[Trickortreat]

If it pays the bills - its a pro tool

[abhaskare]

With the Nikon Z6 and kit lens around $2.5K - the same price as K1ii with kit lens, does K1 still retain as the best?

[normhead]

With the Nikon Z6 and kit lens around $2.5K - the same price as K1ii with kit lens, does K1 still retain as the best?

That's pretty much irrelevant information, the article is published. Maybe next year fo the ZS, maybe not. But since you brought it up, are people as happy with the Z^ kit as folks are with the 28-105?

A 24 - 70 ƒ4.5? People want that?

[Merv-O]

Frater, I don't think you understand the industry.

You seem to be unaware across all three of your posts that Amazon owns DPR.

It has done for eleven years, not eleven months. You should know this.

The DPR editors are all Jeff Bezos' employees.

DPR is just a glorified Amazon catalogue.

It is aimed at triggering purchases. That is its raison d'etre, not objective reviews, not journalism, not science.

Actually Clackers: that's great info regarding DPR being owned by Amazon; in fact, it makes a lot of sense as to why they subtly rate products higher that have more commercial appeal. Brilliant actually...

[clackers]

Actually Clackers: that's great info regarding DPR being owned by Amazon; in fact, it makes a lot of sense as to why they subtly rate products higher that have more commercial appeal. Brilliant actually...

Yes, Merv, as reviewers, they have 'conflict of interest', their allegiance is to the Amazon sales team and its priorities are not to me, Frater or anyone else from the public.


Let's not get started on DxOMark, either, there's always someone claiming they're objective and have no agendas.

[MarkJerling]

Let's not get started on DxOMark, either, there's always someone claiming they're objective and have no agendas.

[swanlefitte]

I like comparing photonstophptos and dxomark. Conclusion is I have not established any reliable data. That is not to say there isn't.

[clackers]

I like comparing photonstophptos and dxomark. Conclusion is I have not established any reliable data. That is not to say there isn't.

Photonstophotos is Bill Claff, a Harvard professor and amateur insect tog, IIRC. Individuals often lack time and resources, but are potentially more independent. Some are looking to be employed or sponsored and will say or do things that are tailored for a job or revenue.

[swanlefitte]

Bill seems great and results are very different from dxomark. Sample error, methodology error, I don't know.
Confidence is based on repeatable, methodologically accurate results. We are in a vacume. Hence ???

[beholder3]

Photonstophotos is Bill Claff, a Harvard professor and amateur

Bill Claff's homebrew site is at least as unreliable as DxO. It is the same nonsense.


1) His numbers do not match visual results from developing raw images, so they are completely worthless. You'll get replies based on theory alone why figures are right and not what you see...


2) His number are based on a private and completely deliberate definition which skew results in one technical direction, making it worthless to anyone who might not follow his personal opinion. The definition is different from DxO's. The difference being that DxO's definitions includes all data and Claff privately decides to ignore some of it, because in his opinion it is not relevant.


3) As it is pure numbers and not connected to visual experience it worthless crap again. Sample: Nikon Z7/Z6 sensors dynamic range due to major banding issues is in real life crappy for about 2 stops more, making the images no better (some might say worse) than Canon sensors. The theory numbers he presents ignore that absolutely.


It is probably worth an own thread to analyze all the unreliabilities of both Dxo and Claff.


As it stands there is NO really reliable source of truth about sensor performance out there, they all are biased and skewed in one way or another.
Anyone with real interest needs to grab raw files and compare them themselves - not believe in "numbers" which mean nothing. It is photography after all.

[clackers]

Bill Claff's homebrew site is at least as unreliable as DxO. It is the same nonsense.

Well, there we go, what a depressing state of affairs, it's like being told there's no Easter Bunny!

[Rondec]

Bill Claff's homebrew site is at least as unreliable as DxO. It is the same nonsense.


1) His numbers do not match visual results from developing raw images, so they are completely worthless. You'll get replies based on theory alone why figures are right and not what you see...


2) His number are based on a private and completely deliberate definition which skew results in one technical direction, making it worthless to anyone who might not follow his personal opinion. The definition is different from DxO's. The difference being that DxO's definitions includes all data and Claff privately decides to ignore some of it, because in his opinion it is not relevant.


3) As it is pure numbers and not connected to visual experience it worthless crap again. Sample: Nikon Z7/Z6 sensors dynamic range due to major banding issues is in real life crappy for about 2 stops more, making the images no better (some might say worse) than Canon sensors. The theory numbers he presents ignore that absolutely.


It is probably worth an own thread to analyze all the unreliabilities of both Dxo and Claff.


As it stands there is NO really reliable source of truth about sensor performance out there, they all are biased and skewed in one way or another.
Anyone with real interest needs to grab raw files and compare them themselves - not believe in "numbers" which mean nothing. It is photography after all.

I think both Bill Claff and DXO Mark's sites give interesting information. Is it everything? Clearly not, but as long as they are using the same methodology on all of the cameras they test, there is at least some way of comparing things.

I do agree about the ignoring of banding being an issue for both sites and it tends to inflate how much dynamic range sensors that have it actually produce, however saying it worsens things by two stops is a bit exaggerated, from what I've seen.

[Kunzite]

I appreciate Bill Claff's efforts and I trust his intentions of providing unbiased data. More than - say - DxOMark.

This being said... photography is not about shooting test charts, something which is often forgotten
I'm not sure if he can reliably detect banding like that seen on Sony sensors with PDAF. I'm also not convinced that one can extrapolate noise reduction on uniform areas to detail loss on fine detail areas.
In the end, the proof is in the images... and I don't mean test charts images.

[Rondec]

I appreciate Bill Claff's efforts and I trust his intentions of providing unbiased data. More than - say - DxOMark.

This being said... photography is not about shooting test charts, something which is often forgotten
I'm not sure if he can reliably detect banding like that seen on Sony sensors with PDAF. I'm also not convinced that one can extrapolate noise reduction on uniform areas to detail loss on fine detail areas.
In the end, the proof is in the images... and I don't mean test charts images.

Are you talking about the speckling that occurs with wide aperture lenses and bright light sources? Because I don't think that is really banding and it isn't related to iso. People who shoot mirrorless cameras with lots of PDAF points just have to know that that is a downside to using those sensors. If you shoot those sorts of shots a lot, then SLR design is a better way to go.

[Kunzite]

Not necessarily with bright light sources:
Nikon Z7 Review: Digital Photography Review