And now Sony and Canon have a new even closer partnership that specifically excludes Nikon. So it sounds like Nikon is going to be hurting in the sensor dept from now on and Canon has no where to go but up.
Today on the Deal Zone Express:
Visit Deal Zone Express throughout the day to see the above deals.
What's really interesting is lenses such as the Otus 55/1.4.
46/37 on 5DsR, 50/33 on D800.
This suggests that the scoring of lenses is not nearly as simple as it is for camera sensors.
Other than sharpness, vignetting and transmission are the differences. If the lenses are made the same then I wonder if this is to do with the filters that are stacked up in front of the sensor working better with Canon/Otus than Nikon/Otus (ref. MILC cameras, mount converters and IQ loss due to angle of light hitting sensor.)
...while the Canon 500mm mounted on 5D Mark III is sharper optically than the Nikon model mounted on D800, at the light levels used for DxOMark score (1/60, 150 Lux), the excellent dynamic range of the Nikon D800 sensor helps it improve the DxO Mark Score and accounts for the level-pegging. In lower light levels, the Canon would have the advantage
but as interesting to me was the fact that somebody else bought that Sony for full retail and took it back after less than a week saying they absolutely hated it, and wee prepared to lose money doing it.
The fundamental assumption of shooting with 150lux and the subsequent weighting of T-Stop and vignette leads to nonsensical results like this:
Sigma is an interesting company. If they could just make the autofocus more reliable, I would be more interested. Price is not a big deal when the lens has focus that I can not trust. YMMV
+2DxO only has as much credibility as photographers are willing to give them. Consequently, the innumeracy of the photographic community as a whole, and the way popular online photo sites and blogs (PetaPixel being one I can think of for example) announce DxO results, only reinforce DxO's position as a source for information about how bodies and lenses perform. When is the last time you saw PetaPixel talk about PZ or LensTip or TDP measurements? But DxO crowns a new sensor or lens, it gets front page news despite their methodology being complete BS.
And that is the fault of photographers who don't know basic statistics or who don't care to know. They just want some number they can spout as if it were gospel. That is the fault of people who repost DxO results on photo forums as if they were the least bit meaningful. That is the sort of behavior that gives DxO the exposure and the attention it wants.
Even the criticisms (this one included) only serve to draw more attention to their testing. No news is bad news: like political candidates, controversy is good--it serves to further polarize opinions, and those who disagree or point out even the most elementary methodological flaws, are conveniently branded as biased and their evidence casually dismissed. It is no different than trying to debunk flat earth theorists with science.
Photographers as a whole choose to be ignorant. For all their attention to MTF curves and the minutiae of sensor technology, as a group, they don't really care to think critically. Flame me all you want. Not everyone is like that. But the ones who do care are a small minority. Most photographers have a hard enough time figuring out f-stops, never mind asking actual mathematics like 95% confidence intervals for the mean MTF at 40 lp/mm.
I'm not going to flame you - I'm going to agree with you. And sadly, photographers are far from the only group which can be accused of not thinking critically.