QuoteThey report DR, for example, but there's no mention that it only applies at base ISO. That original DxO bias is propagated elsewhere.
Wow, I never knew this. I figured they took several measurements 100, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and THEN averaged them into a final DR number? I don't understand why you wouldn't do it as an average across the ISO range? Especially when you consider that most photographers outside of a studio use the full ISO range.
75% of what I shoot is ISO 800 and above, and I'm sure I'm not alone....therefore their score for DR is almost worthless to me.....AND misleading, since most of us are just going to look at the score, not the method/process for achieving the score.
again...continue to become less and less impressed with the review part of their business.
They call it a 'Landscape Score' so I guess the logic is that you're shooting on a tripod using base ISO.
The point is that when you take a series of measurements, then aggregate them into a score with arbitrarily chosen weightings that aren't universally applicable, the scores are useless.
Just doesn't follow. The score does not need to be "universally applicable" to be useful.
I'll acknowledge that there is probably no such thing as 'universally applicable'. But if the arbitrary weightings in the score are not aligned to the user's need/preferences, they are useless to that individual. If the forumla/weightings are not fully disclosed, it's impossible to judge if they're applicable for a particular individual.
Say I shoot landscapes at night (higher ISO to avoid star trails), or am unable to bring a tripod? How does DR at base ISO help me evaluate a sensor for my needs? The measurement is useful, the Landscape Score is not.