museebfoto

<p><strong>Fred G.</strong> Thank you for your time and effort.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you knew the identity of a rater, you might give it a tad more credence because you could look at his or her work and other statements and get a sense of their sensibility and the value of their consideration. But, here you don't know the identity of the rater, so you get NO useful information from a rate.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed the system give the name of rater after five, and one can get a tentative idea about them.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree that most participation are within the limits of observations and comments, nor critiques. In fact, what I have mentioned are all about the "rating" because comment need more time, good information and a good expression. Personally, I feel the degree of rating which is come from a photographer who has a good performance will take place to others in better way even if it is low. And a good performance photographer must have technical workers that can attracted others to comment. PN site has a good statistical data to do this.</p>

<p>Dears<br /> The idea came up in my mind when I thought in the way the Arbitrators Committee selected for any photo exhibitions and to make the critique forum as an exhibition. The number of 100 received comments which I suggested does not constitute any value but only as a threshold step for rating, let us not forget that one photo from some members received half of this figure. Thanks again</p>

<p dir="LTR">I would like to suggest a point of view, in which the PN system make the case of rating is accessible only by numbers who have already received at least 100 comments on his published photos or who have a valuable inputs in discussion forums. In this manner the photos in critique forum would be evaluated by a more qualified peoples. Thanks in forward.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly some cameras are made for a high DxO ranking, others are made for taking great pictures :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting point of view, really I like it.</p>

<p><br /> I will add this equation, Why Nikon D800E ( which is without low-pass filter ) cost more than Nikon D800 ( with a low-pass filter )? Knowing that the two have the same technical specifications, including the used sensor.</p>

<p dir="LTR">Thanks to all </p>

<p dir="LTR">Indeed, I have Canon EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. It has a good construction and sharpness as well as the Image Stabilization is not so critical in a such zoom rang. The bothersome is its non-linear distortion in some zooming rang ( but it much less than that from Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which I have got rid of it quickly ).</p>

<p dir="LTR">I also have two L lens ( 17-40L F4 ) and ( 70-200L F4 ), yes they have a superior construction and sharpness. That is why I am seeking EF-L ( traveler ) zoom without S.</p>

<p>There is a minor difference in DxO score for the following two lenses, but there is a big difference in the price. Is IS in L lens worth the $1000 in price difference? or there is something else.<br /> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D</a><br /> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard with modern scanners, the full range of a scanned negative is about 15-19 stops....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I understand the statement, so I have this opinion: The scanner can not create stops that are not on the negative. So the scanner limits depend on the negative and the print depend on paper, because the negative and papers are the bottleneck for dynamic range. Is there a film has dynamic rage up to 19 stop?. This is the question.</p>

<p>DXO Sensor Overall Score dose not compare prices or weights, it goes to a more important thing like dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and color depth. We must not wonder that the modern cameras even if it is from lower-level excel the performance of an old camera which is in a higher level. If the case remains as it is, it means there is no technical progress and principally there is no digital photography, and if I have money I will buy Nikon D800 today and not tomorrow.</p>

<p dir="LTR">I have used</p>

<p dir="LTR">Canon ( 450D, 20D, 40D, 5D, 7D )</p>

<p dir="LTR">Konica Minolta 7D</p>

<p dir="LTR">Nikon ( D50, D70s )</p>

<p dir="LTR">Panasonic FX3</p>

<p dir="LTR">Sony NEX C3</p>

<p dir="LTR">From my point of view the Sensor Overall Score given by DxO is a very convincing.</p>

<p dir="LTR">One thing which has puzzled me is the very close score for Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and the score for Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, ( in which the degree of zoom close to some ).</p>

<p dir="LTR">The fist cost about $1250 while the second cost only $250.</p>

<p dir="LTR">( I have Only EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and it is really a good lens )</p>

 

<p dir="LTR"> </p>

<p>This is my stylistic in art !.</p>

<p>My advice is to move away from the 7D, except in the case the noise is not a matter of chose.<br /> Look to this photo @ISO 100 ( A cropped area )<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p dir="LTR">I rarely rated below 5 ( even for those who always rated at low ), not because I don't want a low ratings on my own photos, but because I have just rated what I liked and skipped the others.</p>

<p dir="LTR">As I think, " the low rating" it may need critique and clarify, passing through has the same connotation but it doesn't require clarification</p>

<p dir="LTR">Sorry <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=533353">Michael R. Freeman</a>, Never in my mind the possibility of this procedure after this long time from uploading. Thank you</p>

<p>After about nine months and this photo still on critique forum!.</p><div></div>

<p dir="LTR">Indeed <strong>Sarah</strong>, I do not mean at all that we do not need the JPG image on the camera, this is one of the best advantage in digital photography, at least to see the nature of composition and lighting. But the loss is to engage the processor to produce a high accurate image which is for nothing later. But While I am writing these words I remembered the importance of the JPG image for the press as an example. Anyhow the topic is likely much debate and possibly the manufactures are on the right way. Thank you very much </p>

<p>I am with you, for a professional consumers the cost of high end processors could be exploited for something more useful.</p>

<p>I have been here since the year 2007 and have learned too much from members, forums and articles.</p>

<p>Thank you <strong>Josh</strong> for your time.</p>

<p>Now, for example. when I have posted this reply I couldn't see my reply until I did a reload.</p>

<p>I use Mozilla Firefox for bout six month and this issue is just from about three days ago. Thank you</p>

<p>I can"t see my post ( comments ) until I do refresh or reload to the page. This is just from three days ago.</p>

<p>Talent of art similar to health, it going up then decayed after years of mastery.</p>

<p>Actually I have already uninstalled all the new software, but it was to no avail.<br>

I think the problem is not logical at all.<br>

Thank you <strong>Frank Skomial, Andrew Rodney </strong>for your time.</p>