R
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Numbers don't lie though, even how 'ackward' they area.I have most Zeiss lenses as well as the Nikon counterparts. The DxO results are not in-line with what I am getting as results using these tools on a regular basis. Lets put it that way.
I wonder how they have performed their tests or how they came to their conclusions? It is just that I often find them odd.
Numbers themselves do not lie however the road towards these numbers can be manipulated leading to a different outcome. This way numbers are mouldable.Numbers don't lie though, even how 'ackward' they area.
This is creating great debates in a lot of forums, but at the end of the day, numbers are just that... numbers.
Good kick to the Zeiss lenses though
But yes, other 'artistic' equations aren't considered.
I honestly don't think they want to create drama to bring more traffic, it's just their testing method, like most other review sites, is very flawed. I hope they are not basing their image correction on these unscientific tests though. Lenses perform very differently at their 2 focusing extremes and there is potential for significant sample variations. Doesn't help with buyer confidence with their productsBut DxOMark does make money from their software, so they do want to be accurate (and at the same time, they could create drama to bring people to their site).