Pentax 645Z scores 101 at DxOMark

Kunzite · 12-27-2015, 05:58 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by falconeye

I just did. And I know what I am talking about. Although, to avoid another debate, I won't discuss. Please, google it up. Thanks.

No, we disagree and we do because you didn't do your homework.

Actually, small sensors *DO* have a very high 35mm-equivalent base ISO although their base ISO is low. That's not a question of approach, that's how the terms are defined.

They're right and you're wrong; and rude. There is no such thing as a "35mm-equivalent base ISO". Please do not insist with nonsensical theories.

ogl · 12-27-2015, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

They're right and you're wrong; and rude. There is no such thing as a "35mm-equivalent base ISO". Please do not insist with nonsensical theories.

What university you graduated from? What education do you have?

Kunzite · 12-27-2015, 06:18 AM

Ogl, I'm not getting into another dispute with you - since you're taking it on a personal level. Boriscleto'd™.

ogl · 12-27-2015, 06:53 AM

I'm just curious

No any discussion. I will be satisfied with brief answer.

FantasticMrFox · 12-27-2015, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by ogl

What university you graduated from? What education do you have?

And what purpose is this preparation for an argumentum ad verecundiam supposed to serve?

FantasticMrFox · 12-27-2015, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I just did. And I know what I am talking about. Although, to avoid another debate, I won't discuss. Please, google it up. Thanks.

Do you mean that in order to produce images that match in depth of field you would have to shoot a FF camera at a faster aperture than an MF camera, thus in order to produce images of the same brightness you would also have to choose a lower ISO?

ogl · 12-27-2015, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

And what purpose is this preparation for an argumentum ad verecundiam supposed to serve?

It's easy.
I know that falconeye is the specialist in physics and mathematics. But I don't know if his opponent has any serious education in and around this disciplines.
Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge.

RonHendriks1966 · 12-27-2015, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by ogl

It's easy.
I know that falconeye is the specialist in physics and mathematics. But I don't know if his opponent has any serious education in and around this disciplines.
Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge.

Maybe falconeye is the exception on this forum.

FantasticMrFox · 12-27-2015, 09:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ogl

Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge.

Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'.

ogl · 12-27-2015, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'.

It's argument. If the man is mathematician and physicist he could play the same territory.
If not, as me, for example, he couldn't. Better to keep silence and learn from smart guys discussion.

Kunzite · 12-27-2015, 10:24 AM

FantasticMrFox, please don't bother - he doesn't want to understand, and you're making his posts visible to me through quoting...
But, thank you for trying to inflict some common sense into this.

ogl · 12-27-2015, 10:44 AM

I can make only one and true conclusion from the words of falconeye's opponent.

Nicolas06 · 12-27-2015, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'.

The argument is that if both sensor share similar technology you would expect the results to match by the rougly the scale factor of the surface area of the sensor. Either same isos for both, the 645Z is better by the factor applied to the different metrics either you apply the factor on isos and you get the same results. It is exactly the same concepts that give the equivalent apperture, focal length and high iso performance.

As if there already a well known iso equivalence is not of any importance. Argument saying something not popular is wrong is as big a logical falacy as to argument to authority. Question is more if it make sense or not. Here to me it is.

Kunzite just said it was not a popular concept. That's not especially convincing as to conclude if the concept is valid or not.

The same theory allowed falconeyes to predict that the 645Z should get a score of 102. myself I predicted 100-105 range. It got 101, that match pretty well. Could be 2 lucky tries, sure but that better than just saying this is wrong without any argument.

Kunzite · 12-27-2015, 11:52 AM

I'm not saying it's not popular; on the contrary, it's too popular. I'm saying it's (sometimes) a technically sound concept, but based on incorrect assumptions - from a real world usage point of view*. And twisting well established concepts with new meaning. And messing up everything into one big lump of useless something.
But this is about DXOMark, a synthetic benchmark with it's own foibles. Perhaps it's a good match

* As I understand it, since I don't have a Master degree in Arts&photography.

RonHendriks1966 · 12-27-2015, 11:58 AM

Some people are just looking for a reason to not be happy! In my book, being #1 on this list is a good thing!

12-27-2015, 06:05 AM	#32
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Kunzite They're right and you're wrong; and rude. There is no such thing as a "35mm-equivalent base ISO". Please do not insist with nonsensical theories. What university you graduated from? What education do you have? Last edited by ogl; 12-27-2015 at 06:16 AM.

12-27-2015, 11:21 AM	#43
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'. The argument is that if both sensor share similar technology you would expect the results to match by the rougly the scale factor of the surface area of the sensor. Either same isos for both, the 645Z is better by the factor applied to the different metrics either you apply the factor on isos and you get the same results. It is exactly the same concepts that give the equivalent apperture, focal length and high iso performance. As if there already a well known iso equivalence is not of any importance. Argument saying something not popular is wrong is as big a logical falacy as to argument to authority. Question is more if it make sense or not. Here to me it is. Kunzite just said it was not a popular concept. That's not especially convincing as to conclude if the concept is valid or not. The same theory allowed falconeyes to predict that the 645Z should get a score of 102. myself I predicted 100-105 range. It got 101, that match pretty well. Could be 2 lucky tries, sure but that better than just saying this is wrong without any argument. Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-27-2015 at 11:31 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 645z in DXOMark 101 points..., is it true?	Ventzy	Pentax Medium Format	32	01-01-2016 12:08 PM
K-S1 scores on DxOMark	6BQ5	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	34	11-14-2014 07:52 AM
Red Epic Dragon jumps to top of DxOMark Sensor charts with score of 101 !	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	14	03-10-2014 01:50 PM
Arrggh - Nikon V2 scores lower than V1 or RX100 on dxomark	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	36	12-24-2012 04:41 PM
DXOMark scores for the Q posted. . .	snostorm	Pentax Q	8	12-03-2011 01:47 PM

12-27-2015, 05:58 AM - 2 Likes	#31
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by falconeye I just did. And I know what I am talking about. Although, to avoid another debate, I won't discuss. Please, google it up. Thanks. No, we disagree and we do because you didn't do your homework. Actually, small sensors DO have a very high 35mm-equivalent base ISO although their base ISO is low. That's not a question of approach, that's how the terms are defined. They're right and you're wrong; and rude. There is no such thing as a "35mm-equivalent base ISO". Please do not insist with nonsensical theories.

12-27-2015, 06:18 AM	#33
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Ogl, I'm not getting into another dispute with you - since you're taking it on a personal level. Boriscleto'd™.

12-27-2015, 06:53 AM	#34
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	I'm just curious No any discussion. I will be satisfied with brief answer.

12-27-2015, 07:56 AM	#35
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by ogl What university you graduated from? What education do you have? And what purpose is this preparation for an argumentum ad verecundiam supposed to serve?

12-27-2015, 08:27 AM	#36
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by falconeye I just did. And I know what I am talking about. Although, to avoid another debate, I won't discuss. Please, google it up. Thanks. Do you mean that in order to produce images that match in depth of field you would have to shoot a FF camera at a faster aperture than an MF camera, thus in order to produce images of the same brightness you would also have to choose a lower ISO?

12-27-2015, 08:35 AM	#37
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox And what purpose is this preparation for an argumentum ad verecundiam supposed to serve? It's easy. I know that falconeye is the specialist in physics and mathematics. But I don't know if his opponent has any serious education in and around this disciplines. Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge.

12-27-2015, 09:23 AM	#38
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by ogl It's easy. I know that falconeye is the specialist in physics and mathematics. But I don't know if his opponent has any serious education in and around this disciplines. Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge. Maybe falconeye is the exception on this forum.

12-27-2015, 09:32 AM - 1 Like	#39
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by ogl Any criticism should be corroborated and supported by serious and forcible arguments and real knowledge. Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'.

12-27-2015, 09:45 AM	#40
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Yes, but professional and educational credentials are not an argument, and resting a point on these is a logical fallacy called 'argument to authority'. It's argument. If the man is mathematician and physicist he could play the same territory. If not, as me, for example, he couldn't. Better to keep silence and learn from smart guys discussion.

12-27-2015, 10:24 AM	#41
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	FantasticMrFox, please don't bother - he doesn't want to understand, and you're making his posts visible to me through quoting... But, thank you for trying to inflict some common sense into this.

12-27-2015, 10:44 AM	#42
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	I can make only one and true conclusion from the words of falconeye's opponent.

12-27-2015, 11:52 AM	#44
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I'm not saying it's not popular; on the contrary, it's too popular. I'm saying it's (sometimes) a technically sound concept, but based on incorrect assumptions - from a real world usage point of view. And twisting well established concepts with new meaning. And messing up everything into one big lump of useless something. But this is about DXOMark, a synthetic benchmark with it's own foibles. Perhaps it's a good match As I understand it, since I don't have a Master degree in Arts&photography.

12-27-2015, 11:58 AM	#45
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Some people are just looking for a reason to not be happy! In my book, being #1 on this list is a good thing!