ptomsu
Workshop Member
Marc,I'd argue the opposite. Science has become predominate since digital has rapidly evolved, and we spend inordinate amounts of time measuring, scrutinizing, debating, posturing, over every new development ... developments which have increased in incidence at an exponential rate. Mind-boggling actually.
Reviewing this stuff has become an industry unto itself ... where the debaters now endlessly compete for the latest greatest, and make pronouncements regarding minutia as earth shattering advancements ... everything is now carnival barkers proclaiming a "Game Changer" and we have the science to prove it!
Show me a similar scenario regarding the art of photography that has such a swell of followers hanging on every work, saliva dripping from their lips in anticipation, and a psyche tuned to snap up the all powerful next innovation secretly thinking themselves as armed to the teeth to make "better" photos.
Frankly, with the time I have to piss away on the internet I'd rather follow "Burn" Magazine, follow the lighting techniques of master photographers, or look at how someone has used a new camera for real, etc. than decipher DXO findings or the like.
But that's just me.
-Marc
exactly see it as you do!
What I do with DXO is have a look from time to time WRT a camera I am interested in and then I decide if I continue wanting this camera or not. In many cases I then no longer care about DXO if the camera fulfills my needs otherwise. In case of Leica M I find it a positive add that it scores relatively high with DXO and I actually am very happy Leica could make it into the DXO top range of cameras (sensors) finally - it will further help them. But I would buy it anyway, as it is the best I can get for my M glass today. And so DXO diminishes pretty much in the final overall decision.
Peter