Oh! I oversaw your answer Ray.
>>Since you claim to know nothing about high-end cameras, one wonders where your suspicion that DXO might be wrong comes from.
Good question, thanks for that! Some issues I think I have partially answered with my last posts.
Regarding mistrust of dx0 data. I am sceptic of the data because from the first day dx0 lab published the mfdbs there was a gap between results and perception from the mfdb shooters. I come from the 3d world and what we did there was no lab tests, we speak just from practical experience and we only listened to technical explanations wich where able to break down complex issues down to a simple, practical level. So, I generally regard practical experience much much more than pure numbers and therefore Im by default much more willing to listen to the practical guys. However, and that makes me really wonder, and partly sad, I have not seen these kind of really qualified technical explanations or even good comparisations here. There where example images in the threads, but no mfdb shooter so far made their points really plausible. So the lack of practical demonstration from the mfdb side could mean there is indeed not much of a difference to demonstrate. Also the lenght of the discussion is sucpicious: If the difference was huge, the discussion likely would be over already. But these two points do say nothing about the real facts, they are secondary guesses.
What I'm criticising is not the validity of the dx0 data. I make no statement regarding validity of the data. But, I take nothing for granted. In what position would I put myself? If I wanted to make sense of that dx0 data, I would grab a p65 a d3x go on, shoot for two months, and compare my findings to dx0, and ask of differences if there where any. Then I would be in the position to use the dx0 data of these two cameras in my discussions. I would be able to back my own findings with the findings of the dx0 engineers. I have other things to do, but thats the way I would do it.
If there is only little difference regarding IQ, you cannot expect that mfdb shooters will acknowledge this because of the way the discussion is held. If I where a mfdb guy looking at THIS discussion, I would not want to make such comparisation only to be shouted down with an almost gloating attitude. So if the dslr crowd really wants to make a strong point wich appeals to the practical thinging photogs here, they would need to make it with practical explanations and not with numbers from 3rd party. And many would need to accept that they since they don't have access to mfdb gear simply can't make a statement regarding the issue. We simplay have a thread filled with assumtions and little own experience, little knowledge. The Raw analysis examples Gabor provided might also be ok, but until now he left out (or is incapable to do) really convincing interpretations. I don't take some pictures along with some short sentences serious. Gabor might be perfectly valid but then he is just bad at explaining himself. (Nothing against Gabor or other people here, I'm sure you are all fine guys!) Also you have to consider the practical workflow of photographers. Sure comparisations of different raw files must be done with same workflow to be able to compare, but when in real world the different workflows differ. You just have to compare these differing results in order to be able to make a relevant statement for working pros. No photog in the traditional sense will be convinced by lab tests. But He will be conviced with real world results. So this discussion needs to focus much much more on practical results and practical experience in order to become meaningful. Lab results and raw analysis are fine too, but it just has to relate to real world working experience and support practical findings. The practical findings are the ultimate benchmark. And I wrote this before: Every argument is fine as long as it is self contained and properly self understood. Im not questioning dx0, Im questioning the whole way the discussion is held.
But this was all way too long. I think my conclusion in my last post before this is much better.
In science (and also in my commonsense), one does not blindly believe a new claim or new paper. Other people have to support new findings from own experience no matter how credible the researchers are in order to establish new insights. The same should go here!