C&P Random Thread -
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
btw I dont know about that DxoMark site.. ive been skeptical about it for a while, and just searching quickly, found many others in the same boat.
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...-dxo-mark.html
that first sentence is exactly what I mean when I say I'm talking about what I see with my eyes, and not what some numbers say somewhere. to me its similar to the difference between being street-smart and book-smart.
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...-dxo-mark.html
It is not a reliable resource for the evaluation of camera performance in the real world. This has been debated in detail on FM by individuals that have far more knowledge than me when it comes to the technical merit of their methods of evaluation.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
For DXO Mark to conduct a significantly 'better' test than what most review sites already do would require them to do two things - spend money, and spend even more money. 1. They would have to perform statistical tests with a large number of bodies (there are 3 numbers I'd want quoted at the very least - the mean, the std dev of the mean and the std deviation). The number of bodies they'd have to use is a function of the test (pixel count would require one body while actual resolution would require multiple bodies). 2. In addition, they'd have to perform better tests. Simply taking a picture of a multiple color resolution chart is insufficient. The MTF depends on a very large number of parameters such as distance to subject, temperature, humidity (you don't think glass is a solid, do you?).
If they were doing all of this, we'd see two things - they'd show error bars and they'd claim - we get this figure by analyzing so-and-so many bodies. Given that we don't see this, the conclusion is that their 'tests' are no scientific than say DPReview's 'tests'. So take their numbers with a large grain of salt.
If they were doing all of this, we'd see two things - they'd show error bars and they'd claim - we get this figure by analyzing so-and-so many bodies. Given that we don't see this, the conclusion is that their 'tests' are no scientific than say DPReview's 'tests'. So take their numbers with a large grain of salt.
Plenty of errors and omissions on DxOMark - for example they suggest that the Nikon D300s will do 7 fps at 14 bit. Not a chance.
They also state that the Nikon D200 has better DR than the Canon 40D - I've owned both, and the 40D has much, much better DR.
The problem with this site is that people credit it as some sort of objective arbiter of things like image quality.
The fact that the site states otherwise is either ignored or not understood, and as a result its findings are quoted ad nauseam as "proof" that camera a is better than camera b when in fact not only do their tests fail to prove anything of the sort, but there are fundamental questions about the logic and fairness of their methodologies (there are distinct embedded biases in their testing methodologies, like the fact that they ignore the effect of "cooked" RAW files, which is why the Nikon D90 gets such a high rating for SNR) - and that's before factoring in the inaccuracies that can be found throughout the site.
If they can't get basic spec. details right, why would anyone trust the results of their "objective" tests?
They also state that the Nikon D200 has better DR than the Canon 40D - I've owned both, and the 40D has much, much better DR.
The problem with this site is that people credit it as some sort of objective arbiter of things like image quality.
The fact that the site states otherwise is either ignored or not understood, and as a result its findings are quoted ad nauseam as "proof" that camera a is better than camera b when in fact not only do their tests fail to prove anything of the sort, but there are fundamental questions about the logic and fairness of their methodologies (there are distinct embedded biases in their testing methodologies, like the fact that they ignore the effect of "cooked" RAW files, which is why the Nikon D90 gets such a high rating for SNR) - and that's before factoring in the inaccuracies that can be found throughout the site.
If they can't get basic spec. details right, why would anyone trust the results of their "objective" tests?
I Shoot with a Camera
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 23,078
Likes: 3,669
From: Vancouver BC
btw I dont know about that DxoMark site.. ive been skeptical about it for a while, and just searching quickly, found many others in the same boat.
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...-dxo-mark.html
that first sentence is exactly what I mean when I say I'm talking about what I see with my eyes, and not what some numbers say somewhere. to me its similar to the difference between being street-smart and book-smart.
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...-dxo-mark.html
that first sentence is exactly what I mean when I say I'm talking about what I see with my eyes, and not what some numbers say somewhere. to me its similar to the difference between being street-smart and book-smart.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
you know, the only real test for me is using it myself. anything I read anywhere else, while I can use it as a guide, I can't really use it to arrive at any conclusions until I try it myself, with my subject matter, my lenses, my techniques, and my personal preferences.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
incidentally a friend fixed it the night before I left for NYC. But it wasn't ready until like midnight so I wasn't able to pick it upI was told I'd have a 1d4.
And, I don't have the 5d anymore, it was stolen in September. But I wouldn't have wanted to use that anyway, it's DR is pretty bad compared to 7d.
Last edited by srika; Feb 19, 2011 at 05:24 PM.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
2 deals I came across today!
$85 for a 2TB Western Digital Elements external HD at Target (in-store pickup only)
http://www.target.com/Western-Digita...%20-%20PRODUCT
and secondly I'm not exactly sure how this happened, but I got a promotional code in my e-mail for $400 off Photoshop CS5 at Amazon - making it $259. Here is a link I found with a code, but I'm not sure whether it'll work.
http://www.naileddeals.com/deals/229...otoshop-amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000658721
$85 for a 2TB Western Digital Elements external HD at Target (in-store pickup only)
http://www.target.com/Western-Digita...%20-%20PRODUCT
and secondly I'm not exactly sure how this happened, but I got a promotional code in my e-mail for $400 off Photoshop CS5 at Amazon - making it $259. Here is a link I found with a code, but I'm not sure whether it'll work.
http://www.naileddeals.com/deals/229...otoshop-amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000658721
Last edited by srika; Feb 20, 2011 at 11:16 PM.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
yeah, sh*t happens... it REALLY sucked about the 7D breaking right before the India trip.. but oh well. But am thankful I happened to buy the GF-1! That was kind of a spontaneous thing that I wasn't expecting but it fit in real nicely to help my predicament. Also I keep telling myself I didn't miss the 7D but actually I did miss having and using a DSLR this past month. There's just no substitute for that look-in-viewfinder, click snap feel of a DSLR.
all work and no play
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,916
Likes: 134
From: Wakefield, Ma
I would have used the 7d if it was working. A pin bent in the memory card slot just before I left for India and knocked it out of commission. incidentally a friend fixed it the night before I left for NYC. But it wasn't ready until like midnight so I wasn't able to pick it up
I was told I'd have a 1d4.
And, I don't have the 5d anymore, it was stolen in September. But I wouldn't have wanted to use that anyway, it's DR is pretty bad compared to 7d.
incidentally a friend fixed it the night before I left for NYC. But it wasn't ready until like midnight so I wasn't able to pick it upI was told I'd have a 1d4.
And, I don't have the 5d anymore, it was stolen in September. But I wouldn't have wanted to use that anyway, it's DR is pretty bad compared to 7d.
I thought you got a 5D2 to replace the stolen one thanks to your insurance?
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 64,114
Likes: 3,366
From: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
i feel in love with my IIn, that if i were to replace it, it would have to be with another 1 series.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
oh ok. well, working with it does make you quickly realize the difference from the lesser models. one of the big pluses is the tactile feel of the buttons and dials. so smooth and easy to operate. I think chances are very high I'll get a 1D5.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 64,114
Likes: 3,366
From: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
battery life on my IIn sux because its using the older ni-cad or ni-mh and my batteries are old, but i hear with the newer li-ion batteries its ridiculous how long it lasts.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,144
Likes: 14,297
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 64,114
Likes: 3,366
From: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
yea it is hard to tell at least for shutter lag because were talking about the milliseconds here.
but viewfinder blackout time is really noticeable compared to a 5D, not sure on 7D.
but viewfinder blackout time is really noticeable compared to a 5D, not sure on 7D.
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 64,114
Likes: 3,366
From: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
