DXO Labs (kin of DXO Mark) in receivership (like US Chapter 11?)

[BJL]

No forum exactly fits for this news, but their software is almost "shooting gear" and the scoring from their partner DXO Mark seems to be how some folks around here assess shooting gear. Despite being a rumor site, this reads like solid news.
http://www.canonrumors.com/industry-news-dxo-labs-goes-into-receivership/

Hopefully it can be dealt with "reorganization" and is not a slippery slope towards liquidation.

[Ray]

Never mind, BJL. Now that most DSLR brands have much improved DR capabilities, the possible liquidation and disappearance of DXO Labs should not be of much concern to you. 

However, it's interesting that this news comes from a Canon related site. I imagine that owners of Canon equipment would be relieved if they were no longer confronted with the relatively poor DR measurements of their cameras, that are advertised on the DXOMark site. 

I certainly hope the Lab does not go into liquidation because I've always been impressed with the objectivity of their measuring procedures. Objectivity and impartiality are greatly lacking in the advertising world.

[BJL]

However, it's interesting that this news comes from a Canon related site. I imagine that owners of Canon equipment would be relieved if they were no longer confronted with the relatively poor DR measurements of their cameras, that are advertised on the DXOMark site. 

Congratulations Ray, on turning some news that I thought could be of interest or concern (and presented sympathetically to DXO notwithstanding my criticism of _some_ aspects of their work) into yet another opportunity to talk trash about a camera system other than the one that you currently prefer.

[Rand47]

Congratulations Ray, on turning some news that I thought could be of interest or concern (and presented sympathetically to DXO notwithstanding my criticism of _some_ aspects of their work) into yet another opportunity to talk trash about a camera system other than the one that you currently prefer.

There’s always the ignore list.    I receive no more FUD from Ray and a few others of that ilk.

On topic, it will be interesting to see what develops.  Thanks for the info.

Rand

[Ray]

Congratulations Ray, on turning some news that I thought could be of interest or concern (and presented sympathetically to DXO notwithstanding my criticism of _some_ aspects of their work) into yet another opportunity to talk trash about a camera system other than the one that you currently prefer.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I admire DXO for their objectivity and impartiality and also wrote, 'I certainly hope the Lab does not go into liquidation.'

What aspect of my comments, precisely, do you consider to be trash. Was there anything in my post which you don't consider to be factual? Did you also fail to notice the wink?

It is a fact that all Canon DSLRs, since the introduction of the first Nikon full-frame DSLR, have had a significantly lower DR rating at base ISO, than Nikon, although the gap has been significantly reduced with the latest 5D Mk IV. That is not trash. It's a fact.

It is also a fact, which I have observed on many forums, that people who own cameras with a lower-than-best DR rating, tend to downplay the significance of DR in their photography, which is quite a normal reaction, but not necessarily objective.

[BernardLanguillier]

The fact that this sad piece of news shows up on a Canon rumor site tells us mostly that the owner of that site thinks that a majority of Canon owners reading these rumor sites do not like DXO, which can be rephrased as “the owner of a site designed for Canon fanboys thinks that Canon fanboys don’t like facts showing their brand in a poor light”...

I think it is fair to say that this is not surprising.

On the other hand, this reaction about not liking DxO is of course idiotic, because it should be clear to all that the decent DR of the 5D mkIV results from DxO’s work.

This is the ironic nature of fanboyism, is that it is in the end a self-defeating strategy because it is about supporting the belief of a brand that issues are not important while these issues impact the very people denying their existence...

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

It is a fact that all Canon DSLRs, since the introduction of the first Nikon full-frame DSLR, have had a significantly lower DR rating at base ISO, than Nikon, although the gap has been significantly reduced with the latest 5D Mk IV. That is not trash. It's a fact.

Not true.

Nikon's advantage only started with the Exmor sensor in the D3x. Prior to that, they were all at the same level: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201Ds%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D3,Nikon%20D3S

It's just that Nikon progressed, while Canon didn't.

If Canon had kept up DR-wise, Sony may not be a camera company at the moment. The E-mount's success owes a lot to Canon shooters jumping ship, driven in no small part by Canon's DR and resolution stagnation in the days of the A7r/A7r2, and the ability to use adapted lenses. These users formed a significant part of E-mount's early user base. Had they not been able to do that, they may have been relegated to selling sensors to everyone else.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not true.

Nikon's advantage only started with the Exmor sensor in the D3x. Prior to that, they were all at the same level:

Indeed. 9.5 years already!

Such an incredibly long time considering the pace of innovation in the digital age. Facebook only had 100 millions users then (compared to 2.2 billions nowadays).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

Many reason to jump ship. I left Canon for Sony almost two years ago. DR wasn’t a biggie for me. Landscape wise it was easy to nail two rapid exposures two stops apart and sort that out in post if that was an issue. Anyway I shoot mostly commercial products so I control the contrast with my lighting. The extra DR is cool to have though. Makes life easy

The issue for me was really wanting to move mirrorless. Bought a small Sony to use for my personal work and could immediately see advantages for my commercial workflow. Totally mirrorless now. My first camera was a Minolta. Back in 1974. Sony kind of reminds of Minolta.

I don’t think these conspiracy theories about Canon users doing all this weird stuff to defend their position makes much sense. I know dozens of photographers shooting all sorts of gear and mostly they just get on with it. I like Sony. Used to like Canon. Before that liked Nikon. Owned a few Mamiyas and a couple of Linhoffs. Even the Yashika was reasonable. Sinar was nice. Had a lovely Pentax 6x7.

The reasons people choose gear can be interesting but it says more about how and what they shoot than the quality of the gear.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don’t think these conspiracy theories about Canon users doing all this weird stuff to defend their position makes much sense.

I surely hope you are right, but that's not at all the feeling I have had browsing through the DPreview forums throughout the years. 

Now, I do agree, the real photographers I know are all not that interested in gear so it could be that the DPreview fanboys are mostly on Canon's paycheck.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Not true.

Nikon's advantage only started with the Exmor sensor in the D3x. Prior to that, they were all at the same level: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201Ds%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D3,Nikon%20D3S

Yes. I made a slight error. I admit it's not true at base ISO for the D3. According to DXOMark, the Nikon D3 had only about 0.25 EV better DR at base ISO than Canon's top of the range 1DsMk3.  A quarter stop of DR advantage is of little significance. I was thinking of the Canon 5D, which I was using at the time the D3 was released.

However, at ISO 400 and above, the DR of the Nikon D3 is significantly better than the 1DsMk3. The D3 caused a lot of excitement at the time of its release because of its dramatically improved performance at high ISO.

[shadowblade]

Yes. I made a slight error. I admit it's not true at base ISO for the D3. According to DXOMark, the Nikon D3 had only about 0.25 EV better DR at base ISO than Canon's top of the range 1DsMk3.  A quarter stop of DR advantage is of little significance. I was thinking of the Canon 5D, which I was using at the time the D3 was released.

However, at ISO 400 and above, the DR of the Nikon D3 is significantly better than the 1DsMk3. The D3 caused a lot of excitement at the time of its release because of its dramatically improved performance at high ISO.

The Photons to Photos PDR-vs-ISO chart shows no such advantage. The 1Ds3, 5D2, D3 and D700 all stick close to each other in a bunch, with thr lines crossing each other multiple times.

And the excitement surrounding the D3 had nothing to do with high ISO - merely the fact that Nikon had finally released a full-frame camera.

[Paulo Bizarro]

This is the ironic nature of fanboyism, is that it is in the end a self-defeating strategy because it is about supporting the belief of a brand that issues are not important while these issues impact the very people denying their existence...

Cheers,
Bernard

Right... I can remember clearly the days when Nikon users would deny the advantages of:

1. FF digital cameras, even years after Canon had them. This was, of course, until Nikon introduced them.

2. USM motors for AF lenses. Again, Canon was ahead of Nikon.

3. Image stabilization. Was only recognized as important for Nikon users after Nikon had them.

The list goes on...

[BernardLanguillier]

Right... I can remember clearly the days when Nikon users would deny the advantages of:

1. FF digital cameras, even years after Canon had them. This was, of course, until Nikon introduced them.

2. USM motors for AF lenses. Again, Canon was ahead of Nikon.

3. Image stabilization. Was only recognized as important for Nikon users after Nikon had them.

There were certainly some Nikon users in denial, but I believe that most Nikon users were happy to know that this option was available and honnestly admiring the innovation delivered by Canon.

At least I know I was.

It never meant I agreed that no good images could be taken with a D2X, it even had some value for landscape work, had better auto-ISO (and still do),... but that is beside the point.

Cheers,
Bernard

[digitaldog]

No forum exactly fits for this news, but their software is almost "shooting gear" and the scoring from their partner DXO Mark seems to be how some folks around here assess shooting gear. Despite being a rumor site, this reads like solid news.
http://www.canonrumors.com/industry-news-dxo-labs-goes-into-receivership/

Hopefully it can be dealt with "reorganization" and is not a slippery slope towards liquidation.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8082926726/dxo-labs-begins-bankruptcy-process-in-france-says-customers-will-not-be-affected

[NancyP]

There are people out there who still enjoy using their Canon cameras.

[BernardLanguillier]

There are people out there who still enjoy using their Canon cameras.

And it is obvious that excellent images can be taken with Canon cameras.

And I am also sure that a large majority of Canon users also value the information provided by DxO and their converters.

Cheers,
Bernard

[FabienP]

No forum exactly fits for this news, but their software is almost "shooting gear" and the scoring from their partner DXO Mark seems to be how some folks around here assess shooting gear. Despite being a rumor site, this reads like solid news.
http://www.canonrumors.com/industry-news-dxo-labs-goes-into-receivership/

Hopefully it can be dealt with "reorganization" and is not a slippery slope towards liquidation.

Ironically, DxO's attempt at manufacturing shooting gear in the form of the DxO ONE addon camera for the iPhone is probably what triggered their financial problems, so the choice of this forum is more fitting than it first seems.

I would be sad to see their applications go away as some features are unmatched by the other RAW developers out there. I think mostly about the denoising algorithms and the deconvolution capture sharpening which applies different corrections depending on the distance to the centre of the lens.

For this reason, I use DxO PhotoLab as a pre-processing step before exporting a linear DNG to Lightroom to finish with colour tuning and localised adjustments.

If maintenance of the applications in their current form is no longer possible, I hope that another RAW developer such as Camera Raw / Lightroom or C1 will license the technologies of DxO and implement those into their own products.

Mais il ne faut pas désespérer Billancourt. There might still be hope.

Cheers,

Fabien

[chez]

I view this post on the Canon rumours site a bit differently. Seems like anything new out of Canon is very slow coming so the runours site needs to keep busy by posting information on things other than Canon.

[davidgp]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8082926726/dxo-labs-begins-bankruptcy-process-in-france-says-customers-will-not-be-affected

As the news linked by Andrew clearly says, don’t worry guys, you will still have your DXO Mark tests... the company split in two some months ago... DXO Labs and DXO Mark two independent companies now... the labs one is the one filling for bankruptcy...

Everybody will still be able to complain that DXO Mark is not a good test or that it demonstrates that one brand is the best...


http://dgpfotografia.com