09-14-2011, 08:09 PM
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1315951929' post='11568']
If the DxOMark measurements are flawed - please tell Photozone that they should NOT include DxOMark data in their reviews. Photozone has partnered with DxOMark (to quote a Photozone review "an analysis by our partner, the DxO Lab"). I never thought that their data (the DxOMark data that is) are based on "trickery".
[/quote]
I didn't say anything about DxO, but about Raw file trickery by Nikon, which I also called very clever indeed. It saves a fair amount of processing work, especially at high iso. However, I do have a few tools to help me with that anyway.
It may well be likely, however, that Nikon does score high in the DxOMark because of their Raw file processing - DXO measures data from Raw files.
However, all of this is a moot point in the end. Personally, I am quite happy with my gear, and I know what to expect from it. I find that over the last two years I am much less interested in pixel peeping gear talk anyway. Current dslrs, and that is ALL of the current models, are capable of producing better output than any "FF" analog slr camera was capable of in the past, and seeing results from my current gear that simply and easily surpasses anything I have shot with in my analog days by a huge factor. This just provides a satisfying feeling that I no longer worry about it anymore, unlike I did in my early dslr days 5 or 6 years ago <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
BTW, one of the tools I use is DxO stuff, especially for batch processing ....
Kind regards, Wim
If the DxOMark measurements are flawed - please tell Photozone that they should NOT include DxOMark data in their reviews. Photozone has partnered with DxOMark (to quote a Photozone review "an analysis by our partner, the DxO Lab"). I never thought that their data (the DxOMark data that is) are based on "trickery".
[/quote]
I didn't say anything about DxO, but about Raw file trickery by Nikon, which I also called very clever indeed. It saves a fair amount of processing work, especially at high iso. However, I do have a few tools to help me with that anyway.
It may well be likely, however, that Nikon does score high in the DxOMark because of their Raw file processing - DXO measures data from Raw files.
However, all of this is a moot point in the end. Personally, I am quite happy with my gear, and I know what to expect from it. I find that over the last two years I am much less interested in pixel peeping gear talk anyway. Current dslrs, and that is ALL of the current models, are capable of producing better output than any "FF" analog slr camera was capable of in the past, and seeing results from my current gear that simply and easily surpasses anything I have shot with in my analog days by a huge factor. This just provides a satisfying feeling that I no longer worry about it anymore, unlike I did in my early dslr days 5 or 6 years ago <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.BTW, one of the tools I use is DxO stuff, especially for batch processing ....
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....