I don't accept your "chain of evidence" in assuming that Nikon marketing correctly conveys information from Nikon engineering.
FWIW, I used to write published articles and I can't tell you how many times editors tried to improve my wording but changed the meaning so I would have to explain to them why they needed to retain the original wording.
That's fine; we disagree.
My position was Nikon does
not produce their sensors 'by accident.' My scrutiny was based on common sense: the fact Nikon knows
exactly what they're trying to produce ... and price/position them accordingly.
What I didn't accept was the idea that Nikon 'accidentally' made the D750 sensor superior to the D850. I knew there had to be a mistake in your graph.
Regarding wording, it is easy to digress to a further tangled mess by arguing points (through word manipulation) that were never actually said (or implied) to begin with.
With marketing material there are multiple points at which things can get lost in the translation. I never claim to be a sensor developer; but I have been analyzing sensors for over 10 years (longer than DxOMark has existed).I take this to be "only" one of two since I don't accept your Nikon marketing "evidence" but only actual measurements as evidence.The issue is becoming clearer and the underlying data issue is not trivial.
Regarding the D750 I am collecting additional data.
Again, it's not a matter of 'marketing language,' but of
the entire intent of Nikon corporation to develop, position, and price certain cameras based on certain capabilities. It was not 'reasonable' to believe a massive corporate oversight on the part of Nikon 'not knowing' which sensor was their finest; it was more reasonable to believe there was merely a graph anomaly on
your website.
Initial indications are that the D750 PDR (as currently published) is in fact too high (!)
I see an anomaly in the initial data collection that went undetected.
I'm surprised because normally bad input data produces obviously wrong (usually quite low) results.
If the new results hold up then it will be the first time ever that bad input data produced unnaturally high PDR values.
As was suspected all along ... the initial result just didn't make sense.
So, with respect to the initial topic of the thread, your observation may be born out.
However, I stand by my assertion that PDR is a better measure than DxOMark Landscape score.
And I stand by my methodology regardless of any human error that might affect a specific result.
Well, I appreciate the integrity to re-evaluate. I had no doubt this would be the outcome.
Again, there was never a slam on you, or your site, or your methods. Just scrutiny over
a graph result which was in conflict with everything tested/known by others of merit. Anytime there is a discrepancy like that, scrutiny is called for.
At the end of the day, any- and everyone is subject to human error, regardless of education/position, etc.
If that were not the case, I couldn't be a casualty investigator ... looking into (often catastrophic) losses to determine liability ... if no one made mistakes.
And, yes, to me it is ultimately trivial ... "which sensor has the highest base ISO scores."
Compared to cases where structural engineers miscalculate, which result in fatalities, or massive property loss, I think this issue here can be put into perspective.
If highly-educated,
cum laude persons didn't make mistakes, there wouldn't be such things as legal and medical malpractice, ENO (Errors and Omissions) coverage, where high-profile folks get put under the microscope, and found guilty of being in err.
Academic expertise does
not preclude oversight/error/bad sampling, etc.
In fact, one of my favorite wry quotes is, "
I am never wrong; once I thought I was wrong ... but I was mistaken."
__________________________________________
Very interesting unexpected turn of events.
Actually, it was not 'unexpected' at all ... in point of fact the anomaly was debated 5 pages worth ... until a re-exam bore out the the original call into question.
