Adorama's 20 Best Cameras For Digital Low-Light Photography

El Pedro wrote in post #16634932
Hahaha, Adorama time to fire your marketing guy. Great way to piss off a large portion of your customers.

Fire the marketing guy? Ha ha. Not going to happen.

I wonder where Helen is on this issue?

AJSJones wrote in post #16635873
Nice example

Nice example of what? Adorama taking DxO's weighted metrics as gospel? Yeah, I agree. Nice example of garbage.

Example of what I quoted above your comment: "I don't agree with the "conclusions" so I'll assume everything they do leading up to them is garbage".

If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I also disagree with (many of) their conclusions because of how they process the data they collect. I understand the data and it is not garbage - some of the processing and metrics may be, but if you don't (?won't) understand the data behind those, I can see why you might dismiss it : "I don't understand it, so it must all be garbage "

IOW: "Good data collection methods and good data, followed by questionable normalization and weighting, to produce "overall numbers" that are often misleading" is a more accurate assessment than "GIGO"

I love how the favorite line of the DxO apologists is to claim superior knowledge and insight. I understand what they are doing and how they are doing it. I understand the engineering principles involved and the math involved. I thoroughly disagree with how they present the results, their weightings and summarizing the data into an overall value, and how various toadies use these summaries as "proof" of anything at all. And, the Adorama article is all the proof you should need of the misuse, and general uselessness, of DxO ratings.

RTPVid wrote in post #16636063
I love how the favorite line of the DxO apologists is to claim superior knowledge and insight. I understand what they are doing and how they are doing it. I understand the engineering principles involved and the math involved. I thoroughly disagree with how they present the results, their weightings and summarizing the data into an overall value, and how various toadies use these summaries as "proof" of anything at all. And, the Adorama article is all the proof you should need of the misuse, and general uselessness, of DxO ratings.

I am in no way an "apologist" - the GO part we agree on!
I was not claiming superior knowledge or insight - if you understand what's going on, fine - many who dismiss the whole DxO thing, do not.
You are way out of line with the "toadie" comment. Bye.

RTPVid wrote in post #16636063
I love how the favorite line of the DxO apologists is to claim superior knowledge and insight. I understand what they are doing and how they are doing it. I understand the engineering principles involved and the math involved. I thoroughly disagree with how they present the results, their weightings and summarizing the data into an overall value, and how various toadies use these summaries as "proof" of anything at all. And, the Adorama article is all the proof you should need of the misuse, and general uselessness, of DxO ratings.

Exactly

Anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge and credibility can see how DXO is cherry picking their data to come to biased conclusions. Which is strange, because their actual data graphs are actually incredibly accurate and supported by other testing. It's even more blatant in their lens testing where transmission is very highly weighted, but I can't recall a single thread on any photo forum where people really care if their f1.4 lens has a t-stop of f1.8.

It would be nice if Roger at lens rentals got more attention than DXO. He's unbiased, has a huge sample volume, and shows his result in the complexity that is necessary to come to more accurate conclusions.

AJSJones wrote in post #16636088
I am in no way an "apologist" ...

Maybe you don't understand the term "apologist" when used in this context. I does not mean "someone who apologizes for", but rather "someone who defends".

The "toadie" comment was directed at people who misuse the data (such as the Adorama article author), not you... but if you want to claim it, fine by me.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16634139
That was always the argument of the 5D2 vs the D700. D700 was cleaner at higher ISOs, but the 5D2 had more megapickles so if you cropped 100% on the D700, you would only have to crop to 50% on the 5D2 and it would look cleaner.

Although I agree with you I'd much rather have the extra megapixels as downsampling is really easy, takes like 2 seconds while on the same time you can't upsample the 6D files to match D800 resolution. Also the same reason I went for 5D II over D700, certainly never regretted that decision.

The D800 RAW files (and A7r) clean up real nicely, it's simply a fantastic sensor. But you gotta know what you are doing.
I don't understand about the fuzz about DXO results. If you don't bother to read their testing method then just ignore them, it's that simple

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16636182
Which is strange, because their actual data graphs are actually incredibly accurate and supported by other testing.

So why pay attention to anything else they do? Just learn from those and ignore their idiosyncratic mashups they call "ratings"

EOS-Mike wrote in post #16635932
Fire the marketing guy? Ha ha. Not going to happen.

I wonder where Helen is on this issue?

I know for certain that Adorama didn't receive any payment for using the info.....

The person who wrote the article isn't actually a marketing guy; he's an Adorama staff writer, but also quite a renowned photographer in his own right