April 20, 2014, 05:05:34 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 30
256
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 11, 2012, 03:30:21 AM »
Here we go again with the same discredited arguments ...

I, for one, can't take DxOMark seriously or trust any of their numbers when they...

* Rank $40,000 medium format digital backs lower than consumer APS-C DSLRs.

There's nothing necessarily "wrong" with this per se. A medium format back is not necessarily better as a general purpose camera than an APS-C camera.

You know darn well their scores do not reflect how good the camera is as a "general purpose camera."
Quote
I doubt that anyone is seriously using the website to decide whether to choose an APS-C or a MF back, so this argument is a silly red herring (usually trotted out by camera "fans" of low scoring cameras)

It's not relevant whether or not people are looking to them, and this is not a red herring. Their scores are consistently presented by them and others as IQ scores, yet their methodology is obviously flawed if they can give a consumer APS-C sensor a higher IQ score than a MFDB. This obvious error is usually ignored by "fans" of high scoring cameras. When a "fan" wishes to compare, say, Canon and Nikon, then all of a sudden the score is a score of overall IQ that we all must concede. When the same "fan" is confronted with the fact that the score for a consumer DSLR is higher than a 40 MP MF back, all of a sudden the score isn't a score of overall IQ, and nobody is using those scores to begin with, and stop tossing out red herrings.

Which is it?

Quote
This horse has been beaten to dust. They report 13.2 bits for each pixel. You can gain dynamic range by downsampling. 14.4 stops is based on downsampling to 8mpx.

You cannot gain dynamic range by down sampling because you throw away detail with noise. If you think you can, your definition of DR is flawed.

Quote
Quote
* Report values for dynamic range that I know to be false from both personal experience and testing. (They rank the 10D, 20D, and 7D about the same. The 7D is a good 2 stops better.)

You keep saying that these are "about the same", and I keep calling you on it. They are not "about the same".

They show a 0.7 stop difference when it's roughly 2 stops.

Quote
For all the critics of DxOMark critics, I would like to point out that no less a professional and respected figure than Michael Reichmann stopped using DxOMark because of the obvious errors he observed in their results.

What precisely are his criticisms ? What exactly are his credentials as far as engineering and benchmarking are concerned ?
[/quote]

Visit his website.

257
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 04:47:39 AM »
DxO, here we go again.

DxO defender, here we go again.

Quote
If you think, that a sensor (and I said sensor, not camera) can be fully described with an overall score in 0-100, you are silly.

Ergo DxO is silly because that is exactly what they claim can be done when they publish their scores. I will stop hammering them for their stupid overall scores when they remove them all from the site.

Quote
And they have the charts. This is the data. If you know, what to look for, DxO is a valuable source of information, which can not be compared to any other review, as this is standardized and reproducible.

I contest this point. At least as far as dynamic range is concerned, there are repeat instances where they are clearly wrong.

Quote
But again: if you don't go for the charts, you waste your time. And ours as well, as we have to read all this "biased", "crap", "not reflecting reality" comments, which are based on the lack of knowledge.

Are you part of DxO? Well...we will stop "wasting your time" when you stop wasting ours publishing silly overall scores that are repeated ad nauseam in forums. And when you correct some of the obvious flaws in your test results.
Quote
Quote
* Rank $40,000 medium format digital backs lower than consumer APS-C DSLRs.
Medium format backs are expensive...

Yes, they are. Their IQ also wipes the floor with consumer APS-C equipment. (And that's coming from a huge fan of today's APS-C sensors!) And DxO looks stupid for claiming otherwise.

Quote
Quote
* Report physically unachievable values for dynamic range (i.e. >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).
Nonlinearity? Yes, it ruins the uniform sensitivity, but it exists, whatever you do.

Nonlinearity has not yet been incorporated into sensors. You can compress more than 8 stops into an 8-bit JPEG this way (i.e. Canon HTP), but RAWs are simply not non-linear at this time.

Quote
Quote
* Report values for dynamic range that I know to be false from both personal experience and testing. (They rank the 10D, 20D, and 7D about the same. The 7D is a good 2 stops better.)
The "about the same" is 0,7 EV difference, not to mention, that I would be interested in those tests.

If you work for DxO, do the entire team a favor: buy a transmission step wedge and use it. Don't run it through a flawed computer analysis. Actually use it and eyeball the output. You will be embarrassed at some of the mistakes in your database.

258
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 10:16:35 PM »
IIRC, the DxOMark website says (somewhere) that their sensor scores can only be used to compare sensors of the same resolution (MP). So, first decide the resolution of sensor you are interested in (need), then compare sensors of that resolution.

Post #1 doesn't seem to recognise this.

I would be curious to see that if you have a link. If true, they need to post this in big, bold type on every page.

259
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 06:07:42 PM »
Chill Dtaylor.... you can't bully people into agreeing with you...


Bullying? ::) I don't think I'm the one who needs to chill.

Quote
everyone has their own sense of reality that governs their perceptions and opinions.


Silly me...I thought we lived in a common, measurable reality.

Quote
I saw the noise... He saw the noise....


Allow me to quote jrista:
Quote
That "uniform" nature? Thats called photon shot noise. It's a physical effect caused by the NATURAL random distribution of light that follows Poisson distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_noise#Poisson_noise_and_characterizing_small_occurrences). FYI...every single camera on earth experiences photon shot noise, regardless of who makes it or how good it may be.


There was no noise. There was nothing that could be interpreted as noise until 100% pixel peeping, at which point you see the natural random distribution of light. And even that is difficult to make out. If that bothers you...if you want plastic skies while pixel peeping at 100%...it is stupid simple to make the sky plastic in PS.

But I hope I'm not being a bully in pointing that out  8)

260
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 09, 2012, 05:02:30 PM »
Try a twisty british b road.  Hairpins. Blind summits. Corvette Rwd.  That kind of power.   FWD Civic type R hands down.

Someone who knows how to drive the Corvette and manage its power...which isn't that hard with traction control on...will smoke the Civic. I don't care what the course is. The difference in skid pad rating is huge. The difference in braking is huge. The difference in the ability to accelerate out of corner braking is huge.

"I didn't know how much power I had and slammed the car into the mountain" is not the same as "the Civic can beat the Corvette."

But you've blown the analogy completely out of proportion. DxO is telling you the Civic has more HP and is faster on a straight course. Do you believe them?

261
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:52:47 PM »
@dtaylor
Quote
You're telling me to trust a testing company that tests a Honda Civic and a Corvette ZR-1 and reports that the Civic is faster with more HP. Please...

I would take a honda civic over a corvette anyday.  In fact strike that.  I'd take the Corvette and sell it and buy two honda Civics.

Here in Europe we like cars that can go round corners.

If you think a Civic can out corner a ZR-1, you're on some really good drugs man  ;D

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:47:20 PM »
Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.

Then stop wasting time in an Internet forum and get it repaired.

263
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:43:37 PM »
I, for one, can't take DxOMark seriously or trust any of their numbers when they...

* Rank $40,000 medium format digital backs lower than consumer APS-C DSLRs.

* Report physically unachievable values for dynamic range (i.e. >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

* Report values for dynamic range that I know to be false from both personal experience and testing. (They rank the 10D, 20D, and 7D about the same. The 7D is a good 2 stops better.)

For all the critics of DxOMark critics, I would like to point out that no less a professional and respected figure than Michael Reichmann stopped using DxOMark because of the obvious errors he observed in their results.

All that said...I wish Canon would lower their prices  ;)

264
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:31:46 PM »
For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?

Pressing the shutter button.

ROFL !!   :D :D :D

Were you not following the thread? He made that claim, then provided an example with absolutely no noise.

Quote
Why should us Canon customers accept less than stellar IQ...

I don't get anything less than stellar IQ from my Canon cameras. Perhaps you should take a course on digital photography at your local JC?  ;D

265
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 09, 2012, 07:04:20 AM »
Did you notice that the Nikon D3200 scored an 81(the same as a 5DIII at roughly 4x times it's cost)?

Did you notice that the D3200 scored an 81, 3 points higher than a Hasselblad H3DII 50?

Do you know how stupid DxOMark looks for this? Do you know how stupid they look claiming the D3200 has better overall IQ and better DR?

Do you know how stupid people look when they cite DxOMark scores given the above?

You're telling me to trust a testing company that tests a Honda Civic and a Corvette ZR-1 and reports that the Civic is faster with more HP. Please...

Quote
While I don't take these sensor tests as the end all be all, I do think they give a decent idea of DR, ISO range, and overall sensor performance.

Say that after you've compared 24x36" prints from the D3200 and H3DII.

Quote
but at some point people should open their eyes to the fact that Nikon has basically dominated Canon for the past few releases.

Apparently they dominate $40,000 medium format systems as well  ::)

Quote
I recently sold my 5DC and 24-105 and bought a D700 and 24-70. The image quality is significantly better, the bokeh better, low light is 3x better, and the AF is literally night and day, not to mention the overall user experience(after becoming accustomed to the change,) is much better, it is absolutely incomparable.

You're seriously comparing a 2005 camera to a 2008 one, and an f/4 lens to an f/2.8 lens? (High ISO is about 1 stop better, btw.)

Quote
If you're happy with Canon that's great, but for the rest of the world, it's pretty obvious Nikon is killing them.

I wish Canon would introduce a 50 MP FF body for $1,000 with 20 stops of DR and perfectly clean ISO 25,600 images. Not so much because I would enjoy that camera, but because it would send the Nikon trolls back to their forums  :P

266
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 08, 2012, 10:03:16 PM »
Yes because DXO is the problem, not that Canon is processor-wise stagnant for more than half a decade.

Yes, a company whose testing methodology places APS-C cameras ahead of medium format digital backs is a problem. Have you ever compared prints from the two?

Quote
I mean DXO is for the clueless, no matter that their aps-c sensors are bottom leaders and actually getting outclassed by 4/3 cams, they're still better than any cameraphone out there.

Outclassed by 4/3 cams  ::)

Yes, it appears DxO is for the clueless.

267
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 08, 2012, 08:13:36 PM »
canon crowd:
big MP is useless.

When the **** did the "Canon crowd" ever say this? Canon was the first to FF, one of the first to >20 MP, and most Canon users were disappointed that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with the D800.

Quote
both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.

"Abysmal"? LOL! Have you ever even touched a camera? FYI, the Bayer mosaic has never, ever impacted IQ to the degree claimed. And I've seen plenty of the foolish claims. First it was film guys claiming Bayer could never match three layer color film in the same format (happened around 12 MP for 35mm). Then it was the Foveon guys who couldn't distinguish between overall resolution and color detail...and exaggerated even the color detail advantage. Now you're trying the same nonsense but attaching it to sensor resolution.

Quote
I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.

While I'm looking forward to >30 MP sensors, even I have to admit that they will make no real difference for images viewed on today's monitors or prints up to about 24, maybe 30".

You've just got to love the hyperbole in photographic equipment discussions...

268
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:38:23 PM »
Maybe it's time to switch to Nikon or Sony...

No maybe about it. Canon sucks.  As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant.  TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch.  Please.  Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.  ::)

 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

You know, Canon is so bad that nobody could in good conscious sell it used to move to Nikon or Sony. What to do then? I will accept the great burden of taking your inferior Canon equipment off your hands at no cost to you. Simply ship your equipment to me along with a receipt for the shipping costs, and I will PayPal you the shipping. Then you will be free to move to Nikon/Sony, conscious clear that you did not charge someone for your inferior Canon products.

I know, I know...somebody will have paid the shipping costs, and your inferior, noisy, narrow DR Canon products aren't even worth that! But don't feel bad, I'm more than willing to make the sacrifice, humble humanitarian that I am  ::)

Any takers?  8)

269
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:32:33 PM »
DxO probably ranks it higher than a Hasselblad medium format back, so...what are you complaining about?  ;D

DxO - the Mark of the Clueless.

270
EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 08, 2012, 03:06:27 PM »
I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

Quote
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

Quote
So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 30