wickerprints wrote: sjms wrote:
it\'s as relevent as you wish to make it. DxO has no personal axe to grind with anyone. it\'s an analysis suite that works off the same criteria/baseline for all makers. an attempt at a level playing field where there has ben much fudging of accurate statements. there are always those who will scoff at a study if theirs is showing up on the short end of the score. take it for what you want.
The problem is not bias, at least none that I\'m aware of. The problem is that the analysis itself has very fundamental flaws in methodology, and the conclusions that are drawn are not meaningful. It makes no sense to combine performance data in the manner that they do to obtain a numerical \"score.\" It is as nonsensical as saying \"20 miles/hour + 11 liters = 31.\" Quantities that are measured in fundamentally different ways cannot be mashed together with some pseudoscientifically chosen weight function to derive some overall score.
Furthermore, their results don\'t stand up to the most basic challenge, which is that in practice, people use a wide variety of lenses with different kinds of optical attributes, and that the performance of the sensor is never observed in isolation. The lens+sensor is operated as a system. Even if you wanted to tease the two apart in order to understand the contribution of each, then you must qualify your conclusions by stating that the measured performance cannot be taken as an indication of real-world results.
wickerprints is right to an extent about reading and observing. as to it being junk i don\'t feel that it is at all. you need to give concrete reasoning why it doesn\'t work. but in the end we all see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear a nd in the end think what we want to think.
Feelings and desires have nothing to do with science; only facts and evidence. Any entity with such a cavalier approach to analyzing and summarizing data and purports to present it in an authoritative, \"scientific\" manner, casts enormous doubt on the validity of the entire process. It simply is not enough to say \"people will believe what they want to believe\" and shrug one\'s shoulders. \"Cargo cult science\" is the term I used for DxOMark, and it is absolutely justified; if one is to have an honest discussion of such things, it becomes necessary to call out the actions of those who are being dishonest, whether or not they do so intentionally.
\"The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.\" --John Ruskin
and i totally agree with your last 2 statements. you as due diligence need to come up with demonstratable analysis and facts to show where where theirs is flawed
wickerprints wrote: sjms wrote:
it\'s as relevent as you wish to make it. DxO has no personal axe to grind with anyone. it\'s an analysis suite that works off the same criteria/baseline for all makers. an attempt at a level playing field where there has ben much fudging of accurate statements. there are always those who will scoff at a study if theirs is showing up on the short end of the score. take it for what you want.
The problem is not bias, at least none that I\'m aware of. The problem is that the analysis itself has very fundamental flaws in methodology, and the conclusions that are drawn are not meaningful. It makes no sense to combine performance data in the manner that they do to obtain a numerical \"score.\" It is as nonsensical as saying \"20 miles/hour + 11 liters = 31.\" Quantities that are measured in fundamentally different ways cannot be mashed together with some pseudoscientifically chosen weight function to derive some overall score.
Furthermore, their results don\'t stand up to the most basic challenge, which is that in practice, people use a wide variety of lenses with different kinds of optical attributes, and that the performance of the sensor is never observed in isolation. The lens+sensor is operated as a system. Even if you wanted to tease the two apart in order to understand the contribution of each, then you must qualify your conclusions by stating that the measured performance cannot be taken as an indication of real-world results.
wickerprints is right to an extent about reading and observing. as to it being junk i don\'t feel that it is at all. you need to give concrete reasoning why it doesn\'t work. but in the end we all see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear a nd in the end think what we want to think.
Feelings and desires have nothing to do with science; only facts and evidence. Any entity with such a cavalier approach to analyzing and summarizing data and purports to present it in an authoritative, \"scientific\" manner, casts enormous doubt on the validity of the entire process. It simply is not enough to say \"people will believe what they want to believe\" and shrug one\'s shoulders. \"Cargo cult science\" is the term I used for DxOMark, and it is absolutely justified; if one is to have an honest discussion of such things, it becomes necessary to call out the actions of those who are being dishonest, whether or not they do so intentionally.
\"The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.\" --John Ruskin
what is your analysis that shows theirs to be flawed?
and i totally agree with your last 2 statements. please give me the facts in this world full of \"opinions\".
Apr 23, 2011 at 03:58 PM
Previous versions of sjms's message #9523907 « DxOMark - Is it relevant? »
