Camera reduction options...

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:04 pm

Yeats wrote:
TheEmrys wrote:I wish DXO would get off their duff's and test some of Sony's best lenses (135/1.8, 16-50/2.8). They have been in "preview" stage for years now.


Why? Who cares what DXO tests show? Get a lens and make pics with it. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, return it.


There's a lot of choices out there, and DxO's tests provide the most consistent point of comparison available. So yeah, get a lens and take pictures with it- sure!- but are you seriously not going to make use of available resources before you start spending money?
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:15 pm

TheEmrys wrote:
Airmantharp wrote:Best image quality, handling, autofocus, and that's on average- everyone trades blows for specific purposes. For example....

And while that new 80-400G is sharp as all get out, it has some damn ugly bokeh, is overpriced, large and heavy, and is noted for not having the snappiest AF. Canon's 100-400L is ancient but affordable, has notably snappy AF capable of BIF, has great handling, and has much smoother rendering.

We actually blame Nikon for Canon being somewhat complacent with the 100-400L update and 7D II release, as Nikon's 80-400G and D7100 pair is somewhat underwhelming for action-oriented shooters. A 7D or 70D and 100-400L or 400/5.6L will still get you more keepers than the overpriced Nikon kit.


And this is the problem in comparing zooms as "best." The Nikon 80-400 is often thought off as the best, however the Sony 70-400G is sharp wideopen at 400mm, and has f/4 aperture at 70mm (and can be used at 70mm). Ugly bokeh is highly common on long zooms (not quite so much the case on primes), with an odd correlation (not necessarily causation) with sharpness. The Canon is lacking resolution throughout the range, though the IS is pretty solid and with good bokeh. Zooms are, by design, meant to be more flexible. And that flexibility is a compromise of benefits. For me, shooting in low light wildlife, I would choose a Sony 70-400G because its sharp wide open. However, another may choose the Canon 100-400L as their best because it provides excellent bokeh, while still another won't care about wide open shooting, and would prefer a Nikon because its sharper stopped down. But anyone who cannot stand the (in my opinion, hideous) push-pull design of the Canon 100-400, it becomes easier. It really needs a refresh to catch up to the newest versions of Nikon's and Sony's.


The Sony is most likely the 'best' lens optically, yet I just don't see people using it the same way that the 100-400L gets used. Being expensive and being Sony are likely reasons, and the AF performance of the Sony system is also called into question when considering corner cases like BIF. I'd expect an A99 or A77 to put out better image quality than a D610 or D7100 when used with their respective zooms for sure, though.

TheEmrys wrote:The same issues surround the 24-70 L II. Optically, its a great lens. There isn't any denying it. But if you are a low-light shooter, missing the extra stops of light because of no IS, would say that no matter how good it is, if it can't shoot, its not worth it, and would choose the Tamron 24-70. Zooms are just so subjective, its really, really hard to use terms like "best."


I'm a big fan of optical stabilization, don't get me wrong- and I'm a big fan of Tamron's (and Sigma's!) latest efforts- but I can't find it in myself to dock either Canon or Nikon for not stabilizing their fast FF standard zooms. Their price alone limits their market considerably, and generally speaking, if you're shooting professionally with them you're either bolting them to a tripod or you're shooting a subject that requires a shutter speed in excess of 1/(focal length) to ensure a sharp shot to begin with.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:21 pm

Unless you are a wedding photographer.... sort of a bread and butter market there. The reception really needs mobility and excellent low light performance.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:42 pm

TheEmrys wrote:Unless you are a wedding photographer.... sort of a bread and butter market there. The reception really needs mobility and excellent low light performance.


If the 24-70/2.8L II isn't your lens (and it is for most!) on Canon, then the 50L and 85L are :D. Most use a combination, with a 70-200/2.8 in there too.

But yeah, I tried to photograph an event in a hotel with the 24-105L, where I needed the flexibility, and yeah, I see an f/2.8 zoom in my future. The Tamron fits the bill more because it's the optical second to the 24-70/2.8L II than because it's stabilitzed, though.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:50 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
Yeats wrote:
TheEmrys wrote:I wish DXO would get off their duff's and test some of Sony's best lenses (135/1.8, 16-50/2.8). They have been in "preview" stage for years now.


Why? Who cares what DXO tests show? Get a lens and make pics with it. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, return it.


There's a lot of choices out there, and DxO's tests provide the most consistent point of comparison available. So yeah, get a lens and take pictures with it- sure!- but are you seriously not going to make use of available resources before you start spending money?


I find SLRGear, Photozone and Lenstip to have better lens reviews than DXO. Some folks like a bottom line number, because it's "easy", but to me the methodology is more important, and here DXO falls short. It's lab stuff, and I don't shoot in a lab.

And anyway, reputable stores have a fuss-free return policy, so I don't see money being at risk. I've certainly had to go thru multiple copies of a lens (thanks, lousy Pentax QC) in order to get a good one, and I've never had a problem returning a new lens.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 4:11 pm

So difficult for you guys, so easy for me.

I leave the camera behind unless I'm gonna go get some.

No I will not photograph an event. I will take pictures of my family if I have the camera on me, which is very seldom. I have a cell phone to record stuff, events etc.

I have no interest in capturing moments, well almost none.

So all I want is the best possible image I can get. Convenience is for children, I already have climbed a mile or so into the bush before the camera comes off my neck and gets clamped on to my tripod.

So simple. Just Ziess and Leica prime lenses are on my list.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 4:36 pm

TheEmrys wrote: And this is the problem in comparing zooms as "best."
I'm not going to claim that it is "best", but the 100-400L is my most fun lens to shoot.
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15440
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:05 pm

PenGun wrote:So difficult for you guys, so easy for me.

I leave the camera behind unless I'm gonna go get some.

No I will not photograph an event. I will take pictures of my family if I have the camera on me, which is very seldom. I have a cell phone to record stuff, events etc.

I have no interest in capturing moments, well almost none.

So all I want is the best possible image I can get. Convenience is for children, I already have climbed a mile or so into the bush before the camera comes off my neck and gets clamped on to my tripod.

So simple. Just Ziess and Leica prime lenses are on my list.


I don't see anyone complaining about anything being "difficult"... we may quibble about lenses and their attributes and sensors and bodies and all that, but ultimately the image is all about the vision and capabilities of the photographer. If anything is "difficult", it's because there are so many choices, and perhaps for some people there is an over-reliance on technology (AF speed, image stabilization, etc).

I see a Fuji lens on your list, according to your sig.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:09 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
TheEmrys wrote: And this is the problem in comparing zooms as "best."
I'm not going to claim that it is "best", but the 100-400L is my most fun lens to shoot.


For me it's a 40+ year old MTO 548/8.8 mirror lens (my current infatuation) and my Zeiss 85/2. I think for most folks long lenses and ultra-wide/fisheyes tend to be the most "fun".
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:28 pm

Yeats wrote:
PenGun wrote:So difficult for you guys, so easy for me.

I leave the camera behind unless I'm gonna go get some.

No I will not photograph an event. I will take pictures of my family if I have the camera on me, which is very seldom. I have a cell phone to record stuff, events etc.

I have no interest in capturing moments, well almost none.

So all I want is the best possible image I can get. Convenience is for children, I already have climbed a mile or so into the bush before the camera comes off my neck and gets clamped on to my tripod.

So simple. Just Ziess and Leica prime lenses are on my list.


I don't see anyone complaining about anything being "difficult"... we may quibble about lenses and their attributes and sensors and bodies and all that, but ultimately the image is all about the vision and capabilities of the photographer. If anything is "difficult", it's because there are so many choices, and perhaps for some people there is an over-reliance on technology (AF speed, image stabilization, etc).

I see a Fuji lens on your list, according to your sig.


On my list to buy. The Fuji will go to my daughter, along with the XF 60mm. She needs product photography really and it's ideal.

My a7R will be along in a couple of months and it will get the Ziess and Leica lenses.

I would never even consider pretty well all the lenses you have been talking about. They are all compromises to serve various non image needs. So my life is considerably simpler because of that.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:47 pm

ludi wrote:At any rate, after reviewing suggestions and related info, it loos like I'm down to a trio of possibilities:

Sony. Alpha 6000 with a full range zoom included, either this or this. The logical telezoom would be the 55-210.
Pros: Very nice camera, higher resolution than what I have now, covers all the bases I want now.
Cons: Very few other lenses to choose from if I need to expand the collection in the future.
Cart total: $1150 or $1700

Fuji. Looks like an X-E1 with 18-55mm kit lens fits my needs (the X-E2 mainly adds WiFi and a higher-res viewscreen, but no major improvements in the sensor or continuous shooting rate, so I don't think the price difference is justified). Then, for a telezoom, add the XF 55-200.
Pros: Similar to the Sony kit but a wide range of primes available, plus a nifty ultrawide and a macro if I ever need to add them.
Cons: A bit low in resolution (16mp, vs. 18mp I have now and 24mp for the Sony).
Cart total: $1500

Panasonic. Probably the GX7 with 14-42mm kit lens. For now, add the 70-300 zoom and think about saving toward the 50-200 in the future.
Pros: Well-support MFT lens system and collection.
Cons: Possibly a bit larger and heavier system overall than the Sony or the Fuji.
Cart total: $1350

Futher suggestions or modificaitons?


That is a pretty good selection.

For me it helps to think in terms of their equivalent range.

Sony w/16-70 - 24-105mm
Fuji w/18-55 - 28-82mm
Panny w/14-42 - 28-84mm

Do you like wide angle? Like the reach of a 100mm? Want the effective 600mm reach? Going to get LR5 so you don't have bad Fuji or unreadable Sony RAWs?

Other than these considerations, it might just come down to ergonomics. That Panny is a great looking body in silver. The Fuji has a nice classic look, and the Sony will be very modern and might be the hardest learning curve (menu and least dslr-like).

Here is my ranking and what I see each has as the biggest advantage:
1. Panny (flexibility)
2. Sony (range)
3. Fuji (size)
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:57 pm

I have an older version of Photoshop (At the moment I can't recall whether it's CS5 or CS6) but it handles the Sony RAWs, FYI. But this required a patch that I had to hunt for as they didn't work natively.

As far as the UI on the a6000, it's supposed to be based off of the A7 interface, if that helps, which, as far as I know, is a bit of an improvement over previous NEX interfaces. Though to be honest, even the interface on my lowly NEX-5R/6 is fine once you get used to it. Though I still like straight-to-business interface of my old Pentax DSLR, I don't think this will be much of an issue after the first few times using it.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 6:04 pm

Yeats wrote:I find SLRGear, Photozone and Lenstip to have better lens reviews than DXO. Some folks like a bottom line number, because it's "easy", but to me the methodology is more important, and here DXO falls short. It's lab stuff, and I don't shoot in a lab.

And anyway, reputable stores have a fuss-free return policy, so I don't see money being at risk. I've certainly had to go thru multiple copies of a lens (thanks, lousy Pentax QC) in order to get a good one, and I've never had a problem returning a new lens.


DxO's 'reviews' are exercises in pointlessness, and their 'bottom line numbers' are about as useful as the star ratings on Amazon and B&H are. But their actual data? It's priceless, and it almost always matches what you see from other reputable sites, while being far more informative.

As for using a store as a rental service- it's a pain to ship stuff back and forth if using a web retailer, so it's something I find unethical unless you actually get a bad copy of a lens that the retailer will then send back to the manufacturer. If I buy something I already know if it's the 'right' lens, and that's thanks to places like DxOMark actually testing a very broad swath of gear using consistent methods.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 6:12 pm

Yeats wrote:we may quibble about lenses and their attributes and sensors and bodies and all that, but ultimately the image is all about the vision and capabilities of the photographer.

And just to be doubly clear, my "best" comment extended solely to the glass I own.

F-Mount. All 3 lenses are 1986 at the very latest, likely earlier. Since all are AI-S, they're post-1977:

Nikkor AI-S MF 50mm/f1.8. Haven't used it in ages & focus ring is a little graunchy. Might be worth it to get it looked at.
Zoom-Nikkor AI-S MF 28-85mm/f3.5-4.5. Back in my film days it was the only lens on the camera (still on it, too). Still think it's the best glass in this particular stable.
Sigma Zoom AI-S MF 80-200mm/f4.5-5.6. Never shot enough film with this to get an idea of quality. Does have a hard case, though.

Oly 4/3 (original 4/3, not Micro). 2.0x crop factor, purchased Xmas 1995.

Zuiko Digital 14-45mm/f3.5-5.6. POS kit lens that came with the E500. If you can brain a crow with it at 20 paces it's served a purpose.
Zuiko Digital 14-54mm/f2.8-3.5. Upgrade for the kit lens, one of the better-regarded lenses in the original 4/3 rollout. Walkabout lens.
Zuiko Digital 40-150mm/f3.5-4.5. Kit lens, but way better than the 14-45. Best reviews said it didn't suck.

If I go Nikon FF I've got 3 lenses ready to go with compatibility and MF doesn't scare me. The Oly investment is a dead end and if I do go Nikon I'll give the lot to the daughter as an expendable training camera/lens package.
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20311
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 10:32 pm

Airmantharp wrote:DxO's 'reviews' are exercises in pointlessness, and their 'bottom line numbers' are about as useful as the star ratings on Amazon and B&H are. But their actual data? It's priceless, and it almost always matches what you see from other reputable sites, while being far more informative.

As for using a store as a rental service- it's a pain to ship stuff back and forth if using a web retailer, so it's something I find unethical unless you actually get a bad copy of a lens that the retailer will then send back to the manufacturer. If I buy something I already know if it's the 'right' lens, and that's thanks to places like DxOMark actually testing a very broad swath of gear using consistent methods.


I trust my eyes. I look at images made with the lens, and I decide if I like the lens or not for my usage.

Other sites mention (and give examples) of bokeh, flare resistance, coma, etc. I don't see this stuff at DXO, but I've only checked out a couple of their lens reviews because I find them so useless.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 10:38 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
Yeats wrote:we may quibble about lenses and their attributes and sensors and bodies and all that, but ultimately the image is all about the vision and capabilities of the photographer.

And just to be doubly clear, my "best" comment extended solely to the glass I own.

F-Mount. All 3 lenses are 1986 at the very latest, likely earlier. Since all are AI-S, they're post-1977:

Nikkor AI-S MF 50mm/f1.8. Haven't used it in ages & focus ring is a little graunchy. Might be worth it to get it looked at.
Zoom-Nikkor AI-S MF 28-85mm/f3.5-4.5. Back in my film days it was the only lens on the camera (still on it, too). Still think it's the best glass in this particular stable.
Sigma Zoom AI-S MF 80-200mm/f4.5-5.6. Never shot enough film with this to get an idea of quality. Does have a hard case, though.

Oly 4/3 (original 4/3, not Micro). 2.0x crop factor, purchased Xmas 1995.

Zuiko Digital 14-45mm/f3.5-5.6. POS kit lens that came with the E500. If you can brain a crow with it at 20 paces it's served a purpose.
Zuiko Digital 14-54mm/f2.8-3.5. Upgrade for the kit lens, one of the better-regarded lenses in the original 4/3 rollout. Walkabout lens.
Zuiko Digital 40-150mm/f3.5-4.5. Kit lens, but way better than the 14-45. Best reviews said it didn't suck.

If I go Nikon FF I've got 3 lenses ready to go with compatibility and MF doesn't scare me. The Oly investment is a dead end and if I do go Nikon I'll give the lot to the daughter as an expendable training camera/lens package.


I'd be really hard-pressed to select any of my lenses as "best", because most of them have qualities which have endeared them to me, lol.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 10:40 pm

Yeats wrote:I trust my eyes. I look at images made with the lens, and I decide if I like the lens or not for my usage.

Other sites mention (and give examples) of bokeh, flare resistance, coma, etc. I don't see this stuff at DXO, but I've only checked out a couple of their lens reviews because I find them so useless.


THE REVIEWS ARE USELESS.

They're written by idiots, and they don't even really serve a purpose other than to announce that they've finished actually testing a lens so that it can be investigated and compared on their site. The data that they present, and the reviews that they post aren't related. It's stupid, but that's the way it is. Just remember that the data that they make available comes from the testing that they've done in order to ensure that their software works, and their software is top notch, if not terribly differentiated.

All I'm saying is that it's a great source to help find out whether or not a lens should suit your purpose. Of course you're going to look at images taken by the lens and read what other people have to say about it!
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 15, 2014 10:00 am

OK, I'll amend my previous sentiment. I find the empirical determinations as presented by DXO - and similar empirical determinations offered by other lens-testing sites - to be nearly useless.

Give me a handful of RAW files shot in a variety of conditions, and that's all I need to determine of the optical qualities are suitable. Aside from the image-influencing properties, I'm interested in build quality, AF performance, focus ring feel, etc.

But there's a cadre of people who latch onto the DXO instrumented results in a nearly fanatical fashion (and I've seen it here on TR) whenever there's a (silly) dispute between 2 lenses. If Lens A out labs-results Lens B, but a person prefers Lens B "just because," then Lens B is better for that person.

And, frankly, people who have not used a variety of gear attempting to make determinations of what's "best" is ludicrous.

Airmantharp wrote:...read what other people have to say about it!


Yes.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 15, 2014 11:25 am

I read an interesting opinion article at leica-boss that DXO couldn't test every lens and camera combination that they have results on. Since I read it, I heavily question any and all results. Which ones are actually tested? Which ones are extrapolated? There is no way to know. But the math there really does hold up: They cannot have tested every lens they purported to test for the 70D. 6.2 weeks per new body? It just isn't happening. And there is no way that they could come up with a complete test results covering distortion, sharpness, or vignetting across apertures and focal range. Something is rotten in Denmark (or France).

A little perspective – crunching numbers:
In the case of Canon EF lenses (full frame) – they report data on 109 lenses (as of today) and 28 digital interchangeable lens bodies for Canon. You can pull up lens/camera data on any combination (~3,000 combinations).

They claim to take “thousands” of frames for each lens test. Let’s say it takes 2 hours (conservative) to test a lens/camera combo. This means 218 hours of labor goes into lens tests for every Canon camera that is tested. This is 6.2 weeks of labor in France (based on their 35 hour work week).

If, in fact, they just have all those lenses sitting there – waiting to be tested on each body that comes in… They have $166,558 in Canon EF full-frame mount lenses alone. Just sitting there, waiting to be tested. And that’s just Canon Full-Frame.

The reverse of this is with bodies. This also means, when a new lens comes in, they have every body ever tested for the system sitting there in inventory as well (another $62k in inventory, based on their reported prices)
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 15, 2014 3:10 pm

I'm not going to lie, something does look fishy based on their assumptions- and I've often wondered if DxO does extrapolate data (which you'd be doing anyway when looking at other sites which test on only one body)- but honestly, it's not like they have to do a whole lot of work. I'm willing to bet that a large portion of their testing is highly automated; given that most cameras can be tethered, one could imagine a scenario where they set up the targets and just press 'go'. They'd have to manually adjust for changes in focal length, sure, but that's not that big of a deal either.

The investment in the equipment actually makes sense too- that's a small price to pay given that unlike other sites, their testing is a result of product development, which is their source of income. I don't find any irregularities there, they have to keep stuff around.

Think about it- they just have to get captures at every aperture for primes, and every aperture and common focal length for zooms. If their test range is set up properly for repeatability as it'd have to be to get useful results, burning through individual lens tests could only take minutes per lens. And with the amount of detail they extract, they have to be using automated tools to generate their maps; but even if they're not, they could have a team working on analyzing the results from lens tests. They are a business, after all.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 15, 2014 3:22 pm

Yeats wrote:OK, I'll amend my previous sentiment. I find the empirical determinations as presented by DXO - and similar empirical determinations offered by other lens-testing sites - to be nearly useless.


As far as determining which lens is 'right', I agree. It's just a starting point.

Yeats wrote:Give me a handful of RAW files shot in a variety of conditions, and that's all I need to determine of the optical qualities are suitable. Aside from the image-influencing properties, I'm interested in build quality, AF performance, focus ring feel, etc.


I'd also agree that viewing RAW files is the best way to determine whether a lens is suitable for one's purposes, but as you said above, having the lens in your hands and running it against your own gauntlet of subjects is the only really applicable test. And yeah, determining just how well a lens handles, especially with the camera(s) you're using, is very difficult without being able to shoot with the lens yourself.

Yeats wrote:But there's a cadre of people who latch onto the DXO instrumented results in a nearly fanatical fashion (and I've seen it here on TR) whenever there's a (silly) dispute between 2 lenses. If Lens A out labs-results Lens B, but a person prefers Lens B "just because," then Lens B is better for that person.


I'm probably guilty of this. Of course, specificity helps to eliminate confusion that arises when someone says 'better' and 'best', or something similar, but being specific gets in the way of the brevity necessary to avoid tl;dr issues.

Yeats wrote:And, frankly, people who have not used a variety of gear attempting to make determinations of what's "best" is ludicrous.


Sure; of course, you can turn that around and say that testing a variety of gear is nearly impossible for most people too. Generally, a healthy dose of first-hand experience can properly ground someone so that available tests and impressions actually have some use.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 3:25 pm

It's pretty simple. Just save up and buy a Zeiss or Leica lens. They will all be good and some will be amazing.

As I have no test bench, Roger has one, my simple rule saves me from having to worry about it. I just buy the one I can afford, it will be used. ;)
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 3:29 pm

PenGun wrote:It's pretty simple. Just save up and buy a Zeiss or Leica lens. They will all be good and some will be amazing.


You can sell me on Zeiss and Leica making some nice glass, but you're not going to sell me on them 'all being good', and you're certainly not going to sell me on using only prime lenses with no AF and no IS :P.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 4:38 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
PenGun wrote:It's pretty simple. Just save up and buy a Zeiss or Leica lens. They will all be good and some will be amazing.


You can sell me on Zeiss and Leica making some nice glass, but you're not going to sell me on them 'all being good', and you're certainly not going to sell me on using only prime lenses with no AF and no IS :P.

Really the machine Roger has was a big part of my post but perhaps you can point me to some Leica lenses that are not very good. Now Zeiss has made stuff with other people, so there have been a few there that perhaps were compromises, but none of them are near my chosen path.

You are welcome to your AF and IS, I'm not trying to sell you anything. I expect my images to be perfectly focused and without camera shake. It's right at the top of what I do. I find both of those features of marginal use and don't need them.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 5:11 pm

PenGun wrote: You are welcome to your AF and IS, I'm not trying to sell you anything. I expect my images to be perfectly focused and without camera shake. It's right at the top of what I do. I find both of those features of marginal use and don't need them.

Which is why I'd really like to have a FF Nikon body in hand for a few shots before purchasing. Most AF cameras don't have the needed focusing screen for MF lenses, and I'd like to avoid Df or D4 pricing.
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20311
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 6:08 pm

I read on the Nikon forums at fm that screens for the d800's and d600's are severely lacking.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 6:13 pm

TheEmrys wrote:I read on the Nikon forums at fm that screens for the d800's and d600's are severely lacking.

Lacking as in slow to production or lacking as in never designed/implemented at all?

I seem to be circling around the D610 as most reviewers bitch about the controls of the D800 compared to the D610. Will need to grab both before any decision is made. A large part of me wants the Df just because it looks like a "real" Nikon even if the ergonomics are a mess, but that's a piss-poor rationale for dropping long green.
Life is hard; but it's harder if you're stupid. Big Al.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20311
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 6:25 pm

This where mirrorless kinda owns DSLRs. I am focusing the actual image and I can zoom on that. No DSLR offers quite the same exact focus method. I can see why a lot of you need autofocus as SLR and DSLR screens are a bit of a crap shoot. With my old Nikon FM2 I almost always used a back and forth across the focus point method and often took a few on both sides.

The Fuji XE1 is exact. I can dial in whatever point I like and focus exactly on that. The 10x zoom is golden, especially with things like my Leica Elmar. The Sony does essentially the same thing.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 7:49 pm

Canon allows you to zoom for live view AF, and they have stellar LCD setups (unlike Nikon), along with excellent ergonomics.

Of course, if you're using Canon, you'd find that most of their lenses meet or exceed the legacy options available :).
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 16, 2014 7:52 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
TheEmrys wrote:I read on the Nikon forums at fm that screens for the d800's and d600's are severely lacking.

Lacking as in slow to production or lacking as in never designed/implemented at all?

I seem to be circling around the D610 as most reviewers bitch about the controls of the D800 compared to the D610. Will need to grab both before any decision is made. A large part of me wants the Df just because it looks like a "real" Nikon even if the ergonomics are a mess, but that's a piss-poor rationale for dropping long green.


For a serious shooter, the controls of the D610 are far more worth bitching about... and if one could afford a D800E and is willing to live within the Nikon ecosystem, then there really isn't a better camera available, both from an image quality standpoint and a handling standpoint within Nikon.

Of course, depending on the shooter's needs, the 5D III is still the best all-around camera on the market, and Canon has the best lens lineup available, so... :D
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests