[clickclick]

You don't know Orangina! :-)

yeah, but it's a far cry from a fine Cognac

[MarkJerling]

...I grew up in the Barossa valley.......and I hate wine.

Sacrilege!

[whwang]

Few weeks ago, DxO people commented on not publishing 645z's test results for years. They said that they did not publish a complete review because they don't have enough resource (or something like that). I was sort of buying it, and looking forward to their finally publishing 645z's result.

Now, I am very disappointed seeing the review. They already had the numbers two years ago. The most difficult part had been done already. And then it took them two years to come up with the simple text in the review? There is nothing new in the text they wrote, and it's not difficult to write at all.

[clackers]

Few weeks ago, DxO people commented on not publishing 645z's test results for years. They said that they did not publish a complete review because they don't have enough resource (or something like that). I was sort of buying it, and looking forward to their finally publishing 645z's result.

Now, I am very disappointed seeing the review. They already had the numbers two years ago. The most difficult part had been done already. And then it took them two years to come up with the simple text in the review? There is nothing new in the text they wrote, and it's not difficult to write at all.

There was so little text for them to write, this review is only as long as it is because it discusses two other cameras.

They shouldn't come up with a 'we can't do X-Trans sensors' for the GFX 50S excuse for the Fuji because it uses the same sensor as the 645Z.

[surfar]

In my opinion I think they are full of crap and are beholden to their sponsors.

Ya spelt that wrong...$$$$$$$ponsors, just gota correct it a little!

[Rondec]

DXO Mark is who they are. To this point they haven't done much testing or supported medium format cameras with their software. Perhaps that is changing. Certainly Pentax isn't high on their list of companies to support. They still don't have scores up for the K70 or the K-P. At the same time, Pentax is a pretty small player in the market and I doubt that supporting lower end Pentax cameras would move many copies of their software. I still don't buy a big conspiracy over the whole thing.

[clickclick]

Conspiracy is probably an overstatement. Realities of following the money are more likely.

[Chapel]

They published something we already know. The Z is an awesome camera.
Greg

[Digitalis]

Conspiracy is probably an overstatement. Realities of following the money are more likely.

We have another C word for that: Collusion.

[clickclick]

We have another C word for that: Collusion.

I'd say you nailed it!

[mikeSF]

hmmm...ant eye climb ack tick

[TheDocAUS]

Perhaps in another 3 years I will find time to read the review. DxO has a real creditability problem.

[victormeldrew]

If you stop thinking of DxO as an independent testing house, and more a photography magazine, then the conspiracy idea goes away. Just like fashion magazines, car magazines or any other review and opinion publisher, they absolutely have no choice but to keep their sponsors happy, or total financial ruin will surely follow. They must find the positives in their reviews of sponsors' products, and minimise or discount the negatives. They must not point out where their competitors outshine them, especially if those competitors have relatively miniscule marketing budgets.

You need financially independent public service media for truly unbiased reviews and, in photography at least, I don't know of any. Anyone who has watched Top Gear from the BBC will know that they were famous for their unvarnished and unbiased reviews. Even without the financial penalty, they still suffered for giving unfavourable opinions, with several manufacturers simply refusing to supply cars for testing out of fear of being slated...The Bentley Mulsanne and Dodge Challenger spring to mind. Not that the tactic worked...but anyway...

It's not a conspiracy, it is a company attempting to remain in business.

[Fcsnt54]

If you stop thinking of DxO as an independent testing house, and more a photography magazine, then the conspiracy idea goes away. Just like fashion magazines, car magazines or any other review and opinion publisher, they absolutely have no choice but to keep their sponsors happy, or total financial ruin will surely follow. They must find the positives in their reviews of sponsors' products, and minimise or discount the negatives. They must not point out where their competitors outshine them, especially if those competitors have relatively miniscule marketing budgets.

You need financially independent public service media for truly unbiased reviews and, in photography at least, I don't know of any. Anyone who has watched Top Gear from the BBC will know that they were famous for their unvarnished and unbiased reviews. Even without the financial penalty, they still suffered for giving unfavourable opinions, with several manufacturers simply refusing to supply cars for testing out of fear of being slated...The Bentley Mulsanne and Dodge Challenger spring to mind. Not that the tactic worked...but anyway...

It's not a conspiracy, it is a company attempting to remain in business.

I wouldnt put top gear in the unbiased catagory, let alone giving all the correct facts. Top gear bbc and dxo are one of the same in that catagory, granted both can be pretty amusing if i do say so.

[Digitalis]

granted both can be pretty amusing

Especially whey they try to pull publicity stunts like this.

DxO, go ahead... run full tilt into that open landmine field - i'll be on the sidelines cheering you on.