April 18, 2014, 06:23:08 PM

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 55
While there are certainly some inconsistencies in the data from DxOMark (most of which I expect come down to copy variation among tested lenses), in general their results are accurately measured and reported.

For those who think this is some kind of about-face that contradicts their previous measurements, keep in mind that their Sensor Score (on which the D800 trounced the 5DIII) does not consider sharpness at all, whereas these recently posted results consider only sharpness.

The real about-face here is more likely to be from people who believe or disbelieve DxO on the grounds that they are biased toward Nikon sensor superiority.

I recall Roger Cicala's measurements finding that the Zeiss 100 MP performs better on the D800E than on the D800. I still can't find a logic explanation for a lens that's capable of outresolving a 36MP sensor to deliver better detail on a 22 MP sensor - which is also known to have a strongish AA filter.

It's simple.  The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII. Canon, in aggregate and on average, has better lenses than Nikon (in terms of sharpness, at least).  The resolution we care about is the system performance = sensor + lens.  So, while the D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII, once you slap a lens on both cameras and take pictures, the resolution differences are a wash (on average across a large set of lenses, obviously specific lenses will vary).  I and others have made statements to that effect before, DxO is just quantifying those statements.

Perfectly said. 

And DXO I suspect would not care about the opinion of Canon users, they simply test equipment and publish their findings. 

DxO is not a public service or a no-profit. They are a company, and as such they have all the interest in publishing things that will increase their popularity among users of the market leader company.

It's simple.  The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII. Canon, in aggregate and on average, has better lenses than Nikon (in terms of sharpness, at least).  The resolution we care about is the system performance = sensor + lens.  So, while the D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII, once you slap a lens on both cameras and take pictures, the resolution differences are a wash (on average across a large set of lenses, obviously specific lenses will vary).  I and others have made statements to that effect before, DxO is just quantifying those statements.

If you compare a 3rd party lens - let's take the Zeiss 100 MP, which is known to be pretty sharp - on 5D3 and D800, they rate it sharper on the 5D3 - which makes no sense. However, its total score is lower than if combined with the D800 - which also makes no sense.

However, one explanation can be:
Sharpness is a subjective quality attribute of an image or a lens. Sharpness indicates the visually perceived quality of details of an image or details reproduced by a lens. It is associated with both resolution and contrast of reproduced details (within an image or by a lens).
The DxOMark score for Sharpness is based on the Perceptual Megapixel (P-Mpix) concept that weights the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the lens with the human visual acuity. Read more about Perceptual Megapixels.

If they take contrast and thus "subjective perceptions" into account, it all looses any scientific relevance. They were better off measuring sensor parameters alone.

This has to be DXOMark's most bizzarely written article ever (and it has a lot of competition!)


Weird. It basically contradicts everything they've been publishing so far. Maybe they are a bit concerned about loosing popularity among Canon users and are stepping back?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 05, 2013, 05:08:51 AM »
I agree that no system is perfect, but I disagree on your definition of IQ. In my view, IQ depends on sensor and lenses only.

Focusing is of course a primary element too, but do you think anything from Canon below the 5D3 has impressive AF compared to the competition? I don't think so - quite the opposite actually.

When you evaluate a piece of hardware/software you look at what it can do; what you actually do with it depends on you alone and on your personal taste/scopes. We buy gear to expand our possibilities, so a product offering me more possibilities is more attractive to me.

Site Information / Re: Love or Hate Canon Rumors Forum
« on: April 05, 2013, 03:19:17 AM »

I could go on, but that's a good start. How about others? What is it that makes you want to never again return to this site. And what is it that keeps bringing you back here?

There are two sort of users:
- Group 1: Photography enthusiasts who use Canon gear and want to learn more or exchange opinions about it, but are also ready to criticize Canon when they're disappointed about a product and/or comparing Canon's offer to the competition;
- Group 2: Canon enthusiasts who have a sort of religious-like attitude toward their favourite multinational company and take every negative feedback as an outrage to their person.

So what happens is that whenever someone from Group 1 criticizes Canon (or praises another company) about something there will be someone from Group 2 calling him a troll or - the most ludicrous - a bad photographer. Every sort of argument will be used to prove that Canon is better - even if they're plainly and extremely OT.

In my experience the second group is the problem, as it is aggressive: they often feel personally attacked and reply consequently. It happens the same (or even worse) in Apple-dedicated fora as well as local/national Canon Club boards. The attitude towards DxO measurement would be an example of that: they don't say that my gear is better? They're a bunch of fools and they don't know what they're talking about.

In my experience, in other boards where people are less biased about one or another company, things are smoother. People don't feel outraged by negative comments about this or that, so they don't reply aggressively and rudely, and no flame is triggered. Actually, it's important to know what's good and what's bad about a piece of gear, and when people seek this sort of unbiased knowledge the whole environment is more relaxed and polite and people are more motivated to post well-written replies and keep it peaceful and civilized.

So why am I here? As a Canon user it's always interesting to see how people handle their Canon-compatible gear. Knowing the strenghts and the limits of something gives me a good idea of what is worth buying and what is not. But I definitely belong to Group 1: I shoot both Canon and Nikon and I absolutely don't care about brands. I always try to buy the best gear I can afford, so I'm not interested in praising Canon products for the sake of it. That's not constructive.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 04, 2013, 11:03:04 AM »
Why some of you are so stuck in a camera system is beyond me specially when long are the days where they were the only real choice.
Maybe because we are stuck to a lens system and consider the camera an accessory?

That's hypocrisy. If cameras were accessories, we would all be still shooting with our back-in-the-day-amazing 350D.

The truth is that you need a camera, a lens and a photographer to take a picture - and as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the same is true for the IQ. Moreover, with post-processing being now a more and more fundamental step of a photographic workflow, sensors and the malleability of their RAW output are becoming a more and more crucial factor in determining the final result. The days when the comparisons were between cameras' JPG outputs are long gone. The days when Canon cameras and lenses were the absolute best are long gone too. Now the competition is very even - Canon leads in certain areas but lags in others. IQ is an area where Canon right now lags pretty badly - then of course it's up to each individual person to decide how relevant this fact is. But it's still a fact.

Lenses / Re: Migration from zooms to primes...your suggestions?
« on: April 04, 2013, 02:52:19 AM »
My question has to do with my desire to gradually convert my lenses from zooms to primes and more importantly, which primes should I plan to purchase?

My current zooms are:

  • 16-35mm f/2.8L II
  • 24-70mm f/2.8L
  • 70-200mm f/2.8L

A quick look at the L primes include:

  • 14mm f/2.8L II
  • 24mm f/1.4L II
  • 35mm f/1.4L
  • 50mm f/1.2L
  • 85mm f/1.2L II
  • 100mm f/2.8L
  • 135mm f/2.0L
  • 180mm f/3.5L Macro
  • 200mm f/2.8L II

I am just curious which primes you would select and in what particular order you would purchase them in? I pretty much like taking all sorts of pictures to include people, architecture, landscape, astronomy, etc.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort.

Since I purchased the Sigma 35mm it hardly leaves my camera - wide enough for most things but without the usual technical problems of wider angles. If you can get close enough, it also makes for a great portrait lens.

Hoping to get some advice from some of you more experienced people. I have a T4i that came with the kit 18-55 basic lens. I recently got the 50mm 1.8 and have fallen in love with it. To my novice eyes the image quality is noticeably better than what I was getting with the kit lens.

So my question to you all is what lens could I get as an upgrade to the kit lens I got that would be better in terms of image quality? But would give me the same, or similar, focal range that the 18-55 is giving me? Without going to the L lenses? Or am I asking for too much?  :o I'm not necessarily only looking for Ef-s lenses. If I'm going to invest in lenses I'm almost inclined to only buy EF. Just in case I one day take the plunge into the FF world... But any recommendations would be great.

Thanks for any help and let me know if my questions need any clarification.

I recommend the new Sigma Contemporary 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM.

Great glass, fast aperture, great build, and a reasonable price.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 02, 2013, 06:37:41 AM »
Have the 6D AF bashers actually used the camera extensively? :P Otherwise it's more likely regurgitated talking points from the social media echo chamber that originated from the ID-10-T department.

From this scientific and repeatable test, it is blindingly evident that it has more consistent & precise AF than the D800, 5D2 & 7D:


Very scientific....  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 31, 2013, 08:55:47 AM »
I feel confident that they won't be manufacturing or releasing any sub $1000 Full Frame cameras... ever, why would they have too?

They'll do it when the competition forces them directly, or indirectly.   Its an inevitability.  Many makers fighting for market share makes for good competition, and also makes for good value in the product.

Its only a matter of when, not if.

Well, I agree it will happen, but what will they release? Something like the 6D or the EOS-M, "me too" products arranged just to give some bland competition?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed
« on: March 29, 2013, 10:15:20 AM »
What I nickname as "focal length shrinkage" at close focus isn't exactly unknown either. The 70-300L does that quite strongly too.

It's called focus breathing :)

And it may happen that objects get larger too ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 10:09:35 AM »
I seriously miss certain things from Canon

That's interesting - what do you miss that Nikon/d600 doesn't have? Or is it just some hardware that hasn't got a 1:1 Nikon equivalent?

Some things aren't easily replaced 1:1. Ergonomic, certain lenses, etc. one always have to compromise in one way or another. I just decided that IQ and value were my priorities. To the other things one just gets used eventually, or you just get there in some other way. Most of it is just flat out habit.

I also liked my canon gear, and I would be happy to use canon again. But not if it requires paying more to get less than competing products.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 07:48:12 AM »
My thoughts exactly.

Question is: Do thoughts (and forum posts) translate into action eventually?

Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

How big "big" is depends on the net gain/loss after buying new equipment - and I know my equipment hasn't got pristine looks because I'm outdoors a lot and horses and such are always interested in inspecting my camera up close :-)

*And* then there's the psychological factor (I'm with Canon since the mid-90s) *and* the Canon/Nikon usability differences *and* the time/hassle to actually switch (time is money). So imho the threshold is very high, that's why Canon gets away with being current Canon.

In my case yes, they translated into action :)

Yes, the interface is different, menu layout is different etc. I also had the same feelings, as for everything in life one always has doubts leaving the known for the unknown. However, I'm not a pro, so I'm not losing money while I get used to the new interface - which btw only takes about one week between reading the manual and actually figuring out the instructions practically. I seriously miss certain things from Canon, but then you see how photos look like and you just forget about everything else. I think I got the best camera/lenses in their price range with the D600, 85/1.8G and Sigma 35/1.4. I feel again like I am the limiting factor.

The fact is, as long as people keep buying Canon stuff, Canon will be encouraged to go down this way. In one sense I did a favor to myself and everyone by not buying any product from Canon's recent offering.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor
« on: March 29, 2013, 06:43:50 AM »
DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest  things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.


No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 06:34:45 AM »
And at those prices i'd probably recommend the D7100 unless Canon has some sensor magic up their sleeves.

... to *new* users, but those will probably go for a sub-€1000 camera (xxxd/xxd) while the existing users will "upgrade" ...

I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs.

.. but given the market saturaration with lenses/flashes/other single-brand equipment Canon knows existing users seldom switch brands - you loose money selling gear and you have to get used to a new usability.

So how much would you pay to be able to stick to your old system? €500? €1000? That's what Canon can add on top of the camera price as seen on the 5d3 - and then there's the early adopter's fee of €200-€500. A "reasonable" price will only be achieved after about 2 years after rtm.
with the price of the updated Canon glass and the premium prices of new bodies compared to their competition, I wouldn't pay anything "stick to my old system."
In fact, I was pretty perturbed at getting screwed on both sides of the equation, both lenses and bodies. So perturbed that I switched to a D700, which is just insanely awesome at $1500 bucks, as well as the 24-70G, which is also unbelievably nice, and which i bought for 700 bucks less than the new Canon version.

My thoughts exactly. Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 55