DXO tests

[bcooter]

Hi,

According to the information at Senscore the major difference to DxO-mark that DxO-mark is to a large extent based on base ISO, with "low light" part taking high ISO noise into account, while the Senscore is covering a large ISO range.

On the other hand, DxO actually publishes data for all ISOs and even includes a few MFD systems.

Best regards
Erik

I stay away from these threads (obviously I didn't today), because this type of stuff is killing this section of the forum.


IMO

BC

[eronald]

I stay away from these threads (obviously I didn't today), because this type of stuff is killing this section of the forum.


IMO

BC

J,

 There is such a thing as overtesting. However if you want to know at one glance how a new camera will fare wrt DR and ISO, take your current model, read the DxO number, take the new one, add the stop difference. And there is *nothing* more important in PRACTICE than knowing the ISO/DR is sufficient -

 BTW, the daylight video from the GH4 looks like MF shots. The stills look like sh*t. I don't get it. And in fact I don't care

Edmund

[JV]

BTW, the daylight video from the GH4 looks like MF shots. The stills look like sh*t. I don't get it. And in fact I don't care

I never bonded with the Panasonic for stills.  I had the GF1 and the GH2. Sold them earlier this year,together with the 3 lenses I had. 

I always wondered whether the GH4 would have been any better but apparently not.

[eronald]

I never bonded with the Panasonic for stills.  I had the GF1 and the GH2. Sold them earlier this year,together with the 3 lenses I had. 

I always wondered whether the GH4 would have been any better but apparently not.

Yes, it is strange. The video quality out of camera  is breathtaking. There is an interesting twist in that the camera can extract 8MP stills from video clips ...

As a camera, it's interesting, everything is economical but sufficient. The still AFS is superfast, but it still hunts a bit during video in AFC which is annoying and forces me to prefocus; that is the only real annoyance I see; I guess a real video camera would have built-in ND filters and a smooth zoom.

Edmund

[bcooter]

J,

 There is such a thing as overtesting. However if you want to know at one glance how a new camera will fare wrt DR and ISO, take your current model, read the DxO number, take the new one, add the stop difference. And there is *nothing* more important in PRACTICE than knowing the ISO/DR is sufficient -

 BTW, the daylight video from the GH4 looks like MF shots. The stills look like sh*t. I don't get it. And in fact I don't care

Edmund

No.  

If you want to understand a camera, buy, rent, borrow and and shoot something you've never done before.  Something that takes waiting until the light is pretty, or that is slick, or gritty, compelling or humorous, dangerous or safe.  

Something you're proud of when you see it, stumble upon it, make it,  construct it in front of the lens, not after so it can be lab put in an electron microscope.

Every camera I've owned, someone said was "not right". REDS, my old Phase backs, the leicas, micro 43, Canons, (wow do the interweb techies love to beat up on Canon).

The first serious digital camera I bought was a dcs/760.  I read and read and read.  Every review said the Nikon was better, or a kodak proback, every one.

i loved that camera, it made me bank and I learned more from using it than any review, lab test, test chart, color checker, micro detail blowup would have ever shown me.

Images from that camera are in the new opening of our website, so it's not dxo that matters . . . well I guess I should be slightly open minded and say it doesn't matter to me.

I ONLY went to higher rez cameras becasue at 6mpx it was on the verge of a few issues and moved to the 1ds, which I absolutely promise you I could use today for every still session I do and no client, pundit, or electronic magazine review would change that.

IMO

BC

P.S.  The GH4 will shoot a great still.  Just work it in post and find it's sweet spot.  All cameras have one.

[Chris Livsey]

IMO

BC

The voice of sanity.

[amsp]

Certain individuals on these boards are the kind of people that would buy a paint brush with Kolinsky Sable hair, count and measure the hairs, and then conclude that a roller is superior because it covers more surface in less time when painting your kitchen. They would then proceed to spend years on a fine art forum telling everyone they should be using rollers instead, posting pictures of their kitchen wall every chance they get.

Could it be that some people who have spent a lifetime being the "expert" of something start defining their self worth by how much others value their opinion? Then when they retire and nobody cares what they think anymore feel a void that they need to fill by buying things they don't actually need, test it to death, and then spend all their time writing about it instead of using it.

...nah, I'm sure I'm way off base 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say that you a bit of base, yes…

If you look at the title of the thread it says:

Luminous Landscape Forum > Equipment & Techniques > Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography > DXO tests

And it is simply a discussion what DxO measures and what they don't.

Now, the way I see this is:

• We live in a free world
• Information is good
• Knowledge is good
• Sharing information/knowledge is good
• I would suggest it is a good thing DxO shares the information they collect while profiling equipment for their raw converter.
• Reading a technical thread on a technical forum is anyone's free choice.

Now, it may be a bit unfortunate that this discussion is on the
"Luminous Landscape Forum > Equipment & Techniques > Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography" subforums as it is a bit general topic, but it is the forum the OP has started it.

Best regards
Erik

Certain individuals on these boards are the kind of people that would buy a paint brush with Kolinsky Sable hair, count and measure the hairs, and then conclude that a roller is superior because it covers more surface in less time when painting your kitchen. They would then proceed to spend years on a fine art forum telling everyone they should be using rollers instead, posting pictures of their kitchen wall every chance they get.

Could it be that some people who have spent a lifetime being the "expert" of something start defining their self worth by how much others value their opinion? Then when they retire and nobody cares what they think anymore feel a void that they need to fill by buying things they don't actually need, test it to death, and then spend all their time writing about it instead of using it.

...nah, I'm sure I'm way off base  

[sgilbert]

Erik,

I suspect that the post you found off base wasn't referring to DxO sharing information. 

SG

[eronald]

Certain individuals on these boards are the kind of people that would buy a paint brush with Kolinsky Sable hair, count and measure the hairs, and then conclude that a roller is superior because it covers more surface in less time when painting your kitchen. They would then proceed to spend years on a fine art forum telling everyone they should be using rollers instead, posting pictures of their kitchen wall every chance they get.

Could it be that some people who have spent a lifetime being the "expert" of something start defining their self worth by how much others value their opinion? Then when they retire and nobody cares what they think anymore feel a void that they need to fill by buying things they don't actually need, test it to death, and then spend all their time writing about it instead of using it.

...nah, I'm sure I'm way off base  

I think most of us already have wives to list our faults

By the way, may I wish all of you merry end-of-year festivities, and a Happy New Year?

Edmund

[JoeKitchen]

I think most of us already have wives to list our faults

 

[BernardLanguillier]

Certain individuals on these boards are the kind of people that would buy a paint brush with Kolinsky Sable hair, count and measure the hairs, and then conclude that a roller is superior because it covers more surface in less time when painting your kitchen. They would then proceed to spend years on a fine art forum telling everyone they should be using rollers instead, posting pictures of their kitchen wall every chance they get.

...nah, I'm sure I'm way off base  

If your assumption is that people cannot possibly have both artistic abilities and an interest in technology, then you aren't any more off base that those thinking that athletes can't read books.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

If your assumption is that people cannot possibly have both artistic abilities and an interest in technology, then you aren't any more off base that those thinking that athletes can't read books.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Don't waste your time. There's an old american proverb I just made up which says "wrestle a pig, you'll get covered in mud".

Edmund.

[Manoli]

There's an old american proverb I just made up which says "wrestle a pig, you'll get covered in mud".

Will rank among your best posts - a classic.

M

[ondebanks]

I stay away from these threads (obviously I didn't today), because this type of stuff is killing this section of the forum.


IMO

BC

BC,

Are you the kind of person who shows up at parties, just to tell them that you have no intention of coming in to their party?

Look: the title of the thread is "DXO tests". There's a man walking slowly ahead of that thread, waving a red flag, and calling through a hailer: "Tech alert! Here be Geeks! They're talking about DxOmark tests! Stay indoors if you are of a tech-sensitive disposition! And whatever you do, don't click into the thread! The techies are coming! THE TECHIES ARE COMING!!".

And yet, here you are... 

Ray

[bjanes]

Bernard,

Don't waste your time. There's an old american proverb I just made up which says "wrestle a pig, you'll get covered in mud".

Edmund.

Edmund,

Well said, but sometimes it is necessary to wrestle with pigs in order to castrate them. Ask Joni Ernst

Regards,

Bill

[amsp]

So now I'm a pig AND I should be castrated, I must have touched some nerves around here. Stay classy guys!  

[bcooter]

BC,

Are you the kind of person who shows up at parties, just to tell them that you have no intention of coming in to their party?

No.

I just thought I was going to a party at the Sky Bar only to find out it's been taken over by Denny's.

Edmund,

Since you like quotes based on even-toed ungulates . . . a final saying for you.    

Not my pig, not my farm.


IMO

BC

[Ken R]

Technocrats always have the last word around here.

I mean, some people have well 8,000 posts on this forum, that alone should tell you something.

Thank god they do not determine my gear choices.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That is quite correct. Roger Clark explains this in some detail using the concept of Etendue (sounds like a French word, maintaining the relationship with DXO). The larger sensor goes with a larger lens.

Bill,

Pardon my ignorance and impatience to read every word of that interesting article. I am not sure I understood the concept of "larger lens" or "wider aperture lens." Are you saying:

1. That a lens with a wider max aperture (say f/2) is always going to result in better image quality than a, say, f/4 lens, regardless of the actual aperture used or...

2. That a lens with a wider max aperture (say f/2) will only result in better image quality at apertures wider than the other lens?