In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
This is no smoking gun, or even a clear accusation, but it does point
out a problem:
https://www.androidauthority.com/dxo...lesome-805633/
The article has nothing but suspicion of bias and general inuendo.
false. it's quite clear that dxo is *not* objective and can be bought.
But
note that it also says:
"Therešs no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results
after-all the companyšs business model depends on its reputation
and its results tend to roughly fit with the broader consensus on
camera hardware."
that's nothing more than cya, and also factually false.
their results are often not physically possible, therefore *cannot* fit
with 'the broader consensus', and renders *everything* they do to be
completely worthless.
I suspect that nospam's views are coloured by suspicion of bias and
general innuendo. That and the fact that I doubt he has quite got his
head around the fact the DxO's results are not just tests of a lens
but _tests_of_a_lens_on_a_specific_camera_. The test results are
dependent on not just the qualities of the lens but also the qualities
of the camera. I think it might hhave been Neil who touched on this
quite recently.
that is irrelevant.