Nope, the DR is still the same. The total DR that is. They measure from noise floor to top.
and if your RAWs have NR, or perhaps you engage in black clipping black-level offset
that immediately alters the balance to anything else
raist3d said:
Which points then to something wrong in IMATEST then because as I have seen for myself, the DR of the K-5 is indeed a jump from most.
well pffft to that
raist3d said:
The other way around. A lot of IMATEST done depends on an external raw converter, DXo depends on their own direct measurement. That's why you see so many websites running the same IMATEST with so many different results- even Imaging Resource used to comment for years (they don't do that anymore) that they couldn't explain how come the D70 scored lower than the E-300 (or was it e-330? I can't remember anymore ).
just as DPR run there own version of DR and res tests, there are variations of method, you simply need to understand what each sites review components are good for
raist3d said:
where he was quick to talk about how IR used Adobe RAW under 'his suspicion' that they used adobes ability to reduce noise (which would be with every individual test anyway) yet at the same time failed to acknowledge the issue of NR in RAW until sometime later, IMO he never once entered in a good faith discussion about it. The fact of the matter became this, that IMATEST are perfectly valid results photographers can asses with tangible images shot of step wedge charts, that with IMATEST there is an evidence trail,
DxO quite simply is a black box that advantages sensors that have noise abatement technologies such as black-level offset &/or NR.
raist3d said:
I have been told time and time again by people that apparently don't understand what they are talking about, nor the fact that I verify things for myself. The DR of the K-5 is definitively significantly more, than the E-3/E-5. I don't say this just trusting Dxo but by experience. It is because of this experience (well before this obviously , say with e-300/330/410/420/e-3/620) that I tend to trust Dxo on DR and ISO scores.
the last challenge you made attesting your understanding of DxO results here was about YOUR notion that manufacturers where somehow cheating published ISO b/se DxO saw it differently. You went so far with this you were adding and subtracting ISO figures based on your reading of DxO in some strange attempt to 'equalise' what you saw as erroneously manufactured ISO
ask yourself what ever happened to that argument
that gets to the guts of your understanding of DxO
- Raist
raist3d said:
PS: I am not going to go back and forth with you here on getdpi. It's just not worth my time arguing with you as I stated months ago on dpreview, simply because I have seen weird things from dynamically changing the subject to suit a point (lenses, I remember) to a bunch of other things an intention. You can go ahead and say what you want, I am just going to skip it here too.
actually you seem to spend quite a lot of time all over the net trashing 4/3rds pretty heavily and annoying users, while offering slight condolence on occasional but rare lucid moments about how good it might be...