A vey simple question about the XPro-1

Started Jun 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: Exactly.

Yes, they definitely control the lighting and use a consistent scene(s). I don't mean to discount various tests being done out there. They have value, and I certainly look to them to help form my opinions/purchases

liquid stereo wrote:

I may be wrong but I assume that when DPR does their tests, the lighting source, direction, and type are constant. So while it may not be definitive, it is at least consistent.

RealXenuis wrote:

Oh, sorry there. I thought you were saying yes, differing def's of LL, but there is one correct one. Sorry about that. I agree, I think there are lots of scenarios that could reasonably be called low light, and none of them more "valid" than the other.

About the tests: there would still need to be a generally agreed-upon def of "low light" to test against/from, right? I just think the whole concept of some official version is too problematic to have much confidence it. We can talk about it generally and then specifically, but none of us can say our version of "LL" or "test" is the right one. But I do agree with you in the case that if a camera performs "poorly" in many def's of "LL", or conversely if a camera handles those situations well, that means something.

liquid stereo wrote:

This is exactly my point - everyone's definition of low-light is different. If everyone's is different how could one be more authoritative than the other?

Well, if one does systematic tests with a variety of cameras and finds that one camera performs worse than another then I would accept that with some credibility.

RealXenuis wrote:

Also, you will likely find a spectrum of opinion on low light, yours not any more valid or with any more authority than theirs, am I wrong?

liquid stereo wrote:
The fire is bright. The fire is in focus.

Think about it this way.
1. There are those who say the camera does not focus well in low-light.
2. There are those who say it focuses fine.

3. What are the chances that these two groups of people are using different cameras?

Its the definition of low-light.

Lodro Rigdzin wrote:

The scene seems very brightly rendered, but it wasn't: not even the fire, that was dying, not flaming very brightly. I focused and measured on the area of the stick, not the fire, and fall off is very abrupt in such conditions.

liquid stereo wrote:

You're pointing it at very bright area. A test of low-light performance would be to stand between the subject and the fire and let the light of the fire illuminate the subject.

I think this is the real problem here. There's little/no variance in camera performance. The variation is in the definition of "low light".

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow