 |
vscd
Joined on
Feb 1, 2013
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
3dreal: f1.8 APSC=the same lightgathering like f2.7 on FF.
so comparing both formats at iso 100 and 1/30 apsc-lens at 2.7 shows darker image than ff-lens at 2.7? i dont get it. discussed here endlessly.
that would mean an external lightmeter must be recalibrated whe switching from FF to aps-c? very strange. fstops- no matter on which formats are all the same in relation to Evs.
Thanks Graham. ...at least *ONE* without having halfbaked wisdom.
Apart from equivalence or sensorformat, don't forget to wait for the final tests. A lot of fast lenses are unsharp/unusable wide open, so sometimes the slower and lighter lenses are equally good (and sometimes better, like some 50mm Carl Zeiss f2). For example compare a Canon EF 50mm 1.0 agains a EF 50mm 1.4. The first one was only made to show what's technically possible, but you can't use the f1.0 except of artistic purposes. When the 42.5mm 1.2 is sharp wide open (at least in the center), this would be a hell of a lense... otherwise get a pencace 40mm and save the weight.
@Dark Goob, now you mentioned your Hasselblad, kid. So can you show me more than your 85mm 2.8? (ca. equiv 45mm 1.4) ;)
vscd: I also have to say that if you read between the lines, the Nikon just wins out of it's high pixelcounting sensor. Bodies come and go, lenses stay. So wait for the next Canon Body with equal high MP and you already have the lense to match it.
For example, who cares what a Nikon D90 did years before, but the 35mm 1.4 Lense you probably still own.
I'd rather testet all 3 Lenses on a D700 + Canon 5Dc with equal Pixelcount ;)
First tell me which algorithm you choose to resize. Every uneven amount of pixels will be a loss of data. I'm here, where are you?
vscd: I also have to say that if you read between the lines, the Nikon just wins out of it's high pixelcounting sensor. Bodies come and go, lenses stay. So wait for the next Canon Body with equal high MP and you already have the lense to match it.
For example, who cares what a Nikon D90 did years before, but the 35mm 1.4 Lense you probably still own.
I'd rather testet all 3 Lenses on a D700 + Canon 5Dc with equal Pixelcount ;)
[Sadly the D800E is not tested with the 24-70 lense at DXO,
right now ;(] But...
If you pair comparable Camera/Lense combination, for
example a D700 + Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and a Canon 5D +
24-70 2.8 L II you get 9MPixel for Nikon and 12 MP for Canon
at DxoMark. You can doubt the DxoTests in generall, but I
believe nearly no lense can serve anything more than 22
MPixel on a Sensor right now. So, I would go for 18-20 MP,
save the speed and size for the RAW-Files and enjoy high
ISO with less noise.
vscd: I also have to say that if you read between the lines, the Nikon just wins out of it's high pixelcounting sensor. Bodies come and go, lenses stay. So wait for the next Canon Body with equal high MP and you already have the lense to match it.
For example, who cares what a Nikon D90 did years before, but the 35mm 1.4 Lense you probably still own.
I'd rather testet all 3 Lenses on a D700 + Canon 5Dc with equal Pixelcount ;)
>what makes the image is the body, so once you have
>good lenses, the body is the bottleneck
And vise versa. Both components make the image, but the
lense may last longer (in worth)...
The resultion is on both systems superior, so the next point
is to check the noise. And you can be sure that the D800 is
not competing well ;/
I also have to say that if you read between the lines, the Nikon just wins out of it's high pixelcounting sensor. Bodies come and go, lenses stay. So wait for the next Canon Body with equal high MP and you already have the lense to match it.
For example, who cares what a Nikon D90 did years before, but the 35mm 1.4 Lense you probably still own.
I'd rather testet all 3 Lenses on a D700 + Canon 5Dc with equal Pixelcount ;)