new DxOmark test results

[DeeJay]

Wow, it's like I wore a Boy George outfit to a Klan meeting!

Hate to burst your bubble boys but I AM a lady.

Reading blogs over the last few days and peoples reactions in various places it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180". One quick look at the high res samples from Nikon and you see how flawed this result is.

I could care less what people use or what people think about what I use. My final image quality is what counts to me and if people want to be fooled into thinking that a Nikon 800 is better than Medium Format then good for them! But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.

And anyway, FYI, the only "chicks" who care about cameras are photographers. Trust me, they are crazy and it won't work out well! But Jeremy in your instance maybe a bigger camera might help you compensate for something else anyway....

[jeremypayne]

Wow, it's like I wore a Boy George outfit to a Klan meeting!

Hate to burst your bubble boys but I AM a lady.

Reading blogs over the last few days and peoples reactions in various places it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180". One quick look at the high res samples from Nikon and you see how flawed this result is.

I could care less what people use or what people think about what I use. My final image quality is what counts to me and if people want to be fooled into thinking that a Nikon 800 is better than Medium Format then good for them! But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.

And anyway, FYI, the only "chicks" who care about cameras are photographers. Trust me, they are crazy and it won't work out well! But Jeremy in your instance maybe a bigger camera might help you compensate for something else anyway....

The fact you don't have a penis is irrelevant ... That was a throw-away meant to lighten the mood.

The real issue is that you don't seem to understand what DXO is and isn't ...

What it is is very valuable, but you need to look past the unified score to the individual measurements.

[DeeJay]

While you assume for some reason I don't understand DxO, please rest assured I can read and have no problems understanding. Perhaps you could care read to my post properly.

"it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180"

[michael]

"But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway,"

You have now made it clear that you are not capable of rational dialog. I'd suggest that you tone down your rhetoric, because you are simply portraying yourself as a known-nothing conspiracy theorist.

If you wamt to engage in this, then I suggest moving to DPReview's forums, where like minded people seem to congregate.

Michael

[theguywitha645d]

But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.

So you don't like the Nikon crowd because they are excited about their new camera. I am not sure why you would care about this group, they obviously don't know enough about DxO to understand the results.

Then you go and attack DxO which provides a valuable service, yet you claim you understand DxO.

But then, that is what photography is all about, having the gear with the best specs...

[david distefano]

i would imagine the reason for the dxo results would have to do with the low light capabilities at high iso for the d800. but since i use a tripod for everything that is a non plus for me and maybe for others. the real test for me is for a landscape 30x40 image from both. the testing equipment would be the eyes.

[MrSmith]

does it really matter what DXO say? it's just a guide and a not very good one at that.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Is the Nikon a MFDB? Never new that.

Seems the MFDB sub forum has become a place to predict the demise of MFDB rather than a place to help out and discuss issues related to the use of MFDB.

Meanwhile I continue to make good money from my MFDB.

Not learning anything here at the moment. Thanks guys. It has been facinating.

[NikoJorj]

But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, [...]

Nope, you aren't even close.
DxO is actually funded by aliens who plan to invade earth, and they have to wipe off good cameras off the market, as Canon's ones for one, and as MFDBs for two, because they don't really like to be photographed you know. With nikons it's okay because images are so blurry and inconclusive. My chaman just explained me that you know.

[DeeJay]

"But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway,"

You have now made it clear that you are not capable of rational dialog. I'd suggest that you tone down your rhetoric, because you are simply portraying yourself as a known-nothing conspiracy theorist.

If you wamt to engage in this, then I suggest moving to DPReview's forums, where like minded people seem to congregate.

Michael

Ouch. Your presuming an awful lot there Michael.

One hypothetical suggestion and I'm branded an irrational conspiracy theorist? How very rational of of you!

It's clear this place really is no different to dpreview...bye bye.

[Mr. Rib]

I think we should all wait and see what D800E delivers with our own eyes, just as with the newly announced Canon. I decided not to buy anything just yet and see what are these cameras capable of with their prioprietary lenses in front- because let's not forget that these are just cameras.. let's see how does a 36mp sensor work with Nikkor lenses (I don't think I'd be using a D800 with a tech camera and probably most of other photogs here wouldn't do so as well). And I don't get the negative reactions- let other people speculate, MF will prevail (for now) and we may just get another great tool for taking photos.. it's a win-win situation for everyone.

[torger]

Sensor-wise I think we already with say 5d mark 2 passed the line that you can use any camera you like to make gallery quality. Sure there are differences, but only specialists detect them. You can concentrate on image content.

Now it is more about what camera you like to work with. I just recently invested in medium format to be able to use a tech camera. Image quality will actually be worse than d800 since I need to use a 7 year old 22 megapixel back to stay in budget, but still good enough for quality prints, and that is enough for me, to start with at least :-).

I have noted though that MF image quality is sometimes praised in similar way as some audiophile high end gear like extremely expensive loudspeaker cables. Said to be vastly better in several unmeasurable ways obvious to anyone with golden ears. To me it seems that sometimes one needs "golden eyes" to fully appreciate medium format image quality ;-).

[marcmccalmont]

In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade  is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc

[torger]

In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade  is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc

A good idea. The single metric that is easiest to see in real pictures after post-processing is complete is resolution (assuming detailed contents and large prints which you can nose). I think MF has its space in 40 - 100 megapixels, when you need that kind of resolution I don't think current lens manufacturing technology can deliver the resolving power to the small 135 format (not corner-to-corner at least), but in the larger medium format it is already possible. An MF SLR with 40 megapixel or less has serious competition these days though,  but I guess low res backs can continue to exist as a low cost entry level for those that want to start invest in MF gear (body, lenses) but upgrade to higher resolution later.

[EricWHiss]

Marc,
I think your suggestion is a good one. Looking at DxO that way might make mor sense- but still I never use it to compare very dissimilar cameras.  it's great to see stuff like d700 v d800 but I think the differences between th
e MFDB and dslr platform are so big that apples to apples type of comparisons can't be easily made.

Michael,
At least to me your post to DeeJay came across as overly harsh.  i've read plenty of DxO bashing on these forums and not seen that response before. 

Certainly she was right in her point about downloading and comparing samples - where the differences between d800 and iq180 seem much larger than DxO figures.

[torger]

The interesting part is what does this difference between IQ180 and D800 come from?

Is it sharper lenses rendering sharper pixels so it looks nicer pixel-peeped? Is it the obvious difference in overall resolution, 36 vs 80 megapixels? Or is it so that also a reduced size on-screen image is superior perhaps in color or some other aspect unrelated to resolution?

To me, small sized images look good out of any camera these days assuming a good post-processing procedure. So the only real advantage in practical photography I can see is the increased resolution (you may like the handling of MF cameras and look of lenses etc too of course), which indeed is an attractive one for us that like to print large and then do some nosing. What I can find a bit provoking though is unbacked claims of the type that dynamic range is several stops better, it registers many more shades of color etc when the measurements do not show that and my eyes can't see it. I haven't done print comparisons side by side though, so perhaps there is some secret sauce there...

Should be noted that DxOMark does take resolution into account if you select "print" mode, but then only from a signal/noise ratio. So if you absolutely love resolution the difference shown is too small.

[hjulenissen]

Quote: "why is it so important when i read those ff forums that they want to see the death of medium format photography?"

Well, I certainly can't speak for anyone at that forum, but I would imaging envy is at least partly involved. I mean, most amateurs/hobbyists can't afford MF equipment (digital, anyway). Course, I really don't understand the need to wish for the early demise of MF..sheesh, just enjoy the equipment you've got and make the most of it.

If FF is ever able to "beat"*) MF at a lower price, every camera user should be happy for it. It means that more people can do more for less, how can that be a bad thing (except for the manufacturers)?

I can see why people interested in photography would want such a development, perhaps to the point where they would make poorly founded claims that it will happen with the upcoming generation of cameras.

-h
*)Define this to taste: spatial resolution, image "pop", DR, whatever consitutes a "better" image in your eyes

[jduncan]

But history has shown the statement not to be true. When 35mm sensors hit about 20MP, it did not seem to stop sales of the MFD backs/camera in that range. Nor did the companies seem really to suffer and you can still buy 22MP backs from Phase and Leaf and the sales are doing fine from what I hear. DSLR customers are not simply MFD customers with not enough money. In the silver age of photography, 35mm was not king because larger formats were simply more expensive. The DSLR/35mm customer is just a different animal. Just as the MFD/large format shooter was a different animal. Your mistake comes from thinking the choice is simply economic and based on matching the number of pixels. Art is not an economic problem.

They did not stop, but we did see a lot of work that was been done with medium format going to DSLR.

 Since this is electronics; is not enough to have the same level of sales. Development cots rise.
There is a level of sales you really need in order to remain competitive. 

For professionals MF system is an inversion that needs to be recovered. For wealthy amateurs it's not. So they do have the alternative of changing the market segment.  Even if they do, so they need to invest.

My points:
1. The D800, even in accordance with DxO is still a DSLR in terms of color rendition.  They can not touch the quality MF gives for still life. Hasselbad has the 200MS and Phase one the IQ180. I am on the theory that even the 40s will be better than the D800 on this application.
2. Remember that the IQ series has such a good result because of the low resolution mode. For the IQ180 it means 20MP more than needed on most cases, but less than the new Canon and Nikon machines
3. MF is not dead, not even close, but they need to act fast, before is too late and get push to a "looks" niche.
4. Remember that is a system component. The Canon and Nikon systems are far ahead. This includes increasingly popular the wireless and video options.

Best regards,

James

[eronald]

In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade  is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc

The problem with DxO is that their tests seem ok, what they mean (S/n vs DR) is less clear, and then the aggregated score is a joke, as you point out.

On the other hand, I have a D4, and find that -as usual- the interesting questions are the focus, metering, ability to take images on the fly, all stuff which MF users of studio flash don't really care about, and shouldn't be paying for, and which DxO is not testing.


Edmund

[torger]

1. The D800, even in accordance with DxO is still a DSLR in terms of color rendition.  They can not touch the quality MF gives for still life. Hasselbad has the 200MS and Phase one the IQ180. I am on the theory that even the 40s will be better than the D800 on this application.

I'm curious about this color rendition thing. Multishot backs will obviously yield better colors on pixel level thanks to complete RGB information in each pixel. But the IQ180? I don't see any large differences in DxO data on color response and color sensitivity, and my (untrained?) eyes don't manage to detect huge differences on the (few) examples I have seen, but perhaps I'm missing something? I was kind of suspecting that color rendition superiority was more about good icc defaults in capture one than the backs actually registering more color information. But I've heard several talk about this superior color rendition so I'm thinking that I may be missing something. Is there perhaps a nice demonstration on the web somewhere?