ozdean: What lens was used on the Pentax it seems lacking, CA and poor corners?The lens used on the Nikon is brilliant.I just realized the DA*55 - the results are surprisingly poor?I think the dfa50 would have been more suitable for a scene like this.
The DA*55 is an excellent lens - in fact it's one of the best 50ish lenses you can get. And it does fairly well here.
But this application (or rather, test) is extremely demanding, and the lens is slightly decentered. For portraiture (the DA*55/1.4 is marketed as a portrait lens, being on APS-C) the subject will never be at the extreme edges of the frame anyway. Throughout most of the frame it is a very nice, sharp lens.
In actuality, the lenses real weaknesses are its moderate focusing speed, and the fact that with *some* backgrounds the out of focus areas can be a bit harsh. It works well in the situations it was created for.
moizes 2: Do not got you completely, gentlemen. What is the practical reason to compare very good amateurish APS-C camera to the top-on-the-line pro FF gear? 3X of the price? Sorry, but it looks funny... Apples and oranges, you know...
Top of whose line? Because Pentax' top of the line is higher than that, and Phase One's top of the line is even higher!
BigOne: Reading this article is like reading a "test-drive" of LaFerrari or Rolls-Royce Phantom. It's not the fact that you can't afford it, it's the sad realization that you don't NEED it and, upon considering all the hassles that go with it, you don't really WANT it.
Oh, you meant things that are self evident.
I thought hassles were hidden problems you don't know about until after you make a purchase.
I don't know what "ALL the hassles" are, and I doubt you do either.
jesus_freak: Can someone objectively tell me why Canon sell so many cameras? Who are they selling to, and who is their target market? What would trigger a need to change in the minds of the Canon executives?
In spite of out dated sensor technology, Canon sell a lot of cameras. The ROI on R&D spending must be high. Until their revenues decline, or shareholders start picketing over low DR, I don't see a fundamental change happening.
Agreed, Lassoni. That's the legitimate concern many forum members have about today's Canon, regardless of whether of they shoot Canon or not.
SETI: I had 4 Pentax cameras and had problems with 3 of them. Great system but bad QC
I think it's worth the risk (the K-3 II) if the tool is really useful to you. Pentax has continued to significantly improve focusing speed, amongst other advantages.
Unless, of course, you can find a way to make money with it.
In addition, the new XF bodies look really impressive.
What's the story with DxO not testing the IQ250 or the Pentax 645Z sensors? Comparison with the new Canon 5DS/R sensors is inevitable. I know they've tested MF sensors in the past.
While DxOMark doesn't tell the whole story, it's an objective test that serves as a good starting point for understanding the differences. If we had these tests, perhaps I wouldn't have been attacked so loudly by those who claim the photos don't have visible differences!
I've actually been a Phase One Certified Professional, so I'm familiar with the product. I was first attracted by the image quality from Capture One, but came to realize their cameras exhibit similar quality as well.
DStudio: It's amazing how even on an iPad at 'article' size - without enlarging the photos - the higher quality of the Phase One comes through. The photos just look better (than what we normally see). I've always believed it was how they deliver the color - probably the bit depth helps. And Capture One certainly helps too. But whatever it is, they simply look better.
Digital can be perfectly stored and copied (assuming proper media selection and maintenance). Capture and playback are another matter.
This whole discussion started because someone rudely suggested I couldn't see what I saw, and then many others "piled on." Sometimes I think they couldn't smell a rose if it smacked them in the face. Or perhaps that's their experience with roses, tainting their perspective on how a rose actually is. ;)
I couldn't see the differences at first. But after a while I started to notice them.
Anyone who vehemently disagrees with me doubtless lacks the time, patience, or motivation to notice, study, and appreciate the subtle advantages.Again, what astounds me is not that there are differences, but that one can notice them even after they are "dumbed down" for the web!
Of course 44kHz was a bad idea, but it Sony's fault, not Philips'. Philips said it wasn't good enough and wanted to develop it more. Sony said "we can market this NOW, and tell everybody it's perfect!"
Isn't it funny - video DVDs were sold as being "perfect" as well. Then they had to figure out how to market HD-DVDs (and Blu ray) as "perfect" but still better - revealing that it was always a lie.
Digital is not a perfect way to capture, record, and replay an analog experience.
AF performance and lens collections are very important.
I think Canon has more to offer than any other single manufacturer in both these areas. They're still the dominant sports photography camera. And they offer a greater number of specialty lenses, while maintaining good lens quality at the high end.
For the "contemplative" photographer - or one on a tighter budget - other brands may have more appeal. And if he's a perfectionist, there are good arguments for camera systems priced both above and below Canon.
Boy, that headline is sure a way to put a positive spin on the results!
Of course it matters to Canon shooters. They need a good bodies to go with their lenses. But we would expect this result - it SHOULD be the best Canon sensor yet, and it is.
But inserting the term "highest-ranked" for a sensor that's number 22 on the charts is a bit sneaky, don't you think?
If you simply removed the word "Canon" from the headline it would be a flat-out lie. Most people here recognize the leading words "EOS 5DS/R" as being from Canon, so the only purpose of adding the word "Canon" toward the end is to enable this sneaky headline.
Clint Dunn: Interesting article, I think most of us would love a kit like that if we could afford it. That said, I guess I'm going to be 'that guy' and say I'm a little disappointed in the photos. All that fancy kit and not even one decent landscape shot?? The pic of the beach is devoid of any interest and has a slightly crooked horizon to boot. The only pic I wouldn't have deleted here is the B&W portrait of the kid, I like that one.I guess it's easy to be the critic when I'm not the one writing the article but honestly, on a site with this visibility reviewing gear of this caliber you would think you guys would step up the game a bit.
Actually the photos Damien picked really show off the strengths of the camera. I agree with his selections.
But noise is not the greatest sin - either in audio or photography. It's the presentation of the content that matters.
A well done analog recording or a high quality print from 8x10 film is captivating.
Within the digital realm, Phase One shines. And there are legitimate technical reasons for its better results. Just as there are for the analog mediums I referenced above, or the audio DVDs you mentioned.
It's too bad people on a photography forum would trust measuring instruments more than their own senses when it comes to evaluating the results.
DMiller, Your theories are all fine, but you'll never get the quality out of an affordable digital audio system that you will out of an analog one.
That's either one of the most intentionally divisive - or most ignorant - statements I've read in a while. You know full well that adding a digital encoder to the signal path isn't the same forcing an audio signal on down to the mediocre quality of a CD.
No need to argue this any more - you've never bothered to get involved enough in either of these technologies to know or notice the difference - or to have any authority on the matter whatsoever.
Next you'll tell me something ignorant like "film holds no advantages over digital," when each medium obviously has its strong points.
There was a period of about 15 years where I wouldn't bother to say in public that Vinyl sounded better that CDs, because I'd be mocked by people who were either uninformed or less discerning.
No, it's not.
Unfortunately, the models under Ricoh have had more trouble. But they still take great photos.
It's amazing how even on an iPad at 'article' size - without enlarging the photos - the higher quality of the Phase One comes through. The photos just look better (than what we normally see). I've always believed it was how they deliver the color - probably the bit depth helps. And Capture One certainly helps too. But whatever it is, they simply look better.