Dpreview finally cracking. Admits there are differences between claimed ISO's

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between
cameras.

they've said there's a difference many times.

On 6/03/2014 5:12 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between
cameras.

they've said there's a difference many times.

They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
"expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
raw files).
So another way of looking at it is that DPReview "incentivised"
manufacturers to cheat.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:19:14 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:12:21 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In article ,

RichA wrote:



Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between

cameras.



they've said there's a difference many times.

Which is odd, since they hide it in reviews by adjusting the illumination levels of studio scenes to suite each camera, which is shocking, IMO.

I understand that of recent months DxO have been doing work for DP
Review. I would not be surprised if DxO would not be at all happy if
DP Review was playing fast and loose with test results.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
says...

On 6/03/2014 5:12 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between
cameras.

they've said there's a difference many times.

They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
"expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
raw files).

Huh? They have provided a variety of tests of ISO sensitivity for as
long as I can remember, including direct comparisons of noise character
and levels with sample images.

So another way of looking at it is that DPReview "incentivised"
manufacturers to cheat.

How does providing direct comparisons "incentivize manufacturers to
cheat"?

In article , Me
wrote:

Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between
cameras.

they've said there's a difference many times.

They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
"expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
raw files).

dpreview tests the cameras at their default settings which is the only
fair thing they can do.

otherwise, people would bitch endlessly about using the wrong setting.

and what evidence do you have for raw being cooked? other than sigma
which actually does cook the raw (and lies about everything), who cooks
the raw? raw is just that, raw.

So another way of looking at it is that DPReview "incentivised"
manufacturers to cheat.

nonsense.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between
cameras.

they've said there's a difference many times.

Which is odd, since they hide it in reviews by adjusting the illumination
levels of studio scenes to suite each camera, which is shocking, IMO.

bull****.

In article , RichA wrote:

RichA:
Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist
between cameras.

nospam:
they've said there's a difference many times.

RichA:
Which is odd, since they hide it in reviews by adjusting the
illumination levels of studio scenes to suite each camera, which is
shocking, IMO.

nospam:
bull****.

They ADMITTED they do this! Try reading their stuff a bit more.

Shouldn't a link to this admission be forthcoming, so we can judge by
ourselves instead of taking your word for it?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Me wrote:

They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
"expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
raw files).

Dark field subtraction (which is what Olympus cameras call "noise
reduction") is a perfectly legitimate way to deal with sesnor noise,
IMHO. Scientific instruments use it all the time. And I hope that
the results are saved in the RAW file.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."