Reading mode: Light Dark

Is DPReview Skewing Test Samples to Favor Nikon??

Go to last post
T

therickman

Senior Member
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
3
Location
Pittsburgh / / USA, PA, US
Compare the RAW samples of the 1DsIII in the D3x review with the 1DsIII samples in the 1DsIII review. They are noticeably different. In the D3x review, the images are significantly more blurred to make the D3x samples look superior. Most noticeably, the Umberto coin is much sharper in the 1DsIII review, and so is the Martini Rossi coat of arms. The composition, distance, and angle of view of the two 1DsIII tests are different as well. Open the following links in two separate windows and compare the 1DsIII images side-by-side. The proof is in the pudding:

1DsIII Review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/page28.asp

D3x Review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page28.asp

What's going on here? Is DPReview purposely using inferior 1DsIII image samples to favor the Nikon? Why didn't DPReview use the original 1DsIII test samples for the D3x comparison tests? Is the 1DsIII in the D3x tests the same model from the 1DsIII review? If so, and it's 2 1/2 years old, how much was it used in that time and has it been recalibrated?

DPReview should have used the original 1DsIII test samples in their D3x Review.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...
 
I'm assuming they redid the 1DsIII test, either with their old copy or more likely with a different body. That explains the slightly different results in the two tests.

I honestly don't think it's necessary to invoke conspiracy theories or bias to explain such small differences. In fact, to me it seems that some (maybe most) of the sharpness difference is due to limited depth of field. The Nikon shows sharper crops of the bottles but has very blurry paper clips (which are in a different focal place - closer). The Canon shows sharper paper clips but the bottles are less sharp. Add to that any differences in lens sharpness across the frame in both cases and you have enough reasons for differences. No dark forces required.

Keep in mind they are using 85mm lenses at fairly short distances. Now that the new Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is out, perhaps they ought to use 50mm for its greater depth of field.

My take home message from the review is that the D3X has pushed the image quality envelope especially when it comes to jpegs. n RAW it still retains a slight lead in resolution but in actual use other factors would far outweigh any small difference between cameras of this caliber.
 
They used different lenses:

Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM vs. Canon EF 24-70 mm F2.8 L @ 70 mm

Looks like the cameras are getting so good, it ends up being a lens test, not a camera test...
 
when I was going over the D3x review.

But, look at the 1DsIII "paperclip" crop in the D3x review. It is MUCH MUCH sharper, not only then the D3x's "paperclip" crop, but it is also much sharper then the "paperclip" crop in the 1DsIII's own review.

Lack of consistency is all that's going on here, not any conspiracy.

In addition, it just goes to show that almost ALL of the modern day dslr cameras out there right now are perfectly capable of EQUAL image quality, especially in terms of overall sharpness.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on these side-by-side comparisons. They are quite often filled with these types of inconsistencies.

--
bryan
--------
http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/



Canon 50D Images: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/p949109255
 
therickman said:
Is the 1DsIII in the D3x tests the same model from the 1DsIII review? If so,
and it's 2 1/2 years old, how much was it used in that time and has
it been recalibrated?
Click to expand...
August 2008 is 2 1/2 years ago? Are you posting from the future? The 1Ds Mark III didn't even exist 2 1/2 years ago.

Also, seriously, who cares if the paper clip is more in focus in some samples than others? Is that going to be the deciding factor for pros considering buying one of these cameras? I don't know, I've always chosen my cameras based on the results I can get with them, not the results other people get with them.

This is just really trivial and pointless complaining, are you even in the market for a 1Ds Mark III/D3X?
 
they also make the same objects appear to be different sizes beyond the differences in MP which is kind of a weird thing to do which makes it harder to compare things, as well.

they appear to largely account for it in the accompanying text.
 
Fearless_Photog said:
therickman said:
Is the 1DsIII in the D3x tests the same model from the 1DsIII review? If so,
and it's 2 1/2 years old, how much was it used in that time and has
it been recalibrated?
Click to expand...
August 2008 is 2 1/2 years ago? Are you posting from the future?
The 1Ds Mark III didn't even exist 2 1/2 years ago.
Click to expand...
My fault. It's been 1 1/2 years. The 1DsIII was announced in August 2007 (not August 2008).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/

Also, if detail and sharpness don't matter, then why the h*ll does DPReview do a comparison? Sharpness does matter, don't fool yourself. It's all anybody ever talks about in these forums.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...
 
therickman said:
What's going on here? Is DPReview purposely using inferior 1DsIII
image samples to favor the Nikon?
Click to expand...
I doubt it's on purpose, but they are not as consistent or precise as they should be.

See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=31061172
therickman said:
Why didn't DPReview use the
original 1DsIII test samples for the D3x comparison tests?
Click to expand...
People would complain about the 24-70 lens. 85mm prime is their new? baseline for 24x36mm cameras.
therickman said:
Is the
1DsIII in the D3x tests the same model from the 1DsIII review?
Click to expand...
Camera is the same: Serial number 602187. Oddly, the firmware versions are different: the review image was Firmware 1.1.2 while the comparison image is 1.04! The review image was shot 2008:08:12 while the comparison was much earlier on 2008:04:02

--
Erik
 
Please step in and address this inconsistency.

I am sure there is a simple explanation for it.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
They are using 85mm lenses now, they used normals before. The reason, they should comment on that. But I bet they won't care to reply to a thred with the subject of this one. One should post one with simple question: were shots from 1DsIII redone recently?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
rhlpetrus said:
They are using 85mm lenses now, they used normals before.
Click to expand...
Probably something that simple.
rhlpetrus said:
But I bet they won't care to reply to a
thred with the subject of this one. One should post one with simple
question: were shots from 1DsIII redone recently?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The title was an unfortunate one.

But the reviewers usually keep an eye on the respective forums for some days to catch and correct any blatant errors, so maybe Lars Rehm actually drops by with an explanation.

The fact that we, reasonable people, know for a fact that this was not made on purpose shouldn't distract from another fact that this relates directly to the credibility of current, past and future reviews.

(especially for guys like me that favor their own eyes on direct side-by-side comparisons in detriment of the exhaustive and some times pointless "hair splitting techno-analysis")

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
...inanities around Canon or Nikon being the best.

That gang mentality is just a reflection of something wider and fundamentally wrong with the human race that has lead us into all sort of troubles: The refusal to accept that 2 things don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive for we to favor one of them.

Both are great DSLR systems, period.

But I do care if a specific camera performs better than another one and to that effect direct side-by-side comparisons are important to me in detriment of the exhaustive and some times pointless "hair splitting techno-analysis".

Not seldom have I come to conclusions opposite to those claimed in reviews made here and elsewhere precisely by using that approach.

As such, this issue directly relates to credibility of current, past and future reviews.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
The file size from the earlier review is quite a bit bigger. Wonder if they accidentally used a different compression/quality setting? Dunno.

It really is a waste of time scratching around with jpegs. There are so many variables that screw up comparisons. Only look at RAW comparisons.
 
A Owens said:
The file size from the earlier review is quite a bit bigger. Wonder
if they accidentally used a different compression/quality setting?
Click to expand...
Yes, probably the compression, since the crops themselves have the same dimensions.

Still, the difference points to only a small compression variance and the differences that can be observed are quite relevant.
A Owens said:
It really is a waste of time scratching around with jpegs. There are
so many variables that screw up comparisons. Only look at RAW
comparisons.
Click to expand...
RAW can not be displayed on the web. There has to be some kind of conversion and, most likely, compression at some point. It is OK if the "middle processing" flow is kept exactly the same. Their described flow seems OK to me for comparative purposes.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
PhotoKhan said:
rhlpetrus said:
They are using 85mm lenses now, they used normals before.
Click to expand...
Probably something that simple.
PhotoKhan said:
But I bet they won't care to reply to a
thred with the subject of this one. One should post one with simple
question: were shots from 1DsIII redone recently?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The title was an unfortunate one.

But the reviewers usually keep an eye on the respective forums for
some days to catch and correct any blatant errors, so maybe Lars Rehm
actually drops by with an explanation.

The fact that we, reasonable people, know for a fact that this was
not made on purpose shouldn't distract from another fact that this
relates directly to the credibility of current, past and future
reviews.

(especially for guys like me that favor their own eyes on direct
side-by-side comparisons in detriment of the exhaustive and some
times pointless "hair splitting techno-analysis")
Click to expand...
But even image comparison is essentially hair-splitting. How much difference can one see in these images? A little more detail in this part, less there, depends on focus, etc.

Or, a slight change in lighting, the lenses used, body sample variations, etc., all could be more at fault than camera itself. To me, IQ from all these cameras are about equal, much more will depend on shooting technique and pp'ing.

And 100% viewing on monitors (
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
rhlpetrus said:
But even image comparison is essentially hair-splitting. How much
difference can one see in these images? A little more detail in this
part, less there, depends on focus, etc.

Or, a slight change in lighting, the lenses used, body sample
variations, etc., all could be more at fault than camera itself. To
me, IQ from all these cameras are about equal, much more will depend
on shooting technique and pp'ing.

And 100% viewing on monitors (
actual printing IQ at 300PPI, this I know from experience.
Click to expand...
I don't a agree, but fair enough.

Still, from the objective point of view of a site that has risen, is well respected and acquired proved commercial interest for, precisely, its reviews, you'll have to agree that anything related to their credibility is paramount.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
fair to canon as well

1ds III is very old already, no chance for a draw from the beginning

--
2008 Lynx Award;)

Best Lens: ZA 135 1.8 (lens for dimlight portrait, shutter speed can be very low to brighten background with Sony A900)

Best Compact: Nikon S10 (Super Body Design, 10xZoom, Tilt LCD, Fixed f3.5 Lens, very Easy to carry)

hoping: Canon 135 f1.8/1.6 IS USM + 802.11 Radio Tiggered 600EX Flash + Nikon S10 Successor
http://leesiaojun.blogspot.com/
 
There is an easy explanation indeed. The shots in the original 1Ds review were shot with a 24-70. We later reshot them with a 85mm lens to have the same angle of view on all APS-C and FF camera reviews. The 1Ds 85mm shots have been used before, for example in the comparison section of the Sony A900.
--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top