« on: January 03, 2013, 10:13:26 AM »
The only people that need high FPS are those that "spray shoot". Lots of FPS because you don't know if something will happen that you want to capture and it costs less to get an image of something that you don't care about than it does to not get an image of something that you do care about. Mostly this is professional photographers. There are also amateurs that "spray shoot" brick walls, etc, but that's because they don't have any technique to speak of, nor an understanding of what they're shooting.
Seriously? So...anyone who buys a camera with a fast frame rate is either a pro or a clueless buffoon with no photography skill. Talk about having no understanding...
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.
I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then. Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.
Hmm, that's not really clear to me.
If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.
The 24-105 has more barrel distortion (40% more, relative to the 24-85) at the wide end as a result of it being a 4.4x zoom vs. 3.5x zoom. But the 24-85mm has more pincushion distortion at the long end - 83% more relative to the 24-105. So across the zoom ranges, the 24-85mm actually has more distortion than the 24-105mm.
You can't directly compare the MTF graphs directly - maybe you missed Klaus' blue banner stating, "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems." Canon FF tests are on the 21 MP 5DII, Nikon FF tests are on the 24 MP D3x and will therefore give higher values for lw/ph across the board. The 24-85mm is sharper in the center (excellent/very good) but worse in the borders and corners (good to fair, and down close to poor in the 24mm corners), whereas the 24-105mm is very good to good throughout the field and range, dipping down into fair only in the 70m corners. So, I'd say that for overall sharpness, the 24-105L is the better lens. The CA on the 24-85mm is also pretty bad, but that seems fairly typical for Nikkor lenses.
Overall, the 24-105L is better lens, and Klaus, at least, agrees...which is why it gets a half-star higher rating in all categories. Importantly, the 24-105mm gets a better price/performance ranking, despite being a much more expensive lens.
Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem. The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc. Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.
Many of your posts here are consistent with the idea that the sensor in a camera is the sum total of that camera's performance, and sensor-based IQ is the only important thing to consider. Much like beer-goggles can make repugnant members of your gender-of-preference seem attractive, DxOMark-goggles can blind one to meaningful differences in cameras.