So Panasonic is not actually doing such an awfull job given it uses a slightly smaller sensor that is 1,5 years old (Gh2) scores exactly the same total. The site is so slow on my PC now, that I can't comment on the details.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon G1X gets DxoMarked. Total score of 60.
- Thread starter Jorginho
- Start date
tkbslc
Forum Pro
DxoMark scores are always a bit of skewed reality that doesn't translate well to real world shooting.
bobn2
Forum Pro
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G1X.html
Anomalous result at ISO 100 (the DxO SNR curve looks a bit odd) apart from that, pretty much as expected for a 60D pixel. Nothing new.
--
Bob
Anomalous result at ISO 100 (the DxO SNR curve looks a bit odd) apart from that, pretty much as expected for a 60D pixel. Nothing new.
--
Bob
bobn2
Forum Pro
Anomalous result gone now.http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G1X.html
Anomalous result at ISO 100 (the DxO SNR curve looks a bit odd) apart from that, pretty much as expected for a 60D pixel. Nothing new.
--
Bob
On pixel level, it looks slightly worse than the 60D in DR. Not a good sign where Canon is going...
Faintandfuzzy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,328
- Reaction score
- 6
Well, considering DxO rates the Nikon 3100 budget DSLR better than Hassellblad and Leaf medium format digital backs, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
As well, it rates my wife's Pentax K-x better than the Canon 7D. Why don't we examine this one to see.
The Canon 7D has better dynamic range, resolution, and high iso noise than the Pentax K-x. This doesn't even address the larger and higher rez LCD, better HD video, 100% OVF, higher frame rate, better AF, micro AF adjust, better build and better weather sealing.
Now, regardless of whether we take into consideration non-image quality related items, or purely image quality related items.....by no measure, either in my list or at any other respected review site in the world does the Pentax K-x beat the Canon 7D. However, DxO says it does.
So, according to DxO, just buy a Pentax K-x and a Nikon D3100.
Oh, they also rate the Nikon D3100 above the Canon 5D2 and Canon 1Ds3 as well.
Anyone else seeing a disconnect with reality here? I know some people quote DxO like the bible around here....and if they do that, then I can claim that the Nikon D3100 is better than the 5D2 and MF Digital Backs.
Ya....ridiculous!
The G1 X is Canon's latest sensor, and improvement over the last sensor that was last the T3i yet they give the sensor worse numbers all around? The image sensor is 95% of the height of Canon's aps-c sensor. It is essentially their aps-c sensor with the sides cropped off to make it 4:3 instead of 3:2 so it's not really a smaller sensor just smaller form factor. It might be that DxO only test with JPG and is using a pre-production unit and with settings not fully fine tuned.
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
They never test jpegs or even converted RAWS. And they have always noted when testing pre production samples, see the pre production 550D results for example.
GordonBGood
Veteran Member
As to people quoting DxOMark "like the Bible", unfortunately, it's true that people misrepresent the composite scores on only raw sensor image quality , just as you do somewhat here.
Let's look first at why the Pentax K-x raw sensor image quality is rated very slightly higher (DxOMark say that a difference of scores of about five points is just about enough to notice - the K-x rates 72; the 7D rates 66; that's a difference of six points.) than the Canon 7D according the the individual scores:
- the K-x has a very slightly deeper colour depth at low ISO's, which is a reflection of the known Canon DSLR loss of Dynamic Range (DR) as to higher black read noise as low ISO's.
- the K-x has about a stop more DR at low ISO's.
- the K-x actually has more noise at higher ISO's than the 7D for a loss of composite score in this respect.
As to the DxOMark scores comparing the Nikon D3100 to the Canon 1D Mark II and the Canon 1Ds Mark III, again the D3100 is about thirteen points lower in total score and lower in every category without exception!
For real practical use, DxOMark scores with as much as a ten point difference probably don't mean all that much other than for specific uses that push the particular parameters that limit those scores , and other real use features of the respective cameras may more affect our choice as is reflected in actual reviews that look at more than just raw sensor rating, just as DxOMark says. However, the scores are useful when comparing cameras for those particular extreme uses, although one does have to read and interpret the scores correctly
Regards, GordonBGood
Faintandfuzzy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,328
- Reaction score
- 6
Really? Not according to my tests, nor those of every major review site.
Yup
So, the Nikon 3100 scored lower in virtually every category...but was labelled as better.
Ya, makes perfect sense.
Sorry Gordon, DxO is becoming a laughingstock amoung photographers....myself included. Its test results cannot be duplicated by other test sites....a perfect example of bogus test methods.As to the DxOMark scores comparing the Nikon D3100 to the Canon 1D Mark II and the Canon 1Ds Mark III, again the D3100 is about thirteen points lower in total score and lower in every category without exception!
For real practical use, DxOMark scores with as much as a ten point difference probably don't mean all that much other than for specific uses that push the particular parameters that limit those scores , and other real use features of the respective cameras may more affect our choice as is reflected in actual reviews that look at more than just raw sensor rating, just as DxOMark says. However, the scores are useful when comparing cameras for those particular extreme uses, although one does have to read and interpret the scores correctly
Regards, GordonBGood
Sorry, but their rankings are a pathetic joke.
Which other website(s) test what DXO do?
Faintandfuzzy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,328
- Reaction score
- 6
You're right....no other test sites check for noise, resolution, dynamic range or color. Only DxO does that. ;-)
Or, you could be wrong...as usual. Hey, have you found out that DOF doesn't decrease with diffraction yet. Or maybe you're too busy buying the Nikon 3100 to replace your 5D2. DxO says it's better...so it must be true.
You're becoming funnier all the time Peter. You uninformed, webexpert, photography wannabees crack me up.
So what is the answer to my question?
photo nuts
Senior Member
I am puzzled as well. I expected identical performance to the T3i/600D.
GordonBGood
Veteran Member
Tests that test the raw sensor Dynamic Range as from the lower to the upper limit find exactly as the DxOMark tests show. Many reviews and test don't test the raw sensor Dynamic Range either just testing the range as encoded into the camera produced JPEG's or testing one the amount of "highlight headroom" forgetting that a range has both an upper and a lower limit.
Or perhaps the reading ability of photographers suffers a little?Next, let's look at the Nikon D3100 as compared to Hasselblad and Leaf, it is actually lower (worse) by about ten points and lower in every category except for high ISO noise, something for which the CCD sensors of medium format cameras were not designed.
So, the Nikon 3100 scored lower in virtually every category...but was labelled as better.
Ya, makes perfect sense.
Sorry Gordon, DxO is becoming a laughingstock among photographers....myself included. Its test results cannot be duplicated by other test sites....a perfect example of bogus test methods.As to the DxOMark scores comparing the Nikon D3100 to the Canon 1D Mark II and the Canon 1Ds Mark III, again the D3100 is about thirteen points lower in total score and lower in every category without exception!
For real practical use, DxOMark scores with as much as a ten point difference probably don't mean all that much other than for specific uses that push the particular parameters that limit those scores , and other real use features of the respective cameras may more affect our choice as is reflected in actual reviews that look at more than just raw sensor rating, just as DxOMark says. However, the scores are useful when comparing cameras for those particular extreme uses, although one does have to read and interpret the scores correctly
Sorry, but their rankings are a pathetic joke.
The DxOMark rankings of the camera models as mentioned in your original post are as follows, from higher rated to lower:
1) Canon 1Ds Mark 3: rated 11th with an overall score of 80
2) Canon 5D Mark 2: rated 15th with an overall score of 79
3) Hasselblad H3D II 50: rate 19th with an overall score of 78
4) Leaf Aptus 75S: rated 21th with an overall score of 77
5) Hasselblad H3D II 39: rated 23th with an overall score of 75
6) Pentax K-x: rated 33th with an overall score of 72
7) Nikon D3100: rated 45th with an overall score of 67
8) Canon 7D: rated 55th with an overall score of 66
As you can see, the rankings exactly match the order of the scores, and neither the Pentax K-5 nor the Nikon D3100 have a higher raw image quality than any of the other cameras you stated other than the Canon 7D, and that not by much and solely due to the amount of noise in the deep shadows at lower ISO's for the Canon 7D. Clearly, this isn't a parameter that is important to you, but it is to others who want the maximum ability to brighten deep shadows from raw in post processing with the minimum amount of noise visible.
And these results are repeatable if one tests for exactly the same things as to noise levels at the black and at brighter levels just as DxOMark do.
As I said, one would not notice the difference in image quality between any of these cameras when shooting at lower ISO's and processing the images normally with normal image tone curves.
The main problem with DxOMark scores is that photographers don't understand how to apply the scores as to how they impact their normal shooting requirements.
Regards, GordonBGood
photo nuts
Senior Member
I believe DXOMark low ISO results are reliable.
But their high ISO results can be discarded 'cos their tests fail to uncover any in-camera RAW processing (most recent example is the V1/J1 sensor... luckily DPReview picked up on this).
Sometimes they find noise reduction in the files, sometimes they miss it. However, one can analyze the numbers oneself also. For example, if the DR curve doesn't go down about (or actually typically a bit less than) one stop for each doubling of ISO, there has to be a reason for that. For example, with Canon's low ISO scores it's likely to be their analog to digital conversion. At higher ISOs significant deviations imply noise reduction.
But discarding all their measurements from certain ISO range because they've missed noise reduction in some cases is not in my opinion the best way of handling the information they give. Better to just think about the data, instead of simply trusting (or ignoring) it blindly.
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
That's not true. They note it in almost every Pentax review and they DID notice it in the V1/J1 results aswell. Just check the SNR graph and notice the open instead of solid dots at higher ISO's, which indicates smoothing.
photo nuts
Senior Member
Indeed. But they paid NO heed to it.
They continued to score and rank the V1/J1 sensor when they should have instead discarded all the INVALID low light ISO results and not rank the sensor at all. They jolly well know those are PROCESSED results which do not in any way reflect the sensors true performance.
If that is not poor (I must say, highly biased) reporting, I do not know what is.
bobn2
Forum Pro
The silliness is in the presentation of a single score to appeal to the simpletons who can only assess things on the basis of a single number. The DxO data provides quite enough information for those who know what their own priorities are to pass their own judgement.Indeed. But they paid NO heed to it.
They continued to score and rank the V1/J1 sensor when they should have instead discarded all the INVALID low light ISO results and not rank the sensor at all. They jolly well know those are PROCESSED results which do not in any way reflect the sensors true performance.
If that is not poor (I must say, highly biased) reporting, I do not know what is.
--
Bob
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum