Dpreview finally cracking. Admits there are differences betweenclaimed ISO's

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Dpreview is notorious for pretending ISO differences don't exist between cameras. Vague references to T-stops and the like. 2 weeks ago, they admitted that they manipulated lighting levels to equalize camera tests. Now, they've said that comparisons of same ISO levels do not give real results when it comes to camera noise, because some camera's ISO do not match others. It's about time they finally came clean. Their take on the test of a new Fuji:

    "At higher ISO settings, the X-E2 produces cleaner images than the D7100, even when compared at a common output size. However, given the longer exposure the Fujifilm requires, it's also telling to compare its performance to the D7100 set one ISO setting lower, where the difference is much smaller. It's a similar story with the EOS 70D, with more comparible results if you drop the DSLR's ISO by 1EV to more closely match the exposures."
     
    RichA, Mar 6, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Pressure from the gentle hand of DxO?
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 6, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    they've said there's a difference many times.
     
    Guest, Mar 6, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Me Guest

    They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
    "expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
    more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
    sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
    raw files).
    So another way of looking at it is that DPReview "incentivised"
    manufacturers to cheat.
     
    Me, Mar 6, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Which is odd, since they hide it in reviews by adjusting the illumination levels of studio scenes to suite each camera, which is shocking, IMO.
     
    RichA, Mar 6, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I understand that of recent months DxO have been doing work for DP
    Review. I would not be surprised if DxO would not be at all happy if
    DP Review was playing fast and loose with test results.
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 6, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Huh? They have provided a variety of tests of ISO sensitivity for as
    long as I can remember, including direct comparisons of noise character
    and levels with sample images.
    How does providing direct comparisons "incentivize manufacturers to
    cheat"?
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 6, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    They were also (I expect) the most popular widely visited and trusted
    "expert" photography website for many years, and over that time
    more-or-less ignored manufacturers "stretching the truth" on ISO
    sensitivity claims as well as using in camera NR (including "cooking"
    raw files).[/QUOTE]

    dpreview tests the cameras at their default settings which is the only
    fair thing they can do.

    otherwise, people would bitch endlessly about using the wrong setting.

    and what evidence do you have for raw being cooked? other than sigma
    which actually does cook the raw (and lies about everything), who cooks
    the raw? raw is just that, raw.
    nonsense.
     
    Guest, Mar 6, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Which is odd, since they hide it in reviews by adjusting the illumination
    levels of studio scenes to suite each camera, which is shocking, IMO.[/QUOTE]

    bullshit.
     
    Guest, Mar 6, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They ADMITTED they do this! Try reading their stuff a bit more.
     
    RichA, Mar 7, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Shouldn't a link to this admission be forthcoming, so we can judge by
    ourselves instead of taking your word for it?
     
    Sandman, Mar 7, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Dark field subtraction (which is what Olympus cameras call "noise
    reduction") is a perfectly legitimate way to deal with sesnor noise,
    IMHO. Scientific instruments use it all the time. And I hope that
    the results are saved in the RAW file.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Mar 9, 2014
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.