If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 21:44:25 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 15:41:19 -0800, Bill W wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:25:23 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 12/23/2018 5:47 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. What is it other than rumour or gossip? it's neither of those. Than please share your source. 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. But note that it also says: "There’s no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results — after-all the company’s business model depends on its reputation and its results tend to roughly fit with the broader consensus on camera hardware." 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. This isn't the sort of thing I'd bother arguing about. It would be crazy to rely on one reviewer to make decisiions anyway. If I'm looking for something, I read as many reviews as i can find, and then judge from there. I'm never looking for the "best" in the first place, just something that appears that it would work well for my hobbyist purposes. Anyway, two companies whose software I've had the most problems with are DXO and Arturia. Both French. So the problem is that France sucks. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Bill W
wrote: This isn't the sort of thing I'd bother arguing about. It would be crazy to rely on one reviewer to make decisiions anyway. If I'm looking for something, I read as many reviews as i can find, and then judge from there. I'm never looking for the "best" in the first place, just something that appears that it would work well for my hobbyist purposes. that's a good strategy. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/23/2018 6:41 PM, Bill W 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/ I understand what is being said. I am not sure that the author has not dog in that fight. I remember when Consumer Reports incorrectly gave a Miranda camera a terrible rating. That rating put the company out of business. However, if a company is being accused of taking bribes, the accuser ought to provide proof of that statement. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/24/2018 1:22 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 21:44:25 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 15:41:19 -0800, Bill W wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:25:23 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 12/23/2018 5:47 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. What is it other than rumour or gossip? it's neither of those. Than please share your source. 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. But note that it also says: "There’s no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results — after-all the company’s business model depends on its reputation and its results tend to roughly fit with the broader consensus on camera hardware." 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. This isn't the sort of thing I'd bother arguing about. It would be crazy to rely on one reviewer to make decisiions anyway. If I'm looking for something, I read as many reviews as i can find, and then judge from there. I'm never looking for the "best" in the first place, just something that appears that it would work well for my hobbyist purposes. Anyway, two companies whose software I've had the most problems with are DXO and Arturia. Both French. So the problem is that France sucks. I do not like DXO's support, and upgrade policies. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/23/2018 6:48 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. What is it other than rumour or gossip? it's neither of those. Than please share your source. sources. here's one (of many): https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/0...-stop-letting- dxomark-decide-whose-smartphone-camera-is-best-opinion/ DxO Labs is first and foremost a consultancy. Their business model is based upon being paid to conduct analysis and optimization of imaging system performance by the companies that make those systems. DxO is not an independent journalistic entity or trade organization - it is a for-profit software consultancy for camera makers. Their product is called DxO Analyzer, and licensees of this suite can opt to purchase "installation, training and consulting services." ... ...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters. This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies that choose not to license its software or services. also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with newer cameras scoring higher and higher. There is a difference between taking bribes, and producing bad test results. As to that article, read prior comments made here. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 21:57:45 -0500, PeterN
wrote: On 12/23/2018 6:41 PM, Bill W 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/ I understand what is being said. I am not sure that the author has not dog in that fight. I remember when Consumer Reports incorrectly gave a Miranda camera a terrible rating. That rating put the company out of business. However, if a company is being accused of taking bribes, the accuser ought to provide proof of that statement. Yes, I hope that there was clear evidence of something like that to back up nospam's unambiguous statement. But apparently there is no such evidence. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 10:24:54 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote: Would have to dig it out, but a while ago on DxOMark there was a chart claiming that ISO 64 and ISO 200 on the Olympus E-M1 Mark II in fact are the same ISOs. Are you thinking of this? https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olym...--Measurements But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, so clearly what DxOMark post is nonsense. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:04:52 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: here's one (of many): https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/0...-stop-letting- dxomark-decide-whose-smartphone-camera-is-best-opinion/ DxO Labs is first and foremost a consultancy. Their business model is based upon being paid to conduct analysis and optimization of imaging system performance by the companies that make those systems. DxO is not an independent journalistic entity or trade organization - it is a for-profit software consultancy for camera makers. Their product is called DxO Analyzer, and licensees of this suite can opt to purchase "installation, training and consulting services." ... ...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters. This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies that choose not to license its software or services. also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with newer cameras scoring higher and higher. Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence. the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*. The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence to support that statement. their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes them a scam Example? - assuming of course that you are able to cite one. here's mo https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless DxOMark controversy is back in the news this week, but the problem with the mobile camera rating system isn't as simple as manufacturers 'buying' inflated scores. ... Comment threads suggest something untoward has happened as a result of OnePlus's recently-announced partnership with DxO a *partnership* between a camera manufacturer and the company who is supposedly testing it is very clearly a *huge* problem. Nothing specific there. Absolutely nothing. Like a wily student preparing for a standardized test, manufacturers who partner with DxO, and get access to its hardware and software, can tune their image processing to ace the firm's synthetic tests (within the limits of the hardware, of course). As a result, their review scores are higher when DxO eventually publishes them ‹ because they've had access to the testing hardware all along. Manufacturers who don't partner with DxO are at an automatic disadvantage in terms of their score, even though real-world, outside-of-the-lab image quality might not be substantially worse. When that happens, as it is bound to, consumers who put faith in comparisons between scores from partners and non-partners are potentially misled. There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Yes, I hope that there was clear evidence of something like that to back up nospam's unambiguous statement. But apparently there is no such evidence. there is very clear evidence, but as usual, you are blind to it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , PeterN
wrote: also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with newer cameras scoring higher and higher. There is a difference between taking bribes, and producing bad test results. yep, and they're guilty of both. As to that article, read prior comments made here. read the link about partnering. they are not objective and their tests are bogus. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering) | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | December 24th 18 03:37 PM |
Please, tell me Zeiss's offering to the camera world won't be areskinned SONY!! | Neil[_9_] | Digital Photography | 1 | August 27th 18 01:00 PM |
Need a camera with specific features: | Gary Smiley | Digital Photography | 1 | May 22nd 06 02:31 AM |
Canon Offering $600+ Rebate on Digital Camera Equipment (3x Rebate Offers) | Mark | Digital Photography | 6 | November 4th 04 11:27 AM |