DPReview Contributor
Joined on Oct 7, 2011


Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A letter from the Publisher (332 comments in total)
In reply to:

Smitty1: Please test multiple copies of a lens in your lens reviews. There is enough difference between copies that seeing results for multiple copies would have significant value in a lens review to get an idea of what is a 'good' copy versus what is a 'bad' copy.

Having consulted multiple statisticians on the subject, depending upon the number of measurements and their accuracy, 10 copies is usually enough, although with some lenses it does take 15 or so. We've confirmed it that by doing several large sample runs (50 or more) and then doing multiple analysis on various subsets of that set (groups of 5, 10, 15, etc.). Multiple measurement of 10 lens samples gives valid results about 95% of the time. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Apparently measurebating is a $$$ industry.

I guess I missed out on that part. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 20:08 UTC
On article A letter from the Publisher (332 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Best of luck in your new role, Scott, and happy New Year to the DPR team and readers!

On the topic of lens reviews: I'll be happy to see those, but frankly, to present us with good data, you'd have to test like Roger Cicala does. There are several other sites that offer decent "single lens reviews", but Roger has clearly demonstrated that sample variation is so significant that numbers off a single test unit are almost nonsensical.

As the person who tests multiple copies, I should point out that a complete lens review involves a lot more than my bench tests. Personally, I think of my stuff as screening the lenses and setting some baselines. You can rule a lot of lenses out because of what I find, but deciding among the rest requires a more hands on review that I can't provide.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

io_bg: Just because people rent more Sony gear than Nikon gear doesn't mean Sony is better off. Canon and Nikon are well-regarded and established systems while Sony is trying to create a serious image for the company. They have indeed created some buzz for their products and people are renting them to try them out. Which doesn't always end up as a purchase.

One other thing that skews the rental data is releases. When new lenses come out we can't keep them on the shelves for months while people try them out. Nikon didn't have a lot of new releases in 2017 (things released later in the year don't have time to make the annual list either).

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: Just in case I'm misunderstanding this, the mystery is basically: how come such an expensive and market-as-innovative-and-professional lens did so poorly in the test?

This is a very old post. The results have since been repeated on over 50 copies, with input from Sony engineers. They stand as they are. It has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2017 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: A sign that the rental business is not all that robust?

It's just the normal thing that happens when a rapid growth business becomes a non-growth business. Lots of places opened up based on past growth at the same time growth stopped. The inefficient can't remain profitable; several rental houses closed this year, several others are for sale and not finding any buyers.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: All fine with me, as long as Roger Cicala keeps having enough time to produce his fabulous test reports.

Thank you! The standards for gear and maintenance will continue to be mine. The things that keep us viable, logistics and business stuff, have never been my area of expertise and I stay out of the way of the people who do that - they've been doing it for 5 years now and by everything I know doing it really well.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: All fine with me, as long as Roger Cicala keeps having enough time to produce his fabulous test reports.

Actually it gives me more time. Paul and I go way back and this brings another strong manager into the group with Tyler and Drew. I'll be focusing on doing QA and testing for both companies, and LensProToGo, which didn't have in-house testing and repair, benefits from that too. While I'll be on the Board, starting in 2018, I'm out of day-to-day management and will be QA and testing Czar for both companies.

I don't blame people for being paranoid about it, I'm a professional cynic myself. But reality is the rental business is no longer a growth business; most rental houses are struggling and a few have closed this year. This is a real opportunity to improve efficiency and logistics which keeps both companies viable.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
On article Hasselblad launches 'Rent a Hasselblad' service (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Too xpensive to buy ... Too xpensive to rent ...

Lensrentals doesn't have a minimum number of days, 7 days is just the default.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: Now you tell us? I thought the salt would clean the lens and sensor. (pulls Hasselblad from bucket of sea water).
Now I'll need to put it in a hot oven for it to dry out. Or are you going to tell me that's a bad idea too?

"We're gonna need a bigger kiln"

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 13:34 UTC

OK, so DxO Mark rated something today and it got the highest score ever. That means . . . . . . it's a day they rated something.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 19:24 UTC as 63rd comment | 3 replies

It may be just me, but using "is", "does", and "has" for something that is a kickstarter project (and we all know a significant portion of kickstarter projects never get to the "is" phase) is really kind of misleading. There's more "if" here than just reaching the funding goal.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:33 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: Presumably it just fits right on an A99II and you have a 42MP digital system ready to go? Well once they've put it back together anyway...

It's all back together. I put an addendum on the post. PIA to do, though, took Aaron about 6 hours.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

Lan: Golden Post!

Finally, someone got the joke :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 02:33 UTC
In reply to:

Cornu: Will they try to put it back together?

Well, there's 100 photos :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

Cornu: Will they try to put it back together?

It's being reassembled as we speak. We're taking our time because we're cleaning tarnish off the metal parts and relubing everything. Part of doing the MTF before we started was to make sure we got it back to optical standards.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

Dr. Mel Wilner: What is this lens worth on today's market in the box, new?

I probably overpaid, but $1,000 for this working copy because it was the only one I could find 'right damn now' which is my usual attention span. I think $600-700 is the going rate. All without box though.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 13:56 UTC

So, what has DxO tested lately that hasn't been the best one of those ever?

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 17:30 UTC as 137th comment | 7 replies

Several people made the pertinent comment that they would expect some effect in sharpness and contrast. I took a Batis 135mm f/2.8 lens, MTF tested it first with no filter, then with a B&W Multi-coated clear filter, then 5 of the CP polarizing filters.

The clear filter made no difference.

All the polarizers (B&W, Marumi, Zeiss, Tiffen Ultra, and Helipan) caused a slight decrease in MTF at high frequencies. There was no change at 10 and 20 lp/mm. At 30 lp/mm there was a consistent 1-2% drop, by 50 lp/mm it was about 4%. I could detect no difference between them.

This is a quick check. I'll look at things in thoroughly when I have time. But the bottom line is fine detail in photos is affected a bit. I don't find that the least bit surprising.

I've also ordered a couple of $40 filters and we'll see how those compare. As has been pointed out, this was a group of filters that were all expected to be good. If the $40 filters are the same, then I'd be surprised.


Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 19:49 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

KaiZenDon: Lens Rental and Roger is such an asset to the photographic community, a wholehearted thanks.
This is actually a very useful test, because us photographers simply hv no way to test filters. I also see a dilemma here, if we cant see the difference between filters, why do we bother buying expensive ones?!
Can we have a test of ND filters next (including variable ND) ?! ND filters are massively expensive. Last time I brought a very cheap variable ND with me too shoot waterfalls, probably had some colour cast, though easily fixed in post.

I think the sharpness points are very valid, and I'm going to run some MTF bench tests on known lenses with the various CPs and see what we see. Good points.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »