iPhone XS Max takes 4th spot in new DxOMark selfie camera ranking

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:20:39 -0600, joe wrote:

On 1/26/2019 12:06 AM, arlen holder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:17:33 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

2. Talking about DxO. Not the best reference.

Do you know of a better reference?

Ah! Bingo!

Thank you Eric Stevens for being an ADULT!

Yes, I know, it's not a high bar on this newsgroup.
But it's REFRESHING to see that at least some people on this ng are adults.

I have NOTHING against facts.


AH likes facts. He can call anything he wants "a fact". This includes
rumors, wish lists, blog posts, etc. He can also ignore any fact he
desires; especially those from people who actually know what they are
talking about. Cherry-picking the 'facts', no matter how valid they are
allows his to bend any data to his distorted point of view.

So if the canonical Apple Apologists have a BETTER overall reference,
let's hear it.

All camera reviews that attempt to reduce a camera to a single number
have a very subjective component. The reader needs to make sure his
subjective values align with those of the reviewer. If not, the overall
rating is of little value.

For example,
1) Is low light performance as important to the reviewer as it is to you?
2) Is color accuracy/gamut as important to you as it is to the reviewer?
3) Is focus speed as important to you as it is to the reviewer?
4) Is bit depth as important to you as it is to the reviewer?

Now think how you would combine these characteristics into a single
number. Would the reviewer do it the same as you? Would you do it the
same as some other reader?

Eric: Look at different review sites and see how they do reviews. Pick
the one that best provides the information that matters to you. What you
consider best is likely different than what I would select.

DxO rates cameras on the basis of a number of different requirements
e.g. scenery, sports, portraits etc. They have in their various
publications defined the factors they use in their various judgements.
They have also described the various tests and measuring techniques
they use in the course of the their testing. The one thing I do not
know is exactly how they massage and digest their test results to
arrive at their ratings.

I do know of a number of reputable organizations which carry out basic
optical tests on lenses but none which use a gamut of tests comparable
with DxO. That's why when Alan Browne wrote "Talking about DxO. Not
the best reference" I asked him (in effect) who he regarded as the
best reference. If there is someone that Alan Browne thinks is better
I would like to know.

Also, look closely at the review site and any comments to determine if
the reviews are biased or otherwise suffering from outside influence.

Better is subjective and opinions will likely differ

That's why I place limited weight on the opinions of those who do not
use rigorous test methods.

.... and DxO have yet to tackle any testing for Fujifilm XF, GX lenses,
X-Trans sensor cameras, or GFX MF (Bayer sensor) cameras, only providing
thin reasons for these omissions.

That makes DxO suspect in the eyes of much of the Fujifilm user community.
--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

DxO rates cameras on the basis of a number of different requirements
e.g. scenery, sports, portraits etc. They have in their various
publications defined the factors they use in their various judgements.
They have also described the various tests and measuring techniques
they use in the course of the their testing. The one thing I do not
know is exactly how they massage and digest their test results to
arrive at their ratings.

the more money a client pays, the more massaging it gets. simple.

I do know of a number of reputable organizations which carry out basic
optical tests on lenses but none which use a gamut of tests comparable
with DxO. That's why when Alan Browne wrote "Talking about DxO. Not
the best reference" I asked him (in effect) who he regarded as the
best reference. If there is someone that Alan Browne thinks is better
I would like to know.

they're easily found, if you look.

Also, look closely at the review site and any comments to determine if
the reviews are biased or otherwise suffering from outside influence.

Better is subjective and opinions will likely differ

That's why I place limited weight on the opinions of those who do not
use rigorous test methods.

yet you think dxo is somehow good, which by your own admission, you
have no idea what they're actually doing.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 14:16:51 -0500, nospam wrote:

yet you think dxo is somehow good, which by your own admission, you
have no idea what they're actually doing.

Hi nospam,

I realize your brain is that of the lemon-juice bank robber.
o Hence, _all_ your beliefs come from imaginary facts.

Fact is, you deprecate what is the best that you can name.
o Or, perchance, do you have something better in mind?

If so, name at least one better reference for overall mobile phone QOR.
o You can rest assured, nobody is holding their breath, nospam
o Your credibility is worthless, nospam

These are the three scariest words you will ever face, nospam:
o Name just one

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:37:15 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:

DXO is pathetic.

Do you dispute the fact that the iPhone is almost never on top in QOR?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 03:04:32 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

DxO rates cameras on the basis of a number of different requirements
e.g. scenery, sports, portraits etc. They have in their various
publications defined the factors they use in their various judgements.
They have also described the various tests and measuring techniques
they use in the course of the their testing. The one thing I do not
know is exactly how they massage and digest their test results to
arrive at their ratings.

I do know of a number of reputable organizations which carry out basic
optical tests on lenses but none which use a gamut of tests comparable
with DxO. That's why when Alan Browne wrote "Talking about DxO. Not
the best reference" I asked him (in effect) who he regarded as the
best reference. If there is someone that Alan Browne thinks is better
I would like to know.

Also, look closely at the review site and any comments to determine if
the reviews are biased or otherwise suffering from outside influence.

Better is subjective and opinions will likely differ

That's why I place limited weight on the opinions of those who do not
use rigorous test methods.

... and DxO have yet to tackle any testing for Fujifilm XF, GX lenses,
X-Trans sensor cameras, or GFX MF (Bayer sensor) cameras, only providing
thin reasons for these omissions.

That makes DxO suspect in the eyes of much of the Fujifilm user community.

Here is one account of why DxO has stopped testing Fuji ever since
Fuji's introduction of the X-Trans sensor.
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/26/why...ifilm-cameras/

It's not as though they are reluctant to test Fuji
https://www.dxomark.com/best-fujifil...-59200-dollars

I can halfway understand DxO's reasons for not testing the X-Tran.
I suspect you are being overly suspicious.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 14:16:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

DxO rates cameras on the basis of a number of different requirements
e.g. scenery, sports, portraits etc. They have in their various
publications defined the factors they use in their various judgements.
They have also described the various tests and measuring techniques
they use in the course of the their testing. The one thing I do not
know is exactly how they massage and digest their test results to
arrive at their ratings.

the more money a client pays, the more massaging it gets. simple.

I do know of a number of reputable organizations which carry out basic
optical tests on lenses but none which use a gamut of tests comparable
with DxO. That's why when Alan Browne wrote "Talking about DxO. Not
the best reference" I asked him (in effect) who he regarded as the
best reference. If there is someone that Alan Browne thinks is better
I would like to know.

they're easily found, if you look.

How would you like to help Alan Browne?

Also, look closely at the review site and any comments to determine if
the reviews are biased or otherwise suffering from outside influence.

Better is subjective and opinions will likely differ

That's why I place limited weight on the opinions of those who do not
use rigorous test methods.

yet you think dxo is somehow good, which by your own admission, you
have no idea what they're actually doing.

Try reading for comprehension.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 03:04:32 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

DxO rates cameras on the basis of a number of different requirements
e.g. scenery, sports, portraits etc. They have in their various
publications defined the factors they use in their various judgements.
They have also described the various tests and measuring techniques
they use in the course of the their testing. The one thing I do not
know is exactly how they massage and digest their test results to
arrive at their ratings.

I do know of a number of reputable organizations which carry out basic
optical tests on lenses but none which use a gamut of tests comparable
with DxO. That's why when Alan Browne wrote "Talking about DxO. Not
the best reference" I asked him (in effect) who he regarded as the
best reference. If there is someone that Alan Browne thinks is better
I would like to know.

Also, look closely at the review site and any comments to determine if
the reviews are biased or otherwise suffering from outside influence.

Better is subjective and opinions will likely differ

That's why I place limited weight on the opinions of those who do not
use rigorous test methods.

... and DxO have yet to tackle any testing for Fujifilm XF, GX lenses,
X-Trans sensor cameras, or GFX MF (Bayer sensor) cameras, only providing
thin reasons for these omissions.

That makes DxO suspect in the eyes of much of the Fujifilm user community.

Here is one account of why DxO has stopped testing Fuji ever since
Fuji's introduction of the X-Trans sensor.
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/26/why...ifilm-cameras/

That is a three year old alibi. Besides, the GFX 50S & GFX 50R have bayer
array sensors, not X-Trans. Also in the new APS-C offerings there is the
X-T100 which has a non-X-Trans, plain, vanilla CMOS. Why are those not on
the DxO test bench?


It's not as though they are reluctant to test Fuji
https://www.dxomark.com/best-fujifil...-59200-dollars

Last tested/reviewed in 2012.

All of those are cameras which have been out of production for some 5+
years

I can halfway understand DxO's reasons for not testing the X-Tran.
I suspect you are being overly suspicious.

Nope! They have had plenty of time to test current non-X-Trans Fujifilm
cameras, GX, and FX lenses, but there is no effort on their part. I guess
it might be a French thing.



--
Regards,
Savageduck