11-05-2010, 05:46 PM
[quote name='Christos' timestamp='1288977826' post='3974']
I don't know really how to read this but what I do know is that it scored the same as the D3s (but the K-5 is better in DR and Color Depth) and that is unbelievable it pretty much squashes the 7D, but in the high ISO would the 5D II be like a half stop better? as the 5D II scored 1815 and the K-5 1162
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-S...3%29/Nikon
[/quote]
Forget it. Dxo tests a dont tell you anything about real-life camera performance in actual photography. They are contradictory to many other testing sites. The "scientific" method DXo uses and the zillions of graphs they employ only gives them the appaerance of being particularly reliable. (It may well be that the K5 is better than the 7D, I have no clue).
Just look at their test of the Canon 16-35mm lens. Look especially at the resolution graph for the 16mm end. Isnt that funny? According to dxo the border ond edges are a lot sharper at f/2.8 than they are at f/8. What a joke. Anybody who has ever shot with that lens can tell you that stopping down increases edge sharpness and not dereases it.
Regarding cameras: One thing that strikes me is that the measuremnts totally ignore the pixel count of cameras. A camera with more pixels can deliver higher image quality than a camera with less pixels even if its noise perfomance is slightly worse.
In addition, all the other measurments regarding dynamic range etc, quite often do not conform to what I am seeing from real life images.(e.g. that one camera is better than the other; quite often I would visually judge a camera equal or better while DXo considers it to be worse than another camera)
Whats also weird is that according to dxo the k5 has more than two stops more dynamic range at iso 100 than the 5D MArk II. Of course I cant totally deny that this is correct, because I havent seen any K5 images yet, but it seems highly unlikely. 14 stops DR would be absolutly revolutionary for a sensor with this high a pixel density.
My only explantion is that Dxo have adopted some sort of theoratical measuring method, which has absolutly nothing to do with the visual results that a camera or lens can produce. Really, stay away form their testing site. Their software is good, but they know shit about testing equipment in a practical relevant way.
If you want to know which camera is better for you, download raw files from each camera, once they are available and open them with your preferred raw converter. Now you can see which camera gives the best results for your workflow. http://www.imaging-resource.com is a good source for comparable raw files shot under the same lighting conditions.
I don't know really how to read this but what I do know is that it scored the same as the D3s (but the K-5 is better in DR and Color Depth) and that is unbelievable it pretty much squashes the 7D, but in the high ISO would the 5D II be like a half stop better? as the 5D II scored 1815 and the K-5 1162
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-S...3%29/Nikon
[/quote]
Forget it. Dxo tests a dont tell you anything about real-life camera performance in actual photography. They are contradictory to many other testing sites. The "scientific" method DXo uses and the zillions of graphs they employ only gives them the appaerance of being particularly reliable. (It may well be that the K5 is better than the 7D, I have no clue).
Just look at their test of the Canon 16-35mm lens. Look especially at the resolution graph for the 16mm end. Isnt that funny? According to dxo the border ond edges are a lot sharper at f/2.8 than they are at f/8. What a joke. Anybody who has ever shot with that lens can tell you that stopping down increases edge sharpness and not dereases it.
Regarding cameras: One thing that strikes me is that the measuremnts totally ignore the pixel count of cameras. A camera with more pixels can deliver higher image quality than a camera with less pixels even if its noise perfomance is slightly worse.
In addition, all the other measurments regarding dynamic range etc, quite often do not conform to what I am seeing from real life images.(e.g. that one camera is better than the other; quite often I would visually judge a camera equal or better while DXo considers it to be worse than another camera)
Whats also weird is that according to dxo the k5 has more than two stops more dynamic range at iso 100 than the 5D MArk II. Of course I cant totally deny that this is correct, because I havent seen any K5 images yet, but it seems highly unlikely. 14 stops DR would be absolutly revolutionary for a sensor with this high a pixel density.
My only explantion is that Dxo have adopted some sort of theoratical measuring method, which has absolutly nothing to do with the visual results that a camera or lens can produce. Really, stay away form their testing site. Their software is good, but they know shit about testing equipment in a practical relevant way.
If you want to know which camera is better for you, download raw files from each camera, once they are available and open them with your preferred raw converter. Now you can see which camera gives the best results for your workflow. http://www.imaging-resource.com is a good source for comparable raw files shot under the same lighting conditions.