DXO Mark - Should They Be Trusted?

Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I think DxO numbers are accurate. Their scoring system/rating is a little silly, though. This is kind of a long video, but if you watch the first few minutes, it explains why DxO stats are good to look at, but you have to know what the numbers mean. Also, of course, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor.


DxO mark, IMO, is giving the same kind of info about cameras as bench press, 40 yard dash, and vertical leap stats might give you about a rookie football player looking to get into the NFL. It's a start, but there's a lot more to look at.

As far as the whole YouTube video review thing, there is SOME good stuff out there, but there are a LOT of poor reviews as well.
 
S

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
This isn't meant to slam anyone here....but like always, people want to hear and see what they want. If the article doesn't say what they want, then they want to toss it out. Selective hearing and reading.
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
It's not selective reading. He's dissing DxO because the other cam in the comparison has more native ISO, better recording qualities, is cheaper etc and thus MUST score better.

Yet DxO by definition does not care about all those things and only measures the quality of the sensor and lens at their available settings. Shot-quality. The problem isn't as much DxO as it is the author of the article.

That one should not buy purely based upon one source is evident.
 
Nero

Nero

Senior Member
I never read DxO reviews. Number scores have always been meaningless to me, and I don't bother with most reviewers, especially when it comes to Youtube-reviewers. This article isn't wrong (maybe a little as the person who wrote it obviously doesn't understand DxO's standards for testing) but the author does come off as petty and whiny.
 
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
J-see said:
It's not selective reading. He's dissing DxO because the other cam in the comparison has more native ISO, better recording qualities, is cheaper etc and thus MUST score better.

Yet DxO by definition does not care about all those things and only measures the quality of the sensor and lens at their available settings. Shot-quality. The problem isn't as much DxO as it is the author of the article.

That one should not buy purely based upon one source is evident.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
A camera is a very personal choice and all factors should be considered, not just IQ. I look at DXO every once in a while, but really don't take any stock in their numbers. Seeing that the majority of people who take photos these days end up posting them to a website somewhere, is IQ that important? One needs to think about deployment before thinking a score of 82 over 79 is going to make a world of difference. Let's not forget the monitors that we use today are far behind in regards to displaying the full resolution of our pixel packed sensors. "The highest resolution display now – a 5K iMac – will only show about 14M pixels at any one time" - Ming Thein. It's fine and dandy to know what a sensor "scores" against another, but the differences are so negligible most of the times, we would not be able to appreciate the difference of 2 between two sensor scores. To an extent, i think DXO is playing on our incessant need for just a bit more "speed & feed" when it comes to equipment, just as the camera companies are themselves. We are also wanting that much more and when we get it, we start all over with that want by wanting tomorrow, now. I am sure DXO is useful to some people; but if anyone is going to make a purchase based on a DXO mark alone, they really should not be buying cameras. Most sensors today are very good, as are the cameras that they sit in. I think you would be hard pressed to find a camera today that produces really crappy photos IQ wise. On the other hand, is it not about the photographer who is supposed to make good photos? IQ is only part of the equation.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
AC016 said:
One needs to think about deployment before thinking a score of 82 over 79 is going to make a world of difference.
Click to expand...

I'm shooting a 93 and a 97 and while that is but a difference of 4 points, I can tell you that when I shoot the 97 at those settings generating these 4 extra points, the result is a world of difference. On all other settings it's just some difference.

IQ alone doesn't make a great shot but it sure helps.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
00STQc-110051984.jpg
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I'll look at DXO and the "popular" review sites for specs, but 90% of my decisions will be based on user reviews and of course, my needs. If I relied on DXO, I never would have enjoyed all the pics I got with a V2. Opportunity and understanding of your gear is so much more important. I recently shot the same spot with a friend who has a D750 and pro glass, his prints won't sell, mine will. Probably due to PP more than anything else, but the highest scoring sensor doesn't mean much if not used to it's potential.
 
Top