Dario said: > .. Furthermore, I think that many prospect users are not so > interested in a > sensor test. They are interested in camera performance. For those > wanting > to shoot RAW exclusively - and provided that DPReview or someone > else would > ony test RAW performance - you could look at the Nikon D80 or Sony > Alpha 100 > test for knowing what to expect from the K10D.
Not true. Each manufacturer adds their own twist to the sensor configuration and supporting electronics. Like the K10D's weak antialiasing filter and 22bit ADC. The results, while roughly comparable, aren't identical even in RAW capture. > Even worse: which converter of choice for testing RAW files? Which > release? > Isn't that changing on an almost daily basis? How to get comparable > results? > Then, isn't it possible that a given converter or a given > conversion (or a > given tester!) would be biased toward a camera, or sensor, or > whatever? I'm > truly afraid that your suggested test procedure will result being > far more > debatable than testing a camera JPEG performance, which at least > can be > rather associated to a given camera. I see nothing wrong with testing using JPEG and/or RAW output data. Or with the "standard" lens provided by each manufacturer, although that starts to be more of a system test than a test of how a particular body works. Present the test data and the condition and settings of the tests. Make it clear as to what is your opinion and what in the review the test data consists of, and the set up for that testing. Don't test the camera on its default settings and then judge its performance without taking into account what those default settings are intended by the manufacturer to do, which is the usual point of departure from reality. Testing and interpreting the results is a very complex game to achieve useful, comprehensive and objective information with something as complex as a modern DSLR camera. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
