7D @dxomark.com what a joke...

[heider]

<p>Dear David,</p>

<p>You do have a point in here:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We see many "luxury" products that function no better than "everyday" products of the same type, yet commanding a premium price, due to cache', exclusivity or some other non-performance characteristic. This could happen with cameras also.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A smart point indeed, David. I wish this is not the case with the Hasselblad. I have never had the chance to use a d-medium format, so I will not be sure until then. But what you said does make a lot of sense, its valid in many aspects, and indeed could be the case in here. I wish that I have jumped into conclusions. Like you I wish there is a logical explanation to this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the second and third examples both Nikon and Canon replaces there already well performing D5000, 40D with the less quality, more expensive, D300s and 50D, as if the guys at Nikon and Canon labs don’t know what they are doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one of many cases where I wish I am wrong; I wish DxO finding are correct and does make sense, I wish that my judgment is incorrect. That would make DxO Mark findings the best findings ever.</p>

<p>Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comment. </p>

<p>Regards. </p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>This has not been implied, but I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing Hasselblad of catering to luxury clientele by pumping their prices up and not offering comensurate quality. I know for certain that in the past they offered a unique value/performance proposition for film studio photographers. In the digital world, I don't really know.</p>

<p>Like Heider, I haven't had a digital Hasselblad in my hands, much less compared images to my Canon 5D MkII. I happen to think a lot of DxO and use their Optics Pro 6.1 software for most of my RAW conversion and global adjusting.</p>

<p>This whole discussion may just poiint to the lack of value in looking at unadjusted RAW images. From personal experience, I know that my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens is soft on my 5D2, using either camera-generated jpegs or DPP RAW conversions. I was ready to send the lens to Canon for calibration when I started using DXO's Optics Pro 5.x, a year or so ago. My goodness, the lens came to life and is now sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. Optics are still important, BUT what your software does with the optics after image capture is becoming just as important. It seems that all cameras have imbedded errors in their processing, but with appropriate PP this can be overcome and corrected entirely.</p>

<p>So, we're back to actually looking at images to evalutate a camera/lens systems and, oh yeah, it's really a camera/lens/software system. Change any element and you could get a quite different answer.</p>

<p>Ciao friends,</p>

[pto189]

<p><em>"Data</em> is now often treated as a singular mass noun in informal usage, but usage in scientific publications shows a divide between the United States and United Kingdom. In the United States the word <em>data</em> is sometimes used in the singular, though scientists and science writers more often maintain the traditional plural usage. Some major newspapers such as the <em>New York Times</em> use it alternately in the singular or plural. In the <em>New York Times</em> the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared on the same day. In scientific writing <em>data</em> is often treated as a plural, as in <em>These data do not support the conclusions</em>, but many people now think of data as a singular mass entity like information and use the singular in general usage. British usage now widely accepts treating <em>data</em> as singular in standard English, including everyday newspaper usage at least in non-scientific use. UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural. Some UK university style guides recommend using <em>data</em> for both singular and plural use and some recommend treating it only as a singular in connection with computers."<br>

<br />By the way, It is, or it's, not its.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>DxO is NOT a reliable source for choosing a camera. They have the 1dsIII listed way better in High ISO noise than the 1D3.....which is a big crock of s%&t!</p>

<p>I have used the D3 and my 1D3 side by side and their may be a 1/2 stop difference in Noise with the edge on the D3....but it was barely visible in 100% viewing.</p>

<p>There is no way the 1D3 is this far down the list......I give them no credibility at all.</p>

<p>But it does not surprise me about there opinion of the 7D....I have not been impressed at anything from the 7D.....the AF being the best thing about it. I have a good friend that returned 2 before giving up all together and going back to his 40D. The IQ was horrible.</p>

<p>That said, today was the 3rd time I've ever gone to DxO site....just because they are so far off base.</p>

<p>And I'm of the opinion also, if they cant get the printed specs right, what else have they gotten wrong. Hell, all they have to do is copy and paste Canons listed specs for most of that crap.</p>

<p>The best way to pick a camera, is to use it.<br>

Does it have the features you need?<br>

Does it feel like you can use it, control all the features without needing a manual all the time.<br>

Do you get tired of holding it?<br>

Then, does the IQ give the results you desire, consistently?<br>

if the answer is yes, open wallet.<br>

If answer is no, move on to the next camera.<br>

Lather, rinse, repeat:-)</p>