#3. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 2
Thom is not your average photobug and his point is valid regarding results from any camera so long as the person behind the camera knows what they are doing. If DXo uses the same criteria for all cameras then the scores they obtain would give potential buyers something to consider when comparing different cameras. I would think that their method to get the results would be more scientific than most of us would attempt.
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. <><
#4. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 2 Tue 09-Nov-10 03:17 AM by visionguru
>Hi, >You might want to read what Thom Hogan has to say about this. >http://www.bythom.com >Enjoy! > >Randy
Thom Hogan's comment is not constructive, it's simple to pick faults at somebody else's work, but it's not so simple to establish benchmark scores that help people comparing two cameras' raw capabilities.
#5. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 2
Thom Hogan is right about the overall scoring, but, there are individual metrics that DXO uses, (such as DR and SNR), and the graphs comparing the sensors really do align with the reality of the sensors.
For instance, compare the SNR graph on the D700, D7000, and D300. You can clearly see the FX advantage at all equivalent ISO, but especially anything over ISO 800 as the SNR stays nearly 3db ahead of the D7000 and 5db ahead of the D300s, all the way to 12500. The graphs are quite linear for each respective sensor,for the most part, and that makes sense, since sensors are linear light gathering devices.
Since the D700 is the first iteration of the FX sensor, it's high ISO is not as good as the D3s, but it is still ahead of ALL DX sensors.
Net out, as the old saying goes, there is no substitute for cubic inches, (IE, pixel size).
All that said, the D7000 looks to be the best DX sensor yet.
#6. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 5 Tue 09-Nov-10 05:45 PM by JPJ
I have read many threads debating the pros and cons of DxO scoring, especially the SNR scores. Some people believe the scoring to be flawed and disconnected from real world photography. Others believe it to be scientifically sound. Real world experience and comparing photographs taken by different cameras in the same circumstances is more useful in my opinion.
According to DxO the FX advantage right now is 2/3rds of a stop for the D700 and about a full stop for the D3s over the D7000.
In comparing photos between the D700 and D7000 at higher ISO's, once demosaicing and basic in camera NR has taken place (which DxO doesn't account for), I don't perceive any real world advantage. From ISO 3200 up the D700 still appears to me to be slightly better in the shadows, but it is not notable.
These results (dxO and real world) are extremely impressive when you consider that the D7000 has 4 more megapixels than the D700.
#7. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 0
I wonder if many of these talking heads with web sites will make outlandish statements just to create buzz and drive traffic to their web sites. The most famous of them is Ken Rockwell. Ken is an admitted childish prankster and you need to have a good BS meter to read his site (his words not mine). Many people focus on the negative side and ignore the fact that amongst the childish pranks and BS are gold nuggets of information and knowledge that would be very beneficial. Another example is Scott Kelby for his dry sense of humor is very off-putting to some. They focus on the negative and will not read or buy his books ignoring the fact that amongst the dry humor is a lot of useful information that applies to the general enthusiast. So perhaps Thom is taking a cue from the master and making some outlandish statements to drive up readership.
To me DxOmark is just one tool in the kit one can use when evaluating models and manufacturers. I often combine their site with information from dpreview and imaging-resource (especially imagining-resource’s Comparometer) to make informed decisions. It gives me the best of all worlds having scientific derived data with real world experiences that along with posts here allow me to make a more informed decision. Anyone relying on just one source of information is just hurting and shorting themselves.
So after reviewing all this data I am going today to my local brick and mortar to check out the D7000 in person. Their web site just announced that they have body only kits just in. If I like what I feel and am lucky, I might have one in my hands to play with tonight.
#8. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 0
St Petersburg, RU
The tests are valid for the single metric tested for. And for each of the single metric tests conducted. Where they are most useless but most anxiously read are the single "conclusion" value. That is the case in any field where there are some technically isolated characteristics that can be tested for in isolation....cars, hi-fi gear, washing machines, etc. People love to have some concrete qualitative ranking that allows one to forget all that messy stuff like correlating influences on distinct and often unrelated testing criteria. I love tests, I do them as a hobby, with a full lab of electronic test instruments. It is fun but it is also revealing in how little the results of isolated metric tests are about the big picture. Tests are done as standardized tests for specs because they are testable, not because they mean anything to the overall suitability of a device. On hi-fi, power output became the first widely done test solely because it was the easiest to perform test. Frequency response was added as a standard test when it became easy to test for in the 1930s. People made judgments and argued about the merits of one product over another due to rankings in single metric tests. The product with the highest number of "good", marks was obviously better. Better at what? Better at passing isolated tests but the ranking had no bearing on the experience of listening. Some of the most unpleasant to listen to systems test extremely well, and some highly regarded test less well. That "preparing for the exam" mentality can result in designers and marketing people building for the tests, rather than the experience. That might be happening in some cameras. Look as the > ISO1600 graphs for the K-5. That is in no way a linear transfer function, the performance is altered for the test in ways that will probably result in a less pleasing visual experience. But doing that wil result in millions of dollars more in sales. The Nikon cameras curves seem to be more real world predictors as a result of not playing tricks for testers. What is the best camera from these rankings? Who knows? The conclusions do not relate well to experience. The best indicator is looking at lots of photos, not pixel peeping but real visual experiences. With cameras isolated noise tests really mean little in which camera produces images that you like. I have not seen a camera in recent years that would fail to produce highly desirable images under the guidance of one who has an idea or vision that means something to others. Tests can be instructive if the limits of the information conveyed is understood but very few people, even many doing the tests realize just how disconnected the testing is from the highly complex task of combining vast numbers of known and unknown criteria in facilitating a desirable visual experience. I am happy the D7000 did well in specialized limited usefulness tests mainly because it is the only camera I can afford and also a runaway best seller for Nikon will mean more R&D budgets for really interesting toys later on.
#10. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 0
What confuses me in those scores is the Dynamic Range performance of the Pentax K-5 and the Nikon D7000, which is higher than any Nikon (even D3x), Hassys, or Phase One cameras tested by DxO !! How is this possible ?!
#11. "RE: D7000 DXo Scores" In response to Reply # 10
It's possible because 1) the sensor read noise is incredibly low at base ISO, 2) pixel saturation is quite high compared to most other sensors. The DR is calculated from sensor saturation divided by read noise.