I took a 24-70 II to my honeymoon, it matches the L primes in terms of image quality. It served me great, although weight was a little issue when we climbed the Triglav. Other solution may be the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't buy that. Many things can be corrected in post, and moire isn't one of them. pcpro.co.uk aren't renowned for their photographic expertise. In this case I get the impression they just read a couple of marketing gimmicks and wrote it as fact.
So you would be saying that Adobe's moire correction brush cannot work, right?
PS: I really would like to hear more about those notable examples.
Here's one obvious one that I've run across:
When DxOMark first publised their measurements and review of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, they stated that the MkI version of the 70-200/2.8L IS was sharper. They stated that the, "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM offers slightly less resolution with 51 lp/mm compared to the excellent 61 lp/mm of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM," and went on to explain that it was due to 'less homogenous behavior across the field'. They concluded that, "...the overall scores come out slightly in favor of the previous version of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, especially for Travel and Sport photography, which are the main use cases of these telephoto zoom lenses."
That conclusion differed from pretty much every other reviewer/tester who compared the two versions of the lens, and found that the MkII was hands-down the better lens (the f/2.8L IS MkI was considered to be a worse performer optically than both the 70-200/4L IS and the 70-200/2.8L non-IS). Comments can be added to their review pages, and several people commented that from personal experience with both lenses and reviews on DPR, PZ, et al., had all found that the MkII was the better lens. A DxO Labs employee replied, "Thanks for bringing this potential mistake to our attention. But, after checking with all our experts in the lab, there isn’t really a mistake...overall the Mark 1 has a slightly higher and more homogeneous resolution. So, it scores better on a full frame camera, like the Canon 5D Mark II used in the review."
The above quotes are copied from the review page for the 70-200 II, which has not been edited. But, if you compare these two lenses on the 5DII today (screenshot below), you can see that under their new P-Mpix measure for sharpness, the MkII version of the lens performs better than the MkI. They also updated their 'use case scores' so that the MkII is now rated higher for Traval and Sport photography. So…either they re-tested the lens (a different copy, presumably), or whatever black-box factors applied to convert real units (lp/mm) to units that DxO made up (P-Mpix) were applied in a nonlinear manner that somehow favored the MkII version of the lens. I suspect the former is the case, but they said nothing about it, did not add any sort of notation to the original review (which would have been appropriate), or do anything else to acknowledge their mistake.
DxO has used the tagline 'Image Science'. Speaking as a card-carrying scientist, when we discover a mistake in previously published data (it happens), we inform the journal and they publish a correction. DxO's failure to do so in this case is what I'd call 'Bad Science'.
A actually wrote: The Df will Dfinitely have to seduce me with the ergonomics and overall feel to make me trade a D800 for it tho
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has talked about resolution. More living proof, that the Nikon D800 is so successful it makes plenty of the Canon users frustrated...
By the way, this DF looks incredibly lovely. The only drawback is the price tag...
The D800 is so successful that the 5DIII is outselling it by a wide margin, and resolution is so important that Nikon builds on the 'success' of their 36 MP camera by bringing out a retrocam with a paltry 16 MP. None of that frustrates me in the least...
The specs are reasonably impressive.
Excellent number of shots from a small battery.
I wish my D800s had this kind of control setup.
And it's LIGHT! This gets a bit closer to the feel of an old film body just for the reduced weight.
The Df will Dfinitely have to seduce me with the ergonomics and overall feel to make me trade a D800 for it tho, I typically do not need great high ISO performance.
I think this is going to be a polarizing product, love it or hate it. I think there'll be enough of the former to make it a worthwhile product.
Canon might even copy it.
Interesting that you would change your 36mp D800 for a 16mp DF. More living proof that Nikon really missed the mark with a 36mp sensor.
Normally I would be on the side of glass first.
But not in this case I think your camera body is old enough to swap up now.
I do all my family pictures and holidays with a 10D + 24-70 II. It is just great. With the 5D mkIII, it is time to upgrade, but I did not fell the need earlier. (It would also replace the 1D mkIII I use at the moment for work).
What Canon does is marketing the exemplary 24-70/2.8L II albeit with vignetting at the higher range. Tells you instead of 24-35/2.8 + 50() I give you 24-70 with a weaker 50-70 segment. Well, alright, but some of us put quality above "portability". Give us the proper 24-35/2.8L and we'll combine it with a 50/1.2L.
Unless we expect the competitor to make the first move, like the 14-24/2.8.
Thanks for your reply! Re my statement, would you care to explain why you thinks its incorrect? I am happy to change it if you can give some more detailed explanation....
Read this, for example:
There are also heated discussions on other forums, you can google them. I like Joe's essay. He also happens to be a very talented photographer.
In short, the answer is that the high ISO (to be more precise, low exposure, photon) noise is a part of the signal projected on the sensor, and determined by the discrete nature of light.
Here is a more technical explanation: