September 16, 2014, 03:49:49 PM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 19310 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4471
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #30 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...
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 02:22:00 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2887
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2014, 02:27:04 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?

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4471
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #32 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.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4471
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #33 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?  ::)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2887
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2014, 02:36:54 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.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4471
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #35 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...)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Ivan Muller

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 02:52:50 AM »
whether DXO and the D810 is flawed or not...I sure wish Canon brought out something with those megapixel numbers....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 02:52:50 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2887
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2014, 02:57:05 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

Fine, suit yourself.

Lets see what you've said:

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! :)
...
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.

So what you're saying is that because you say Nikon and DxO are joined at the virtual hips, they are?

We should believe what you're saying without any evidence to back it up?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 03:04:57 AM by dilbert »

Antono Refa

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2014, 03:06:44 AM »
Their scale goes up to 11...

You mean their scale goes up to ∞! ∞ is to 11 as 11 is to 10 in this case. :P MOAR!!

That ∞ is Aleph naught, which is just the lowest infinitely high score DxO will score Nikon sensors.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 03:10:23 AM by Antono Refa »

9VIII

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2014, 03:50:54 AM »
Congrats to Nikon for another world class sensor.

You mean Sonikon?

Maybe once both of them have sunk enough they'll merge and we'll actually get decent lenses for Sony cameras (best of both worlds).
-100% RAW-

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14376
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2014, 04:04:41 AM »
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.

True.  DxO is a service provider, and as the saying goes, the customer is always right.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14376
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2014, 04:06:30 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2887
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2014, 04:40:09 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.

Read the quote on DxO's web page:

"Here is a sample of some of our clients."

It doesn't say that those listed are DxO's only customers. It also doesn't say those listed are the top ten DSC manufacturers. It just says that they are *some* of DxO's customers. So Canon could well be a customer of DxO and if they were, then the statement on DxO's webpage is still true.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2014, 04:40:09 AM »

StudentOfLight

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2014, 05:32:55 AM »
Admin lock this one down please, it's scaring my children!  :'(
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

horshack

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2014, 06:42:45 AM »
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip. Plus, all this really means, particularly the new 14.8 stops Print DR number, is that Nikon is cooking their RAW files EVEN MORE. Nikon/Sony's biggest "cheat" is the fact that they clip to black point, instead of offsetting to black point. Nikon cameras just throw away a lot of low-level signal information. The Sony Exmor sensor gives them more room to do that, for sure, but they are still throwing away information.

Clipping the back point does not affect the DR measurements because DxO's methodology (and other testers whose independent results match DxO's) account for the clipping. Also, Nikon stopped clipping blacks starting with the Sony Exmor in the D5300 (see here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52493166).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2014, 06:42:45 AM »