DxOMark's measured ISOs vs. manufacturer ISOs

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,982
Re: DxOMark's measured ISOs vs. manufacturer ISOs

texinwien wrote:

Jack - you're totally, 100% off base here.

...My journey took longer than it should have because I was convinced I'd figured it all out. I hadn't.

And neither have you - yet...

I'll read the material and leave notes in your threads. But there are two issues here (and you are introducing a third):

1) The fact that the ISO definition of S is too messy and lax and therefore it makes it difficult to compare apples to apples
2) The possibility that this laxity could be used to someone's advantage with naive customers - the subject of this thread and what you are responding to in this post
3) That DPR's methods are flawed (which brought you in Andy's defence)

1) I think we all agree with
2) I think we'll never know, one way or the other - if I were Olympus I sure wouldn't be telling anyone at DPR - hence it's pretty dumb to come down hard one way or the other
3) I never considered it a target in any of my posts until you jumped in to defend it - now I'll have to form an opinion on it

As far as I am concerned manufacturers can literally call in-camera ISO whatever they want while producing images of whatever brightness they want OOC - the standard allows them to to it. So when someone deviates from accepted norm, which incidentally results in them looking better than the competition, they must be prepared for some added scrutiny. Which may be misguided, but fun anyway. We'll never know.  But to compare apples to apples it behooves reviewers and readers alike not to use such ISO nonsense: thank god for DxO.

So are you 100% sure that this thread is 100% off base?

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