FZ2000/2500: Are the dpreview lens tests correct?

Started Jan 18, 2017 | Discussions thread
marshwader
OP marshwader Senior Member • Posts: 1,275
Re: FZ2000/2500: Are the dpreview lens tests correct?

Oh I read it very closely and then I compared the images of the corners to those of the FZ2000 on this site that led dpreview to the conclusion that the Panasonic lens wasn't up to scratch. Well the Imaging resource judgement of the RX 10 mk3 wasn't as harsh as that but the corners look the same to me so far as softness and chromatic aberrations are concerned. Go figure. Another interesting aspect is that Imaging resource voted the FZ2000/2500 to be their Superzoom of the Year 2016.

While there's nothing wrong with your defending your prized possession from criticism (and there is no doubt the RX10 III is an excellent superzoom camera), there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that both cameras share a degree of corner softness, Whether that relegates either of them as second rate lenses is debatable, as it is also debatable whether this is due to copy variation. All I know is that mine is very nice and sharp.

Jerry045 wrote:

marshwader wrote:

You'll find the comments on corner softness on the RX10 III here in the optics session of the Imaging resource review. Ironically the samples they show look just like the ones dpreview show for the FZ2000:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx10-iii/sony-rx10-iiiA4.HTM

gardenersassistant wrote:

marshwader wrote:

I've just read a review, by the way that talks about unacceptably soft corners on the RX 10 mk III. Hmmm... .

Oh, that is disappointing (though when I think about it hardly surprising I suppose. All products must have copy variation).

I would be very interested if you were able to provide a link to that review please.

-- hide signature --

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

-- hide signature --

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

Gee, when I read that review it said:

"Far-field performance appears to be excellent at f/5.6, with very good sharpness and contrast across most of the frame across the zoom range, and only minor softening and coma distortion in the extreme corners."

Then they comment:

"Corner Softness. Sharpness and corner performance are generally very good for the type and speed of lens, though our copy appears to have a slightly decentered element or group (unfortunate, but not at all unusual). In our sample, at 24mm eq. and at maximum aperture (f/2.4), the top right corner is the softest while the other corners are better but still a bit soft, however the center is tack sharp, and what corner softness there is doesn't extend far into the frame. At 70mm equivalent, the lens isn't quite as sharp in the center wide open as at 24mm eq., but it's still pretty sharp, and corners are just slightly soft."

I am failing to see where you saw that the corners were unacceptably soft in that review.

Using my own experience with that camera, I have not seen noticeable corner softness.

Most all zoom lenses will exhibit slightly softer corners due to the complexity of the lens design.

Perhaps a closer read might be in order.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

 marshwader's gear list:marshwader's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
717
717
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow