For those that think DPR messed up...

Bonjour43MA · Nov 2, 2008

I can understand where you guys are coming from, espeically in regards to the raw converter used in the test. HOWEVER, think of these following points before crying foul over DPR's testing methods (which isn't perfect, but is the most IDEAL testing method for reviewing cameras from ALL brands):

1. "DPR needs to use DPP to get the best out of Canon RAWs"

Let's say that DPP DOES produce better results for RAW, and that DPR started using it for their future Canon reviews - Doesn't the same have to be applied to OTHER cameras as well? How about Nikon and their NX converter, which ALSO gives out better results than ACR? How about Sony, Pentax, etc? Are you guys asking DPR to use programs from EACH brand to convert RAWs?

If so, how does one quantify the values? What is +1 sharpening in all programs? How about saturation - 1? NR? You can't possibly tell me that they all output the same values and can be equalized manually by the tester?

This is the reason DPR is using, and have been using ONE Raw converter for ALL camera brands for all of their reviews - same software, same post-processing methods, same values, and then you can judge the results based on that.

If you want DPR to use DPP for Canon RAWs, then ok, the same should be done for Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc... and interestingly enough there's never been any huge public outcry from any of those forums, heck, even the Canon forums, about how this is such a BIG flaw, until this "unfavorable" 50D review came out.

2. "The lenses weren't good enough!"

50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L have all been used. What would you guys deemed to be "GOOD" enough for this camera? At what point do you say " ok, an average buyer of this camear SHOULD NOT spend $2000+ on a lens just to take advantage of the higher MP on the 50D" ?

DPR is not at fault for this one - you should blame Canon for either a) making incapable lenses or b) making this 15MP sensor chip. It's not everyday that someone goes out and spends $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000+ on lenses, after just spending $1,500 on a brand new camera.

3. "DPR is Nikon-biased! OMG! Conspiracy!"

I've been a Nikon shooter in the past (then switched to Canon) and trust me, the same sentiment is shared in that forum as well as far as who DPR is biased towards... so PLEASE, there is NOT conspiracy theory going on here.

So please, people, move on to other things and stop posting countless threads about how DPR butched the review and how they should redo it - trust me, they WON'T.

How about sharing tips and tricks on the 50D that you've found?

How about sharing photos you've taken with the 50D (and not about proving the review wrong) ?

How about talking about improvements that could be done on the next firmware update?

How about helping your fellow Canon shooters with their questions on camera settings and shooting techniques?

Please, stop ruining this forum by posting ENDLESS threads of how the review should be re-done, or how Phil and his staff are incompetent, or how the testing method is flawed (I've already explained above why it ISN'T, although it's not perfect).

Move on, it's done, get over it.

If you think your 50D performs better than the 40D - great, keep using it.

If you think you can do a better job testing these cameras - apply for a job on DPR, or better yet, open up your own camera review site and go from there.

It's just a reivew by one (very respectable) site, and if you don't like what you're seeing, then go read OTHER reviews that favor it and feel good about your purchase - problem solved.

MOVE ON.

-

jonrobertp · Nov 2, 2008

one to come ..all too soon, will be the Obama files...content hidden until...

Seriously, you made a good post. However, take the case of the N.American media in general. They are known to be slightly to the left (not all, as the right/wing commentors are more easily noticed). Is it not at all possible that even a well intentioned tester could pass just a bit of bias in his reporting; procedures, etc ? It would not be the first instance. I don't know if that occured, just saying it is possible in this case as well.

J A K · Nov 2, 2008

Bonjour43MA said:
2. "The lenses weren't good enough!"

Bonjour43MA said:
50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L have all been used.

I don't care what lens review site you go to ... the 50mm f/1.4 has the highest resolution at f/5.6 and in some copies maximum resolution occurs at an aperture slightly faster than f/5.6. DPR use the 50mm f/1.4 at f/8 for the 50D resolution test (and f/9 for the 40D resolution test). Now please, stop and answer one question for me ... if you wanted to compare the resolution capability of two sensors would you try to use a good lens at its optimum aperture or would you choose to smear grease on a coke bottle and use it? Obviously DPR did no such thing as the extreme choice in my question but I think you get my point.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

fotography · Nov 2, 2008

Bonjour43MA said:
DPR's testing methods
(which isn't perfect, but is the most IDEAL testing method for
reviewing cameras from ALL brands):

most IDEAL for reviewing cameras from ALL brands?

bearcat · Nov 2, 2008

Well, I partly agree with you regarding people's criticisms of the review itself. But overall, this is a fairly important issue for a couple of reasons:

-- the megapixel wars, which have become senseless in the P&S and cell-phone world, are starting to become nonsensical in the world of DSLRs, based on the results of the 50D. That is cause for concern for serious photographers. What are the priorities at a company like Canon? Are people buying these cameras for megapixel count? This really should be a more sophisticated market than that, but Canon doesn't seem to think so.

--Canon looks like they got clumsy again. The 50D was added to the lineup in a shortened product cycle from the 40D, and that was presumably in large part because the new sensor technology was so wonderful. Now that doesn't appear to be the case.

Personally, I am especially concerned that the 50D has worse DR than its predecessor. DR is one thing that should never get worse in successive DSLR generations within the same camera line, imho.

Aside from that beautiful LCD screen, I'm not sure there is a lot to recommend the 50D.

I don't like where Canon, and perhaps the industry at large, are heading. Hats off to DPreview for telling it like it is. Based on what I have seen and heard elsewhere, I suspect they will be proven correct in their estimations.

Btw, I don't think DPreview is always 100% fair in their reviews, but I failed to see any bias this time around.

Bonjour43MA · Nov 2, 2008

Of course it's possible! I'm not saying DPR can do no wrong - I sometimes actually don't "see" what they "see" when talking about sharpness and detail in some of their reviews (when the Nikon sample is clearly less detailed or noisy, and etc).

My point is, the test has been done, and they've corrected their "mistake" in regards to the ACR fiasco, but people here, espeically 50D owners, just can't move on. It's just ONE review that may not favor their camera (or to justify their purchase), but there are many other professional reviews out there that have offered slightly different results than DPR, so why can't people just accept that different testers using (somewhat) different test methods MAY come out with slightly different results?

The 50D is a great camera and I think Canon did a good job adding all those features in it (AF fine-tune is a big plus) but when compared to the competition, or even their own 40D, it's just not as good as they claimed it to be (note, the important thing here is Canon's bold claim of 1.5 stop improvement in noise, which they've somewhat achieve in the JPEG output but at the expense of smeared details) - and I think this is where people are hung up on and can't seem to get over of.

Canon made some promises but ultimately did not fully deliver. The review pointed out areas that could be improved so that potential buyers of this camera would know what they are getting for their hard earned cash and what the camera CAN and CANNOT do.

Simple as that.

I've always enjoyed coming here and reading some threads where I would pick up some cool tips on certain camera settings, but these past few days the board has been filled with nothing but dissatisfied 50D owners, crying foul over the 50D review - and I"m just sick of it, that's all.

Erik Magnuson · Nov 2, 2008

bearcat said:
Personally, I am especially concerned that the 50D has worse DR than
its predecessor. DR is one thing that should never get worse in
successive DSLR generations within the same camera line, imho.

According to DPR, RAW DR is better, JPEG DR is worse, but that's mainly based on their shadow cutoff. Oddly, Imaging-resource gets the opposite result!

So what did you actually read to make you concerned?

--
Erik

Bonjour43MA · Nov 2, 2008

fotography said:
Bonjour43MA said:

DPR's testing methods
(which isn't perfect, but is the most IDEAL testing method for
reviewing cameras from ALL brands):

Click to expand...

most IDEAL for reviewing cameras from ALL brands?

How else would you test cameras from different brands, while trying to maintain a certain level of consistency in post-processing the RAW files?

Same program, same post-processing methods - then look at the results. That's how.

Once again, I'm not saying DPR shouldn't use the best possible software to achieve optimal results, but once they start doing it for Canon, they would HAVE to start doing it for all other brands as well.

friedduck · Nov 2, 2008

bearcat said:
I don't like where Canon, and perhaps the industry at large, are
heading. Hats off to DPreview for telling it like it is. Based on
what I have seen and heard elsewhere, I suspect they will be proven
correct in their estimations.

Here here. I sold my 20d in anticipation of upgrading soon but find myself in the awkward position of not really finding what I want in their line-up. People shouldn't be upset if a site that critiques products actually contains some criticism every once in a while!

I sincerely hope that the makers will start listening to their (serious) customers and abandon the megapixel race.

Ghozer · Nov 2, 2008

DPR should do three things:

1. Use the proprietary converter that is unique to each camera tested and compared. Presumably each of these software programs is deigned to bring out the best in the conversions. Or, at a minimum provide both an ACR conversion AND the proprietary conversion.

2. Use the lenses that are necessary to maximize the quality of each camera. And use the best aperture for each lens (which wasn't done for the 50D review).

3. Equalize the image size when comparing noise.

DPR's inability to do these simple things calls into questions the integrity of their tests.

Bonjour43MA said:
I can understand where you guys are coming from, espeically in
regards to the raw converter used in the test. HOWEVER, think of
these following points before crying foul over DPR's testing methods
(which isn't perfect, but is the most IDEAL testing method for
reviewing cameras from ALL brands):

1. "DPR needs to use DPP to get the best out of Canon RAWs"

Let's say that DPP DOES produce better results for RAW, and that DPR
started using it for their future Canon reviews - Doesn't the same
have to be applied to OTHER cameras as well? How about Nikon and
their NX converter, which ALSO gives out better results than ACR? How
about Sony, Pentax, etc? Are you guys asking DPR to use programs from
EACH brand to convert RAWs?

If so, how does one quantify the values? What is +1 sharpening in all
programs? How about saturation - 1? NR? You can't possibly tell me
that they all output the same values and can be equalized manually by
the tester?

This is the reason DPR is using, and have been using ONE Raw
converter for ALL camera brands for all of their reviews - same
software, same post-processing methods, same values, and then you can
judge the results based on that.

If you want DPR to use DPP for Canon RAWs, then ok, the same should
be done for Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc... and interestingly enough
there's never been any huge public outcry from any of those forums,
heck, even the Canon forums, about how this is such a BIG flaw, until
this "unfavorable" 50D review came out.

2. "The lenses weren't good enough!"

50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L have all been used. What would you guys
deemed to be "GOOD" enough for this camera? At what point do you say
" ok, an average buyer of this camear SHOULD NOT spend $2000+ on a
lens just to take advantage of the higher MP on the 50D" ?

DPR is not at fault for this one - you should blame Canon for either
a) making incapable lenses or b) making this 15MP sensor chip. It's
not everyday that someone goes out and spends $3,000, $4,000, or
$5,000+ on lenses, after just spending $1,500 on a brand new camera.

3. "DPR is Nikon-biased! OMG! Conspiracy!"

I've been a Nikon shooter in the past (then switched to Canon) and
trust me, the same sentiment is shared in that forum as well as far
as who DPR is biased towards... so PLEASE, there is NOT conspiracy
theory going on here.

So please, people, move on to other things and stop posting countless
threads about how DPR butched the review and how they should redo it

trust me, they WON'T.

How about sharing tips and tricks on the 50D that you've found?

How about sharing photos you've taken with the 50D (and not about
proving the review wrong) ?

How about talking about improvements that could be done on the next
firmware update?

How about helping your fellow Canon shooters with their questions on
camera settings and shooting techniques?

Please, stop ruining this forum by posting ENDLESS threads of how the
review should be re-done, or how Phil and his staff are incompetent,
or how the testing method is flawed (I've already explained above why
it ISN'T, although it's not perfect).

Move on, it's done, get over it.

If you think your 50D performs better than the 40D - great, keep
using it.

If you think you can do a better job testing these cameras - apply
for a job on DPR, or better yet, open up your own camera review site
and go from there.

It's just a reivew by one (very respectable) site, and if you don't
like what you're seeing, then go read OTHER reviews that favor it and
feel good about your purchase - problem solved.

MOVE ON.

-
--

--
Cheers,
Doug

http://doglesby.zenfolio.com/

Bonjour43MA · Nov 2, 2008

J A K said:
Bonjour43MA said:

2. "The lenses weren't good enough!"

Click to expand...

J A K said:

50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L have all been used.

Click to expand...

I don't care what lens review site you go to ... the 50mm f/1.4 has
the highest resolution at f/5.6 and in some copies maximum resolution
occurs at an aperture slightly faster than f/5.6. DPR use the 50mm
f/1.4 at f/8 for the 50D resolution test (and f/9 for the 40D
resolution test). Now please, stop and answer one question for me
... if you wanted to compare the resolution capability of two sensors
would you try to use a good lens at its optimum aperture or would you
choose to smear grease on a coke bottle and use it? Obviously DPR
did no such thing as the extreme choice in my question but I think
you get my point.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

--

Yes I understand where you are coming from, but this is nit-picking here as far as I'm concerned.

How about lenses used on other cameras in the comparison? Were they shot at the OPTIMAL settings as well? Are you asking the reviewer to find out, for EACH lens, what the optimal aperture should be set to? This applies to all brands.

Also, the same lens was used on both the 50D and 40D, so are you saying that if they had set the lens to f5.6, the resolution results would ALSO be higher on the 40D?

Bonjour43MA · Nov 2, 2008

These are not "fixes" though!

Ghozer said:
DPR should do three things:
1. Use the proprietary converter that is unique to each camera tested
and compared. Presumably each of these software programs is deigned
to bring out the best in the conversions. Or, at a minimum provide
both an ACR conversion AND the proprietary conversion.

I've already pointed out this slippery slope in my post... if you're going to use DPP for Canon, you have to use NX for Nikon and etc. But I guess this is an option that DPR can look into (I doubt they'll do it simply due to the amount of time required to conduct all these tests. Also, I'm not too sure how you can compare images from different cameras using different software...)

Ghozer said:
2. Use the lenses that are necessary to maximize the quality of each
camera. And use the best aperture for each lens (which wasn't done
for the 50D review).

Well, are you saying they should re-do all their previous Canon tests that have used the 50/1.4, because it was not set to f5.6?

Ghozer said:
3. Equalize the image size when comparing noise.

Equalize based on what? Do you upsize or downsize? what is the base that they should use? If we're comparing 40D, 50D, and Nikon D300, should the latter two be downsized to 10mp or should the 1st and the 3rd be upsized to 15mp? What would be fair?

Ghozer said:
DPR's inability to do these simple things calls into questions the
integrity of their tests.

Ghozer said:
--
Cheers,
Doug

http://doglesby.zenfolio.com/

plugin · Nov 2, 2008

Bonjour43MA said:
I can understand where you guys are coming from, espeically in
regards to the raw converter used in the test. HOWEVER, think of
these following points before crying foul over DPR's testing methods
(which isn't perfect, but is the most IDEAL testing method for
reviewing cameras from ALL brands):
1. "DPR needs to use DPP to get the best out of Canon RAWs"
Let's say that DPP DOES produce better results for RAW, and that DPR
started using it for their future Canon reviews - Doesn't the same
have to be applied to OTHER cameras as well? How about Nikon and
their NX converter, which ALSO gives out better results than ACR? How
about Sony, Pentax, etc? Are you guys asking DPR to use programs from
EACH brand to convert RAWs?

Yes. Since the cameras all come with a converter, why not use it? Put it this way - what converter is universally available to Canon shooters? NOT ACR, but DPP. And yes - other cameras should be tested with their respective converters. Lets say ACR did better than DPP (or another mfg utility). Then in the 'level playing field' scenario, I would have to spend extra money to get those results. Not exactly level any more. I think it much fairer to use the mfg converter.

Bonjour43MA said:
If so, how does one quantify the values? What is +1 sharpening in all
programs? How about saturation - 1? NR? You can't possibly tell me
that they all output the same values and can be equalized manually by
the tester?

Unless the review attempts to test many combinations and determine the best, then camera defaults are an acceptable test (in my opinion). But calling ACR 'fair'

assumes that the conversion is teh same for all cameras, which is not the case. Now we are subject to an Adobe programmer to evaluate what is consistent. Maybe not even the same programmers between brands - who knows? Maybe the Canon ACR team is better than the Nikon ACR team? Is that fair?

Bonjour43MA said:
snip
If you want DPR to use DPP for Canon RAWs, then ok, the same should
be done for Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc... and interestingly enough
there's never been any huge public outcry from any of those forums,
heck, even the Canon forums, about how this is such a BIG flaw, until
this "unfavorable" 50D review came out.

To be fair, DPR using a beta release brought the issue to the forefront. But your point, although valid, does not make ACR a fair or equal converter. Obviously all brands should be treated the same way - this is not, in my opinion, a Canon vs. Nikon thing. Biases will always be there, but hopefully the reviewers are professional enough to overcome them for the most part.

Bonjour43MA said:
2. "The lenses weren't good enough!"
50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L have all been used. What would you guys
deemed to be "GOOD" enough for this camera? At what point do you say
" ok, an average buyer of this camear SHOULD NOT spend $2000+ on a
lens just to take advantage of the higher MP on the 50D" ?

I agree - it has been a long standing accepted practice to use a mfg 50mm prime lens for testing.

Bonjour43MA said:
DPR is not at fault for this one - you should blame Canon for either
a) making incapable lenses or b) making this 15MP sensor chip. It's
not everyday that someone goes out and spends $3,000, $4,000, or
$5,000+ on lenses, after just spending $1,500 on a brand new camera.

If the 50mm lens is not high enough resolution to match a sensor, then you are right - the sensor is probably too good.

Bonjour43MA said:
3. "DPR is Nikon-biased! OMG! Conspiracy!"

Although some have claimed that, and I agree it is not a conspiracy in any way, that does not mean the process is right.

Bonjour43MA said:
I've been a Nikon shooter in the past (then switched to Canon) and
trust me, the same sentiment is shared in that forum as well as far
as who DPR is biased towards... so PLEASE, there is NOT conspiracy
theory going on here.
So please, people, move on to other things and stop posting countless
threads about how DPR butched the review and how they should redo it

trust me, they WON'T.

I think the big issue is using a flawed RAW converter for the testing. I know they changed the pictures to reflect the released ACR version, but there is enough evidence to support the claim that ACR may have limited the performance enough to call the conclusions validity into question.

Bonjour43MA said:
snip
Please, stop ruining this forum by posting ENDLESS threads of how the
review should be re-done, or how Phil and his staff are incompetent,
or how the testing method is flawed (I've already explained above why
it ISN'T, although it's not perfect).

I still think it was flawed. And by posting a thread about why not to start new threads about the topic, you started a new thread about it. But that is OK - that is what the forums are for, is it not?

Bonjour43MA said:
Move on, it's done, get over it.
If you think your 50D performs better than the 40D - great, keep
using it.

I do not have one - I have a 40D, but still think the review was flawed. And I do not really care whether the Nikon (or whatever) model is better - that is not really important to me. I bought the 40D (and the 300D before it) because I already had lenses and flashes from film bodies - Canon. And I would fully support a claim that Nikon reviews are flawed too, if their converters out perform ACR, and they probably do.

Bonjour43MA said:
If you think you can do a better job testing these cameras - apply
for a job on DPR, or better yet, open up your own camera review site
and go from there.
It's just a reivew by one (very respectable) site, and if you don't
like what you're seeing, then go read OTHER reviews that favor it and
feel good about your purchase - problem solved.
MOVE ON.

What if I don't want to? And as stated above, I am not trying to feel good about my purchase. You have your opinions, and they are not shared by all. That does not make you any more or less right, but it does not mean you should be the judge of what others post.

Erik Magnuson · Nov 2, 2008

Bonjour43MA said:
Also, I'm not too sure how you can compare images from
different cameras using different software...)

Of course that's what happens when you compare in-camera JPEGs. But DPR doesn't have to do anything more than post one version of the RAW test using the vendor converter and/or post the raw images themselves so that people can process them as they choose.

Bonjour43MA said:
Well, are you saying they should re-do all their previous Canon tests
that have used the 50/1.4, because it was not set to f5.6?

Perhaps. But if not, then they have to temper their conclusions about pixel level sharpness and detail to admit that this case is lens limited.

Bonjour43MA said:
Equalize based on what?

The usual answer would be to pick a standard print size/resolution.

Bonjour43MA said:
Bonjour43MA said:

DPR's inability to do these simple things calls into questions the
integrity of their tests.

Click to expand...

BTW, to the OP, "integrity" is going a bit too far. It may call into question the relevance and accuracy of their tests, but they do follow the same process for all cameras.

--
Erik

casdewrf · Nov 2, 2008

I really don't understand the concern about the review? If people own the 50d and like it, does it really matter? It all seems a bit anal

BusyBeingBorn · Nov 2, 2008

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory at all, but I think your logic is flawed.

Bonjour43MA said:
I've already pointed out this slippery slope in my post... if you're
going to use DPP for Canon, you have to use NX for Nikon and etc. But
I guess this is an option that DPR can look into (I doubt they'll do
it simply due to the amount of time required to conduct all these
tests. Also, I'm not too sure how you can compare images from
different cameras using different software...)

This is meaningless. The reviewers should try to make best quality possible for the given camera.

Using a third party application, which may or may not be optimal for a particular camera make is simply not fair. I don't see any 'levelling of the playing field' using one set of settings - quite possibly a different set of settings will be optimal for each camera.

A lot of DSLR users will also end up using the 'in the box' SW as their only SW, so it is highly relevant to use that - most DPReview readers are not profs with money to spare (or the time to learn) third party applications.

Bonjour43MA said:
Well, are you saying they should re-do all their previous Canon tests
that have used the 50/1.4, because it was not set to f5.6?

This is silly - The pixeldensity of the 50 is higher than previous models, which mean that DOF and diffraction effects will become more important. If possible Manual Focus should be used.

It IS disturbing in the 50d review that the flat resolution test (shot at f/2.8) and the testshots (shot at f/8) are inconsistent. This should cause some introspection into the test methods.

I would have liked the test to use the same lens, which almost is possible, since Carl Zeiss make the excellent 50/2.0 ZF which can be used directly on the Nikons and with an adapter on the Canons (or the 50/1.4 ZF, which I think have a ZA 50/1.4 (for Sony) equivalent, though I don't know the details of that design). The implicit premise here is that it is the camera body we test, not the lens.

Bonjour43MA said:
Bonjour43MA said:

3. Equalize the image size when comparing noise.

Click to expand...

Equalize based on what? Do you upsize or downsize? what is the base
that they should use? If we're comparing 40D, 50D, and Nikon D300,
should the latter two be downsized to 10mp or should the 1st and the
3rd be upsized to 15mp? What would be fair?

One or the other, you are just splitting hairs now.

--
'He not busy being born, is busy dying' Bob Dylan

J A K · Nov 2, 2008

Bonjour43MA said:
Yes I understand where you are coming from, but this is nit-picking
here as far as I'm concerned.

Um, nit-picking is exactly what this site is dedicated to but that's entirely another discussion. Look, bottom line, there is more to nit-picking that just running a test ... there are best practices to consider ... if you are going to perform a test then why not do it right?

Bonjour43MA said:
How about lenses used on other cameras in the comparison? Were they
shot at the OPTIMAL settings as well? Are you asking the reviewer to
find out, for EACH lens, what the optimal aperture should be set to?
This applies to all brands.

Back in the days when sensors were 2MP and 3MP lenses were not limiting the outcome of a comparison between camera-A and camera-B; today we have sensors ranging from 10MP to 24MP and the lenses had better be taken into consideration.

So, to answer your question ... yes, all brands should be tested with a lens that significantly out-resolves the sensor and again yes, the lenses should be set to optimum resolution. DPR is in the business of publishing the best possible reviews for cameras; they are also "sort of" reviewing lenses (unfortunately using cameras instead of optical benches). There is no doubt in my mind that DPR knows exactly what the optimum aperture is for every lens they use for camera tests; it's just a matter of using that knowledge and making sure the "to be published" pattern off the resolution chart is centered on the optical axis of the lens.

Bonjour43MA said:
Also, the same lens was used on both the 50D and 40D, so are you
saying that if they had set the lens to f5.6, the resolution results
would ALSO be higher on the 40D?

Yes, both cameras will measure out at higher performance levels; however, the 50D will have benefited more from a higher resolution optics because it has higher sensor resolution.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

KALEL33 · Nov 2, 2008

I just want to know if these "problems" were so bad and the integrity of DPR is at stake, then why is it brought up now? They've been using this set up standard reviews for quite some time and nobody's had a problem with it until their camera falls short. If it wasn't a problem then, it shouldn't be now.

I'm a 30D owner, but I would almost like to see the manufacturers RAW converters used in past reviews, have the D300 trounce the 50D, and hear everyone cry foul because they think the Nikon NX converter does something it shouldn't.

Kim Letkeman · Nov 2, 2008

J A K said:
I don't care what lens review site you go to ... the 50mm f/1.4 has
the highest resolution at f/5.6 and in some copies maximum resolution
occurs at an aperture slightly faster than f/5.6. DPR use the 50mm
f/1.4 at f/8 for the 50D resolution test (and f/9 for the 40D
resolution test). Now please, stop and answer one question for me
... if you wanted to compare the resolution capability of two sensors
would you try to use a good lens at its optimum aperture or would you
choose to smear grease on a coke bottle and use it? Obviously DPR
did no such thing as the extreme choice in my question but I think
you get my point.

No, your point makes no sense. The differences at F8 over F5.6 are very small ... it is ridiculous to use an extreme example like smearing grease ... inflammatory for no good reason. Flaming that conspiracy theory ...

At F8, the Canon lense is 4% less sharp in the center and 0.2% less sharp in the corners. The Nikon lense used for the D300 in the same review is 5.2% less sharp at F8 in the center and 0.3% less sharp in the corners (using photozone.de tests.)

So the Nikon has a handicap in sensor resolution, a larger handicap in lense performance at F8, and yet ekes out more detail. This should give one a bit of pause as to the value of leap-frogging the industry in sensor resolution. The noise results provide further evidence that the leap has provided as many disadvantages as advantages.

Of course, the camera will still take fine images, as does pretty much any dSLR.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Kim Letkeman · Nov 2, 2008

KALEL33 said:
I just want to know if these "problems" were so bad and the integrity
of DPR is at stake, then why is it brought up now? They've been
using this set up standard reviews for quite some time and nobody's
had a problem with it until their camera falls short. If it wasn't a
problem then, it shouldn't be now.

Agreed. Canon have great lenses ... Nikon owners often express envy at the selection available to Canon owners. There is nothing wrong with testing an APS-C dSLR against a quality 50mm 1.4 ... those are always among the sharpest lenses available anyway. I agree with the person who suggested that testing a prosumer camera with only the most expensive lenses defeats the whole point of buying such a camera.

KALEL33 said:
I'm a 30D owner, but I would almost like to see the manufacturers RAW
converters used in past reviews, have the D300 trounce the 50D, and
hear everyone cry foul because they think the Nikon NX converter does
something it shouldn't.

I prefer that they continue to ACR. This is a neutral standard that can create excellent output with minimal skill (only a few panels after all.) The fact that they use default settings only serves to equalize the produced images. There is no other way to control the variables, and there is certainly no way at all to do that using the manufacturers' software ... they almost certainly add sharpening by default. And different amounts of that skew the results, as the jpeg results always show ...

Let's try to remember how much time these tests take even with so few variables ... add a few more and they would never get done.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

For those that think DPR messed up...

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts