Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 563603" data-attributes="member: 9240">DxOMark ratings aren't subjective, they are just the opposite - scores calculated on a specific set of test under specific conditions for specific reasons.&nbsp; It is very scientific in its methodology.&nbsp; And like much science it is theoretical in its application to/correlation with reality.&nbsp; I find their scores for bodies (i.e. sensors) much more telling than those for lenses, which can vary greatly from body to body, but I still find them both more interesting than useful.&nbsp; &quot;Low&quot; does not equal &quot;Bad&quot;, except in the mind of many people on the interweb, and it prejudices opinion whether meaningly or unmeaningly.&nbsp; DxOMark scores are useless to me, but I do find the graphical results useful as it's truly the only way to understand the score.&nbsp; Does it measure &quot;fair&quot; across the board, or is it more than fine for most of its useful range and absolute garbage at the extremes (where you'd almost never use it)?&nbsp; I've happily used DxOMark failures for years and saved myself a boatload of money.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 563603, member: 9240"] DxOMark ratings aren't subjective, they are just the opposite - scores calculated on a specific set of test under specific conditions for specific reasons. It is very scientific in its methodology. And like much science it is theoretical in its application to/correlation with reality. I find their scores for bodies (i.e. sensors) much more telling than those for lenses, which can vary greatly from body to body, but I still find them both more interesting than useful. "Low" does not equal "Bad", except in the mind of many people on the interweb, and it prejudices opinion whether meaningly or unmeaningly. DxOMark scores are useless to me, but I do find the graphical results useful as it's truly the only way to understand the score. Does it measure "fair" across the board, or is it more than fine for most of its useful range and absolute garbage at the extremes (where you'd almost never use it)? I've happily used DxOMark failures for years and saved myself a boatload of money. [/QUOTE]

Verification