And we have a winner...Seems more like a clickbait video than anything.
I have just decided I am not sharp enough to understand anymore. It just makes my head hurt from information overload, and I have enough issue with headaches...
Its only a lack of space,if you delete something you already know there will be space in your head
And I think you're touching on what may be the Real Issue for many with DxO and their site: Information Overload.I have just decided I am not sharp enough to understand anymore. It just makes my head hurt from information overload, and I have enough issue with headaches...
Paul, I agree with your response. I actually liked the video and found it gave me just enoough information to grasp there approach to there testing, but I have to pick where I spend my energy now. My stroke had a way of defining a new normal. Extensive analysis is no longer on the list. The engineer in me wants to dig deeper... but the practicl me knows the cost is to high. It is all part of the pageantryAnd I think you're touching on what may be the Real Issue for many with DxO and their site: Information Overload.
The problem, if indeed there is one, is in not understanding what you're looking at but it's NOT the responsibility of DxO to make sure you are. They present data. Period. It's up to the reader to make sense of it and as Matt's video clearly shows DxO is entirely transparent about how they test and quite specific about what the metrics actually mean. They even go so far as to explain when a numeric difference is essentially inconsequential. I'm not sure what else anyone could ask for. I sympathize, though, with you feeling overwhelmed. Having waded through the DxO site (somewhat) thoroughly I found myself taking notes at times so I could read reviews, point by point, and really put together a clear picture of what I was being shown. DxO compressess a whooooole lot of data into a bite-sized "score" but it remains incumbent upon the reader to understand what's going on behind each individual score and that really is a bit of an undertaking... At least it was for me.
Getting back to Matt and his video, he clearly states he believes the findings DxO posts are, and I'm quoting Matt here, "scientific, repeatable" and "genuine". I understand Matt doesn't like the use of "Sports" instead of "ISO" and I'm fine with that; I don't like that they use "Landscape" instead of "Dynamic Range but whatever. Matt doesn't seem to like that DxO discounts subjective things, such as ergonomics, and I'm okay with that too but let's be clear, DxO doesn't claim they include such aspects when calculating scores and I don't blame them; that's far too subjective a topic. What I think is important here, is whether or not the data that DxO provides is *accurate* and Matt states he believes it is.
DxO compressess a whooooole lot of data into a bite-sized "score" but it remains incumbent upon the reader to understand what's going on behind each individual score and that really is a bit of an undertaking... At least it was for me.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point here. I never said understanding the data would help the photographers pictures. I said DxO compresses a lot of data into a single, numeric score and that it's up to the reader to decipher what that single numeric score represents. Further I would say knowing how to interpret that data could be helpful to a photographer looking to better their photos, but that's not really the point of the data being presented. Data is just data. What we do with it is up to the individual.Knowing the subjects shoe size is data, which could be accurate, but it is not likely to help the photographers pictures.
The metrics of each score are explained here, in the Metric Scores page for starters. If you want to get pedantic/play semantics with things like, say, how MUCH periphery exactly (as expressed in microns) constitutes "vignetting", and I'm pretty confident you do, you'll have to take up such matters with DxO directly. .My complaint is for example lens tests... What is the resolution the lens is capable of, in the standard line pair per mm, and at which apertures, etc? Vignetting? How much, where? All the standard stuff. DxO never says anything useful (useful meaning meaningful).
Wayne, click on the "measurements" tab for a lens and you will find extensive information on vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion and transmission. I understand if you don't like "perceptual megapixels" when you are used to line per mm info, but it's really just a different way of measuring the same thing, IMO.
Agreed, there is other more specific data, but I don't like it. I'd rather just see the resolution numbers. Hard-headed I'm sure.
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is a pretty fine lens. I use a D300 and D800 with it.
DxO says for D300, it rates 8 mpix, whatever that is.
For D800, it rates 15 mpix.
I should have bought a D800E, that rates the lens 21 mpix.
But I don't believe any of this. I don't believe those ratios. I do understand line widths per picture height downgrades DX due to the necessary greater enlargement, but not this.
What I would want to know about is the lens itself. Fortunately, there are better (standard) tests.