July 31, 2014, 05:34:38 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 180
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:39:55 PM »
...DXO scores seem to be on the money, not just with the D800, but with all the cameras I have personal experience.
The GH4 scores mimic what I expected form using it for a few weeks before the score popped up.

Are you suggesting that everyone's usage pattern mimics yours?

That's not what he's saying. He's simply saying that his usage of different cameras and the resulting IQ from images that they create corresponds to the relative performance of cameras as scored by DxO. His observation is interesting and should be testable regardless of usage pattern. For example, if you were to go out and
use Nikon's D800, would the difference in IQ between the 5D3 and D800 correspond to the difference as predicted by DxO or not? If it does then wouldn't that indicate that even if DxO's absolute numbers are wrong that the relative difference as suggested is correct?

Quote
Speaking as someone who shoots a significant proportion of my images above ISO 1600, with a fair number above ISO 6400, I can tell you that DxO's Scores absolutely do not mimic the cameras with which I have personal experience.

And why is your usage pattern any better than his to use as the basis of which ISO level is more important to build the basis of a score upon?

It's too bad that flickr doesn't have an easy way in which to build a cross site survey of what ISOs people use to take photos with to find out which is the most popular.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:38:35 AM »
I went to the D800 and spent 12 grand switching, and I never looked back. Crop modes, clean shadows and highlights and DR were the main attractions.

Images from my D800 look like drum scans from MF/LF film, and that's the first time I'd seen a digital camera hit that goal.

I'll let Neuro defend himself, he's usually pretty good at that, but I have a few comments.

I don't think anyone disputes that the D800 sensor is better at base ISO.  That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs.  If you only need base ISO then the D800 might help you.

It's not just ISO100 (or now ISO50 with the D800!) but also ISO200 and ISO400. At ISO800, the D8x0 has dropped down the Canon 5D MkII/III performance. Beyond ISO800, there's not much in it but it is in Canon's favour.

Quote
Depending on time of day, I believe my 60D could have made those photos you linked.  (but that's just opinion, not  proven fact)

It could have done something like them. To use the jetty pic as an example, where you would have lost out would be the poles facing the camera along the jetty (for example) where the noise from the Canon sensor would interfere with getting good detail.

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:13:47 AM »
You realize this argument will be pointless when the 7D2 comes out with the 120Mpixel sensor, ISO 204,800, and 18 stops of dynamic range.... :)

Imagine how cool 18 stops would be!

As the Alexa, Red Dragon, D810, A7s etc all seem to top out at 14.5 to 15, I do fear that barring some new tech, that is the limit.

When Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung etc all hit it, it will be great, and we can all talk about photos again, and not dynamic range :-)

I'm with you on that. And more to the point, if you look at some of the measurements coming from sensors, as pixels get smaller it isn't possible to have more DR because the pixels simply can't hold enough different charge levels.

19
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:54:20 AM »
Nice pics - but I bet that I'm not alone in thinking: "Hmmm... And he couldn't do that with a Canon camera?" And I mean in one shot, without multiple exposure HDR, or multiple Raw conversions.

Sorry to spoil your party but multiple exposure HDR or multiple raw conversions does not deliver the same result as a single shot with wide DR.

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:37:58 AM »
...
FWIW, Peter van den Hamer suggests an approximation he states usually falls within 1-2 points: DxOMark_Sensor_Score = 59 + 4.3*(ColorDepth-21.1) + 3.4*(DynamicRange-11.3) + 4.4*log2(ISO/663) -0.2.  He also states, "My guess is that the actual formula is non-linear and may use (under some conditions) coefficients of 5/5/5 rather than 4.3/3.4/4.4."  His suggestion that the 'master formula' which DxO uses may be modified under some conditions further supports the claim that DxO's scoring is biased.  Yeah, that sounds like good science. NOT.
...

Well, given that the Canon EOS 10D scored a 57, he's provably wrong as his formula would give it 56.49172025110112215585 (so I can't even round it up to 57.) My "calculator" doesn't do native log2, so I had to fudge that a bit...

59+4.3*(21.1-21.1)+3.4*(10.9-11.3)+4.4*(l(571/663)/l(2))-0.2

... but l(8)/l(2) gives 3.00000000000000000002 so I doubt that it's introducing enough error to disagree.

The reason I just picked the EOS 10D is because it is one of the first cameras that DxO scored (was the first I saw with a score under 59.)

Seriously, you're using someone's guess that is provably wrong to demonstrate that DxO's science is wrong?

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:13:25 AM »
...
Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain.

When something is presented without a qualifier such as "I think that .." or "In my opinion ..." then it is as if someone is stating a fact.

Quote
Further, as stated, he doesn't even think the "joined at the hip" part is the most likely reason. He thinks Canon didn't permit it. I tend to agree. One possible reason for that possible reason is that Canon doesn't like how its products stand up on the scoring metric, and thus aren't willing to imply approval by permitting their logo. I hope you don't ask for evidence of a possible reason for a possible reason.

It would be good to turn back the "way back" clock for the Internet to a time when Canon's sensors were amongst the top rated on DxO to see if their logo was listed then. I'm inclined to believe not. If you look at the manufacturer logos present then obviously there are those present that don't score too well because the list is made up by more than Nikon. Thus I don't believe that the "easily observable" reasons why Canon isn't present are in fact the reason.

In my opinion it is more likely Canon saw their logo on that web page being as an indication that Canon endorses DxO and in return wanted some sort of consideration for their presence in that list and DxO either said no or didn't offer enough. More over, that's the kind of decision making I can see business people making. But then again, that's just a guess.

22
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:17:35 PM »
I ran (what I thought to be) an interesting poll on the nature of the 14-24 interest in this forum.   I asked if people had a choice of the sharpness of Nikon's 14-24 or the focal length of Nikon's 14-24 -- and you could only have one -- what would you choose? 

...
75% of respondents said they just wanted a sharper ultrawide than their current 16-35/17-40 options.

25% stuck to their guns that they'd accept the current (lack of) sharpness from their 16-35 lenses applied to the wider 14mm FL.

Keep in mind this was run before the very nice 16-35 F/4L IS was released.  But I find it fascinating that (with this limited sample size), the majority of people clamoring for a 14-24 just want a sharper ultrawide.  But, based on your comments, I have to assume you'd want the focal length over the sharpness (if you had to choose).

That's because until the 16-35/f4 arrived, ultra-wide options for Canon were terrible.

Kind of tells you what's important to people too: sharpness or zoom. 3/4 of the respondents answered with sharpness. Exactly what Sigma have targeted with their 50/1.4. ho hum!

23
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:06:14 PM »
If the 50/1.2L is replaced by a 50/1.4L that is smaller and lighter then it is hard to see Canon's lens delivering the same (or better) optical quality as Zeiss/Sigma as the "smaller and lighter" design is based on the doubled gaussian approach that they've discarded for better optical performance. So whilst it might be better than the existing 50/1.4, it won't be as good as Zeiss/Sigma. Oh except that there's a chance the AF will be reliable and only need AFMA tweaking.

If the 50/1.2L was universally loved by those that have it today, then surely Canon would continue with it. Maybe the feedback from owners was that it was just too damned hard to use at f/1.2 (due to the tiny depth of field) so they've retreated to f/1.4?

Interesting rumor all round.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:05:05 AM »
So where are all the rumors about the 7D's successor????

25
...
Seth Resnick was, and still is, an incredible image-maker even before digital, and then he became even better.  He not only makes terrific images but also teaches including the “Explorers Of Light” under my watch.  You know how they say, birds of a feather flock together — well that’s exactly what happened with the “Explorers” during my watch.  Seth Resnick and Jeff Schewe became the ultimate “digital gurus” for the “Explorers,” and that’s a FACT.  They were both powerhouses and I don’t know if they ever slept, but they had more energy then anybody.  Unfortunately, they were both excised from the “Explorers Of Light.”
...

Seth and Jeff leaving the Canon "Explorer's of Light" is Canon's loss. There's no other way to put it.

Watch the early Lightroom tutorials on LL with Seth and you get a very quick impression that he's not only a fantastic photographer but a very intelligent and charismatic person too.

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:58:10 PM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

I don't have to wonder, I know what I wrote, what you wrote, and when.  You obviously do not.  You didn't ask first, you asked after I had already indicated that I don't believe is DxO is in collusion with Nikon (although it certainly is a possiblity, just a remote one).

Ok, that's a statement that addresses the "joined at the hip" comment that has been floating around but it still doesn't address the "Please explain" above.

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:45:18 PM »
....
Perhaps DxO is biased. Perhaps Nikon and Sony have decided to "build to the test." Perhaps the differences being tested are so insignificant that the ratings have only academic and no real-world application. Most likely it's a combination of all three.

It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

28
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:42:23 PM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:10:35 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

Yep.  According to nearly every review, too.  Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly.

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it:  People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc...  And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens:  There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus.  People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering.  The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality.  And the price would be four times what it is now.

+1

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:32:29 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

It is bit extreme to stop anyone from posting their viewpoints.

The fun part is trying to get jrista/neuro to be open with people rather than hide their viewpoints and thoughts. "DxO and Nikon are joined at the hip". How many times has that been repeated now but no substance has been given as to why anyone should think that but yet nobody wants to back away from saying that.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 180