[normhead]

LOL!





Do you think they use different lens testing procedures between their scoring and their image processing software? Now that would be something...

I think they use the same information, but, use it inappropriately, basing their whole system on low light performance, creating scores artificially weighted for camera and lenses that perform well in low light. It would be quite possible to also create a commercial light system, a daylight system, systems for all lighting conditions, and different ƒ-stops that would tell the whole story, and to my way of thinking those categories would each stand on their own, not be mixed into some mysterious number.

Sure I want to know what the best system is for low light ,but I won't buy a camera based on that, I want to know what the best results from the strongest parts of the system are like. When I use the Photozone rating I can look at a lens like the 18-135 and say well, I can see why it's rated so low in the grand scheme of things, but I can also see, that this is a great lens for the light I shoot in and the way I shoot. Klaus rates it a 1.5 , I rate it a 3.5, but I can do that, because I have the raw data, and I can tailor the interpretation of the data to my own needs. And what I look at is "what is the best this lens can give me." DxO doesn't give me enough to know what I'm getting, and offers me no ability to draw my own conclusions based on my own shooting style. In fact they use a rating system that is drawn from images that would represent less than .1% of my images based on my current use.

[kh1234567890]

LOL!
Do you think they use different lens testing procedures between their scoring and their image processing software? Now that would be something...

I don't know - and I don't really care.

If I am about to buy a new lens I'll scour Flickr for full size images taken with it in real situations by real people and use these to decide whether I like what that lens is capable of delivering. Similarly, I've tried their image processing software and quickly dumped it because I could do better with what I already have.

[retroflex]

LOL!
Do you think they use different lens testing procedures between their scoring and their image processing software?

No.

I'll try to explain it again: The output of the software is good. The scoring is misleading. Do you see the point?

[Clavius]

No.

I'll try to explain it again: The output of the software is good. The scoring is misleading. Do you see the point?

How can you still not get it. Their lens scoring should be based on lens testing. And the lens + camera parameters they use in their DxO software, should also be based on gear testing. (Or do you think the fairies bring those to them?)

So if their scoring sux but their Image processor is good, then either the comlaining people here are expressing sour grapes. Or DxO is using different tests between their scoring and their processor... Which would make their scoring methods all the more dubious, which is exactly what this thread is about.

[retroflex]

How can you still not get it. Their lens scoring should be based on lens testing. And the lens + camera parameters they use in their DxO software, should also be based on gear testing. (Or do you think the fairies bring those to them?)

So if their scoring sux but their Image processor is good, then either the comlaining people here are expressing sour grapes. Or DxO is using different tests between their scoring and their processor... Which would make their scoring methods all the more dubious, which is exactly what this thread is about.

I get what you mean. Of course a high score represents a lens that fares good in their tests. I'm not arguing this.

But that is not what the thread is about in my understanding. It is more about the wording on their site and how score is presented as a value of how good a lens is.

[normhead]

How can you not get it.

So, if medical manufacturer good at making Viagara are also experts at deciding who should be the next President of the US based on their knowledge of one part of the human anatomy?

DxO can't help me with the majority of my images, because the majority of my images do not need correcting the way they do it. And the types of images they do they tests on, low light in a living room without daylight represent less than .1% of my images. Their research , software etc. is irrelevant to most people.

You do realize that every spectrum of the daylight is not present in the same amounts in artificial light of their testing conditions, and that by eliminating daylight from their testing protocol, their conclusions cannot be applied to anything but to the light they test in?

I.m not sure what your issue is.

The point is I posted images taken in commercial lighting from Imaging Resources, that showed conclusively, that for whatever light balance those light use, the K-3 images are pretty much indistinguishable from the 6D and D600 images.

The fact are, that reality doesn't conform to the DxO view of the world. It is irrefutable that there are conditions where their research doesn't apply. And those conditions are pretty common in the photographic world. The only other possibility is that the differences they talk about exist, but are so small as to be meaningless.

But this is pointless, you tell me.. of the images I posted further back in the thread, how is it possible that the images could be so close together, given that the D600 and D7100 are virtually identical at base ISO even though DxO claims they are 11 points apart and that there should be a visible difference between them.

[Rondec]

How can you not get it.

So, if medical manufacturer good at making Viagara are also experts at deciding who should be the next President of the US based on their knowledge of one part of the human anatomy?

DxO can't help me with the majority of my images, because the majority of my images do not need correcting the way they do it. And the types of images they do they tests on, low light in a living room without daylight represent less than .1% of my images. Their research , software etc. is irrelevant to most people.

You do realize that every spectrum of the daylight is not present in the same amounts in artificial light of their testing conditions, and that by eliminating daylight from their testing protocol, their conclusions cannot be applied to anything but to the light they test in?

I.m not sure what your issue is.

The point is I posted images taken in commercial lighting from Imaging Resources, that showed conclusively, that for whatever light balance those light use, the K-3 images are pretty much indistinguishable from the 6D and D600 images.

The fact are, that reality doesn't conform to the DxO view of the world. It is irrefutable that there are conditions where their research doesn't apply. And those conditions are pretty common in the photographic world. The only other possibility is that the differences they talk about exist, but are so small as to be meaningless.

But this is pointless, you tell me.. of the images I posted further back in the thread, how is it possible that the images could be so close together, given that the D600 and D7100 are virtually identical at base ISO even though DxO claims they are 11 points apart and that there should be a visible difference between them.

I am not sure what you are arguing about Norm. DXO Mark says that sports iso for the D7100 versus D600 is 1256 versus 2980 -- a little better than a stop difference. Also, dynamic range seems about 0.5 EVs better with D600 versus D7100. I think looking at the total number tells you less than the individual scores, dynamic range and SNR curves. Resolution is not included in these scores, and is a separate variable to be considered. But, these measurements are very consistent with real life shooting experiences of those who use these cameras and when folks like Falk and Gordon B Good look at things like dynamic range, they come up with very similar results to the DXO Mark folks.

It would not make sense for DXO Mark to release scores for cameras based only on low iso situations (although they do put these numbers out there). Certainly there are plenty of folks who abuse these numbers, but clearly there are differences in these cameras and I am glad that they put their numbers out there for us to see.