4 ms·

Aren't spec sheets objective benchmarks? Image quality can be subjective too. Also, the 70D might be $900, but that doesn't matter so much when someone has $4k

Aren't spec sheets objective benchmarks? Image quality can be subjective too. Also, the 70D might be $900, but that doesn't matter so much when someone has $4k worth of Canon equipment. Personally I've found I enjoy purchases more by making fewer of them and worrying less about specification minutiae. Does the product do what I want? Do I enjoy using it? Is it reliable? Done.

arnaudsm 9y ago
It depends of the specs covered. It can lead to some kind of Cargo Cult. Think of the 128 bit consoles, the 128Gb of RAM and the 12 Cores CPU for Gaming PCs. It's meant for advertising, but useless for the end user.
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  True — it would be more useful to the user as "Can it run Crysis"
  - chris_7 9y ago
    Is there a more recent game that has taken over that position, or is Crysis still the benchmark? It's super old now! (not really into games anymore so no idea myself)
    - accountyaccount 9y ago
      It really became a meme, not sure if there's a de-facto replacement.
    - sp332 9y ago
      Crysis was hard on systems partly because the graphics were good and partly because it was not well-optimized. Game graphics have improved since then but they don't tend to take your system down as hard because they are better written. That's why Crysis is still a joke.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Veratyr 9y ago
  I assume by "128Gb", you meant 128GB. 128Gb of RAM is only 16GB, which can be found even in regular consumer PCs. Edit: To be a little clearer, lower case "b" is the unit for a bit. Upper case "B" represents a byte.
  - ReverseCold 9y ago
    Oh come on.
beat 9y ago
Image quality is extremely subjective. We don't shoot test patterns. We photograph the real world. And even within that ground, the basics of exposure (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) matter tremendously. The same subject, shot at f/2.8 and 1600 ISO, can look very different when shot at f/5.6 and 6400 ISO. And if you're relying on "program mode" or "scene mode" to automagically compute your exposure for you, all bets are off. The sensor doesn't matter nearly as much as the decision-making software. As a mostly-manual shooter, what matters to me is good ergonomics. One of these days, I'm going to bite the bullet and invest in a new Fuji rig, just for the superb manual-shooting ergonomics. But then I'd have to switch my brain from its familiar Nikon-shaped ruts...
- jdmichal 9y ago
  This is one of the reasons I like DPReview over DxOMark. They have both sample images and a standardized studio image. The studio image lets you compare the same picture over multiple cameras, while the sample images give you a better feel of the camera in several scenarios. Pick the pictures that look better to you, because that's what you're going to be looking at after you use the thing! I went in to buying a camera last year wanting a Fujifilm X100T. Not least of which because it reminds me of the Minolta camera I learned to shoot on. But I ended up with a Sony RX100 IV instead, based on perceived image quality and video capabilities.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    I went through the same thing and ended up with the X100F. I noticed that the T was on sale and realized that the F was up for pre-order. I waited a while but it was worth it. I take it hiking with me all the time now, since it's small enough for that. I really wanted a full-frame DSLR, but the RX1R is expensive and others are too big for convenient travel (for me).
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      Yea. My main use case for it was my then-newborn son, so a compact was a good choice for me. I needed portability and quick pickup-to-use time, because image quality doesn't matter if you've already missed the moment. And 4k video really just sealed the deal. I would still probably pick the RX100 IV or V over the X100F for that alone.

arnaudsm 9y ago

It depends of the specs covered. It can lead to some kind of Cargo Cult. Think of the 128 bit consoles, the 128Gb of RAM and the 12 Cores CPU for Gaming PCs. It's meant for advertising, but useless for the end user.

accountyaccount 9y ago
True — it would be more useful to the user as "Can it run Crysis"
- chris_7 9y ago
  Is there a more recent game that has taken over that position, or is Crysis still the benchmark? It's super old now! (not really into games anymore so no idea myself)
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    It really became a meme, not sure if there's a de-facto replacement.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Crysis was hard on systems partly because the graphics were good and partly because it was not well-optimized. Game graphics have improved since then but they don't tend to take your system down as hard because they are better written. That's why Crysis is still a joke.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Veratyr 9y ago
I assume by "128Gb", you meant 128GB. 128Gb of RAM is only 16GB, which can be found even in regular consumer PCs. Edit: To be a little clearer, lower case "b" is the unit for a bit. Upper case "B" represents a byte.
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  Oh come on.

beat 9y ago

Image quality is extremely subjective. We don't shoot test patterns. We photograph the real world. And even within that ground, the basics of exposure (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) matter tremendously. The same subject, shot at f/2.8 and 1600 ISO, can look very different when shot at f/5.6 and 6400 ISO. And if you're relying on "program mode" or "scene mode" to automagically compute your exposure for you, all bets are off. The sensor doesn't matter nearly as much as the decision-making software. As a mostly-manual shooter, what matters to me is good ergonomics. One of these days, I'm going to bite the bullet and invest in a new Fuji rig, just for the superb manual-shooting ergonomics. But then I'd have to switch my brain from its familiar Nikon-shaped ruts...

jdmichal 9y ago
This is one of the reasons I like DPReview over DxOMark. They have both sample images and a standardized studio image. The studio image lets you compare the same picture over multiple cameras, while the sample images give you a better feel of the camera in several scenarios. Pick the pictures that look better to you, because that's what you're going to be looking at after you use the thing! I went in to buying a camera last year wanting a Fujifilm X100T. Not least of which because it reminds me of the Minolta camera I learned to shoot on. But I ended up with a Sony RX100 IV instead, based on perceived image quality and video capabilities.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  I went through the same thing and ended up with the X100F. I noticed that the T was on sale and realized that the F was up for pre-order. I waited a while but it was worth it. I take it hiking with me all the time now, since it's small enough for that. I really wanted a full-frame DSLR, but the RX1R is expensive and others are too big for convenient travel (for me).
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    Yea. My main use case for it was my then-newborn son, so a compact was a good choice for me. I needed portability and quick pickup-to-use time, because image quality doesn't matter if you've already missed the moment. And 4k video really just sealed the deal. I would still probably pick the RX100 IV or V over the X100F for that alone.