This disparity, disconnect, or whatever you want to call it, between DXO measurements and and visual experience, should be demonstrated so we can all understand, and see for ourselves, what the issue is about, precisely.
Michael has already demonstrated that on a particular type of subject, at an A3+ size, there's virtually no discernible difference between a G10 and a P45+, despite the fact that the DXO results imply that there should be a difference.
Michael now seems to claim something along the lines of the opposite. That despite the DXO test results indicating that the D3X is very slightly better than, or the same as, the P45+ at the normalised size of 8x12", the eyes tell a different story, that the P45+ is clearly better, and presumably not just in terms of resolution which we already understand has to be better.
I can't dispute this unless I see some comparisons along the lines of the G10/P45 comparison. Seeing is believing.
C'mon Michael. Back up your assertions with some sample comparisons .
I've read a lot of these threads about subjective or objective, apple and oranges, DxO this and dpi that yada yada yada...
No-one, and I mean no-one, has ever actually come up with a comparison that is a true level playing field both technically and aesthetically. This is because such a beast does not exist.
The only way you can come close is to very tightly define the task
for which the camera is to be used - it is merely a tool at the end of the day. Only then can you attempt to make a meaningful judgement. For instance a D3X is 'better' than a P45 on a Cambo Wide at sport and wildlife (but again only if we are talking about hand held, long lens, high shutter speed work). It's not a better camera, it's just better at that specific task.
This is why DxO testing and rating can never be broadly meaningful - all it does is rate camera sensors by it's own narrow set of rules which may or may not be relevant to the real world. By it's own rules
the D3X is indeed better than a P45 back. I could make the argument that my old 400D is clearly superior to a 1DsMk3 - if I use price and weight as my criteria.
Even print making is suspect as a criteria - size does matter. I'd venture to suggest that a 6x4 print from a high street lab would look much the same from a D3X or a P45 - although forn low light work the D3 would clearly 'win'. So if your test criteria is 6x4 prints then the D3 wins. OTOH if we set the print criteria at 30x40 then the balance shifts. The P45 will look superior generally, except again for low light or action work.
There are too many variables but at the very least I'd like to see the task
, or intended end use, included in any discussions about camera superiority - without it any arguments are pointless.