September 22, 2014, 02:27:22 AM

Author Topic: DXO uh-oh?  (Read 19560 times)

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #60 on: July 26, 2014, 04:29:04 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.

I think he is quite good at writing short baited posts, and provoking people to respond with lengthy explanations as to why his arguments make no sense.
For all I know, he might not even have an opinion about DxO and DR, just writes those posts for a nice laugh ;)
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #60 on: July 26, 2014, 04:29:04 AM »

StudentOfLight

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #61 on: July 26, 2014, 11:47:04 PM »
I'm going to use this example again:

When the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens came to the market and was tested, it got a lower score than the version I lens.  Later, DxO mark used a different CAMERA to test them, then the v2 finally scored higher.

Well, their Lens Scores are an even larger, stinkier pile of steaming BS than their Sensor Scores.  Even the name itself is intentionally misleading, since the primary determinants of the Lens Score are the T-stop of the lens and the low light performance of the camera body on which the lens is tested.
Yes, their lens scores really are a questionable. (See attached 300mm f/2.8 comparison)

Bearing in mind that the Nikon D600 has higher resolution than the 5D-III (24.49Mpx vs 23.38Mpx), it's clear that while both are excellent lenses the Canon lens is superior. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L II IS USM  equals or betters the Nikon lens in every metric in DxO summary. Even when looking through the field map diagrams, the Canon is clearly superior but somehow earns the same score.

A wise man once said: "WTF!?"  ???
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

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2014, 12:18:32 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.

Much LESS enjoyable*  ;D

And come on Jrista/Neuro, no need to be so harsh to the Mighty gods of dXo. After all, only dXo can defend us pixel peepers and sharpness lovers from those dreaded photographers non-believers!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 12:39:57 AM by traingineer »
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II | Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2014, 12:27:42 AM »
Despite all of the negativity, I've yet to be convinced that the "vibe" of their scores is noticeably wrong.  Even in the example above, sure, the Canon lens would seem to be the better lens and might deserve a better ranking than the Nikon lens.  But I think that's largely irrelevant.  All I would want to find out is their view on the Canon lens - and they think it is pretty good.  If I was in the market to buy one, their good testing results would be a positive factor in that decision.

Putting all petty Canon vs Nikon squabbling aside, can anyone actually point to a Canon camera sensor or lens that we all consider is excellent, but which DxO trashes?  I struggle to find one.
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2945
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2014, 03:45:34 AM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort
...

So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?

Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?

I don't need a community college to teach me when someone makes an allegation that is wrong.

You're joining together two statements by DxO that are unrelated.

Nowhere do they say that the listing of logos includes all of the top ten DSC manufacturers.

They state that (1) all of the top DSC manufacturers are their clients and that (2) the listing of logos is some of their clients. There is no statement on their website that says all of the logos are those from the top ten DSC manufacturers.

Even though you buy DxO's software, you just seem to see red whenever you look at their website. I feel sorry for you.

Quote
Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way ... but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand ... among their list of clients.   What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility),

I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything. I can't make any more meaningful comment on why Canon isn't there than you can - unless you know the people at DxO that made the decisions to put vendors there or someone at Canon that knows why Canon said no if the company did in fact say no. I don't have an opinion as to why DxO don't include Canon there, nor do I have (or need to have) a theory as to why Canon isn't included. If you do then I feel sorry for you.

So speculate all you like but all you are doing is guessing/speculating. Attempting to pass off your opinions or guesses as fact does not change them from just being a guess.

There's a phrase that you should include more in your posts and it goes like this: "In my opinion." Start using those three words with your statements and they'll be a lot less contentious.

Quote
DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

Why do you think that DxO is more accommodating towards Nikon?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 05:55:29 AM by dilbert »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14451
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2014, 06:58:55 AM »
Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?

I don't need a community college to teach me when someone makes an allegation that is wrong.

Quote
DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

Why do you think that DxO is more accommodating towards Nikon?

Since I stated the opposite, you've proven my point that you have difficulty comprehending what you read. 


I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

Actually, I expect your response to be something pithy like 'we can't know' or 'it doesn't matter,' – both of which are copouts to which you've resorted in the past.

...and true to form, you delivered the expected copout response.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ewg963

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2014, 07:36:27 AM »
I will continue to go out and shoot improve my skills with my outdated 5d Mark III & II camera. Oh DXO you sealed my faith I'm doomed ::)
5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 24-105mm 70-200mm 2.8 Non IS, 100-400mm 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2014, 07:36:27 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2945
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2014, 09:00:53 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2945
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2014, 09:04:07 AM »
I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

Let me put it to you a different way: why should I or anyone else care whether Canon is listed or not?
What difference will listing Canon there make to you?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14451
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2014, 09:30:57 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3202
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2014, 09:32:24 AM »
I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

Let me put it to you a different way: why should I or anyone else care whether Canon is listed or not?
What difference will listing Canon there make to you?

I am sitting in a duck blind at the end of the yard, waiting for some mergansers to wander closer for pictures, enjoying a cup of tea, and looking at CR on a laptop (gotta love wifi) while I wait. Canon being listed by DXO makes no difference to me.
The best camera is the one in your hands

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2014, 10:15:35 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.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2945
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2014, 10:27:10 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Of course it is easy to claim anything after the fact but the fact remains that your initial public attempts to explain something were built around alleging misbehavior by DxO.

Quote
Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.

I love how you pick and choose which questions to answer that are put to you! You'd make a great politician in the way that you evade questions and queries that are put to you.

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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2014, 10:27:10 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2945
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #73 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.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14451
    • View Profile
Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »
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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DXO uh-oh?
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »