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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
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. -- PeterN |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
This is no smoking gun, or even a clear accusation, but it does point
out a problem: https://www.androidauthority.com/dxo...lesome-805633/ 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:48:39 -0500, 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. Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
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. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, so clearly what DxOMark post is nonsense. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 23/12/2018 23:48, 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. That's not unlike the charge that all climate science is bogus because the scientists have, at the very least, beards and egos to stroke. Not to mention research grants, tenure, etc. Just sounds like conspiracy theory without evidence . . . also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them untrustworthy Yes, that's a problem, so much so I'm surprised they get any reader, much less advertisers and 'consultancies'. and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with newer cameras scoring higher and higher. I suppose so long as they explain the context and reasoning, that can be OK, just less useful. -- Cheers, Rob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , 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. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, so clearly what DxOMark post is nonsense. yep. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
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: "There¹s no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results ‹ after-all the company¹s 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
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*. their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes them a scam. 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. 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. |
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 02:37 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 10:27 AM |