DXO uh-oh?

[jrista]

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....

 

[Orangutan]

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......

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.

 

[jrista]

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......

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.

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

 

[sagittariansrock]

And this thread went the predictable route quickly enough...

 

[jrista]

...
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. ;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?

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!

 

[Aglet]

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]

...
Seriously, dude?

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]

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.

 

[jrista]

...
Seriously, dude?

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]

...
Seriously, dude?

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! :)

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

 

[Ivan Muller]

whether DXO and the D810 is flawed or not...I sure wish Canon brought out something with those megapixel numbers....

 

[Antono Refa]

Their scale goes up to 11...

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

That ∞ is Aleph naught, which is just the lowest infinitely high score DxO will score Nikon sensors.

 

[9VIII]

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).

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Loswr]

Also...

[quote author=DxO]All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.[/quote]

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.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Admin lock this one down please, it's scaring my children! :'(

 

[horshack]

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).

 

[Kathode-Ray]

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.

This is sooo sad...

 

[Loswr]

Also...

[quote author=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.
[/quote]

Yes, I can read and comprehend, a skill some lack. Perhaps you should read my post again to confirm for yourself that I did not indicate that DxO's statement is false, only that it could be... You might also note that I listed that possibility second, not first.

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 them, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Loswr]

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, and given their history and "black box" methods, questioning their statements and veracity is certainly within reason. DxO has been guilty of a variety of falsehoods on their website. They have corrected (without acknowledging their errors), others remain.

You seem to be going out of your way to argue the point, are you suggesting that DxO is infallible?