On Feb 3, 9:57*am, "Neil Harrington" <ne...@home.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7d19b63c-937d-4968-b48d-...
>
> > Though it could still be used to sell cameras, rather than review
> > their quality.. *The bright spot is their so-called absolute ratings.
> > Lets see how they work out.
>
> >http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...-brickbats-dev...
>
> Interesting. Most of the sub-rating methods still appear subjective rather
> than absolute, but I suppose there's no way really to avoid that. It does
> show they're trying to improve, which is something.
There is actually nothing wrong with their tests that I can see,
(except their best case DR figures are worthless in real life) if
they'd limit it to that and avoid the explanations, they'd be better
off because it's there that the misdirection takes form. The language
they use has always been the problem. Anyone can look at images and
the noise, DR, etc., Graph the results, no problem. The salesmanship
used in the descriptions of what is visible is the problem.
Similar Threads
