1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DxOMark have tested SLT A55

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by P_Stoddart, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    But does [pi]anybody[/i] trust the DxOMark tests? :D
     
  3. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well it was Roger Provins who first pointed me to this site. It does seem to confirm what photographers find when using the cameras tested. They do use a pure science approach when testing cameras.

    If we assum they test all cameras the same. Then a score of 73 is quite good. Just below the Canon 1D MKIV. Probably because the low-light is better on the Canon.
     
  4. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member


    ... only when a Canon gets high marks. :eek: :) :)
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Absolute nonsense.
     
  6. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well I can only take what they promise at face value. Assuming they test all cameras in the same way. Which they say they do.

    What camera have they tested that you disagree with their score? :D
     
  7. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    About as mush as I put in K-Rockwells tests.

    BTW - Is it just me that thinks "SLT A55" look like a dodgy car number plate?
     
  8. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Okay now we have two saying they don't trust DxO. Just a statement with no examples/references/reasons is not much help to the rest of us. Please can we know why? :D
     
  9. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    Roger, you must remember how bitter some of our friends must be that having paid a fortune for, say, a Canon 1Ds III and DxO only score it one point above the cheap a900. :D
     
  10. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    No bitterness at all, I just see and read various reviews from more reliable sources that totally contradict what they say on that website. Also contridicts with my own experiences and those of people I know and trust with some of the gear that is tested there.

    I'm more likely to believe evidence that is presented in front of me from 'real life' people and experience than what they say.
     
  11. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    May we have a link or two to these contradictory reports please?
     
  12. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Sorry, but as I don't have bookmarks for them, nor can I recall them off the top of my head without several hours of trawling the web to try and work out where they were and what I was looking for at the time... No.

    But I will, the next time I disagree with one of their reviews, bookmark it and post cross referenced material and ask my friends who show me alternative evidence to post their results online so I can then post it here.
     
  13. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Results I might add supported by AP review when they test the A850 a similar camera. AP gave it 28/30 for noise handling and 9/10 for dynamic range which it confirm at 12EV. It scored 28/30 right up to 3200ISO raw.

    But you have to way up the benefit of Canon glassware.

    AP also seem to confirm the performance of the SLT A33 as well. Marking down it's noise performance. But agreeing the dynamic range at 12EV.
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Do a search here, for starters. Frankly, if there's a more misleading measure than DxOMark, I've yet to see it; it's certainly not "scientific" in any sense of the word I'm familiar with, although it's fair to say that there is some science in it - but none that provides any consistency or value in the results, IMHO. I honestly didn't think anyone took it at face value, I really didn't - I'm rather shocked, TBH.
     
  15. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    I find the Zeiss and Sony 'G' lenses fairly passable.

    The thing with DxO is that the various lens and body modules are the result of extensive empirical testing. DxO software is terrific and that isn't an accident.
    Well Google didn't give me much help. Is there a better search engine?
     
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I like the software, actually. And it's nothing to do with relative scores from different cameras - I don't even know them, as the thing is so pants as a guide to photography I don't check 'em. OK, enough of my opinions - a challenge, to anyone who wishes to take it up:

    Firstly, find out about DxOMark - what it does, how it does it - and then consider if that's a correct approach to genuinely considering the relative performance of cameras.
    Check out the strengths and weaknesses of this tool, and consider if that really is a genuine reflection of what's important in camera performance. Check out how it relates to the performance of a system - camera and lens together - and if that actually gives a truthful verdict for your given definition of truth.

    And finally, consider if any form of scientific testing actually tells you anything at all about real-world photography, and the suitability or otherwise of any piece of kit for what you want it for.

    Having done that, you'll certainly have no need of my opinions, you'll have your own, grounded in fact and not spoon-fed by anyone at all.
     
  17. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    I don't suggest that DxOMark is used alone. But a important point is they don't compare cameras. They compare sensors within cameras and lenses seperately. Their dynamic range tests seem to be confirmed by other reviewing site including AP.

    I would say that possibly they do give to much weight to the dynamic range and colour depth when calculating the sensor ranking. The most noticeable issues with a sensor IMHO is noise appearing at higher settings. A true killer of image quality. I alway look at the actual figures of a sensor not just their ranking.

    From looking at test images of cameras. The noise bite point seems to be confirmed.

    My view on cameras is that everything else in a camera is a aid to getting the shot. AF, AE, viewfinder, FPS etc. It is the lens and the sensor/film that gives you the final image. If either of them are rubbish then it does not matter how good the AF etc is. Before AF and high FPS sport photographers for example were still able to take great shots.
     

Share This Page