Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: DxOMark 2010

  1. #21

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Reportage View Post
    what i have been noticing is that when DXO produces a result not shared by general public, its not taken seriously. But when it produces results that is somewhat expected then almost everyone refers to it.
    The fact of the matter is to use real side-by-side comparison shots. This is an example of how it can be done for sensors and another example to illustrate how it can be done for lenses. Forget DXOMark. There are far too many reliable sites out there which carry out careful, detailed & meaningful tests. At worst, spend a bit of money, rent some gear and carry out your own tests. LOL. Now, seriously, that's what I do sometimes...
    Last edited by doodah; 9th November 2010 at 12:28 AM.

  2. #22
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,422

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Reportage View Post
    one more thing as well. This is provided that the iso used is indeed the iso used. Who is to say that various brands iso 6400 is the same as everyone else`s iso 6400 or is there a Industrial Standard for iso?
    Read, slowly It's just a few clicks away.
    ISO
    ISO in film speed

    what i have been noticing is that when DXO produces a result not shared by general public, its not taken seriously. But when it produces results that is somewhat expected then almost everyone refers to it.
    Nothing unusual, mankind reacts this way since it came down from the trees in African Savannah. Nothing that is limited to photography or DXO only.
    EOS

  3. #23

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    DPReview editors once said something about the definition of ISO some time ago... let me go dig up the link when I get home... the bottomline is this: what you get from real images is far more useful than the meaningless numbers spewed out by DXOMark. The definition given by DXOMark is not wrong, it's just NOT useful.
    Last edited by doodah; 9th November 2010 at 01:52 PM.

  4. #24
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    D7000 rated: http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/08/dx...spx#more-15759

    For APS-C, second only to... Pentax K-5.

    D700 and D300s both lower... looks like this is a good buy.

  5. #25

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    D7000 rated: http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/08/dx...spx#more-15759

    For APS-C, second only to... Pentax K-5.

    D700 and D300s both lower... looks like this is a good buy.
    Precisely why the D7000 & K-5 appeal to Singaporeans who are always looking for a good buy without thinking through...

  6. #26

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by doodah View Post
    Precisely why the D7000 & K-5 appeal to Singaporeans who are always looking for a good buy without thinking through...
    by making this statement, you slime every single d7000 and k-5 purchaser as people who do not think through the purchases.

    i suppose you are pushing forth the argument that canon purchasers are thinking people.

    time to recount the moment when this canon user handed me his camera on a tripod and told me "can you teach me? help me compose"... and then i gaped at him and he said "you compose already, i press shutter".. true story.

    could you elaborate further? i suspect your argument would not hold much water, since most people who are into photographer and not number measurbation would agree that most cameras today are on par, the user makes the difference.

  7. #27

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    by making this statement, you slime every single d7000 and k-5 purchaser as people who do not think through the purchases..
    That was not my intention. I was merely making fun of the fact how people often look at numbers without really considering whether any of it makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    most people who are into photographer and not number measurbation would agree that most cameras today are on par, the user makes the difference.
    Yup. That was indeed my original intent. True side-by-side comparison will reveal very little difference between cameras. That is why I challenge folks to carry out their own side-by-side testing and see the results for themselves. Indeed, the user makes the difference.
    Last edited by doodah; 9th November 2010 at 03:37 PM.

  8. #28

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by doodah View Post

    Yup. That was indeed my original intent. True side-by-side comparison will reveal very little difference between cameras. Indeed, the user makes the difference.
    good that you feel that way.

    at the end of the day, 2 stops difference in DR matters, but not that much. it's a "good to have", but not a "must have"...

    which is why i haven't gotten the k-5 yet.

  9. #29

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    at the end of the day, 2 stops difference in DR matters, but not that much. it's a "good to have", but not a "must have"...
    Two stops mean a lot of difference... IF it's real.

    Or is it just what this Pentax expert talks about:

    "The d5000 owner demonstrated carefully shot sequence of heavily underexposed shots that clearly shows adding constant offset to the dark level which exhibit itself by gradually reducing image contrast without dropping dark areas to the real dark (0,0,0)....

    The trick just disturbs colors without adding anything useful to the image. Moreover it gives some marketing advantage to those who sacrifice image quality for stupid tests with inadequate method."
    Last edited by doodah; 9th November 2010 at 04:21 PM.

  10. #30

    Default Re: ISO Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by Reportage View Post
    one more thing as well. This is provided that the iso used is indeed the iso used. Who is to say that various brands iso 6400 is the same as everyone else`s iso 6400 or is there a Industrial Standard for iso?
    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Read, slowly It's just a few clicks away.
    ISO
    ISO in film speed
    Sorry for the late reply....

    Anyway, here's the best explanation on the definition of ISO:

    "The discrepancy between DxO's results and the manufacturer's ISOs is very straightforward to explain, and it's all down to how metering and exposure works.

    Basically the conflict is between two ways of measuring ISO. One method is to determine the exposure required such that, if you spot meter off an 18% grey card and then take a picture of it, the grey is rendered at a luminance of 50% in the resultant image file. I'd argue this is the method most relevant to how the majority of photographers work, and if you test cameras this way they will all give essentially the same answer...

    However DxO use a different method, which is based on the point where highlights clip to white. This does not necessarily give the same answer as the grey-point method due to tone curve differences between cameras, and the difference between the two methods generates the discrepancy in DxO's results. In fact it turns out that the difference actually reflects the highlight dynamic range of the camera; the lower DxO's "true" ISO, the more higlight DR you've got.

    ... Now this doesn't actually mean DxO's method is wrong, as they are only concerned with RAW data not output image files, indeed it's the only way they can compare RAW output on an equal footing. But it's purely about technical comparison of RAW data, not about using the camera."

    Besides explaining how ISO is really defined, it also highlights the FACT that DXOMark data is really irrelevant for most photographers.

    This is further supported by Thom Hogan (an avid and highly regarded Nikon expert) in his Nov 7 commentary:

    "... I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you...

    What I fail to see is how the DxOmark overall number gives me any useful information or method to do just that. Some (and I emphasize some) of their underlying measurements are indeed useful in understanding how a camera captures data from a scene, but you still need to understand what those tests are measuring and how they might apply to your shooting."

    Hope this helps to clear the mess created by DXOMark. In fact, using DXOMark definition of ISO, the LOWER the ACTUAL value of ISO value is from the stated value, the BETTER it is.

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seletar Estate, Singapore
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    DXOmark defined their test and put the sensors through the same test, the results tell us there are differences among sensors whether we agree with the test or not. The data is another information for people who are interested.
    Fuji X100s, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc, Nikon 55-200mm, 35mm 1.8f

  12. #32

    Default Re: DxOMark 2010

    I will take real image comparisons like those shown in DPReview or here any day over some meaningless numbers that (a) are detached from the real world (b) are missing important pieces of info needed to judge image quality.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •