December 07, 2016, 05:23:02 PM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 70538 times)

bseitz234

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
    • BrianSeitzPhoto
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #15 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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2014, 11:56:36 PM »

Orangutan

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1565
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #16 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 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #17 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 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #18 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 X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1565
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #19 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

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #20 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 X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1565
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #21 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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 12:55:19 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #22 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 Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1687
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 01:24:22 AM »
And this thread went the predictable route quickly enough...
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | 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 85mm f/1.2L 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

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #24 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

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #25 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.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2014, 02:22:00 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.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 02:29:28 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

That is interesting, as the K5 and K5-II both also use very heavy in-camera processing of the RAW to achieve that. Before Pentax started using Sony sensors, the sensors they were using were very noisy. Pentax combated that with RAW signal processing, which they brought over to their Sony sensor cameras, which is why they had the best SNR and some of the best RAW dynamic range of any cameras till now.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2014, 02:29:28 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2014, 02:30:22 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.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

So why did you say it?

Why are you making such an issue out of a trivial, pointless thing? Are you personally offended by a figure of speech? Seriously, who's the troll now?  ??? Who's disrupting the potential useful discussion in this thread to grind their own personal axe? Hmm?  ::)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2014, 02:44:36 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.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

So why did you say it?

Why are you making such an issue out of a trivial, pointless thing? Are you personally offended by a figure of speech? Seriously, who's the troll now?  ??? Who's disrupting the potential useful discussion in this thread to grind their own personal axe? Hmm?  ::)

If you can't answer a simple question without being evasive then obviously you were just trolling in the first place and hoping that nobody would pick you up on it. So I'll ask you again, why did you say that Nikon and DxO were joined at the HIP? Please answer the simple question without being evasive.

I have no obligation to answer you, Dilbert. None whatsoever. I already explained why I said it, you either missed that, or it simply wasn't good enough for you. The thing that is most curious is how persistent and insistent you are that I "explain myself for my heinous, disgusting and evil words against the god of DXO!" You clearly have a personal issue here, this has nothing to do with what I said...what I said was and is meaningless. It's just a stupid phrase, it doesn't mean anything. This is you pushing me to see if and where I'll break. This is you being...well...you: A troll. You're the troll here. You've always been the troll here. You will ALWAYS be the troll here. Everyone knows that. I have nothing to defend myself about, and EVERYONE knows that. Your embarrassing yourself. You can go ahead and keep right on at it if that's what you intend, but it's just getting pathetic. Your one weird duck, and I have no interest in continuing ANOTHER pointless discussion with a guy who's got personal axes to grind and who can't get his head out of the DXO cesspool and stop irritating everyone. (Oooh...lets see how THAT sentence sets Dilbert off! :P  ::))

Good NIGHT, Dilbert. (I'm really bummed that's your nickname...Dilbert in the comics was such a lovable guy...real shame...)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2014, 02:44:36 AM »