March 02, 2015, 02:07:08 PM

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 - Wrathwilde

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
EOS Bodies / Re: Loss in Resale Value of 5D Mk3
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:54:58 AM »
Shouldnt Canon be somehow more responsible in this Light Leak issue - even if its not an major issue - they have made it a big enough issue by statements they have issued along with affected serial numbers. New buyers dont seem interested in purchasing any of the 1X or 2X serial models. So we early adopters have been penalized by what something Canon is totally responsible for. If you tried to resell your camera that you bought last month you may have already lost a couple of hundred dollars because of the light leak issue. Apart from setting the price of the new Mk3 out of the reach (esp when compared with the D800) they have now reduced our investment, and dont seem to care.

That's absolutely right, your 5D3 isn't worth the plastic and metal that it's made of, you'll never get close to full retail for your camera... you'd be lucky to get 1/100th, but I'll make you a deal I'll give you 1/50th if you send your 5d mark III to me within the week... as long as it's still fully functional.

What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo?  What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.

(And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.)

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures. See quotes below...

All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process. 
they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50

As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother... when the best course of action would be to share them on the DxOMark forum, where the mods can actually see the issues being brought up about their articles and reviews, research them to find out if they actually are mistakes or not, and correct them if necessary.

I can tell you right now that if DxOLab's testing procedures were as worthless or as suspect as people like you, and some others on this forum, make them out to be... then the software they use that compiled data for, namely DxO Optics Pro, would be absolutely worthless... instead of the kickass software it is. You may disagree with their numbers and testing procedures, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and that is reflected in the ability of their software to maximize image quality for the Camera's and Lenses they have run through their testing procedures. If their tests weren't exceedingly accurate, their software would suffer horribly... something I don't think most of the people here complaining about DxO's testing procedures seem to grasp. If their testing is worthless... then their software would be too, that's obviously not the case.

Which isn't to say that their overall camera score isn't biased toward certain sensor attributes, just that the actual measurements from their testing has to be exceedingly accurate to generate the results DxO Optics Pro is capable of.


the information is their product.

It isn't. The "reviews" and "published results" are just a happy byproduct of the testing they do for their real business, their software business, and DxO Optics Pro is some kick ass software. They also create embedded software, silicon architectures and optical designs for still and video image real time processing, as well as image quality evaluation, measurement tools, and methodologies. To equate the fact that their web staff may accidentally confuse one english word for another on a site that is merely a free public service (that originates in french, no less), or that the tech writer who occasionally quotes the wrong number is somehow indicative of the quality of their science and engineering staff is laughable. If you were translating your view point into french, would you recognize the difference between "conneries" and a "connard" at a glance? It's like knowing the difference between your argument and yourself.

IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!! is separate from the main site. DxOMark isn't in the business of testing, that would be DxOLabs. If you think the lab techs are the ones writing the reviews... and plugging the information into the DxOMark site, you are wonderfully naive. Do you think the engineers at GM or Ford are wasting their time plugging in performance numbers on their companies respective websites, or that they double check the websites to make sure the published numbers matched what they tested on the bench, or that they personally make sure that the foreign GM/Ford sites are properly translated? Of course not. DxOLab's technicians have better things to do, and real work to accomplish, like making sure the data they collected translates into real world improvements in their software.

At the end of the day DxOMark is nothing more than a public forum and service that DxOLabs is under no real obligation to provide information to. The fact that they translate their pages as well as they do is amazing, and better than 99% of foreign sites I've visited. The fact is... accidentally getting a number wrong in a product review is pretty meaningless, they aren't selling the products they review, if they were... that would be a completely different matter.

Ever read an auto magazine? They are constantly doing tests, collecting data, etc. I often find that the written article will have at least one discrepancy from the data table. Does that make the people who review the cars idiots? Does that mean that we shouldn't trust them when they say that the 2012 Camaro out performs the 2012 Mustang, that it rides nicer and is more forgiving in corners? Of course not, and although the person writing the (car) article was probably present during the testing... he probably wasn't the one setting up the testing equipment or verifying the numbers. 

Jobs get delegated, if you're in the legal field, or advertising, sure, the wrong word or number might get you fired... as there is often a great deal of money riding on it. The same can't be said for DxOMark, which is just a free service that was born out of DxOLabs legitimate business, they have no need to strive for excellence in their web translations, their current incarnation is just fine, occasional errors and all.

they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison.

The 5D3's ISO sensitivity for 50 and 100 is exactly the same (tested at an actual ISO 80). The raw files get flagged for Canon's software to process differently, but the way DxO tests the raw files there is probably no difference between the two. Canon software pulls it down a partial stop. Basically Canon's ISO 50 is a software cheat, so who gives a damn. In reality the 5D3 really does only go down to it's 100 setting, which is effectively ISO 80. Long story short, that quote of the 5D3 going down to ISO 100 could have been a mistake, or it could have been deliberate... since the raw files are identical except for some flagging that tells Canon's software how to process the "ISO 50" file.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Some 7D Punishment
« on: May 15, 2012, 05:27:17 AM »
If there was rust on his motherboard... he hasn't been drying/storing his equipment properly. DigitalRev completely submerged theirs... and it still worked after being dried out. 

Also, if you're working in the rain and your camera is getting wet and you get an error, you do not try to re-power your camera. Your Camera doesn't know that it's likely water causing the error, you as the photographer should have enough sense to figure that out. You power down the camera, remove the battery, towel dry the exterior and let it dry out. Putting your camera in a sealed storage box with Molecular Sieve packets is the best and probably quickest way to dry out your camera. An air-conditioned room, or a room with a dehumidifier running is also an option, but depending on how low you can drop the humidity level, it may take a few days to dry it out completely. Placing it in a brown paper bag then placing it in a tub of uncooked rice may also help draw out some excess moisture, if you don't have access to desiccant packets.

tl;dr - Point is, the guy with water damage to his 7D likely ruined it himself by trying to keep using it after getting an error, that he acknowledges was caused by the rain... without drying it out first.

Where's the smite button when you need it?

shooting at the top of the cage for most shots

How does one go about shooting over the top of the cage? Is there a ledge on the outside of the cage, do you have to use a ladder? I have a friend who trains 5 MMA fighters and wants me to photograph the fights. I've never been to a fight, so I'm not sure what to expect.

Also, what lens are you using?

EOS Bodies / Re: One area the 5D3 beats the D800...
« on: April 20, 2012, 09:14:54 PM »
I think your setup might have some weird scaling issue. Try a different browser too.

Ok, tried using Firefox instead of Safari... Much Much less noticeable, barely perceptible instead of in your face... the 5D3 still looks cleanest, but by a much smaller margin.

EOS Bodies / Re: One area the 5D3 beats the D800...
« on: April 20, 2012, 03:52:53 PM »
It seems the 5D3 beats the D800 (and the 5D2) in it's anti-aliasing. You'll notice the 5D3 image is just about perfect, the 5D2, D800 and the A900 all show problems, phantom vertical or horizontal lines that seem to cut through the pattern. Red arrows show the problem areas. 

 The image is from DPR's RAW image comparisons. It's not quite visible on the D800 at the reduced resolution on this site, however if you download the image you should be able to see it clearer at full size. 

 You can also go to DPR's page here and move the selected area to the pinwheel directly below the + in the center of the frame. You can of course compare how other cameras perform against the 5D3 on this same test.

Are you sure it's not something with your browser or graphics card or the downsampled image you posted here?

I don't see any of that at all when I go to the DPR page. And it looks like line skipped downsampling in your sample posted.

Not saying that the 5D3 doesn't do some things better than the D800, it does, color moire-free video and fps at FF just to name two. But I don't see what you point arrows at above.

What type of computer equipment are you viewing it on? I can see it crystal clear on my 27" iMac.

EOS Bodies / Re: One area the 5D3 beats the D800...
« on: April 20, 2012, 12:24:51 PM »
@V8Beast: I only wrote that because of the other thread, where posters either enjoy complaining about DXO blatantly manipulating test results or being blind believers in whatever results DXO reports, as if this was any kind of rational behaviour.

  I'm one who believes Dxo's tests aren't biased at all. They are what they are, and they're used to help optimize DxO's software. Every test has a strict set of criteria, and the results are what they came up with while adhering to that criteria. The fact that the results are converted to a scoring system (also using a fixed formula) is public service, they are under no obligation to actually share their test results, but they do, and we should be thankful. 

  Do their results miss some features that also help improve picture quality, like Canon's stellar anti-aliasing filter, it appears so. One thing is for certain, Nikon's sensors excel in areas that most influence DxO's rating system, and seeing as how DxO's system has remained consistent over the last several generations of cameras, I don't think they're Nikon biased... if anything I would say Nikon has optimized it's sensors using DxO's criteria and equipment.

  The one other area that people often bring up to dismiss DxO's testing is the fact that Canon's 70-200 v2 scored lower than v1. I write this off to be nothing more than normal sample variations.  DxO might have received a stellar copy of the v1 lens they originally tested... that skewed it's numbers higher than the average v1 lens. They might also have received a sub par v2. They did say that v1 had only a slight edge in resolution, and that v2 handled chromatic aberration better. Frankly, I think the absence of chromatic aberration has a much bigger impact on the final quality of an image than a minuscule difference in resolving power. I think the test's were fair and accurate (on the basis of an individual copy of the lens tested). Would it get me to purchase a v1 over the v2? No. Reduced chromatic aberration is more important to me than absolute resolving power. DxO's testing is only as accurate as the individual sample they tested.

EOS Bodies / One area the 5D3 beats the D800...
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:12:05 AM »
It seems the 5D3 beats the D800 (and the 5D2) in it's anti-aliasing. You'll notice the 5D3 image is just about perfect, the 5D2, D800 and the A900 all show problems, phantom vertical or horizontal lines that seem to cut through the pattern. Red arrows show the problem areas. 

 The image is from DPR's RAW image comparisons. It's not quite visible on the D800 at the reduced resolution on this site, however if you download the image you should be able to see it clearer at full size. 

 You can also go to DPR's page here and move the selected area to the pinwheel directly below the + in the center of the frame. You can of course compare how other cameras perform against the 5D3 on this same test.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review
« on: April 19, 2012, 10:50:23 AM »
And your arguments regarding the DX0 Mark tests, bias etc. If the shoe was on the other foot, you lot would be putting the boot into Nikon and praising DX0 Mark for their testing techniques.

  Exactly, I don't believe the results are biased at all... the data isn't collected for the purpose of giving sensor reviews, that's just a byproduct. The data is collected to form a basis of the camera sensor performance, so that DxO's software can try to exact the very best image quality from the known limits of the sensor. The RAW files the Nikons produce exhibit much less sensor noise, it has been said that Nikon cooks it RAW files to compensate for sensor noise, where as, Canon does not. This could be why the RAW tests seem to favor Nikon so heavily in DR at low ISOs.

That said, even my conservative estimates for the 5D3's DxoMark score were way off.

This is what I'm expecting, for the 5D3 vs D800

Overall Score - 84 ( Actual Score - 81)

Color Depth - 24 bits  (Actual Score - 24 bits) one of three, I'm on fire!!!

Dynamic Range - 12.4  Evs  (Actual Score - 11.7)

Low-Light ISO - 3200  (Actual Score - 2293)

I am actually disappointed that Canon hadn't made more strides in sensor performance in 4 years, don't get me wrong, it's still a great camera, but I was expecting four years of sensor development to yield more, and I was not expecting to lose ground in DR as compared to the 5DMk2.

  No. The light leek is an issue that wouldn't present itself in normal use, and slipped by. There is no way that Canon would release a flagship product, and start full scale production, unless they thought they had a solid product. Selling a beta stage product, as a final release, is a sure way to lose the trust of your customer base. Things do slip by on occasion, and did here. 

  No company can ever know precisely what they'll need to produce for a consumer product. The best they can do is estimate. Take the iPhone for example, no matter how high they estimate initial demand... they've always been caught woefully short.

  Original iPhone released 3Q 2007 - Sold      270,000 units 3Q (The original Jesus phone)
  iPhone 3G        released 3Q 2008 - Sold      717,000 units 3Q (More than double the original sales)
  iPhone 3GS      released 3Q 2009 - Sold   5,200,000 units 3Q (More than 7x the 3G sales)
  iPhone 4          released 3Q 2010 - Sold   8,400,000 units 3Q (3.2 million more than 3GS)
  iPhone 4S        released 3Q 2011 - Sold 20,300,000 units 3Q (More than double the iPhone 4)
  Seeing as how Canon kept the specs and release of the 5D3 under wraps until almost the last minute, it's quite possible that they were a little low in their estimate. They probably figured that the lack of extra megapixels, and the increase in price, would have kept sale a little lower than they turned out. That said, I don't think they vastly underestimated demand, if they had - you would see a lot of people trying to sell them for more than they paid. This is not the case, although if the recall/hold lasts more than a couple of weeks, you may see more people trying to sell them at a profit.


EOS Bodies / Re: Why so long on the DXOMark and DPReviews?
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:41:41 AM »

To quote DxO's site: "Here is just a sample of our current customers:..." with a picture of Nikon's image below it.  I think it is fair to say that they have ties to camera and lens manufacturers because they are expressly advertising these businesses as their customers on their site.  Paste the link in a browser and look for yourself.  This isn't conjecture nor is it conspiracy theory; it is fact.

I created a PDF of the website.  See the attached.  Opening the page sometimes defaults to their Home page.

  Wrong. It means that several large companies find enough value in DxOMark products and services that they are willing to purchase them, and Nikon happens to be one of many. It's not advertising for Nikon, it's advertising for DxOMark. A lot of large companies list who their customers are, so what? It provides a reassurance for other companies who are looking at purchasing their equipment and services, and therefore further establishes their legitimacy. It doesn't make DxOMark beholden to Nikon in any way.

  A customer is a customer, either they find value in your products and services, or they don't. Nikon currently finds that DxoMark's equipment and procedures are helpful in their quest to make better sensors. If anything this makes Nikon beholden to DxOMark, not the other way around.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?
« on: April 12, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw the 5D3's light leak at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Why can't I applaud you for a Ferris Bueller reference?

EOS Bodies / Re: Why so long on the DXOMark and DPReviews?
« on: April 12, 2012, 02:49:23 PM »
I defended DXO some time ago just because they publish their testing procedures first and then follow them when testing. But I think you will also admit, that when there is a place for some speculation it will always happen. When only one copy (even if production one) was tested, then someone always can ask questions:
1. Was it the only copy they had?
2. If no didn't they "carefully" selected one "special" copy for testing purposes?
3. If they publish tests of only one copy of gear, doesn't it open space for such speculations as above?
4. Do they have any interest in such behaviour if they are sponsored by one producent?

I don't say they do it like described above. But as far as there is a reason to speculate, people will ask questions and doubt.

  Personally I'd be suspect of any site that cherry picked to find the best possible sample to test, or tested several and only published the best performer. This is the reason that the most reputable sites test units acquired from the retail channel, and not cherry picked units from the manufacture.

  I'd also be suspect of any test site that would bow to pressure from end users to redo their tests. Now, if the manufacture claimed that the results were far different than their own in house testing, and contacted them about the possibility that the lens they tested might be defective... and paid for them to acquire another sample, then sure, they should be willing to retest. That said, they are under no obligation to do so. 

  Sure you can speculate they got a bad copy, suggesting that their credibility is shot because a lens didn't test well is a different matter. 

Lastly, no, they are not sponsored by any Camera or Lens company

From their website -

We test commercial products: in other words, we buy or rent lenses and cameras from the very same retailers that consumers use. When we do test pre-production models (when commercial products are not yet available), we clearly indicate this on our site, and we retest those models when they become commercially available. 

Finally, DxOMark has no ties to or interests of any sort with camera or lens manufacturers, which means that we are completely independent from them.

edit - That and DxOMark has probably figured out that 99.9% of people posting comments have absolutely zero credibility or experience in testing sensors and/or lenses, and are just butt-hurt that the Camera/Lens that they purchased (or planned to purchase) didn't score as high as they believed it should. That and the posters just can't accept that their beloved product isn't the greatest thing since sliced sex on buttered buns.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10