Coliban: Hmm, when i consult the studio scene, the IQ of the D800E is better than that of the D810. I would expect the IQ of the D810 should be better. It is clear when you compare the test charts at the left and bottom corners. Is this a result of this special setup, I can't imagine that the D810 performance is below the D800E.
Or do I misinterpret something
The raw processing software manufacturers take some time to really get the most out of the conversion, so while it is supported now it should get better over time. I'm a D800E owner and I would expect to see a very small difference in favour of the D810 after a few months.
Chris Yates: And whoever thought the MP war was over is sadly mistaken.It's just that Canon can't keep up.
The MP war should have been over a while back as new higher limits no longer have a visible effect on the huge majority of photography.. but how else will they sell us new cameras? They have MP, ISO performance as the key drivers, far fewer people really care about focus performance, controls etc, although many of us would like to see really useable wifi in cameras that didnt feel like it was 5 year old technology.
JKP: I have been looking for an affordable WA lens for Canon EOS 6D, and it looks like Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical would be a good deal. At about 250€ (inc VAT) the sharpness/price ratio is excellent, as again shown also with Nikon D800E body by DxO.
Just be warned that they have to test at close range for charts, and especially for wide angle you are more likely to shoot longer range, where performance can differ quite a lot. That's why it is good to mix up chart data with reviews from pros who use the lenses as well to get an opinion.
Greg VdB: So DxO are still performing usefull technical testing but presenting it in an almost useless fashion...
Determining sample variation (average sharpness + standard deviation) like Roger Cicela does from time to time is much more interesting. Doing this on different bodies would be very interesting, but the former really should be the priority. The lens review site that would establish a cooparation with a service like LensRentals to do rigorous testing would get my eternal gratitude.
I would love to see multiple sample results, generating headline conclusions from a sample size of 1 is just horrible. I remember DxO delayed the Nikon 70-200 2.8 II review because they said the sample they got had a low score and they were waiting to get one with a high score so it would fit with what users already knew about it. There's testing methodology for you.
rfsIII: These guys aren't kidding. I have rented that Zeiss 135 and for portraits it is unbelievable on the D800E. People look beautiful with it.
I find that portraits with the D800E require far more post work than back with my old D700. The closer you get in to human skin the less flattering it looks! Landscapes on the other hand shine :)
DXO mark: can be useful in looking at performance across different apertures. Trash quality reporting for headline news, and 'perceptual megapixels' largely a waste of time, but sounds very convincing for newcomers.
From personal experience with this camera and some of these lenses, and listening to other users of the D800E, I would say it is 5-10% sharper than the D800 when used with the best lenses.
But Sharpness is great almost across the board these days, especially compared to any previous generation of photography, and when you consider that the vast majority of shots never get seen on anything larger than Facebook, and it is not the factor that really makes your work better, just one part of a lenses quality, and a small part of overall photo quality. If you are going to get everything else right, then sure why not have outstandingly sharp lenses, but get composition, concept, execution and the other important factors right first.
Shouldn't need emotive language to sell it. More photoshop than photo, not my cup of tea but each to their own.
RichyjV: Article complete rubbish as stated below. The clarity in HK is dependent on season, if the prevailing wind is blowing from the continent then you get thousands of miles of dust and then, yes, its pretty smoggy here. In the summer the wind comes from the ocean and the views are very clear.. I've been taking many crystal clear 30,000 pixel wide panoramas here recently which is to say it isn't so much self-generated pollution as geographical nuance. The weather is just beginning to revert to the dirtier conditions, in which state it will remain over the several months of no rain at Winter.
On the subject of tourists taking photos in front of the backdrop, tourists (the majority of whom in TST are mainland Chinese often on their first trip out of China) here will take photos in front of virtually anything, it is hardly a compelling narrative.
Not in the slightest what I am saying 'its pretty smoggy here' is fairly obvious, no? Its a city of 7m, it generates plenty. Its just that as a % of how clear or not on any given day it is, it is not its own pollution that chiefly determines clarity. It generates just as much pollution when it is clear in the summer. Even on Chinese New Year when production completely stops in China, the clarity doesn't change that much. The criticism is of the article incorrectly ascribing the canvas to an attempt to show the unpolluted city: it had nothing to do with that.
Article complete rubbish as stated below. The clarity in HK is dependent on season, if the prevailing wind is blowing from the continent then you get thousands of miles of dust and then, yes, its pretty smoggy here. In the summer the wind comes from the ocean and the views are very clear.. I've been taking many crystal clear 30,000 pixel wide panoramas here recently which is to say it isn't so much self-generated pollution as geographical nuance. The weather is just beginning to revert to the dirtier conditions, in which state it will remain over the several months of no rain at Winter.
Much as I enjoy many of the images in the port, this is the second - whoops third ('dark matter') news post in a few weeks on the same set of shots.. at least it is far better than the mandatory staggered DXO mark score 'headline news' rubbish.
The crazy thing about Iceland, is that this waterfall is only top ten at best, Dettifoss, Dinyandi, Skogafoss and many other fantastic ones await the photographer who is prepared to go beyond the basic tourist route.
chiumeister: DXOMark says they still have not tested all current pro lens in each line. Two major omissions in the test above which could improve Nikon averages are Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 VRII and Nikkor 14-24mm.
why they would bother with averages I don't understand, the first think nikon did with the D800 was say that the vast majority of their lenses were not good enough for it (and with that f mount there are a lot of old lenses). Those two omissions are just incredibly damaging to their credibility.
jm67: DXO never fails to incite heated retorts. It's so funny when they give a Canon product poor scores and the Canon users call the methodology flawed. Now it's time for the combo of a Canon camera/lens system to get good scores (something those of us using the 5D3 and certain lenses have known from actual usage) and it's time for the Nikon fans to yell foul. Oy vey.
the nikon equivalent set haven't been fully tested yet; just the 24-70, where the canon does indeed out perform it. DxO decided to test loads of uncommon lenses rather than the 14-24mm and 70-200II of the nikon trinity.