Is 24-70 II worth the price

Started Jul 30, 2012 | Discussions thread
Jon Rty Veteran Member • Posts: 3,838
Re: Proof sucks, don't it?

Yes dear, you missed the most important thing. The topic. The thread is talking about a comparison between the Ti2 and the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 and the 5DIII and the 24-70mm F/2.8 II in low light. You however are littering this thread with shots taken with the wrong lenses and at the wrong aperture. I can't for the life of me understand how this is so hard, but you still seem incapable of grasping that all you're doing is looking at the sensor performance in a vacuum. You're in no way tackling the question of the OP, eg. the question of how a Ti2 with the 30mm F/1.4 compares to the 5DIII 24-70mm F/2.8.

Now, armchair theorist who likes ignore the question asked, and instead likes to blather in off-topic ways about sensor performance in a vacuum, if you want to know the truth, do the following:
1. Take lens resolution in to account
2. Take lens transmission in to account
3. Take usable aperture in to account

You realize what is going to happen, right? You keep blathering about sensor performance in a vacuum, while totally missing the fact that the lenses proposed are vastly different. At some point you're hopefully going to realize that you're acting like Don Quixote, battling windmills totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Then you're going to realize that real world low-light performance is highly dependent on the lens used. In fact, you'll realize that the lens is the most important part of the system. However, to anyone who is serious about photography, you've already shown how moronic you are with this entire line of argumentation about sensor performance in a vacuum. It's really beside the point.

Oh, and I should scroll down for a side-by-side comparison? Seriously? I hope that I won't need to point out how ridiculous that statement is, as the contradiction should be self-explanatory for everyone. At the end of the day, the only proof you've given us is that you're incapable of following a simple conversation.

graphikal wrote:

I missed nothing. Now, armchair theorist who likes to blather in off-topic ways about signal-to-noise ratios of lenses and T-stops, if you want to know the truth, do the following:

1. Downsize the 5D Mark III image to the dimensions of the T2i images.

2. Compare the images.

3. Realize how stupid you've been, to think that a reduction by 10% would clean up a great deal of noise.

The images make a side-by-side comparison easy. Just scroll down. I realize it's inconvenient to have your untruths exposed this way with actual photographs taken under controlled conditions.

Your realize what's going to happen, right? If you keep blathering on about how I haven't normalized images with only a ten percent linear pixel count difference, at some point I or someone else will do your work for you, reduce the 5D Mark III image by the ten percent difference and post side-by-side crops. However, to anyone who is serious about photography and has owned cameras with different pixel counts, you've already shown how moronic you are with this entire line of argumentation about the pixel count difference. It's really negligible.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
BAK
BAK
(unknown member)
HSU
BAK
BAK
BAK
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow