DXOMark Mobile Phone Camera Quality of Results (the best known smarphone camera output QOR known to date)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Well you could actually find out whether anyone gets paid for testing or
prove that they are doing it for the love of it.
Most peolpe get paid for doing jobs, the only things people don't normally
get paid to do are called hobbies or is it slavery.

Seek and ye shall find:

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

"DxO Labs, the company which runs the DxOMark testing suite, is
primarily a consultancy company. In other words, the company
charges fees to advise camera hardware companies on how to improve
their photography products."

... for whatever that is worth.

keep reading.

However, manufacturers that tune their cameras against the testing
suite are likely to score higher than those who don¹t. We have heard
that a few smartphone manufacturers don¹t think DxO¹s consultancy
fees are worthwhile. These manufacturers don¹t score highly on DxO¹s
tests, if the company even reviews these phones at all.
....
Those who pay to work closely with DxOMark will likely score more
highly in the company¹s tests, which is then quoted by many other
review sites. There¹s pressure on smartphone OEMs to pay for DxO¹s
services simply for the press recognition.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:47:19 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 22:15:35 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:43:06 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 08:37:20 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:54:20 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 14:21:33 UTC, Arlen Holder wrote:



If nospam feels there is valid evidence DXOmark is being paid...
o Name just one

Who pays DXOmark to do it someone must get paid surely or does everyone work for nothing.
How to they aqurie all these phones to test, are they given one to test and then return it or do they get to keep it.
Do they just test a phone once or many times ?

I suppose that, like any commercial lab, they will a fixed scale of
charges for both time and standard tests.

Yes they probabbly do, but who pays, who parts with their hard earned or not so hard earned cash.

In the UK we too have online reviews and previously magazine (hard copy) and in the past these were paid for by advertisers and if a product got low marks that meant that fewer would buy it and hence it'd be less worth paying for it to be advertised. So sometimes you;d find that if a company offred their product for testing it might come with a note saying if this gets a good review it;d be worth us advertising in your mag. so you can see a certain incentive to give some products higher scores than they might deserve.
It's even worse with todays world on some sites including facebook where you can hire professional reviewers to like your products for a fee of so many likes per $ or £.
In the UK we have Which, but YOU have to pay a subscription for it, so they don;t need money from advertisors.
But I still prefer to see the actual pictures used for their tests any tests rather than they just give you a mark out of 10 as I know how that can be distorted, this was especially true in the which reviews on the value for money mark, so I tended to ignore that score/mark.

For more than forty years a large part of my workload entailed the
analysis of various accidents and failures for insurance companies. I
charged for this on a time and expenses basis. Sometimes the insurance
company loved my report. Other times they hated it and buried it in a
back file somewhere. But they all paid my bill.

I would be surprised if DxOMark operated on any other basis. Good news
or bad news, we will give it to you along with our bill. After all,
insurance companies and camera manufacturers both want to know whether
or not they have a winner or a lemon on their hands.

Insurance companies are honest to their customers.......

I'll have to try to remember that and not to laugh.

You said if they hated it they buried it so what does that actually mean in the real world. ?

They hated it if, as happened several times, my report got into the
hands of the opposition who then called me as a witness.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 22 November 2019 23:45:17 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:47:19 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 22:15:35 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:43:06 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 08:37:20 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:54:20 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 14:21:33 UTC, Arlen Holder wrote:



If nospam feels there is valid evidence DXOmark is being paid...
o Name just one

Who pays DXOmark to do it someone must get paid surely or does everyone work for nothing.
How to they aqurie all these phones to test, are they given one to test and then return it or do they get to keep it.
Do they just test a phone once or many times ?

I suppose that, like any commercial lab, they will a fixed scale of
charges for both time and standard tests.

Yes they probabbly do, but who pays, who parts with their hard earned or not so hard earned cash.

In the UK we too have online reviews and previously magazine (hard copy) and in the past these were paid for by advertisers and if a product got low marks that meant that fewer would buy it and hence it'd be less worth paying for it to be advertised. So sometimes you;d find that if a company offred their product for testing it might come with a note saying if this gets a good review it;d be worth us advertising in your mag. so you can see a certain incentive to give some products higher scores than they might deserve.
It's even worse with todays world on some sites including facebook where you can hire professional reviewers to like your products for a fee of so many likes per $ or £.
In the UK we have Which, but YOU have to pay a subscription for it, so they don;t need money from advertisors.
But I still prefer to see the actual pictures used for their tests any tests rather than they just give you a mark out of 10 as I know how that can be distorted, this was especially true in the which reviews on the value for money mark, so I tended to ignore that score/mark.

For more than forty years a large part of my workload entailed the
analysis of various accidents and failures for insurance companies. I
charged for this on a time and expenses basis. Sometimes the insurance
company loved my report. Other times they hated it and buried it in a
back file somewhere. But they all paid my bill.

I would be surprised if DxOMark operated on any other basis. Good news
or bad news, we will give it to you along with our bill. After all,
insurance companies and camera manufacturers both want to know whether
or not they have a winner or a lemon on their hands.

Insurance companies are honest to their customers.......

I'll have to try to remember that and not to laugh.

You said if they hated it they buried it so what does that actually mean in the real world. ?

They hated it if, as happened several times, my report got into the
hands of the opposition who then called me as a witness.

Doesn't prove anything though does it.

Not what I call proof but it certainly is a demonstration of
independence.

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?

Whoever wants it tested.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?

Whoever wants it tested.

that doesn't mean they'll test it

On Nov 26, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Doesn't prove anything though does it.

Not what I call proof but it certainly is a demonstration of
independence.

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?
Whoever wants it tested.

Send them a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and see what happens.

....or ask them for any results for any Fujifilm X, or GFX cameras, XF, or GF
lenses.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:49:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Nov 26, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Doesn't prove anything though does it.

Not what I call proof but it certainly is a demonstration of
independence.

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?
Whoever wants it tested.

Send them a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and see what happens.

...or ask them for any results for any Fujifilm X, or GFX cameras, XF, or GF
lenses.

You already know that they have reasons why will/cannot test them. In
the same fashion, I have had would-be clients for whom I would not
work. Rejection of a client doesn't prove anything.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Nov 27, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:49:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Nov 26, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Doesn't prove anything though does it.

Not what I call proof but it certainly is a demonstration of
independence.

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?
Whoever wants it tested.

Send them a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and see what happens.

...or ask them for any results for any Fujifilm X, or GFX cameras, XF, or GF
lenses.

You already know that they have reasons why will/cannot test them. In
the same fashion, I have had would-be clients for whom I would not
work. Rejection of a client doesn't prove anything.

Rejection by DxOMark because they lack the capability to conduct tests on a
particular sensor design places their methodology into question when it comes
to creating comparative test results for the entire market.

It is certainly not a valid rejection when Fujifilm also produces Bayer
sensor cameras which are within the capability of DxOMark to test. I doubt
that they have a valid reason to reject MF Bayer sensor cameras such as the
GFX 50S, GFX 50S, and GFX100 and the GF lenses. They are rejecting the entire
current product of a manufacturer not just a camera line with a sensor they
are incapable of testing.

At least having those cameras on their test bench would also give them the
ability to test X-mount, and GX-mount lenses. It proves that they are not all
encompassing when it comes to testing all aspects of the market. it also
proves that theirs is not a level playing field when it comes to making valid
comparisons against all players in the digital photography market.

....but I guess you are correct, any potential client, (Note: Fujifilm does
not seem to be any sort of client, but Sony certainly is) can be turned away
for any reason.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

Send them a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and see what happens.

...or ask them for any results for any Fujifilm X, or GFX cameras, XF, or
GF
lenses.

You already know that they have reasons why will/cannot test them. In
the same fashion, I have had would-be clients for whom I would not
work. Rejection of a client doesn't prove anything.

Rejection by DxOMark because they lack the capability to conduct tests on a
particular sensor design places their methodology into question when it comes
to creating comparative test results for the entire market.

yep.

It is certainly not a valid rejection when Fujifilm also produces Bayer
sensor cameras which are within the capability of DxOMark to test. I doubt
that they have a valid reason to reject MF Bayer sensor cameras such as the
GFX 50S, GFX 50S, and GFX100 and the GF lenses. They are rejecting the entire
current product of a manufacturer not just a camera line with a sensor they
are incapable of testing.

At least having those cameras on their test bench would also give them the
ability to test X-mount, and GX-mount lenses. It proves that they are not all
encompassing when it comes to testing all aspects of the market. it also
proves that theirs is not a level playing field when it comes to making valid
comparisons against all players in the digital photography market.

...but I guess you are correct, any potential client, (Note: Fujifilm does
not seem to be any sort of client, but Sony certainly is) can be turned away
for any reason.

money talks. they're a lot less likely to reject a paying client.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:46:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Nov 27, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:49:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Nov 26, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Doesn't prove anything though does it.

Not what I call proof but it certainly is a demonstration of
independence.

Who supplies DxOMark with the camera ?
Whoever wants it tested.

Send them a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and see what happens.

...or ask them for any results for any Fujifilm X, or GFX cameras, XF, or GF
lenses.

You already know that they have reasons why will/cannot test them. In
the same fashion, I have had would-be clients for whom I would not
work. Rejection of a client doesn't prove anything.

Rejection by DxOMark because they lack the capability to conduct tests on a
particular sensor design places their methodology into question when it comes
to creating comparative test results for the entire market.

It is certainly not a valid rejection when Fujifilm also produces Bayer
sensor cameras which are within the capability of DxOMark to test. I doubt
that they have a valid reason to reject MF Bayer sensor cameras such as the
GFX 50S, GFX 50S, and GFX100 and the GF lenses. They are rejecting the entire
current product of a manufacturer not just a camera line with a sensor they
are incapable of testing.

There must be a reason. I doubt if any of us know why and all we can
do is speculate. One possibility is that DxOMark and Fuji jave fallen
out for some reason. It's quite on the cards.

At least having those cameras on their test bench would also give them the
ability to test X-mount, and GX-mount lenses. It proves that they are not all
encompassing when it comes to testing all aspects of the market. it also
proves that theirs is not a level playing field when it comes to making valid
comparisons against all players in the digital photography market.

...but I guess you are correct, any potential client, (Note: Fujifilm does
not seem to be any sort of client, but Sony certainly is) can be turned away
for any reason.

Yep.

Have you watched Ford vs Ferrari? You will have seen there how big
egos can get in the way of common sense.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Rejection by DxOMark because they lack the capability to conduct tests on a
particular sensor design places their methodology into question when it
comes
to creating comparative test results for the entire market.

It is certainly not a valid rejection when Fujifilm also produces Bayer
sensor cameras which are within the capability of DxOMark to test. I doubt
that they have a valid reason to reject MF Bayer sensor cameras such as the
GFX 50S, GFX 50S, and GFX100 and the GF lenses. They are rejecting the
entire
current product of a manufacturer not just a camera line with a sensor they
are incapable of testing.

There must be a reason. I doubt if any of us know why and all we can
do is speculate. One possibility is that DxOMark and Fuji jave fallen
out for some reason. It's quite on the cards.

$$$