On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 21:44:25 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 15:41:19 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:25:23 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/23/2018 5:47 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?

yes.

What is it other than rumour or gossip?

it's neither of those.


Than please share your source.

This is no smoking gun, or even a clear accusation, but it does point
out a problem:

https://www.androidauthority.com/dxo...lesome-805633/

The article has nothing but suspicion of bias and general inuendo. But
note that it also says:

"There’s no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results —
after-all the company’s business model depends on its reputation
and its results tend to roughly fit with the broader consensus on
camera hardware."

I suspect that nospam's views are coloured by suspicion of bias and
general innuendo. That and the fact that I doubt he has quite got his
head around the fact the DxO's results are not just tests of a lens
but _tests_of_a_lens_on_a_specific_camera_. The test results are
dependent on not just the qualities of the lens but also the qualities
of the camera. I think it might hhave been Neil who touched on this
quite recently.

This isn't the sort of thing I'd bother arguing about. It would be
crazy to rely on one reviewer to make decisiions anyway. If I'm
looking for something, I read as many reviews as i can find, and then
judge from there. I'm never looking for the "best" in the first place,
just something that appears that it would work well for my hobbyist
purposes.

Anyway, two companies whose software I've had the most problems with
are DXO and Arturia. Both French. So the problem is that France sucks.