Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 31 Oct 2014 (Friday) 23:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How real and reliable are DXOmark scores?

 
ChicagoPOTN
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Nov 2014
     
Nov 03, 2014 22:10 |  #76

uday029 wrote in post #17244973 (external link)
....My question is how real are these scores? .....
Is it recommended to go by these values to make a final decision?

DXOmark scores are real (= legit numbers), but it's almost laughable to make purchasing decision solely based on those numbers. Here is another car analogy:

Car A: maximum speed 150 mph, horse power 210hp
Car B: maximum speed 165 mph, horse power 230hp

Is Car B a better car? There are a lot of more important factors than just pure performance numbers, such as looks, the feels of steering, ..... Every person will have his own "better" car.

Is the numbers useless? of course not. If someone needs to race on a track, those little bit extra performance might mean win or loose. For everyday drivers, those are basically meaningless.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 03, 2014 22:34 |  #77

timbop wrote in post #17250763 (external link)
So they don't really test color ACCURACY, unless I misread their attempt to confuse and befuddle anyone by displaying some intentionally important-looking formula paired with a bit of terminology from Isaac Newton. In the end, it seems they just compute the number of bits required to store calculated values for range - which isn't really the same thing as reproducing the colors that went into the front of the optics. But who can tell?

Color "accuracy" isn't something that even has meaning in the context of a raw image. Bit depth of the colors recorded by the sensor, on the other hand, does.

When you think about it for a moment, it makes sense that such is the case, but it requires a solid understanding of how the camera actually captures an image. And so, I'll explain.

The camera's sensor is a matrix of light sensors covered by a bayer pattern filter:

IMAGE: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Bayer_pattern_on_sensor.svg/700px-Bayer_pattern_on_sensor.svg.png


When the camera is recording a color, what it's really doing is recording the intensities of the red, green, and blue components of the incoming light. That's all it does. The camera readout electronics convert the recorded light intensities into digital values and that is what goes into the raw image. The raw image contains the color component intensities.

There is no such thing as color "accuracy" for this setup. Instead, what you have is a translation matrix that converts the recorded values into the colors we see. The process of converting the bayer pattern image into a color image is called "demosaicing", and final color conversion clearly has to involve the use of an additional translation map. It is the accuracy of that translation map that determines the accuracy of the resulting colors.

Your raw processing program does the demosaicing of the recorded image and applies the translation matrix itself. It is your raw processor, not the camera, that has the translation matrix. As such, any color accuracy errors are the result of errors in the translation matrix, not in any deficiency of the camera. It is for this reason that things like the Colorchecker Passport exist: they allow you to create a color translation profile for your camera and lens combination (yes, I did include the lens, because the lens does have an effect on the resulting color intensities recorded by the sensor).


If DxO were to test the color accuracy of the camera, what it would really be doing is testing the color accuracy of the JPEG converter inside the camera. While that might be useful for some, it doesn't really say anything about the sensor's capabilities, and it is the sensor's capabilities (more precisely, the capabilities of the data recording pipeline that starts with the sensor and ends in the raw file) that DxO measures.

"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 03, 2014 22:52 |  #78

I can confirm that there is a pretty good difference with the A7R that no Canon sensor can achieve. However, I didn't buy a Sony A7R because I have a technique to get rid of the pattern noise that the Canon camera creates in the shadows. So in the end, it's just 45 minutes of extra work and the Canon camera photo is indistinguishable from a Sony camera photo.

speedync wrote in post #17250095 (external link)
Do you have your work displayed online anywhere? Can you give us a link to your efforts so we can see what you're talking/writing about? I am genuinely interested to see just how large the differences are in the finished shot




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Nov 03, 2014 22:58 |  #79

Yes, I get the concept of bayer sensors and RGB. I was thinking in terms of how quickly the wells reach saturation, and if that follows the intensity curve the way it should. I've always felt that the red channel in canon sensors clips a lot faster than green and blue; ie in warmer light I seem to get more of a red/pink hue than I should and under reddish light the highlughts clip pretty fast.


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,780 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 207
Joined Mar 2008
     
Nov 03, 2014 23:06 as a reply to  @ kcbrown's post |  #80

KC your shooting both systems. What are your thoughts on the matter. Are we blowing things out of proportion or do sony sensors add a little extra to the system?


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
802 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 244
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Nov 03, 2014 23:20 |  #81

When DxO can gauge what feels good in my hands, the features I enjoy, the user system I expect, when it can rate a camera system end to end, once it's able to interpret what my eye sees and enjoys and the magic others capture, then I'll be interested. Until then, meh. I'm not impressed.

I wonder how that research was conducted and those DR conversations went 80 years ago? :) Do you think the speakeasy's were bristling with chest thumpers determined to make others believe? No, they were too busy discussing art and talent, blindly unaware that soon they could become great photographers by virtue of a numeric scale.

DxOmark scores are as real and reliable as you want them to be. This is what I've learned from this thread. What I haven't learned is why they're anything more than fun trivia.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,217 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 9860
Joined Aug 2010
Location: AL | GA Stateline
     
Nov 04, 2014 00:11 |  #82

DXO scores are a huge deal here at POTN, as evidenced by explosive threads such as this one, because Canon sensors score lower. If DXO scored Canon sensors about the same or better than Sony sensors, it would be less of a discussion/debate.

I agree it would be silly to choose a camera/system on the basis of a sensor score, but DXO scores offer, at least, a way of considering one component of a camera (arguably the most important component): the sensor at base ISO levels. Use the score as one of several considerations when evaluating various candidate cameras.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony: α7R II | Sony: 24GM, 12-24G, 24-105G, 200-600G | Sigma Art: 14-24, 35 F1.2, 105 Macro | Zeiss Batis: 85, 135 | Zeiss Loxia: 21, 35, 85 | Voigtländer: 12

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 04, 2014 01:24 |  #83

elitejp wrote in post #17250866 (external link)
KC your shooting both systems. What are your thoughts on the matter. Are we blowing things out of proportion or do sony sensors add a little extra to the system?

Sony sensors add a decent amount of capability at low ISO. I've never seen anything like their shadow recovery capability before. It's not useful to me all that often, but it's very useful when the need for it presents itself (example: you take a shot of an automobile going around the track in daylight and you want the interior and the driver's face to be visible).


At high ISO, Canon held the lead until very recently. The D750 appears to put Nikon on par with Canon in that respect. However, I should note that Canon does has one notable advantage at very high ISO: the noise is gloriously artifact-free. Even the D750 hasn't entirely eliminated that problem -- it still exhibits occasional horizontal band artifacts, though it is vastly improved over the D600 in that respect, and it shows itself generally at only the very highest of ISOs (even at ISO 12800, I see no evidence of such artifacts with the D750). The D800 has the same problem, but the D810 might have eliminated it. On that, I cannot say, but inasmuch as horizontal banding in the shadows at high ISOs appears to be a consistent trait of Exmor-based Nikon cameras, I have to presume the D810 has it as well.


If you shoot primarily at very low ISOs and dynamic range is of any importance to you (which will be the case if you ever push your shadows), the Nikons are significantly ahead. If you shoot primarily at very high ISOs, then Canon is slightly ahead. Overall, when comparing just on the basis of the sensor, the Nikons are certainly in the lead, and if that were my primary consideration, then Nikon would be my choice.


But there are other considerations that may factor heavily into the choice. For instance, the Canons tend to have cross-type autofocus points spread throughout the focus grid, while Nikon clusters all of them in the center (yes, even in their top of the line cameras). For locking onto certain types of targets, that will matter.


Seems there exists no perfect camera, even within the professional lines of these manufacturers. People are going to have to decide for themselves what is most important to them and choose accordingly. But I can tell you two things: firstly, both manufacturers are improving their cameras to at least some degree, though Nikon seems to be improving at a more rapid rate (in part because, in some respects, they had/have more catching up to do). Secondly, Canon appears to have hit a wall in their sensor line, and there is no evidence that this will change anytime soon.

Fortunately, you don't need anything like the capabilities of the currently-available cameras to make fantastic images. Think the images people made with the Canon 10D are any less awesome now than they were back then? Nope. But it certainly is nice to have more capability, isn't it?


Either sensor capability matters, or it doesn't. Some people here seem to be confused about which of those is the case. If it doesn't matter, then they should be shooting with the cheapest DSLR they can lay their hands on, and they certainly should stay away from full frame. These days, that cheapest DSLR would be something like a 20D, which can be had from KEH for a mere $130. If sensor capability does matter, then they have absolutely no grounds to dismiss DxO's sensor measurement tests.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 04, 2014 01:34 |  #84

Nethawked wrote in post #17250889 (external link)
When DxO can gauge what feels good in my hands, the features I enjoy, the user system I expect, when it can rate a camera system end to end, once it's able to interpret what my eye sees and enjoys and the magic others capture, then I'll be interested. Until then, meh. I'm not impressed.

Then you must not be impressed by any camera review whatsoever, or any individual report of a camera's capabilities, for that matter. After all, they don't gauge what feels good in your hands, or how the camera interprets what your eyes see, do they?

I wonder how that research was conducted and those DR conversations went 80 years ago? :) Do you think the speakeasy's were bristling with chest thumpers determined to make others believe? No, they were too busy discussing art and talent, blindly unaware that soon they could become great photographers by virtue of a numeric scale.

No, they were discussing the merits of various films available to them. What, you think the sensor comparison thing is new?

DxOmark scores are as real and reliable as you want them to be.

The scores are worthless, except for the dynamic range score. They embed a subjective assessment in the rest that is almost certainly going to differ from someone else's. The measurements, on the other hand, are useful to people like myself who understand the technicalities, because we can use them to determine how the sensor fits into our needs.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sega62
Senior Member
Avatar
756 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2011
     
Nov 04, 2014 03:07 |  #85

By the way the OP has never showed any sign of interest , I guess he got what he wanted for his first thread....(troll)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,780 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 207
Joined Mar 2008
     
Nov 04, 2014 03:43 |  #86

kcbrown wrote in post #17251027 (external link)
Sony sensors add a decent amount of capability at low ISO. I've never seen anything like their shadow recovery capability before. It's not useful to me all that often, but it's very useful when the need for it presents itself (example: you take a shot of an automobile going around the track in daylight and you want the interior and the driver's face to be visible).


At high ISO, Canon held the lead until very recently. The D750 appears to put Nikon on par with Canon in that respect. However, I should note that Canon does has one notable advantage at very high ISO: the noise is gloriously artifact-free. Even the D750 hasn't entirely eliminated that problem -- it still exhibits occasional horizontal band artifacts, though it is vastly improved over the D600 in that respect, and it shows itself generally at only the very highest of ISOs (even at ISO 12800, I see no evidence of such artifacts with the D750). The D800 has the same problem, but the D810 might have eliminated it. On that, I cannot say, but inasmuch as horizontal banding in the shadows at high ISOs appears to be a consistent trait of Exmor-based Nikon cameras, I have to presume the D810 has it as well.


If you shoot primarily at very low ISOs and dynamic range is of any importance to you (which will be the case if you ever push your shadows), the Nikons are significantly ahead. If you shoot primarily at very high ISOs, then Canon is slightly ahead. Overall, when comparing just on the basis of the sensor, the Nikons are certainly in the lead, and if that were my primary consideration, then Nikon would be my choice.


But there are other considerations that may factor heavily into the choice. For instance, the Canons tend to have cross-type autofocus points spread throughout the focus grid, while Nikon clusters all of them in the center (yes, even in their top of the line cameras). For locking onto certain types of targets, that will matter.


Seems there exists no perfect camera, even within the professional lines of these manufacturers. People are going to have to decide for themselves what is most important to them and choose accordingly. But I can tell you two things: firstly, both manufacturers are improving their cameras to at least some degree, though Nikon seems to be improving at a more rapid rate (in part because, in some respects, they had/have more catching up to do). Secondly, Canon appears to have hit a wall in their sensor line, and there is no evidence that this will change anytime soon.

Fortunately, you don't need anything like the capabilities of the currently-available cameras to make fantastic images. Think the images people made with the Canon 10D are any less awesome now than they were back then? Nope. But it certainly is nice to have more capability, isn't it?


Either sensor capability matters, or it doesn't. Some people here seem to be confused about which of those is the case. If it doesn't matter, then they should be shooting with the cheapest DSLR they can lay their hands on, and they certainly should stay away from full frame. These days, that cheapest DSLR would be something like a 20D, which can be had from KEH for a mere $130. If sensor capability does matter, then they have absolutely no grounds to dismiss DxO's sensor measurement tests.

I appreciate the thought out answer.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Nov 04, 2014 06:00 |  #87

kcbrown wrote in post #17251027 (external link)
...
Either sensor capability matters, or it doesn't. Some people here seem to be confused about which of those is the case. If it doesn't matter, then they should be shooting with the cheapest DSLR they can lay their hands on, and they certainly should stay away from full frame. These days, that cheapest DSLR would be something like a 20D, which can be had from KEH for a mere $130. If sensor capability does matter, then they have absolutely no grounds to dismiss DxO's sensor measurement tests.

And this statement precisely illustrates the point - often simple DXO metrics of some characteristics of the sensor are equivocated as the major basis for choosing a camera. I don't shoot 5d3's because of the dynamic range coming out of the sensor or even the sensor's raw high ISO performance; I shoot with them because of the SUM of the characteristics of the MANY components in the camera.

Also, there is a case of diminishing return/imperceptible differences. Once you reach a certain threshold, additional capability isn't noticeable in normal circumstances. For example, you can easily see the difference between and 80 DPI print and a 160 DPI print from a distance. Being able to distinguish between a 300 DPI and 600 DPI print is not nearly as simple.


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 04, 2014 06:58 |  #88

timbop wrote in post #17251166 (external link)
And this statement precisely illustrates the point - often simple DXO metrics of some characteristics of the sensor are equivocated as the major basis for choosing a camera.

Sure, but for some people, it's a legitimate basis. Landscapers, for instance, are going to be very interested in dynamic range because they want to capture detail across the entire tonal range of the scene. That means, for instance, capturing the detail in the clouds at the same time that detail of the tree trunks in the forest that's on the mountain side is captured (the latter would be in deep shadow, of course). They'll also be interested in color capture depth.


The main problem is this: the camera is really a general purpose picture capturing tool. Different people have different photographic needs, so different people will emphasize different things, but a good general purpose tool needs to be good at everything it does. That means that a general purpose camera needs to have good autofocus, good speed, good high ISO performance, good dynamic range, etc., all rolled into one package.

A camera that is really good at everything will be good for most people no matter what they shoot. That is why sensor capability matters in the general case: because the sensor is one of the primary attributes of the camera.

Of course, there are some for whom the sensor doesn't matter. As I said, when that's the case, they should be shooting with the cheapest camera they can lay their hands on (that meets whatever needs they do have, of course), and full frame isn't going to make any difference to them whatsoever.

I don't shoot 5d3's because of the dynamic range coming out of the sensor or even the sensor's raw high ISO performance; I shoot with them because of the SUM of the characteristics of the MANY components in the camera.

Right. DxO provides only part of that picture, not the complete picture. DxO only tells you about the capability of the sensor, nothing more. But if you don't shoot 5D3s in part because of the camera's sensor, then why in the world aren't you shooting with a 70D or 7D classic instead? If the sensor really doesn't make any difference to you, then a far less expensive camera is going to work just as well for you.

And even if it's the autofocus system that drew you to the 5D3, you can now trade your 5D3 in for a 7D2, get a better autofocus system out of the deal, and get money back as well. Seems the logical choice, if the sensor really doesn't matter to you, right?

Also, there is a case of diminishing return/imperceptible differences. Once you reach a certain threshold, additional capability isn't noticeable in normal circumstances. For example, you can easily see the difference between and 80 DPI print and a 160 DPI print from a distance. Being able to distinguish between a 300 DPI and 600 DPI print is not nearly as simple.

That's certainly true. But the DPI you use depends on the available resolution and the target print size. Landscapers often print very large, so they tend to be interested in high resolution. The dynamic range combined with the resolution is what makes the D800 line so well-suited to landscapers.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
802 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 244
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Nov 04, 2014 07:03 |  #89

kcbrown wrote in post #17251032 (external link)
Then you must not be impressed by any camera review whatsoever, or any individual report of a camera's capabilities, for that matter. After all, they don't gauge what feels good in your hands, or how the camera interprets what your eyes see, do they?


No, they were discussing the merits of various films available to them. What, you think the sensor comparison thing is new?


The scores are worthless, except for the dynamic range score. They embed a subjective assessment in the rest that is almost certainly going to differ from someone else's. The measurements, on the other hand, are useful to people like myself who understand the technicalities, because we can use them to determine how the sensor fits into our needs.

You missed the point entirely, Thumper. How you've come to those narrow conclusions is beyond me, but as the underdog in this debate your intent is acceptably comical.

80 year old sensors, hmm. We haven't come very far at all then, have we?

Congrats. Like your ancestors, I'm sure those measurements have made you a better photographer. That's really all that matters.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Nov 04, 2014 07:11 |  #90

Nethawked wrote in post #17251228 (external link)
You missed the point entirely, Thumper. How you've come to those narrow conclusions is beyond me, but as the underdog in this debate your intent is acceptably comical.

Hey, I was only taking what you said and applying logic to it. :D

80 year old sensors, hmm. We haven't come very far at all then, have we?

Heh. Nope, we haven't really, at least as regards "what is best" debates. Such things have been going on for time immemorial.

Congrats. Like your ancestors, I'm sure those measurements have made you a better photographer. That's really all that matters.

Well, no, they haven't made me a better photographer, but they did make it easier for me to make an informed choice, and I would hope that an informed choice generally yields better results in the end.

You're not seriously arguing here that it's better to have less information for making such a decision than more, are you?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18,144 views & 0 likes for this thread
How real and reliable are DXOmark scores?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Big_coelho
926 guests, 265 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.