Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
John Koerner:
Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
Bernard first brought these sites to my attention, about a year ago, and I find them a lot more user-friendly than DxO Mark. (They also seem to be more up-to-date too.)
LenScore / SenScore
Their rating system seems to make a whole lot more sense too.
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
By contrast, SenScore rates the Nikon D4s the #1 camera across the board, boasting more dynamic range than the D810 (1321 to 928), more color range (1369 to 1073), more tonal range (1139 to 10035), it just does not have the resolving power of the D810 (563 to 1051), as the D4s only has half the megapixels of the D810. I can follow this logic, so the SenScore website makes more sense to me.
The SenScore database compiles its sensor ratings based on Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, and Resolving Power, as well as the combined aggregate (the Final SenScore), all of which are more relevant to me than what the DxO Mark tries to put out. (You can also click on each of these criterion and get a hierarchical order of magnitude based on which of each individual attribute is most important to you.)
For example, if you click on Resolving Power, up top, you see the results in this criteria alone, and it is a landslide for the new Canon 5DS R (1357 compared to the D810's 1051).
By contrast, if you click on Dynamic Range, up top, the new Canon 5DS R has a paltry 850 score compared to the D810's 1028.
(Interestingly, however, the D810 is not at the top of their list for DR, the D4s is.
Anyway, I am just curious as to the credentials of who puts the information out and what criteria they use ... does anyone know?
Jack
NancyP:
Actually it makes a lot of sense that a large-pixel sensor could out-perform a small-pixel sensor, other things being equal. More photons per pixel = more head-room in your computations to deal with noise, color accuracy, etc, OTBE.
AlterEgo:
--- Quote from: John Koerner on December 18, 2015, 10:55:07 pm ---Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
--- End quote ---
you might also what to see http://photonstophotos.net, for sensors only... and unlike sensorscore you can talk with the author how things are measured (if site is not enough) = http://www.dpreview.com/members/9263714680/forums/posts and see what is the deal per ISO, not some god knows how calculated "scores"...
BernardLanguillier:
If you just look at the single numbers of DxO they will give the best value among ISO, which is why the D810 has by far the best DR of any camera. If you bother to look at the curves you have much more useful data.
On the other hand, senscore computes an average accross ISO, which is why they rate the D4s as having the best DR.
There is little reason to only consider the summary rating, but if you do then DxO can be considered to be a landscape rating why senscore is a more generic one.
Cheers,
Bernard
ErikKaffehr:
Hi,
There is a great difference between the two sites in that DxO-mark discloses all (or almost all) measured data. Both site also gives figures of merit but with some information how those values are calculated from DxO and none at all from SenScore/LenScore.
DxO has quite a lot of credibility on the sensor side, as their measurements show good agreement with other tests at least regarding DR.
With sensors, it matters a lot if you look at base ISO or at high ISO numbers. For a tripod shooter, like me, high ISO is simply irrelevant. For one shooting sports low ISO probably quite irrelevant.
With lenses it may be a bit more complex, as DxO does not exactly say what their evaluations are based on. Still they present a lot of data across the field, so lenses can be compared.
Regarding lens tests, it matters a lot if we are shooting at large apertures, medium apertures or small apertures. Building a highly corrected lens for f/1.4 is no easy task. But, a relatively simple lens can be very good at medium apertures. So, if you don't know how performance at different apertures is weighted in the figures of merit are actually of very little use.
In addition, there is some sample variation. Some would argue that a lens should not be judged based on a single sample.
I would suggest that both sites do analysis based on adequate measurements, but the way DxO presents their data it is much more useful.
This site offers a lot of good info: http://www.the-digital-picture.com
The site also show comparisons shots: http://www.the-digital-picture.com and also MTF data: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx
The MTF data here is coming from the optical lab at Lensrentals. (*)
This site is testing lenses at the Hasselblad factory working with the engineer in charge of lens developmemt and testing at Hasselblad. Their data is comparabe with data coming from Zeiss or Leica: http://www.lensfreaks.com
Best regards
Erik
(*) For completeness, I posted some questions regarding MTF plots on some lenses to Roger Cicala, the owner of Lensrentals/Olaf Testing. From the answer I got they are looking into some issues. Another point may be that it is quite possible that cover glass effects need to be taken into account. Conventional wisdom used to be that cover glass thickness doesn't really matter for DSLR lenses, but it may play a greater role than expected.
--- Quote from: John Koerner on December 18, 2015, 10:55:07 pm ---Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
Bernard first brought these sites to my attention, about a year ago, and I find them a lot more user-friendly than DxO Mark. (They also seem to be more up-to-date too.)
LenScore / SenScore
Their rating system seems to make a whole lot more sense too.
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
By contrast, SenScore rates the Nikon D4s the #1 camera across the board, boasting more dynamic range than the D810 (1321 to 928), more color range (1369 to 1073), more tonal range (1139 to 10035), it just does not have the resolving power of the D810 (563 to 1051), as the D4s only has half the megapixels of the D810. I can follow this logic, so the SenScore website makes more sense to me.
The SenScore database compiles its sensor ratings based on Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, and Resolving Power, as well as the combined aggregate (the Final SenScore), all of which are more relevant to me than what the DxO Mark tries to put out. (You can also click on each of these criterion and get a hierarchical order of magnitude based on which of each individual attribute is most important to you.)
For example, if you click on Resolving Power, up top, you see the results in this criteria alone, and it is a landslide for the new Canon 5DS R (1357 compared to the D810's 1051).
By contrast, if you click on Dynamic Range, up top, the new Canon 5DS R has a paltry 850 score compared to the D810's 1028.
(Interestingly, however, the D810 is not at the top of their list for DR, the D4s is.
Anyway, I am just curious as to the credentials of who puts the information out and what criteria they use ... does anyone know?
Jack
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version