Messages

136

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera...shooting macros

« on: May 10, 2012, 08:24:06 PM »

+1 for the Canon 15-85mm.  I have a Canon 7D as well as a Canon 350D.  The 15-85mm is such a great all purpose lens for APS-C cameras. I've used a Canon 24-105mm L lens too - which certainly has a nice L feel and build quality to it.  In terms of image quality, the 15-85mm is very comparable to the 24-105mm: both have great sharpness, contrast and good bokeh.

The difference between 15mm and 24mm is substantial.  15mm on an APS-C camera is suitably wide for many landscapes, whereas 24mm is not so wide. There are going The difference between 85mm and 105mm is not so noticable as many people think.  85mm is sufficient on a APS-C camera for portraits, also as the 15-85mm is sharp wide open. The 50mm f1.8 is suitable for a shallower depth of field, or in lower light situations.

I had a good copy of the Canon 28-135mm, which I used as my walk around before I bought the 15-85mm. Photos of whole flowers usually do not require a dedicated macro lens. I've taken many successful flower photos with both my 15-85mm and 28-135mm. If your wife wants to take close ups of PARTS of flowers, a more dedicated macro lens may be required.  The 15-85mm focusses quite close though.

I hope your purchase decision is a good one, and look forward to seeing some of your photos.

Regards

Paul

137

Lenses / Re: Nepal/Tibet hiking with DSLR and lens - vacation feedback wanted

« on: May 08, 2012, 08:29:56 PM »

Although I've never been to Nepal or Tibet, I have some experience with mountain hiking and carrying photo gear. In general I would agree with the other posters to go light. My standard setup is a 7D with 15-85 and 70-300, polarizers, spare batteries and CF cards. What to bring depends on what else you have to lug around and on how much time you have to take photos (there's not much sense in taking too many lenses if you have not the time to change them). And in my experience it depends also on the quality of your backpack. If you don't have one already, it really pays to invest some time (and money) on a very good pack that lets you carry relatively heavy loads comfortably for several hours and allows you quick access to your photo gear…
Most importantly: have fun and take care! 

You've already received lots of good advice, Phil

I've not been to Nepal / Tibet - but I have been to SE Asian (eg Thailand), holidaying and trekking there.  I also have a lot of experience travelling in and living in Europe (from the Swiss Alps to Western European cities to remote villages in Romania, etc).

My advice would very closely echo stefsan's above.  I have a Canon 7D, and would take that as my primary camera with the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L as my first two 'travel lenses'.  For a third lens I might take my Sigma 10-20mm, though the Canon 15-85mm @ 15mm can often be sufficient for many landscapes, etc. 

When I went to Thailand some years ago, I took all my lenses and 2 camera bodies. It was way overkill. I only used my Canon 100mm macro a few times, and my bright prime once or twice during the few weeks I was there. I didn't bring a flash, as I used a tripod for low light / night shots.  IS on lenses and having a camera with ISO capability certainly helps while travelling!   

If I would go to do your trip, particularly as you're doing quite a few different areas, packing light adds to the convenience.  A back-up body is of course handy in case body #1 breaks. For this, I'd probably take my small, old (but reliable) Canon 350D.  I'd probably not take a tripod, but that's me (I often find other things to use or make do without).

Enjoy your time there, indeed. Best wishes... hoping to see some of your photos.
 
Paul

138

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 01, 2012, 11:55:16 PM »

This has been an interesting thread to follow. 

I think that third party lenses (eg Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and others) have their place, particularly when the prices are much lower than similar lenses

Some time ago, I was looking at replacing my Canon 100-300mm USM which I had for some years. For replacements, I was thinking of the Canon 70-300mm (micro)USM IS, and was also considering the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD which I had seen some good reviews of. I didn't want the Canon 100-400mm L USM IS (because of its weight / size, older IS, push-pull action and design). So after reading various reviews (professionals and 'in the field user reviews') - as well as knowing how good the Canon 70-300mm was... I basically thought I would go with the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD, and even bought a good quality 62mm filter for it - that came up at a good price. Neither the Canon 70-300mm or Tamron 70-300mm had quite the quality I wanted, but I NEEDED both IS (or VC) AND more contrast & sharpness than my Canon 100-300mm could offer at 300mm, as well as being sharper wide open.  So I was on the edge of this purchase 'with a sigh'.

Then the Canon 70-300mm L USM IS was announced. While it was a higher price... I immediately was interested, but thought... hmmmm maybe not - it's a big white L (whereas I wanted and needed something portable). However a few weeks later - when I had tried the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD in store, I asked to see the Canon 70-300mm L. I was immediately impressed how portable it was - and yes, it fit attached to my 7D in my existing LowePro shoulder bag. The salesperson offered me a good price, and would throw in a quality Hoya CPL filter at a discounted price too.

After going home and checking some more early user reviews as well as pro and site reviews, I decided I would purchase it... as it really met all my needs (in terms of IQ, USM, IS).  I have not looked back. A few years ago I was looking at purchasing a telezoom - and was looking at a few Sigmas (eg 80-400mm, 50-500mm, 135-400mm, etc)- but none of the lenses, including the more recently introduced 'OS' versions had as good image quality AND HSM focus and OS, in a truly portable and 'shoot all day without any strain' size / weight. Also, generally I found some of these lenses did not have the best bokeh. Some of them did 'some things' well - but not 1 lens met exactly what I was looking for.

When I was looking to purchase an ultra-wide zoom, I ended up looking at the Sigma 10-20mm HSM f4-5.6 as well as the Canon 10-22mm USM f3.5-5.6.   I ended up getting the Sigma 10-20mm mainly because the image quality was basically identical on both lenses (both are capable of producing great, sharp, contrasty photos) - whereas the Sigma's price was almost half that of the Canon's... plus the build quality of the Sigma is a bit better, plus it came with a lens hood included (and the size / shape of the hood much better than the Canon version).  However, there is one 'niggly little thing' with my Sigma lens (apart from the 'different zoom ring direction' to Canon lenses)- and that is that the Autofocus is not always consistent, nor 100% accurate. Thankfully the way that I use my ultrawide lens (for 90% of the time it's for landscapes) - I just use manual focus, and because of the extremely wide depth of field, all the shot is in focus (and sharp!) The remaining 10% of my use of this lens is a mix of architecture (still use MF) and some 'special effect' photos - which occasionally benefit from AF. Still, for the very few times I use it on AF, it's not an issue. (PS - and the Sigma 'yellow cast' is not really a noticeable issue on my lens, if I need to I adjust in post processing).

Then when I was looking to purchase a macro (I wanted something around 90mm - 150mm) - I didn't find a lens that had the focus I needed (true USM / inner focussing) as well as the optical quality and size.  Whereas there are many very good, ultra sharp macro lenses out there, also from third parties- I ended up buying the Canon 100mm (non L).  It has the characteristics that I needed, without a compromise on IQ.

Ok, the point of all the above is that I do think there are many great third party lenses... and indeed there are some lenses made which the original camera body manufacturers do not have an exact equivalent to (eg the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, or some ultrawide primes, or the Tamron 60mm f2 macro).  However where there are very similar or equivalent lenses, generally speaking - the original manufacturers lenses seem to have a bit of an edge. Note I say 'generally'. Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh..  I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II.  There is a place for both. 

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul

139

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: What do you recommend? 7D 60D T3i T4i

« on: April 30, 2012, 07:14:54 PM »

I upgraded from a Canon entry level DSLR to a Canon 7D a few years ago.

The AF in the 7D is just what I want - good spread, higher number of AF points, higher FPS when I need it, and much much better build / handling body than either the "Rebel" series, or the XXD line.

However if these things are not so important to you, the 60D or T3i are very good cameras, with sensors and video performance very similar.

Certainly for 'not so challenging' situations, the 60D and T3i can produce stunning images too.  However for the many 'more challenging' situations (eg birds in flight, or compositions requiring more focus points) - I really value the additions that the 7D offers there.

At the end of the day having both very good glass (lenses) and a suitable body is what I've gone without going 'pro' (eg 1 Series).  All the best with your decision.

Paul

140

Street & City / Re: what is it with the brits and DSLR cameras?

« on: April 26, 2012, 11:08:54 PM »

Yep the terrorists won.
So come and take a holiday in Australia!

at least in the UK we dont have creepy crawlies that wait till you drop you pants and sit on the john before they jump out and bite your @rse.

Pure mythology and rumour. Honestly this wouldn't happen more than once or twice a week. I'm telling you, this place is SAFE.

Paul Wright

 

And most of the time, the things that will bite you when you're busy on the loo... (eg red-back spiders) will let you live long enough to finish doing your business. So what's the problem with that?

Sharks, blue-ringed octopus, box-jellyfish and crocodiles on the other hand....... 

another Paul (also in Australia)

141

EOS Bodies / Re: The Big Megapixel Body in 2013?

« on: April 19, 2012, 01:44:36 AM »

Well, seeing as Nikon have just released their ENTRY level D3200 as a 24 MP APS-C camera, I believe this might send some (more?) ripples Canon's way regarding 'Big Megapixel' cameras (whether APS-C or FF).   

See  http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/19/Nikon-D3200-with-WiFi-Option

Not that I require a high megapixel count to keep me happy (I currently have 18 MP with my 7D, and 18 MP is sufficient for me, still very handy for cropping, etc).  Give me more improvements in image quality (higher DR, less noise at all ISOs, etc).   

Let's see! I'm still loving photography... spending lots of time outdoors with my 7D capturing things from birds to sunsets to friends to macros to landscapes with my range of quality lenses.

Interesting times.....  Regards all

Paul   

142

Lenses / Re: advice re lenses for travel photography

« on: April 15, 2012, 07:00:55 PM »

ok commitment is made
10-22, 17-85, 70-300l and 50 1.4
want to think of it as an investment rather than a lot of cash
now time to think about tripods hmm
thanks for your help

ejas0973, are you SURE you want to get the 17-85mm...  (or did you make a typo, meaning the 17-55mm or the 15-85mm?)  The 17-85mm is an older lens, and the image quality on the wide end is noticeably soft and has strong CA.

The 17-85mm is not nearly as good a lens as the either the 15-85mm or 17-55mm f2.8   As per my post above, depends on what you're looking for - but I use the 15-85m as my 'go to lens' for most every day photos. It's matched very well on my 7D.

Regards

Paul

143

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 350D/Rebel XT Upgrade Thoughts

« on: April 12, 2012, 06:57:32 PM »

Hi Alexandros

I also bought a Canon 350D / Rebel XT in 2005, and have used that for over 80,000 photos. It's still working... despite being displaying a little 'wear and tear'!   The main genres of photography that I do include: landscape, wildlife, macro, 'camps' (eg children activities).  So for me, the 350D let me down at times with its speed and focus (only dared to use centre AF point for reliability), but I still have many many great photos from it - across many countries too.

In 2009 I bought a 7D, and haven't looked back. For me, the biggest improvements included: much better AF, quality handling, live view (for macros, etc), higher ISO possibilities. I have been very happy with the crop sensor equivalent ultra-wide zooms (I have a Sigma 10-20mm, and have used a Canon 10-22mm - both very good lenses!)  My Sigma 10-20mm is sharp corner to corner (just one stop from wide open), which some full frame ultra wide zooms can't seem to replicate! 

I was considering the 5D and 5DmkII, and for sure I would have better image quality (particulalry noticeable if one is a pixel-peeper, which I'm not) but I decided to go with the 7D for it's better AF, APS-C (1.6x crop) reach, and imho, superior handling.

By the way, the 7D (and any APS-C camera) CAN do great landscapes, I believe most photos are indistinguisable to 99% at the 'non-pixel peeping level'. I have received a lot of recognition, produced fund-raising images and won competitions with photos from both my 350D and 7D. 

If you're happy with the focus-recompose, as others have suggested, perhaps the 5DmkII sounds good, with an ultra wide zoom (eg 17-40mm or 16-35mm). Both those lenses improve (especially corners) when stopped down. However if I was in your shoes, I would also consider the 5DmkIII, for its superior AF and better handling (and buy an ultra wide zoom later).  If I ever went full frame, that would probably be the Canon DSLR I would go for, as I do need a more powerful AF system than the 5DmkII offers - and yes, I've used one.

The options are out there... and you have some decent glass already. All the best with your decision and purchase.   

Paul

144

Lenses / Re: Which Canon lenses DON'T need an update?

« on: April 10, 2012, 08:13:55 PM »

For the price, build quality, size / weight and awesome image quality, I'll add the following two lenses (which I have) to the list of 'not needing an update'. They are pretty much 'spot on' in my humble opinion, and do not need to have a version II:

Canon EF 70-300mm L USM IS
Canon EF-S 15-85mm USM IS

I like having options (eg smaller lenses - usually not as fast glass - with still very high IQ). The above two are ideal as a two lens travel combination. 

Jamesy.... I almost cliked the "Report to moderator" link... about your post of the 50mm f1.4       Ha ha.. I know you were joking!!  That's the one lens I do hope gets an update soon - with true ring type / full time USM focussing, and very good image quality wide open... in fact if it is f1.8 that would also suit me). IS would be a bonus (but not necessary)....

Regards

Paul

145

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Confused! Upgrading my camera.....Advise Pleasssssssse

« on: April 03, 2012, 07:42:20 PM »

The OP states the 2 first sports are 95% daylight, I think the 24-105mm and 70-200mm are ok lenses for that. A 7D definitely offers signficant improvement over the 40D, specifically in both a more powerful, faster, and flexible AF system, as well as increased FPS.

The other areas (eg children at play) - can be done by both 40D and 7D, but again a definite advantage in 'tricky situations' to the 7D.  I have a 7D and know it's capabilities and advantages very well compared to other cameras, as well as it's limitations.

Reading the OP's post carefully... where he states the types of photos wanting to be taken, I only see one really 'challenging' area where the current lenses might not be suitable: "Cheer (indoor)".  As I'm from a country where "Cheer" is not a big part of our sporting culture (I'm Australian) - I'm taking it to mean 'cheer-leading'.  I would NOT recommend the 50mm f1.8 as suitable because
a) it's AF is slow slow slow (and in my opinion not accurate / consistent enough)
b) the bokeh can be undesirably 'busy'
c) it might not be the right focal length (I'm guessing a 85mm to 135mm more suited).

That's my take on it. Although the 7D doesn't have the same image quality as a full frame, the sensor's 1.6x crop factor advantage can help cover more 'sports' needs from a focal distance perspective.

Definitely the MOST important thing for the OP is to use his camera a lot more, practising using Av/ Tv, and getting to know the AF (of either 40D or 7D). If he's wanting to improve keeper rate, I'd get a 7D as the first step, then perhaps a 85mm f1.8 for 'cheer' if the 70-200mm isn't up to the task in low light.

Best wishes.

Paul

146

Lenses / Re: advice re lenses for travel photography

« on: April 03, 2012, 12:41:35 AM »

My advice would be to go with the Canon 15-85mm as your travel lens. It is so versatile, such a good focal range - and the IS and USM focus are amazing.  I went the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm as the wider and more tele ends were important to me.

Also, when I want 'fast glasss' I go for primes. Most of my photography is outdoor (landscape, wildlife, macro and odd other pieces) I don't do much sports at all (apart from the occasional motorsports) - so I don't require a fast telezoom lens.

As neuro pointed out in his typically 'spot on' advice, having an ultrawide zoom, a 'good kit zoom' and a quality telezoom, plus a prime - makes a great travel package.

I will often take my Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 15-85mm, Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and Canon 70-300mm L as my 'four lens' kit.  At times I'll take fewer lenses (eg 'just' 15-85mm and 70-300mm L, or 10-20mm and 15-85mm - depending on the types of photos I'll be taking).

If I just take 1 lens, it is nearly always the 15-85mm.  The 17-55mm definitely is enjoyed by many others too, perhaps those that take more low light photos without a tripod (eg indoor portraits).

You listed the 100-300mmL as an option. While it has decent image quality, it's an old lens (without IS). I'd recommend the 70-300mm non L (which has quite ok image quality) above the 100-300mm L.

Best wishes.

Paul

147

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality

« on: March 31, 2012, 03:19:15 AM »

I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.

There are many other websites that cite themselves as professional, systematic, etc - whereas there are SO many variables, and if they don't get 1 thing just 'spot on [......................]
Cheers.

Paul

Well stated but honestly it's not fair putting in one row DxO and such sites you've mentioned...

Hi marekjoz

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't at my usual computer when I wrote my previous post, so I couldn't look up the sites I was referring to.

It would probably have been more helpful to explain that I'm not placing DxO in the same basket as many other even less systematic photographic equipment testing sites.  There are many shades of grey.

DxO has some very helpful tools and software.  Just their sensor tests don't cut the mustard, imho.

Regards

Paul

Paul
since English is not my first language, sometimes it's more difficult for me to grade shades of grey and also sometimes it's  more difficult to find what's thrown into one basket Anyway you clearly state what you like and dislike in DxO and this is fair. I just have problems with statements (it's not to you, Paul) I read: "they are wrong because the results are not what I expected, what I invested in, what I like, what I believe....".
It's obviously not logic because of this simple schema:
1. Did they describe their testing procedures? Yes
2. Do they follow their testing procedures during tests? Most probably, they risk too much.
3. Is there anything wrong with their testing procedures? If there is, then I'd like to read about that - why there is something wrong with the way they run their test.
4. Is there anything wrong with the interpretation of their results? Is yes, then I'd like to read about that.

I simply don't understand people, who fight against numbers, numbers having their interpretation. If someone believes  there is so much wrong with DxO, then there is a simple way to proof it.
In my opinion: I do believe that numbers which DxO publishes are real. There might be sometimes something to interpretation but as far as I didn't see clearly pushing one brand over another and interpreting same or comparative results the opposite way depending on situation, then I'm not convinced they lie.

Paul, do you know what I mean?
Regards, Marek

Hi Marek

Yes, I do know what you mean.  It's true that a lot of 'testing websites' meet the conditions you write about.  What annoys me, is that the 'ratings' that these websites give do not always take into account many other factors (even in terms of pure image quality / sensor capabilities) - and 'not including that' - is a 'gap' - that should does not represent professionalism.

So I don't really place any of my purchasing decision on DxO's sensor tests. But they do have some useful software I'm VERY glad to have bought!

By the way, congratulations with good use of English!  I speak 5 languages, so I know what it's like trying to express thoughts in a language that is not one's mother language.

Regards

Paul

148

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality

« on: March 29, 2012, 08:01:04 AM »

I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.

There are many other websites that cite themselves as professional, systematic, etc - whereas there are SO many variables, and if they don't get 1 thing just 'spot on [......................]
Cheers.

Paul

Well stated but honestly it's not fair putting in one row DxO and such sites you've mentioned...

Hi marekjoz

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't at my usual computer when I wrote my previous post, so I couldn't look up the sites I was referring to.

It would probably have been more helpful to explain that I'm not placing DxO in the same basket as many other even less systematic photographic equipment testing sites.  There are many shades of grey.

DxO has some very helpful tools and software.  Just their sensor tests don't cut the mustard, imho.

Regards

Paul

149

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Finally Ready? [CR2]

« on: March 29, 2012, 07:49:10 AM »

Smirkypants, when you cite 77% more than your Nikon 200-400 f4, of course a number of factors come into play:  a) you have a refurbished item that is always cheaper, b) the Nikon lens is an older design / model (so while it's a good lens from all accounts, it's street price is understandably lower than a new lens), c) the Nikon doesn't have the dedicated and built in 1.4x teleconverter!
Paul

a. Older design: May 2010 is an old design?
b. Refurbished: It's $7000 new (street) and the list is $8400. Still a huge chunk of change difference.
c. Dedicated teleconverter: A nice feature that's not worth $2600 (list) and $5000 (street).

A birder can still get a Nikon 200-400 brand new + a brand spanking new d800 that has a "built in" 1.2 (25MP files) and 1.5 (16MP files) teleconverter for less than just the 200-400/1.4x will cost when it comes out (if it comes out). New lenses don't get discounted for a long time, unless they are dogs that don't sell. The 400/2.8 II is still $11,500 at your favorite dealers. A sports photographer is 80% of the way to a D4 with the price difference.

I did the math. I bought the Nikon. I also bought a 5D3 because I have a fantastic array of Canon lenses. Oh, my difference in price is also a 5D3 + 24-105 kit + 600EX-RT.

IN-SANE.

Smirkypants,

a. I said 'older design' not 'old'. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is older than Canon's yet to be released one. Fact.
b. Your post was comparing a list price with a refurbished price and citing 77% difference. I was pointing out you can't compare apples to oranges. Fact.
c. I never made any indication of the value for money of the Canon vs Nikon, but again pointing out that the Nikon doesn't have a teleconverter built in. One can't compare apples with pears either. Fact.

I never made any reference to the Nikon D800's 'megapixel cropping ability', as that wasn't in the post I was commenting on. There are so many variables, the post I made commented on the need to accurately compare apples with apples. Fact.

It's not true that new lenses 'don't get discounted for a long time unless they are dogs that don't sell'.  Even recently (ie in the last few years), I've bought a number of recently released lenses (Canon 70-300mm L, Canon 100mm macro, Canon 15-85mm, Sigma 10-20mm EX, etc) that were released under a year earlier, for substantial discounts compared to the initial street prices.

One needs to know where to look and how to buy to obtain such savings. All my lenses I bought new (not used, not refurbished, not display models), and are exceptional copies - ie sharp, boxed, etc. I have had friends who have done the same, also with other brands. I'm not saying all lenses get cheap after a few weeks or months. Therefore my statement remains: Fact.

If I was in your shoes I might have also got the Nikon 200-400mm, and maybe a Nikon 800D. I have a number of friends who have the Nikon 200-400mm f4 lens and take great photos with it, just as I have friends with other tele lenses (Canon, Sigma, etc) - and who take great photos with those lenses.

As I've said for many years, it's the photographer that truly counts at the end of the day. Of course having appropriate quality equipment is very important too, particularly in challenging photographic situations... and I've had my share of these too.

All the best with your photography. After all that is what it's all about. And I will continue to enjoy my photography.

Paul

150

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality

« on: March 28, 2012, 11:41:02 PM »

I've also found DxO's camera sensor tests to be quite meaningless, when relating to the real world. They don't weight the criteria used in their tests well, imho. Often sensors which are given 'high' DxO ratings, don't perform as well across a number of 'real life situations' as other sensors which are given lower DxO ratings.

There are many other websites that cite themselves as professional, systematic, etc - whereas there are SO many variables, and if they don't get 1 thing just 'spot on' - it can ruin the overall results.  I recall one site that tested scores of lenses, but many of them at their very minimum focusing distance (MFD) - where some lenses (even high quality ones) are not at their sharpest... and the results were very skewed.

Another site I came across a few weeks ago - the testers only tested the 'minimum focal length' (eg 70-300mm @ 70mm - and all at f8) - and only a certain 'part' of the overall image (centre pixels).  It was crazy how some average quality lenses were ranked the same as others which were much higher, just based on that.

I have a marketing management and accounting degree, so I understand about corporate logos, branding, sponsorship, 'marketing words', etc - very well.  So that could be an issue... but I doubt that DxO would test eg Nikon more favourably just because of that (they could open themselves up to legal action if that were the case....)

Having said that, I do like DxO's Optics Pro software a LOT.  So I'm a customer of DxO's.  I won't be so 'put off' by the annoyances I have with DxO's sensor test not to use their good stuff!

Cheers.

Paul