs (light you can barely see to walk in) but the difference is real and measurable. It’s so significant that even DXO’s stats, which turn meaningful information into numeric porridge show that.

I did things with my D700 last week that the 1dmkiv can only JUST do (great IQ at 25600). Not do better, but only as well. Maybe it can do it at two more frames a second, but damn, Nikon is just doing some amazing stuff. Canon too. But I’m just thrilled at where the technical boundaries are these days.

Have a good day!

My simple analysis applies and holds for every camera comparison including Canon to Canon. The DXmark high-ISO test is a pixel level noise test. And bigger pixels get better results. But as any photographer who has had to get the most detail out of a shot knows, detail is a balance between resolution and noise. And if you don’t take both into account, your results will be skewed. Do you really think that the D3s with its high-ISO score of 3253 is really that much better than the Nikon’s D3x at 1992? It’s all about pixel size!

As far as your other erudite points on color, the Canon 5D2 beats the D3s on the DXOmark color depth test. Does that mean that all your points on color are invalid? Of course not. It just points out that the DXOmark tests are very specific tests which don’t give you a very accurate “picture” of the cameras. This is my basic point.

For me, I buy Canon for only one reason, price. I can’t afford Nikon gear. Paying $6100 for a canon 500mm birding lens is bad enough. But paying $8100 for the Nikon equivalent is just not worth the slightly better performance for me. If I had a federal budget or was independently wealthy, I would have the complete Nikon lineup. I would still have Canon because they still have a few things that are better, like the TS-E 17L and the 24L II. But Nikon is catching up everyday. It wasn’t but a couple years ago you couldn’t even buy a Nikon FF digital. Canon has sold them with a full complement of lenses continuously since the 1D.

So go ahead and do your victory dance around some unbalanced isolated test number if it makes you feel good. If it helps you feel better about your purchase, then maybe it will give you the confidence you seem to so desperately need to go out and make good photography. Because everyone knows, the only good photos ever taken were with Nikons, right. Yea, they use them on CSI Miami and everything.

with great lenses

what’s you gear?
the dxo makes me laughing

What you said is idle and even IGNORANT ‘guesstimations’ bud!
It is NOT about sensor area, pitch density or such BUT about MEASURED OUTPUT and thus most of you here are clueless.
Reread the charts IF you have any type of an Engineering background or capability and it will clearly SHOW you the differences even when you compare Canon to Canon.

BOTTOM LINE:
Canon focused on ‘specmanship’ and Nikon DELIVERED on usability, increased DYNAMIC range, better color PURITY and quality at a wider RANGE of ISO’s.

ALL the shots from the MK4 show a BLUE tint or cast – thus RED channel problems – R-G-B – sensor remember.
Blue tint usually refers to a lower RED response or often called a COOLER response curve.

The Nikon results are WARMER as in more the color of REALITY or R-G-B equal curves or response.

Go back to school!
That is not hard to understand and you are clueless at to how Nikon did this as Nikon NEVER said how they did it – TRADE SECRET perhaps.

I happened to LOOK at the D3s -vs- MK4 files from photographybay.com on several of MY monitors including several Trinitron and LCD monitors and I noted the differences MAINLY on the Trinitron that is calibrated.
Get over it – Canon LOST!

… and the 5D Mark 2 does NOT have the same COLOR response of the MK4, as the older 21meg FULL FRAME sensor is superior to all of their smaller sensored cameras including the 7D and the MK4.

Now, explain why Sherlock?

The Nikon pixels are over twice the size. This means twice the equivalent ISO.

So for an equivalent chunk of sensor area (containing different pixel counts for each), the Canon would have to have a low-light ISO measurement of 1497 to exactly match the D3s. It has 1320. This is less than a 1/3 stop advantage to Nikon. The Canon with its higher pixel count gives you the option to later reduce resolution and proportionally noise to be within 1/3 stop.

Having the increased resolution in the canon for low-ISO is a significant advantage as evidenced by Nikon’s recent statement that they intend to increase resolution (and therefore lower high ISO performance) to be more competitive.

Having the D3s’ larger sensor is an advantage if you you are not focal length limited, which you often are with sports and wildlife. If you can use the entire sensor area, you will have a big advantage to Nikon. But if you can’t it is a disadvantage because the wasted space slows down the camera and increases file sizes. Canon settled on the APS-H’s 1.3 crop factor as a compromise.

So as far as a sports/wildlife camera goes, they are basically a wash in comparison. The decision would have to be based on something other than the DXOmark tests.

More interesting to me is a comparison to the Canon 5D2. Doing the pixel size math on that shows that the 5d2 would have to have a high ISO rating of 1888 to exactly match the D3s. It has 1815, a negligible difference, worth giving up for nearly twice the higher resolution at lower ISO and less than half the cost, if your application can handle the relatively glacial speed of the 5D2.

DXOMark is really doing a disservice to the public by not taking pixel pitch into account in the high-ISO test. It leads to a lot of confusion.

Posters love to go to web sites or blogs and tell us all types of crap and YES, this includes many of the persons who manage or run the very blogs (and NO, I am not referring to nikonrumors or its’ Administrator – as that person is a humble straight shooter who does not pretend about having some ‘special knowledge’ or such – LOL).
It is idiotic trolls who run from area to area spreading their ignorant drivel like others do not know that their attempts to seem educated on almost ANY subject is a game to them. There is NO ONE who understands all of technology or about sensors, marketing or even cameras and thus much here rightly is OPINION but an opinion should be based upon at least some facts and a demonstrated knowledge of the basics of what you are posting about or explaining/defending.
The Internet has dropped the technical education level of much, as many think that they can basically ‘look up’ a subject and then pretend to be instant experts.
Dream on!
How do YOU know that what you quoted or even read is by someone who knows what they heck they are saying?

The Internet is NOT a substitute for education, experience or knowledge!
It is an INFORMATIONAL pipeline with lots of details and also lots of pretenders trying to drive traffic to their web sites and they sucker idiots with elaborate sounding things while the ones who know, just overlook them.

They remind me of ‘edumacated’ STOOGES!

Post whatever you wish BUT don’t try and convince someone who knows a subject that you know it WHEN it is quite obvious you do not!

Freedom to be a jackass or a butthead indeed – LOL!