rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.
Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).
This will turn into an endless debate if we were to continue, so I´ll just recommend that you d/l the 16 Mp RAW and the 64 Mp (HR) RAW. Convert them (e.g. in ACR) and pixel peep to your hearts content. That should do it.
Don´t look at DPR:s HR conversion because there is something wrong in their conversion. D/l and do your own conversion. I use ACR at default settings.
You can actually see the advantage even when pixel peepeing, but the point is that an image is almost always resampled for output and the diffraction is the same regardless of sensor pixel pitch - it is a property of the lens.
If you have troubles seeing this, take your own studio scene at f/5,6 and develop it to a 64 Mp image and tell me where you see the diffraction effects...
You´re right about the number of images, but wrong on everything else. Diffraction isn´t worse than for a single 16 Mp image.
It is one 64 Mp image built from 4 16 Mp images. Diffraction or other issues will not be bigger than for each exposure.And the effects you´re worried about aren´t worse anyway, for the same output size, even if it was a single 64 Mp exposure; downsampling helps only at pixel level, which is a moot point.
I dont agree at all.I have converted to 64 Mp JPG and the result is truly impressive.
I have a question for the DPR crew.
rubank: Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800. Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.
Possibly a little, and I mean little, less colour noise from ISO 12800 and up. So what.
It´ s not just in the corners where 810 loses to 800.Look at the line bars. 810 just produces moiré when the going gets tough...36 Mpix isn´t enough to get rid of the OLPF, you would need at least the double pixel count. Those who claim otherwise have blurry vision.
Nikon´s reason for the omission is just cost reduction.
Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800. Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.
rubank: Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....
Once upon a time there were FF compact (film) cameras with very good lenses a lot smaller than this monster - and they were both wider and faster.
Lot´s of replies and all miss the point :~|
The lens elements (the glass part) in this Sigma are tiny while the housing of said elements is huge (in comparison). The question is why, that was the meaning of comparing to compact FF cameras, since even they had AF. So the huge housing isn´t necessarily due to things like AF...I think it´s just styling, not a "must-be".
Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....
If one downloads RAWs from the DPR studio test and develop them in RawTherapee 4.1 at default settings, the result will look a whole lot better. And I mean a lot!
samfan: Nikon adding features via fw, eh? That's new. Seems like they finally fired the old management and hired someone competent.
It sure is!But it doesn´t work in LV though, only when using the OVF.
Steen Bay: Well, if something sounds too good to be true... As far I can tell the QE of the Red Dragon must be quite a bit higher than 100% in order to get such a high SNR, and that's hardly the case.
I think you´re forgetting that the QE figure of ~50% is for the green channel only. The aggregate QE of the sensor is far from 50%.
The X-T1 studio scene shots look awful. Is there something wrong with the demosaicing? Or is this typical of the Fuji sensor...?
Seems a nice lens, BUT:the exposure is exactly the same at f/1,4 as f/1,2 in the truck series, and I can´t spot any difference in the background blur.
The MTF charts doesn´t look very promising. No better than the Nikkor 24-120/4 - and that is not the best lens.
Bolt is actually way behind the finishing line in that shot, he´s in the curve, so DPR:s caption that he crosses the finishing line at the moment of the lighning is clearly wrong.
Why make these things up?
Who cares what vendor makes the gripas long as Canon holds on to the moronic L-design of their battery grips.
Look at Pentax and Nikon for a proper way to design a battery grip.