IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Started Mar 8, 2013 | Questions
DugT
OP DugT Senior Member • Posts: 1,137
Re: 24-105mm rated 50% better than 15-85 at dxo

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

$3K for these lenses, then you are ready for FF

Not true. You can have wonderful photos with 24-105L that generate better photos than EF-S 15-85 or 17-55 on APS-C, period.

Then tell us why your 24-105 broke in Italy - period

and tell us how mid frame can look so bad on FF at F4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

I checked that out. At 24mm and f/4 the lens does look a little worse but at f/8 it look much better and at all other focal lengths the 24-105 looks better.

-- hide signature --

Some of my pics are in my DPReview Gallery
dt

 DugT's gear list:DugT's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +5 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 19,092
Re: 24-105mm rated 50% better than 15-85 at dxo

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

$3K for these lenses, then you are ready for FF

Not true. You can have wonderful photos with 24-105L that generate better photos than EF-S 15-85 or 17-55 on APS-C, period.

Then tell us why your 24-105 broke in Italy - period

and tell us how mid frame can look so bad on FF at F4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1



Or maybe he can tell us why he is commenting on cameras he doesnt own or experience.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 19,092
Re: IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?
1

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

According to my interpretation of DXO's lens tests and The Digital Pictures lens tests http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1, a FF camera with a 24-105mm lens should have much sharper IQ than a crop with a 15-85mm. Is this the case?

I'm still undecided about getting a 6d for landscapes. I'd keep my 7d for action and reach. If the 24-105mm is much better on a FF than the 15-85mm is on a crop, it make the decision easy for me.

Thank you!
dt

Stop relying on Dxo and look at testing raw riles from the imaging resource, etc.  that will tell you far more tan DxO's fluff.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
DugT
OP DugT Senior Member • Posts: 1,137
Re: IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Stop relying on Dxo and look at testing raw riles from the imaging resource, etc. that will tell you far more tan DxO's fluff.

How do I, "look at testing raw riles from the imaging resource, etc"? Can I get a raw file of a 6d with a 24-105 and also one from a 7d with a 15-85 of the same scene? That would be great.

-- hide signature --

Some of my pics are in my DPReview Gallery
dt

 DugT's gear list:DugT's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +5 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Dave Luttmann wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

According to my interpretation of DXO's lens tests and The Digital Pictures lens tests http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1, a FF camera with a 24-105mm lens should have much sharper IQ than a crop with a 15-85mm. Is this the case?

I'm still undecided about getting a 6d for landscapes. I'd keep my 7d for action and reach. If the 24-105mm is much better on a FF than the 15-85mm is on a crop, it make the decision easy for me.

Thank you!
dt

Stop relying on Dxo and look at testing raw riles from the imaging resource, etc. that will tell you far more tan DxO's fluff.

The reason people look at DXO and alike is to cut down research time, how much time will it take to check all the raw files of all FL and all aperture of 7D + 15-85, 7d + 24-105, 7D + 17-55, 6D + 24-105, 6D + 24-70 F4, and 6D + 24-70 F2.8? That is before we get into what nikons can do with D600, D7000 and various different lens.

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 13,618
Re: 24-105mm rated 50% better than 15-85 at dxo

Dave Luttmann wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

$3K for these lenses, then you are ready for FF

Not true. You can have wonderful photos with 24-105L that generate better photos than EF-S 15-85 or 17-55 on APS-C, period.

Then tell us why your 24-105 broke in Italy - period

and tell us how mid frame can look so bad on FF at F4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1



Or maybe he can tell us why he is commenting on cameras he doesnt own or experience.

He's not weighing all information. And he is quoting dxo who is not transparent with how they did the MPix testing. You've experienced similar results up to 20x30 between crop and 5dii at base iso for scape type of shooting -- and that would be my conclusion as well -after weighing all of the information

5dii/6d comes into play with the primes and higher iso's for shallow dof. But I'm liking my 60d/T4i all the way up to iso 3200 and with processing, getting sharp, nice photos with my primes and a lot less weight -- and at 1/4 to 1/2 the costs

Even if you believe dxo within 1 to 2 MPix units error, and I'm not saying I do because if they changed the distance, all bets are off -- and comparing resolution across formats is not apples and apples, but even if there is some truth to it:

1) 12 Mpix is sad number from 5dII plus 24-105. Within an error of 1 or 2, and for 1/4 to 1/2 the price with primes, my 60d or T4i gets 10 or even 11 -within experimental error -- no difference. Use my 35 f2, or 50 f1.4 or 100L or even use my 5dc. 12 MPix is not a good number for a 21 MPix 5dII with a zoom lens

2) And I expect the new sigma 30 art to be even higher.

3) We're talking a 4x zoom with the 24-105 versus a 5x+ zoom with the 15-85 -- last I checked, more range with 5x zoom

4) 15-85 has better IS as well.

5) After processing images at base iso, things level even further. Those looking at 100% pixel peep will be misled. One should look at prints after processing -- and even large prints iso100-400, one will not see differences

6) he has refused to take blind test on prints

7) dxo will get one into a bunch of wondering and mis-information when it comes to real shooting.

8) He has the 60d + sigma 17-50, and should know that on the prints made by him (he does little printing and a lot of pixel peeping), there will be no difference. So why spend the 2x to 4x extra money on more weight -- with no sales.  His wife will carry the extra weight on vacation.  Go figure.

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +6 more
kewlguy
kewlguy Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Skip DxO. Just a bunch of statistics there.

Get 7D if you're more into action/sports, or 6D for landscape and low light. Technically 6D will deliver higher IQ, but 7D has more feature sets. But IMHO, you'd better off with the 6D and 24-105. It's not exactly a slow camera too, and you will appreciate the lower noise at high ISOs later...

 kewlguy's gear list:kewlguy's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5DS R Nikon 1 J5 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +85 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

24-105L on 6D will have much better IQ - sharper, resolve more details, better color tonality, better DR, better SNR (which means less noises/grains in entire ISO range) and of course much better high ISO.

DXOMark 24-105 on 5D2 vs 15-85 on 7D

DXOMark 6D vs 7D sensor test

-- hide signature --

DXO says the 6d & lens combo has 50% better sharpness. That is huge and I hope that is accurate. 20% better sharpness would be worth it to me.

The reason FF set is sharper is because it has 1.6x less pixel magnfication.

Canon 1.6x crop cameras to use 1.6x crop factor to achieve for example FF equivalent 160mm AOV (angle of view) with a 100mm lens thru 1.6x more crop magnification or enlargement. The pixels are enlarged 1.6x time more to project onto the same-size output (screen or print).

some samples from 24-105L























-- hide signature --

Some of my pics are in my DPReview Gallery
dt

-- hide signature --
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 24-105mm rated 50% better than 15-85 at dxo

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

$3K for these lenses, then you are ready for FF

Not true. You can have wonderful photos with 24-105L that generate better photos than EF-S 15-85 or 17-55 on APS-C, period.

Then tell us why your 24-105 broke in Italy - period

What's that related to this discussion?  EF-S lenses never broke one day?

and tell us how mid frame can look so bad on FF at F4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

TDP uses only one sample to do the test under unkown controlled evnironment. DXOMark's test is more scientific and accurate in general that shows 24-105L at 24mm is sharper thane 15-85 at 15mm side.

Two more samples of 24-105L at 24mm side





-- hide signature --
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: 24-105mm rated 50% better than 15-85 at dxo

MAC wrote:

He's not weighing all information. And he is quoting dxo who is not transparent with how they did the MPix testing. You've experienced similar results up to 20x30 between crop and 5dii at base iso for scape type of shooting -- and that would be my conclusion as well -after weighing all of the information

DXOMark P-MPix concept

I print a few of my photos to 30x20". 5D2 and 5D1 prints are noticeable sharper than from 60D at the same size. I own all these cameras - 5D-5D3, 60D and 1D3.

5dii/6d comes into play with the primes and higher iso's for shallow dof. But I'm liking my 60d/T4i all the way up to iso 3200 and with processing, getting sharp, nice photos with my primes and a lot less weight -- and at 1/4 to 1/2 the costs

Put your personal preference aside, 6D and 5D series are noticeable sharper than Canon 18mp APS-C cross entire ISO range. APS-C does has operation advantages such as smaller/lighter bodies with EF-S lenses that have limited choices. Same true for mFT and other mirrorless if you want further smaller/lighter gear.

Even if you believe dxo within 1 to 2 MPix units error, and I'm not saying I do because if they changed the distance, all bets are off -- and comparing resolution across formats is not apples and apples, but even if there is some truth to it:

For a meaningful comparison, you need to frame the subject into the same AOV for the same scene otherwise you ended with two difference cameras. That's why you use EF-S 15-85 on 60D while I use 24-105L on 5D. 15mm on 1.6x crop is equivalent to 24mm on FF. The reason you can use 15mm to achieve 24mm AOV is thru 1.6x crop magnification. You win convenience and operation advantage but you suffer 1.6x more enlargement that inevitable cause mushy pixels and IQ loss in other areas.

1) 12 Mpix is sad number from 5dII plus 24-105. Within an error of 1 or 2, and for 1/4 to 1/2 the price with primes, my 60d or T4i gets 10 or even 11 -within experimental error -- no difference. Use my 35 f2, or 50 f1.4 or 100L or even use my 5dc. 12 MPix is not a good number for a 21 MPix 5dII with a zoom lens

12 MPix from 24-105L on 5D2 is still much higher than 8 MPix from 15-85 on 7D/60D (EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS should have similar number). You can get a copy of 24-105L new today around $800 that is cheaper than EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and only about $150 more than EF-S 15-85. But 24-105L is a constant F4 L zoom and weather sealed. None of EF-S lenses are weather sealed. 15-85 is too slow at F5.6 in tele side.

2) And I expect the new sigma 30 art to be even higher.

Now you switch the topic to prime. So far Canon only has one EF-S prime (60/2.8 macro) so some third parties fill the gap such as forthcoming new Sigma EF-S 30. However Sigma 50/1.4 on 6D still beats Sigma 30 (EF-S) on 60D comfortably. I'd not suggest OP to build up EF-S lenses as sooner or later OP will move to FF (if not this time) then all those EF-S lenses will not work on FF.

3) We're talking a 4x zoom with the 24-105 versus a 5x+ zoom with the 15-85 -- last I checked, more range with 5x zoom

More super-zoom more sacrifice in IQ. 24-105L is a constant F4 zoom with weather sealed. EF-S 15-85 is a variable F3.5-5.6 zoom and not weather sealed. 24-105L has much better build quality.

4) 15-85 has better IS as well.

24-105L has at least 3-stop 'IS' and I am able to take shoot at 1/6 sec hand-held. And don't forget 1.6x crop suffers 1.6x more vibration so before 'IS' (that is not guaranteed), you'd need 1/<focus_length>*1.6 min shutter speed.

24-105L on 5D2 in Alaska trip - in rain, hand-held at 1/6 sec.



5) After processing images at base iso, things level even further. Those looking at 100% pixel peep will be misled. One should look at prints after processing -- and even large prints iso100-400, one will not see differences

At 2000-pixel wide, I already can see 5D2 is noticeable sharper than photos from my 60D even at base ISO 100. And don't forget FF is not just better in natural sharpness, it also better in many other areas - SNR, clarity, color tonality and smoothness... I can see noticeable grains in dark blue sky and shadow areas from 60D photos. 5D series photos look noticeable cleaner in shadows also at base ISOs.

6) he has refused to take blind test on prints

Nobody can see your prints. I can see my prints but not yours. We all can see JPEG photos on internet however

7) dxo will get one into a bunch of wondering and mis-information when it comes to real shooting.

Sure DXOMark also makes mistakes likely other sites. But DXOmark is still one of the most reputable and well respected site.

8) He has the 60d + sigma 17-50, and should know that on the prints made by him (he does little printing and a lot of pixel peeping), there will be no difference. So why spend the 2x to 4x extra money on more weight -- with no sales. His wife will carry the extra weight on vacation. Go figure.

Yes Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. At 30x20" print, 5D2 photos are noticeable better and sharper. Yes I print but occasionally. Please don't exaggerate of cost and weight difference. You only have very limited EF-S lenses choice. How about 70-200L/4.0 IS, 100-400L, 70-300L and many primes that are all EF lenses. With some good lenses the difference between bodies become much smaller.

-- hide signature --
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
must be checked.

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

He's not weighing all information. And he is quoting dxo who is not transparent with how they did the MPix testing. You've experienced similar results up to 20x30 between crop and 5dii at base iso for scape type of shooting -- and that would be my conclusion as well -after weighing all of the information

DXOMark P-MPix concept

As pointed out many times by your examples and by XO...more a subjective measure of something not fully defined. Inconsistency in their scores make it a useful ballpark score that needs to be checked with comparisons of other sites so that mistakes are not relied upon.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: must be checked.

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

He's not weighing all information. And he is quoting dxo who is not transparent with how they did the MPix testing. You've experienced similar results up to 20x30 between crop and 5dii at base iso for scape type of shooting -- and that would be my conclusion as well -after weighing all of the information

DXOMark P-MPix concept

As pointed out many times by your examples

Do you have better samples to show us?

and by XO...more a subjective measure of something not fully defined.

I'm not suggesting DXOMark is every right but most right. Can you point us better symmetrically tests than DXOMark?

Inconsistency in their scores make it a useful ballpark score that needs to be checked with comparisons of other sites so that mistakes are not relied upon.

Most consistent. Sure you can find this or that individual suspicious P-MPix numbers but most are accurate and comply with many shooters' experience. I also ignore DXOMark summary score that is more subjective but just concentrate its detail test data such as P-MPix (that is not subjective but convert thru MTF resolution with a formula DXOMark didn't show) and Sharpness | Global FieldMap, SNR, DR, Color Tonality etc tangible detail test data.

Last if not least, I'd suggest you try Canon FF cameras and lenses that I guess you have not experienced much. You will find Canon FF with L lenses generate photos not only sharper than Canon APS-C but Nikon APS-C as well (that you own). The key issue is that APS-C suffers either 1.6x (Canon) or 1.5x (Nikon) crop magnification, a dominant factor you simply cannot ignore. It's uphill battle for crop to compensate by a) using a much better lens; b) lots more pixels to narrow the gap.

-- hide signature --
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
presentation.

qianp2k wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

24-105L on 6D will have much better IQ - sharper, resolve more details, better color tonality, better DR, better SNR (which means less noises/grains in entire ISO range) and of course much better high ISO.

DXOMark 24-105 on 5D2 vs 15-85 on 7D

DXOMark 6D vs 7D sensor test

DXO says the 6d & lens combo has 50% better sharpness. That is huge and I hope that is accurate. 20% better sharpness would be worth it to me.

The reason FF set is sharper is because it has 1.6x less pixel magnfication.

That would indicated a misunderstanding of the things that affect sharpness. Perhaps related to the cloak surrounding M-pix. First, it is important to compare systems at the same DOF when discussing sharpness. You may have not considered that. To compare sharpness you need to start from  Equivalent photos.  DXO is not doing that. While the overall sharpness is often the same or better with FF, the issue of evenness of frame needs to be considered, and taken on a lens-by-lens basis as well as comparing like photos. Your examples do not do that and DXO makes many of the same mistakes in presentation. Their strike zone is very large...nice for tee ball but not as useful for a fast pitch game game.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: presentation.

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

24-105L on 6D will have much better IQ - sharper, resolve more details, better color tonality, better DR, better SNR (which means less noises/grains in entire ISO range) and of course much better high ISO.

DXOMark 24-105 on 5D2 vs 15-85 on 7D

DXOMark 6D vs 7D sensor test

DXO says the 6d & lens combo has 50% better sharpness. That is huge and I hope that is accurate. 20% better sharpness would be worth it to me.

The reason FF set is sharper is because it has 1.6x less pixel magnfication.

That would indicated a misunderstanding of the things that affect sharpness.

Crop magnification and penalty from pixel enlargement are well known in photography world. Otherwise nobody should buy a native 600mm lens that is big and heavy. You could save money and your muscle to have a much cheaper and lighter 300mm on mFT (2.0x crop) if they can deliver same IQ.

Perhaps related to the cloak surrounding M-pix. First, it is important to compare systems at the same DOF when discussing sharpness. You may have not considered that. To compare sharpness you need to start from Equivalent photos.

That's rubbish. Totally non-sense because you shoot APS-C at F5.6 I must shoot FF at F8? In most scenes, even F4 on FF has enough DOF. What you said is another operation advantage in low light that you can hand-held your APS-C with deeper DOF. But technically you can mount FF on tripod to have the same DOF. So it's operation advantage not possibility related. Moreover it's subjective which one is better - deeper or shallower DOF. I prefer shallower DOF most times to make my main subject to popup rather everything appears in focus but nothing to popup therefore look relative flat and dull (usually photos from small sensors look).

FF has better DOF control than crop but not other way around. You can achieve very shallow DOF with fast prime on FF that your crop simply cannot do, and you can achieve more DOF and can use much higher F number (to slow down waterfall for example) that your crop cannot do before subjecting obvious diffraction.

Check these 24-70L samples that many were taken at F2.8 even in a deep church and I don't see DOF issue.

24-70L II samples 

DXO is not doing that. While the overall sharpness is often the same or better with FF, the issue of evenness of frame needs to be considered, and taken on a lens-by-lens basis as well as comparing like photos. Your examples do not do that and DXO makes many of the same mistakes in presentation. Their strike zone is very large...nice for tee ball but not as useful for a fast pitch game game.

You're not talking from your own experiences but just trying to deny FF advantages. You simply don't want to see no matter how others tell you. As I suggest please give a try to yourself and you will like many others to find FF WOW factor - wow, suddenly my photos are much sharper, have noticeable better color tonality, and rendering noticeable smoother. You will become believer. Otherwise you just don't want to see and you can repeat your words in next 100 posts

-- hide signature --
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
must be cross checked.

qianp2k wrote:

I'm not suggesting DXOMark is every right but most right. Can you point us better symmetrically tests than DXOMark?

Most right? That would indicate that their scores can't be relied on some of the time. That would stem perhaps from undefined subjective elements in their scoring system.  Better perhaps to get away from DxOMark's largely undefined Perceptual Megapixel concept and use SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) which is better laid out. At the very least..when using a DXO scores, you need to cross check that it's in the ballpark regards other reviews.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
unrelated

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

24-105L on 6D will have much better IQ - sharper, resolve more details, better color tonality, better DR, better SNR (which means less noises/grains in entire ISO range) and of course much better high ISO.

DXOMark 24-105 on 5D2 vs 15-85 on 7D

DXOMark 6D vs 7D sensor test

DXO says the 6d & lens combo has 50% better sharpness. That is huge and I hope that is accurate. 20% better sharpness would be worth it to me.

The reason FF set is sharper is because it has 1.6x less pixel magnfication.

That would indicated a misunderstanding of the things that affect sharpness.

Crop magnification and penalty from pixel enlargement are well known in photography world. Otherwise nobody should buy a native 600mm lens that is big and heavy. You could save money and your muscle to have a much cheaper and lighter 300mm on mFT (2.0x crop) if they can deliver same IQ.

How does that relate to sharpness...could your rephrase?

Perhaps related to the cloak surrounding M-pix. First, it is important to compare systems at the same DOF when discussing sharpness. You may have not considered that. To compare sharpness you need to start from Equivalent photos.

That's rubbish. Totally non-sense because you shoot APS-C at F5.6 I must shoot FF at F8? In most

Again, unrelated to sharpness in this context.

That's rubbish. Totally non-sense because you shoot APS-C at F5.6 I must shoot FF at F8? In most scenes, even F4 on FF is enough. What you said is another operation advantage in low light that you can hand-held your APS-C with deeper DOF. But technically you can mount FF on tripod to have the same DOF. So it's operation advantage not possibility related. Moreover it's subjective which one is better - deeper or shallower DOF. I prefer shallower DOF most times to make my main subject to popup rather everything appears in focus but nothing to popup therefore look relative flat and dull (usually photos from small sensors look).

FF has better DOF control than crop but not other way around. You can achieve very shallow DOF with fast prime on FF that your crop simply cannot do, and you can achieve more DOF and can use much higher F number (to slow down waterfall for example) that your crop cannot do before subjecting obvious diffraction.

Check these 24-70L samples that many were taken at F2.8 even in a deep church and I don't see DOF issue.

24-70L II samples 

Again, you seem to completely misunderstand how to compare and the role equivalence plays in it. Your examples point to that misunderstanding. I have more tutorials if you think it might be of help.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: must be cross checked.

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I'm not suggesting DXOMark is every right but most right. Can you point us better symmetrically tests than DXOMark?

Most right?

Nobody is 100% right.  But DXOMark is very reputable and well respected in industry.  Its test result are msotly correct.

That would indicate that their scores can't be relied on some of the time. That would stem perhaps from undefined subjective elements in their scoring system. Better perhaps to get away from DxOMark's largely undefined Perceptual Megapixel concept and use SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) which is better laid out. At the very least..when using a DXO scores, you need to cross check that it's in the ballpark regards other reviews.

Seriously so far you're only playing the game of words. You really need to try yourself and you will find FF setup either in Canon or Nikon (provided no AF issue) is noticeable sharper than your APS-C gear. Otherwise you simply just don't want to believe no matter how others tell you or what photos I gave example.

If you think your APS-C can have similar sharpness, bring up and let's see.

Your APS-C simply cannot deliver such 100% cropped sharpness



100% cropped



-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: unrelated

Whatever no interest to exchange empty words.  You are just playing the game of words.  Please bring some substances.

-- hide signature --
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
Substance

qianp2k wrote:

Whatever no interest to exchange empty words. You are just playing the game of words. Please bring some substances.

Substance

More Substance

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,518
accurate
2

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I'm not suggesting DXOMark is every right but most right. Can you point us better symmetrically tests than DXOMark?

Most right?

Nobody is 100% right. But DXOMark is very reputable and well respected in industry. Its test result are msotly correct.

Mostly correct? Sounds like a real apology for a company that publishes scores that can't always be relied on and must be cross checked. They mostly do a OK job some of the time..not 100%.

I can see that. Mostly=for the most part, generally, not always.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads