Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If the god worshipped here, DXO Mark and their DR reports the final word in absolute quality no matter what here in UHH then why?
The Canon R5 has superior DXO Mark DR than the Sony A1 yet there are no UHH songs and prayers to the R5 as being sent from heaven as is done with Sony and Nikon products.

Just an observation that I find interesting.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I much prefer/trust the DR testing methodology and accuracy from the Photons to Photos website (which is run by a UHH member and whose methodology is extensively documented and available). When DXO reports DRs in excess of 16 bits from 14 or 16 bit data, they’ve lost any credibility with me for that measurement.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

I don't have much interest as to what camera or brand that is being touted as the "best of the rest" by whoever deems it so.
I buy and use different brands of cameras. Some I like better than others, but I am no fan boy to any particular brand.
It's not what tool you use, but how you use it.

will

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Quite a different comment than what has been expressed in the worship of DXO Mark in the recent past regarding the almighty god of DR as the only thing of value in a camera.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Until very recently Canon was seen as falling behind and playing catch-up when it came to dynamic range and noise levels. On the other hand Sony and Nikon were seen as the ones that were taking things forward and setting new standards, which explains the interest and enthusiasm that was shown to their recent products. And it wasn't just a case of the methods of evaluating performance giving misleading results. It was a well observed fact amongst users and reviewers that Canons were more likely to produce noisier files under trying circumstances when comparing like with like. The latest offerings from Canon should change that perception of the brand.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

Nikon is so far behind Cannon, Cannon is playing catch up with Nikon, Sony was good but is lagging behind cannon.I read something different every day here. That is why the sites like DXO are so great. They actually have numbers to back up claims.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

As long as humans operate equipment DXO marks are meaningless. Photographs are not taken in a sterile environment of DXO labs. Photographs are taken in the real world, where Photographers are more important than DXO marks. Sorry Charlie. Welcome to the real world and not the DXO fantasy world.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It is good to see Canon beginning to catch up. Still, their highest rated sensor overall is 14th among FF cameras. The R5 sensor edges out the A1's by 1/10 of one EV, with the Sony rated significantly higher in color depth and noise. In the real world, though, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Welcome to the big leagues Canon!

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

Exactly. I read a review over the weekend on my 300-800 Sigma. The guy said exactly what you did. The lab results are nice but don't mean diddley in the field. It's the operator and conditions that decide the outcome. Not the lab results of.05 more or less than another brand.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The only ISO where DxOMark shows that is at about ISO 400.

It just happens that the Sony switches to the high ISO noise reduction approach at ISO 500 (according to Photons to Photos). The A1 is better at all ISO settings except 400.

High ISO noise reduction does not invalidate the fact that every camera loses about a whole stop of DR each time you double the ISO.

Noise at low ISO is virtually impossible to see. It only matters if you are trying to recover underexposed shadow values.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

All of their measurements are intended to show that newer cameras perform better than their predecessors. Once they painted themselves into a corner with unreal DR results they got stuck with that.

It's impossible to see any rational behind DxOMark's DR numbers. You can't possibly reach 14 with 14-bit or 16 with 16-bit. We might just as well ignore that graph.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Architect1776 how many years have you been using DxOMark?
And for what purpose?

In my humble estimation you seem to be intent on creating controversy with this post, why?
What does your post bring to the table for serious photographers? Other than obsessing over Dynamic Range.

I've been using DxOmark for many years... Love the information DxOMark brings to the table...
Primarily for their superb lens tests... love how they show acuity over the range of apertures.
I've confirmed their results with my testing for the examples below...

DxOMark's lens testing is stellar...
DxOMark Score Maps cover
Sharpness
Transmission
Distortion
Vignetting
Chromatic aberration

See example below for my Soccer Lens (AF S 200-400mm F4G ED VR Nikkor)...

Architect1776 please take time to explore DxOMark to fully understand what they bring to the image equation.
If you have a problem with their scores because you're a fan boy of a particular brand that is your opinion... But it is only an uncorroborated opinion... Pleases consider showing UHH members your imagery so they can judge the merit of your credibility.

As for sensors and dynamic range? not really interested...
Not in the market for a replacement to my two Nikon D3x's since they are currently still paying the bills...

Wishing you all the best on your epic photographic journey Architect1776
.

Global Acuity Map over entire 2X Zoom Range at each Aperture

(Download)

Field Map of Acuity at f/4 for FL of 400mm

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

When it comes to comparing lenses there are lots of detailed reviews available, most of them more relevant and useful than DxOMark's numeric values.

But you are off topic. The subject of this thread is DR.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Canon IS the “big leagues” (and has been for decades) - compare the market share of Canon to any other brand. The fact is that the recent top end cameras from Canon, Sony and Nikon all have very similar DRs and low light/high ISO performance - a quick look at the tabulation below the graph in the Photons to Photos Web site will confirm that.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Scotty, you and I agree!

BTW, Bill Claff (a UHH member) for those that don’t know, runs Photons to Photos, and has an extensive array of white papers defining his methodology.