November 27, 2014, 10:44:10 PM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 22428 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3240
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2014, 11:34:37 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2014, 11:34:37 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2205
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2014, 11:35:37 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?   ???  I mean, your asking for "evidence" of that...I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

I hear in a song once that hips don't lie.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

bseitz234

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
    • BrianSeitzPhoto
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2014, 11:56:36 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?   ???  I mean, your asking for "evidence" of that...I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

I hear in a song once that hips don't lie.

Nah, that only applies if you're Shakira.
7D x2
70-200 f/2.8L - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 - 85 f/1.8 - 50 f/1.4 - 28 f/1.8
580ex II - 2x 430ex II

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2014, 12:47:31 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2014, 12:48:55 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???



Don't be lame! :D

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2014, 12:51:37 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

Yeah...not gonna touch that...not on these forums...

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 12:51:48 AM »
Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

You're making the prior claim, as yet unsubstantiated by other independent testers, that DxO's "overall score" has legitimacy.  Given that DxO doesn't publish their weighting, you may have a harder time with your task than jrista does proving corporations have hips.

P.S. I believe Shakira is a corporation.  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 12:51:48 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2014, 12:54:01 AM »
Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

You're making the prior claim, as yet unsubstantiated by other independent testers, that DxO's "overall score" has legitimacy.  Given that DxO doesn't publish their weighting, you may have a harder time with your task than jrista does proving corporations have hips.


|
|
V

P.S. I believe Shakira is a corporation.  ;D

I'd touch Shakira's incorporated hips to reggae music, though.... :P

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 12:55:19 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

Yeah...not gonna touch that...not on these forums...

A guy tries to start a pleasant flame war and you just have to spray halon 1301 all over it.   :P

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2014, 12:59:08 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

Yeah...not gonna touch that...not on these forums...

A guy tries to start a pleasant flame war and you just have to spray halon 1301 all over it.   :P

Hey, be careful with the BoTtoM man! We don't want to extinguish Shakira's Incorporated Hips! :P

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1499
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2014, 01:24:22 AM »
And this thread went the predictable route quickly enough...
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3240
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2014, 01:57:00 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

Let me make it easier for you.

What events/facts made you decide that it was appropriate to use that figure of speech Nikon and DxO?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 01:59:06 AM by dilbert »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 02:01:55 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

Let me make it easier for you.

Why do you think that it is appropriate to use that figure of speech with Nikon and DxO?

Because it is! :) Man, Dilbert...it's always the same old thing from you. There wasn't even any material for you to REALLY get your fingers into this time...and yet you still can't let up. It was a simple figure of speech, one meant to be a little humorous. Everyone else got it...but you? No...you gotta make an issue out of a freakin figure of speech. Man...I kinda feel sorry for you...you MISSED SHAKIRA'S HIPS, MAN!!

And yes, just to be completely clear, it was, is, and will forever be entirely appropriate to say Nikon and DxO are joined at their virtual corporate hips. Because THEY ARE! :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 02:01:55 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3240
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2014, 02:03:37 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1081
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2014, 02:09:17 AM »
Well, the interesting part of the test data is showing the d810 has a real ISO 50 (47) available, labelled as 64 and 32 extended.

The SNR at the new low ISO is now pushed down to .008% gray scale, a number only attained by Pentax' K5ii series at its measured ISO of 68 (80) until now.  The pixel-level DR is increased to 13.67 in the d810 vs 13.59 in the K5ii

I'll keep my old d800e; at ISO 12,800 and lower, it has slightly cleaner shadows than the new d810 at all matching ISO settings.  Not by much but it seems to show a slight compromise was made to the 810's sensor system to improve the measured spec in one(some) area at the expense of others.

So IMO for the D810 it's 2 steps fwd (iso 64 and 25,600) and 1 step back (increased shadow noise at ISOs 100 thru 12,800)
it does have a plethora of minor improvements tho, enough to make it an appealing upgrade option if you only have a regular d800 or lesser FF body.
i'd really like to make use of the electronic 1st curtain shutter and the better balanced mirror-shutter system for even more easily attained maximum sharpness.  Other improvements. e.g. fps and AF options and better battery life, bring it a little closer to being an all-around useful camera, not just a landscape monster.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2014, 02:09:17 AM »