OMD DXOMarks is up

Started Sep 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Sergey Borachev Senior Member • Posts: 3,307
Re: DXOMark looks pretty bad now - loss of credibility

Detail Man wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Well, I thought you said you had doubts about the scores/measures for cameras like the K-5 and the D7000. I don't care much for DxO scoring in general. I look at what they measure, piece by piece and draw my own conclusions. But I think those measures are honest. As to the rest, I think we are largely in agreement. As I said, I am troubled by the delay, think it calls for an explanation, and have difficulties imagining in this particular case that there were any serious impediments of a technical kind.

Something is secretive and also not making sense here. And I don't think we will be enlightened. and without that, there must be doubts about the value of DXO's scores for comparisons.

Yes, I had doubts about the reliability of the scores/measures for cameras like the K-5 and D7000 and other cameras now, for direct comparisons. I think they were measured and published honestly, but I do not know whether they are so accurate now, given what happened, unless there are more explanations and answers. For example, it is not inconceivable that the measurement methods may have changed now. Or there have been adjustment made to something somewhere in arriving at these perfectly acceptable scores for the E-M5, but which have previously been so unreasonable to warrant such drastic delay and frustration.

How does waiting 3 months validate those scores? What makes those score so unbelievable? What new evidence is now available or what has changed after 3 months? If there were adjustments or if there is new evidence, then should the same adjustments be made to older scores or new evidence sought to validate scores of cameras previously reviewed?

I don't think along those lines at all. I think nothing has changed in terms of procedures and have great difficulties imagining that measuring the E-M5 caused any more technical difficulty than measuring any other camera with a normal Bayer sensor. I say so, because I think I have a pretty good understanding of how DxO actually goes about things. For me, the only questions are why, nevertheless, the review was so delayed, and why they have offered no reasonable explanation for that delay.

That sounds even worse to me (in terms of implications to their credibility), as there seem very little reasons, good, valid reasons for the delay that I can see. And if it is not good, valid, it could be bad.

Again, I am not saying there isn't a reasonable explanation. I am just saying I have no convincing idea of what that explanation might be and that I think it would be in DxO's own interest to let us know their reasons if they have credible and legitimate ones.

My comment below is not intended to include Anders W 's reasonably rational thoughts expressed.

DxO Labs took (at least) as long to release test-results for the DMC-FZ150 following it's release ...

The PTF crowd experienced frustration surrounding the delays, but they did not exhibit the self-inflated temerity (bordering on the absurd) to throw histrionic hissy-fits and blow hot-air like some spolied brat at a restaurant incensed that the wait-staff has yet to jump like slaves and bring them their ice-water and dinner-bisquits that I have seen all too many snippy self-styled posers masquerading as "industry mavens" engage in on these threads. DxO Labs provides a free service that people are lucky that they happen to provide at all. Get a real life and give us all a break ...

Thanks, DM. You have illustrated so well why I have ignored you, the only person I ignored so far, but it seems you are desperate and your superiority complex is getting worse. Go away.

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