Camera quality of output summary scores for the top 50 as rated by individually detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews

Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews
(as of 9/18/2019)
https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/

o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116
o 4 Honor 20 Pro 113
o 5 Huawei Mate 20 Pro 112
o 6 OnePlus 7 Pro 111
o 7 jXiaomi Mi 9 110
o 8 Huawei P20 Pro 109
o 9 Samsung Galaxy S10+ 109
o 10 Apple iPhone XS Max 106
o 11 HTC U12+ 103
o 12 Samsung Galaxy Note 9 103
o 13 Xiaomi Mi MIX 3 103
o 14 Google Pixel 3 102
o 15 Apple iPhone XR 101
o 16 Google Pixel 3a 100
o 17 LG G8 ThinQ 99
o 18 Samsung Galaxy S9+ 99
o 19 Xiaomi Mi 8 99
o 20 Google Pixel 2 98
o 21 OnePlus 6T 98
o 22 Apple iPhone X 97
o 23 Huawei Mate 10 Pro 97
o 24 Lenovo Z6 Pro 97
o 25 OnePlus 6 96
o 26 Apple iPhone 8 Plus 94
o 27 LG V40 ThinQ 94
o 28 Samsung Galaxy Note 8 94
o 29 Sony Xperia 1 94
o 30 Xiaomi Pocophone F1 91
o 31 Asus ZenFone 5 90
o 32 Google Pixel 90
o 33 HTC U11 90
o 34 Vivo X20 Plus 90
o 35 Xiaomi Mi Note 3 90
o 36 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 89
o 37 Apple iPhone 7 Plus 88
o 38 Samsung Galaxy A9 86
o 39 Crosscall Trekker-X4 85
o 40 Nokia 9 PureView 85
o 41 LG G7 ThinQ 83
o 42 Samsung Galaxy A50 83
o 43 LG V30 82
o 44 Motorola Moto Z2 Force 82
o 45 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge 82
o 46 Motorola Moto G7 Plus 80
o 47 Apple iPhone 6 73
o 48 Google Nexus 6P 73
o 49 Meizu Pro 7 Plus 71
o 50 Lava Z25 70
o 51 Samsung Galaxy S5 70
o 52 Motorola Moto G5S 69
o 53 Apple iPhone 5s 68
o 54 Nokia 8 68
o 55 Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro (2018) 65

In article , Arlen Holder
wrote:

Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews

they haven't reviewed the 11 yet, but more importantly, their scores
have an arbitrary scale and are completely meaningless. they claim
cameras can do what is physically impossible, in particular, nikon slrs
with a higher dynamic range than the adc limit.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/

o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116

That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results than the
Note 10 Plus.

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116

That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
than the
Note 10 Plus.

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

For the avoidance of doubt, photos taken with my old D300 are far superior to
anything the Note 10 Plus can do to my eyes.

that depends on the subject and type of photo. modern cellphones can do
things slrs cannot, and vice versa.

one example is capturing a depth map so that depth of field can be
changed *after* the photo was taken. slrs can't do that.

also keep in mind that a note 10 fits in a pocket and and slr does not.
as the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.

However, the Hasselblad X1D-50c
-
a medium format sensor - scores 102 in the camera section. Presumably, the
scores use separate scales.

they do, and they're arbitrary.

also, companies can pay dxo for better scores.

Interestingly, the D600/D610 scores one higher than the D750 (94 vs 93). That
really doesn't make sense.

yep.

what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
real world results being a little less.

that means their tests are bull****.

Their scoring system is great for people who choose a camera based on
arbitrary
data. Unfortunately, it doesn't really say a lot about real-world use.

yep.

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
than the
Note 10 Plus.

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

No, further proof that the laws of physics apply.

A larger sensor will have each pixel larger on the silicon, for the same
number of pixels for a large- and small-format camera. This allows the
signal-to-noise ratio to the better, so less signal-processing is needed to
hide the noise which causes a random coloured speckle on the picture. It is
the signal-processing that causes pictures from a camera with a smaller
sensor to be worse - more blurred and with more ghosting artefacts.

My Nikon D90 DSLR can produce far better pictures even at 3200 ASA than my
small compact camera at a lower ASA, which in turn is better than my Samsung
S7 phone. But the differences are less obvious than they were. My older
Samsung phone took photos with really obnoxious compression and
noise-reduction artefacts, whereas my S7 is considerably better - probably
with a similar size sensor and maybe even with more pixels along each axis.
Something has improved.

I suppose eventually we will reach the stage where *in theory, in laboratory
tests* a large sensor can still out-perform a small one, but the small one
is so good that most people can see very little difference. The "good
enough" test is all that matters in real life ;-)

"nospam" wrote in message
...

what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
real world results being a little less.

That's one thing where newer cameras do seem to outperform older ones. My
wife's Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (or 8 - I forget) takes better pictures than my
S7 and even than my Nikon D90 SLR. Not in terms of sharpness, noise and
artefacts (where it is worse than the D90), but in terms of dynamic range.
It somehow manages to produce realistic-looking photos (*) which don't have
such noticeable burnt-out highlights or featureless black shadows.

I wonder if we'll ever get to the stage where digital sensors can match film
for tolerance to over-exposure while retaining at least *some* detail in
very over-exposed highlights. Many years ago I took a lot of long-exposure
night-time photos on Ektachrome slide film - lights in city streets, shop
windows etc. And because I hadn't a clue what exposure to use, given
reciprocity failure and the need to use a blue filter to match daylight film
to tungsten light - things that digital doesn't suffer from, I greatly
over-exposed some of them. The slides look almost transparent. But when I
came to scan them with a film scanner more recently, I was amazed at how
much detail could be recovered with suitable brightness and contrast
compensation. But that's a special case. I'm not a film snob by any means:
the ability to see the results of your work immediately (and learn by
mistakes in exposure etc) and the ability to take an infinite number of
photos "for free" (excluding the cost of the camera and of the recharging of
the battery) make digital vastly superior. But I've not seen a digital
camera produce tones that look *quite* as good as an Agfachrome slide. Mind
you, you can wind up the film speed of digital to unheard-of levels with
film, without the flat muddy pictures of high-speed film, or the garish
clipping of highlight and shadow that you get with push-processing slower
film.

One interesting difference between film and digital: with any slide film
(but especially Kodachrome) it was almost impossible to get realistic colour
rendition under (presumably warm-white) fluorescent tubes - no matter what
filter you used, there was always a green cast. Digital doesn't suffer
anywhere nearly as badly - I've had *fairly* similar results under anything
from tungsten, warm-white fluorescent, daylight fluorescent, LEDs (including
a range of colours available with Philips Hue bulbs) simply by
white-balancing off a sheet of white paper. OK, there are some colours like
deep red and violet which reproduce badly under some lights, but generally
digital seems to cope better with weird lighting.


(*) Some HDR techniques produce pictures with good shadow and highlight
detail, but there's something indefinably false about the tonal rendition,
rather like the artificial-looking "colour plates" that you used to get in
books from the 1950s.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:06:21 -0400, nospam wrote:

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

Hi nospam,

Given you're a well-known charter member of the Apple Apologists...

This statement is hilarious, coming from nospam, for two reasons:
1. All of nospam's claims come from APPLE MARKETING for Christ's sake.
2. Apple never scores well in ANY objective camera QOR tests.

While nospam didn't mention Apple, nospam brazenly denies all facts about
Apple that nospam simply doesn't like.

Such as the fact iPhone camers are almost always in the very bottom of the
top ten for QOR - and that's the MOST EXPENSIVE iPhones on the planet.
o The iPhones most people have are way down on camera quality of results.

Since nospam always fails the adult test of imaginary belief systemss
o Name just one

All we need to do, as adults, is ask nospam for a BETTER review site.
o Name just one

People like nospam can deprecate DXOMark reviews, but what they can't do is
find a BETTER site on this planet that does the builk of mobile phone
camera tests.

Hence, I ask nospam if he can pass the simplest tests of his belief system:
o Name just one

What's a BETTER site for overall mobile phone camera QOR reviews, nospam?
o Name just one

--
HINT: Adult belief systems, which are not imaginary, pass the name just one
test, while childrens' belief systems, which are imaginary, fail every
time.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:57:46 -0400, nospam wrote:

they haven't reviewed the 11 yet, but more importantly, their scores
have an arbitrary scale and are completely meaningless. they claim
cameras can do what is physically impossible, in particular, nikon slrs
with a higher dynamic range than the adc limit.

Hi nospam,

You deprecate the best of the best - and yet - you fail the simple test
o Name just one

Nobody on this newsgroup is unaware that you bull**** always
o And that you're sadistic in sending people on wild goose chases

You have absolutely no purposefully helpful intent in ANY post.
o All you wish to do is claim bogus Apple MARKETING bull****

If you wish to deny that, I'll simply post references proving it.
o You always fail the adult test of imaginary belief systems, nospam.

Constantly, brazenly, consistently - you claim imaginary iOS functionality
o Where you brazenly deny facts out of hand - even facts Apple admits.

Hence, you're even worse than Apple marketing in spewing your bull****.

What proves that you own a completely imaginary beleif system
o Is that you ALWAYAS fail the simple adult test of belief systems.

Name Just One

Yup. Name just one.
o You fail that test of adult belief systems every single time, nospam.

Name just one mobile phone camera review site that is BETTER than DXOMark.
o Name just one

You deprecate the best of the best - and yet - you fail the simple test
o Name just one

--
An adult can pass the simple "name just one" test of belief systems.

In article , NY wrote:

That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
than the
Note 10 Plus.

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

No, further proof that the laws of physics apply.

they always do.

A larger sensor will have each pixel larger on the silicon, for the same
number of pixels for a large- and small-format camera. This allows the
signal-to-noise ratio to the better, so less signal-processing is needed to
hide the noise which causes a random coloured speckle on the picture. It is
the signal-processing that causes pictures from a camera with a smaller
sensor to be worse - more blurred and with more ghosting artefacts.

that depends on the image processing. these days, it's amazingly
sophisticated.

My Nikon D90 DSLR can produce far better pictures even at 3200 ASA than my
small compact camera at a lower ASA, which in turn is better than my Samsung
S7 phone. But the differences are less obvious than they were. My older
Samsung phone took photos with really obnoxious compression and
noise-reduction artefacts, whereas my S7 is considerably better - probably
with a similar size sensor and maybe even with more pixels along each axis.
Something has improved.

try a pixel 3 or iphone 11, in particular, night sight mode and also
portrait mode, where depth of field (and sometimes even focus) can be
changed *after* the photo has been taken.

I suppose eventually we will reach the stage where *in theory, in laboratory
tests* a large sensor can still out-perform a small one, but the small one
is so good that most people can see very little difference. The "good
enough" test is all that matters in real life ;-)

yep.

In article , NY wrote:


I wonder if we'll ever get to the stage where digital sensors can match film
for tolerance to over-exposure while retaining at least *some* detail in
very over-exposed highlights.

digital has a *much* wider dynamic range than film, which means a much
higher tolerance to exposure mistakes.