Messages

46

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:52:28 AM »

Well it's like me and basketball.  In HS I couldn't miss in practice from the 3 point arc.  So you could say I was a great 3-point shooter.  However, I never hit a 3 in a game because I never got open and wasn't even quick enough to get open.  So it was actually meaningless.

You, too, huh?  Excellent analogy!

47

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:10:04 PM »

If  we  shall discuss a specific topic (DXO measurements vs reality) let's us do that without involving other parameters.
it is very difficult to follow  when people are involving   other features in the cameras who has nothing to do with DXO measurements.

But REALITY does involve other parameters... Don't tell me you are taking pictures with just your sensor?  That is why this is titled DXO vs Reality.  Reality is what it is.  You need to consider everything and not only the sensor.  It's elementary my dear Watson...

Nope, DXO mark vs reality, you can read  at DXO what the marks includes  and which  sensor parameters  are measured. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores

To help photographers rank and compare photographic equipment, DxOMark provides four scores showing camera sensor image quality performance:  nada more.

The reality is that low-light ISO does not = a good sports camera, but that is how it's being portrayed.

48

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 19, 2012, 02:09:56 PM »

And frankly, I don't think that non-obsesed consumers care about making truly personally informed decisions.

Not sure I agree with that...I think most consumers make personally informed decisions - it's just that since it's personally informed, and what constitutes adequate information for that is different for different people.  But that idea is consistent with what I'm saying - DOMark data are not a factor in the buying decisions of most consumers when it omes to a dSLR purchase.

Ah, but DXOMark doesn't just do dSLR's.   

49

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 19, 2012, 11:41:41 AM »

Under the "cameras" tab on their page, I see "camera sensor database", "camera sensor ratings" and "compare camera sensors".

I don't think they're making it a secret that they are benchmarking sensors.

Not secret, just enough under the radar that it's easily overlooked by average consumers.

They present scores in "Portrait" and "Landscape" and "Sports" even though their criteria do not apply to many critical elements of those photographic activities.  Yes, they explain what they mean by those terms, but to the average consumer the name is going to mean a whole lot more than the actual test criteria.

What descriptions would be more appropriate in your opinion ?

Umm, how about "Color depth", "Dynamic Range", and "Low-light ISO"?

I know for my sports photography, the sensor itself is the least of my concerns and yet they present low-light ISO as a singular element for their "sports" score.  Again, not an outright lie, but it sure seems intentional to mislead people that aren't willing or interested in reading the fine print.

How precisely are they trying to "mislead" people ? This is a step beyond simply criticising their choice of naming, here you appear to be accusing them of choosing the names in such a way as to favour their business.

Well, please do substantiate this accusation a little. For example, how do they benefit from calling their high ISO use case "Sports" instead of "event photography" or "wedding photography" ?

I guess I am just of the mind that their scores (not their measurements) seem to have a bent towards Nikon.  I don't know this for a fact or why they would do such; maybe they own stock.  But the net result (pun intended) is that an "I'm looking for a good sports camera" type of query returns values that are actually only good "low-light ISO" cameras and completely suck for sports.  Why would they perpetrate this unless they are either lazy (as one person suggested), have a hidden agenda, or just kinda clueless (which I doubt, because they seem pretty bright.)

50

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 18, 2012, 06:25:14 PM »

Well, IMO it's actually worse than this.  Because they would publish overall scores, but those scores are only reflective of the engine performance.  There is no consideration for handling, traction, braking, interior features, etc.

If they tried to incorporate all of those features into their score, it would make things worse (and make the score more open to criticism).

It's better that they stick with a single thing -- benchmarking sensor performance.

I don't know anyone who would buy a car based on engine performance charts, yet somehow this makes sense in a camera? 

This is a straw man. No one has proposed that sensor performance is the only factor a buyer should consider.

You seem to be suggesting that no-one should measure engine performance (and therefore no-one should publish engine power/torque  output and curves)

Not saying no one should measure, but that in the camera world these measures are blown way out of proportion for what they should be.  And if they're truly just measuring sensors, then shouldn't be the rating be identified to the sensor, and not the camera??  Pretty sure multiple camera's use the same sensor, but you don't find the sensor score, you find the camera score.

My gripe is not in their testing, it's in the presentation and marketing layer.  For example, they say "The Overall Sensor Score is based on all characteristics of a camera sensor, independent of the camera lens..."  Umm, it's independent of a whole lot more than just the lens.  My point is there is a certain amount of deceptiveness in their marketing (for lack of a better word.)  They present scores in "Portrait" and "Landscape" and "Sports" even though their criteria do not apply to many critical elements of those photographic activities.  Yes, they explain what they mean by those terms, but to the average consumer the name is going to mean a whole lot more than the actual test criteria.  I know for my sports photography, the sensor itself is the least of my concerns and yet they present low-light ISO as a singular element for their "sports" score.  Again, not an outright lie, but it sure seems intentional to mislead people that aren't willing or interested in reading the fine print.

51

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 17, 2012, 04:20:56 PM »

There is some nitpicking about the way those measurements are aggregated but that's about it.

Subaru Legacy, Overall Score = 92
BMW 760Li xDrive, Overall Score = 84

Preposterous?  Well...the Overall Score is based on a weighted composite of two Use Case Scores, Winter Utility and Summer Utility. Those are based, respectively, on accurate and reliable Measurements of the ability of just the left rear wheel to push the car up a 20-degree incline, and the towing capacity.  But those details are just nitpicking. The Overall Scores clearly show that the Subaru is better.

 

Well, IMO it's actually worse than this.  Because they would publish overall scores, but those scores are only reflective of the engine performance.  There is no consideration for handling, traction, braking, interior features, etc.  I don't know anyone who would buy a car based on engine performance charts, yet somehow this makes sense in a camera? 

"My car has more ponies than yours and is therefore better even though I can't corner over 15mph, and it becomes airborn over 85mph."

52

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 15, 2012, 02:48:35 PM »

The 1D X scores still can't be found on the DXOMark website. 12,8 stops of DR out of a Canon sensor? I won't believe it until I see it.

And that's what cracks me up about this whole thing.  If it were that significant or that drastic, you wouldn't need a test to tell you about it, you'd see it in the photos.  Just my $.02.   

53

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 11, 2012, 04:16:32 PM »

It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.

Silly me; I would think that high scores would be indicative of "fantastic results".  In fact maybe that's what some of these folks are saying is the problem with DXO scores.

54

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 11, 2012, 10:31:16 AM »

i guess for some the reputation of the DXOmark has just become a bit better.   

I think this is the first time admin put Canon's DXO mark on the front page

Yeah, I thought he said earlier this year that he was never going to post anything dxomark-related on the front page ever again because their sensor scores were meaningless.

But see, this isn't from DXO, it's a rumor about DXO, so it's all good.   

55

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: October 10, 2012, 02:23:19 PM »

All these posts that say of course you can have greater range on outputs than the sensor is capable of:

On a scale of 1-10, I give you an 11!

<please note the obvious logic flaw and sarcasm>

"But this one goes to 11!"

Or maybe this is a case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?  I dunno, it just seems be to be missing the forest for the trees.

56

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: October 09, 2012, 06:09:38 PM »

Neuro you know you're popular when people join just to comment on your posts.   

He is not popular,mybe popular among ignorant people . Neuro writes so many inaccuracies and  he is not listening to other people with knowledge.

You do realize of course that by this statement youare saying the majority of people on this forum are ignorant, because neuro is highly respected around here.  Maybe you'd be happier on a different forum where you don't have to tolerate all us ignoramuses. 

57

Canon General / Re: Why you should take your camera to family Weddings

« on: October 03, 2012, 05:26:42 PM »

Too many holes in this story dear mother ... I am sorry but you are obviously a wedding photographer and there is no way you dont know the name of the offcial photog as i dont think you'll let your daughter pick one without consulting you as wedd photog !? - why else she would tell you to sit and enjoy the day or whatever she told you !?
I just think you made some good shots of them walking down the eisle and thats all...
Even on a first wedding and even as a second photog - no one is going to run out of memory on a begining of a church ceremony - thats just hard to believe , and the bigest reason is that a man is getting payed for what he does !

My point is : even if he did what you claim he did ! - big part of responsibility is again yours , cause you let your daughter pick a total amateur for her big day !!! I repeat you as a pro wedd photographer !
Makes sence ha ? When you look from this angle !?

And yes i would also love too see some of those pictures...

And yes its not nice to spit on someones work even if he is anonimus and you are hideing behind nick on some forum on the web...

Okay this is a first for me, but....GO AWAY!

58

EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.

« on: October 03, 2012, 05:15:52 PM »

Canon's response:

Thank you for your inquiry.  You can send your camera to the nearest Canon Service Center, and we will happily report the shutter count to you, the charge will be approximately 100x what you paid to the website.  Alternatively, you may choose to purchase a camera such as the EOS 1D X, which reports the shutter count on the system status menu of the camera.

Why do you want to know?

If it's such useless information (as espoused in other posts) then why is it reported on the EOS 1DX?     (I'm believing that that element of Neuro's post was a true statement...)

59

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: October 03, 2012, 05:08:01 PM »

yes it is nice , this is from  iPhone 4s

I'm still waiting for that nice indoor sports photo from an iPhoney.

60

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 06:03:38 PM »

C'mon, do I really have to put <sarcasm> or <tongue-in-cheek> or <yuk it up, these are the jokes> tags all over my posts?  Really?!?

Wait, I'm confused--is this a serious question or are you being sarcastic?