If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DXO Mark
My summary and a few opinions on these two articles in a series about
data measuring vs subjective camera testing and about the price difference for relatively little additional performance: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...vs-value.shtml http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-numbers.shtml Nice concise description of the situation. Of course he throws some opinion in too. He says DXO Mark does not include megapixel count... OK that was not clear to me. Seems easy enough to figure in though. I would probably use a linear measure rather than area but you can just assess that for your print size needs if you like. And he describes how the DXO Mark data is done with raw files on the same raw converter - and how some cameras like Nikons have pattern noise reduction processing applied to the raw conversion where others rely on the jpeg conversion or proprietary raw converters to accomplish that step. And how the medium format digitals apply antialiasing in post. Feel free to correct my reading of that or other factors I missed. Then he says because of these irregularities, the data approach is not very reliable. The comparison is made to the audio recording industry's conversion to digital[1] and he asserts that the data model was rejected by audiophiles in the end, citing at least one example of how manufacturers cheated to create good numbers at the price of fidelity. Well, I don't discount that but this is where it gets into religious territory: saying that it's all just too complex and we can never know the true nature of the universe. That's of course somewhat true but the numbers are something we can know and continue to evaluate and learn more about and it looks to me like they are mostly spot on so far, especially given the above qualifications. Lastly, he discusses price for performance ratio. He gives personal examples breaking the rules in both directions for the advice given in these discussions so I'll write that off as Rockwellian hyperbola g. But yes, there is a big jump in price for not much performance improvement as you go up and everyone will obviously find their own priorities to solve these issues. It seems about right when he says a 5-point difference is statistically insignificant where today's DSLRs come in between 50 and 80 on the DXO Mark scale, with P&S at around 35. I'm guessing a crappy web cam or cell phone might be about a 10 on that scale. [1] one might also compare the transition of video from analog to digital, and to higher resolution, which is really still in it's infancy, to the extent that file size & compression have more to do with image quality than anything else as far as I know, again, feel free to correct and add info here g. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III | Savant | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | March 2nd 08 01:44 AM |
Will it break the $3,000 mark? | Paul Mitchum | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 5th 07 09:00 PM |
Mark Morgan (MarkČ) | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 13 | February 4th 05 09:39 PM |
EOS 10D and 1D Mark II | Joshua Beall | Digital Photography | 41 | July 14th 04 09:32 PM |