Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 05 Feb 2015 (Thursday) 07:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

 
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Apr 03, 2015 14:52 |  #1051

Xyclopx wrote in post #17503497 (external link)
that's a beautiful shot man. and yeah, i can't tell if it's sharp or not from this size, but the light and subject matter, and all the rest going on make this supremely beautiful to me.

Just dont even try to pixel peep it, its really not that sharp. But i think it would be okay in a 24x16 print. Thank you!


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 04, 2015 07:47 |  #1052

Shadowblade wrote in post #17490340 (external link)
Because I want a decent Canon body to use with all my Canon-mount lenses, so that I can use the lens correction profiles (especially CA correction) that come with software like DPP and Photoshop instead of having to manually clone out affected edges, and so that I have at least a modicum of AF for the times when i'm not shooting landscapes on a tripod. Nikon isn't an option until they release some decent tilt-shift lenses, especially a 24mm with equal shift and sharpness to the Canon version. And Sony? Well, if Canon bodies didn't have the DR problem and had come in a high-resolution version since 2012 instead of now, the A7r would never have sold nearly as well and no-one would ever had heard of Metabones. Probably the majority of professional A7r users (in fact, possibly most users) are disaffected ex-5D2 owners, many of whom bought into the Canon system from MF film.


Canon has much better lenses than either Sony or Nikon have, so the best option is Canon lenses on a Sony A7r.

Lately I've been using my 17mm TS-E on the Leica, which does so much better than the 5D3 in terms of shadow recovery and shadow noise. And also doesn't have lossy raw compression. ;) However, the downside is the super thin glass layer on the sensor (which is to improve rangefinder lens performance) shows sensor dust as more defined and darker dots than any other sensor I've used.

Both Sony and the CMOSIS sensor Leica use, do analog to digital conversion on sensor. Which is the trick to clean shadows and low noise at low ISO. Until Canon figures out a way to do on-sensor ADC, we are going to continue to have sensors with poor dynamic range and noisy shadow recovery.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Apr 04, 2015 08:31 |  #1053

Mornnb wrote in post #17504077 (external link)
Canon has much better lenses than either Sony or Nikon have, so the best option is Canon lenses on a Sony A7r.

Lately I've been using my 17mm TS-E on the Leica, which does so much better than the 5D3 in terms of shadow recovery and shadow noise. And also doesn't have lossy raw compression. ;) However, the downside is the super thin glass layer on the sensor (which is to improve rangefinder lens performance) shows sensor dust as more defined and darker dots than any other sensor I've used.

Both Sony and the CMOSIS sensor Leica use, do analog to digital conversion on sensor. Which is the trick to clean shadows and low noise at low ISO. Until Canon figures out a way to do on-sensor ADC, we are going to continue to have sensors with poor dynamic range and noisy shadow recovery.

Not trying to look like a sony afanboy, but the bold sentence is not true, at leastfor a few lenses.
Had both the Canon 16-35L 2.8 and the Sony 16-35 and the sony is by far sharper in the edges. The colors are pretty much the same. I loved my 16-35L but when i got the Sony i didnt hecitate to sell it as the sony is soo good. Its even as good as canons f4 IS if not better. Also the FE55 Zeiss/Sony is claimed to be the sharpest Fullframe AF lens ever made by DXO.... Sure canon has a lot more quality lenses, and so it comes i still use the 24 TSEii on my sonys, but its not that sony is not able to make excellent optics, matching or succeeding canons glasses.


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post edited over 4 years ago by Shadowblade.
     
Apr 04, 2015 12:14 |  #1054

Also, many of the best lenses are made by Zeiss or Sigma and are available in either Canon or Nikon mount. It's hard to beat the Sigma 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, and I'm still waiting to see comparisons of the 24 Art.

But the performance of the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 (all Mk II versions) and the superteles really gives Canon an advantage.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4106
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Apr 04, 2015 13:55 |  #1055

Shadowblade wrote in post #17504268 (external link)
Also, many of the best lenses are made by Zeiss or Sigma and are available in either Canon or Nikon mount. It's hard to beat the Sigma 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, and I'm still waiting to see comparisons of the 24 Art.

But the performance of the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 (all Mk II versions) and the superteles really gives Canon an advantage.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals tested the 24Art and provides MTF charts comparing it with Nikon and Canon offerings.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ma-24-f1-4-art-comparison (external link)


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 04, 2015 17:26 |  #1056

davidfarina wrote in post #17504118 (external link)
Not trying to look like a sony afanboy, but the bold sentence is not true, at leastfor a few lenses.
Had both the Canon 16-35L 2.8 and the Sony 16-35 and the sony is by far sharper in the edges. The colors are pretty much the same. I loved my 16-35L but when i got the Sony i didnt hecitate to sell it as the sony is soo good. Its even as good as canons f4 IS if not better. Also the FE55 Zeiss/Sony is claimed to be the sharpest Fullframe AF lens ever made by DXO.... Sure canon has a lot more quality lenses, and so it comes i still use the 24 TSEii on my sonys, but its not that sony is not able to make excellent optics, matching or succeeding canons glasses.

The 16-35mm L 2.8 is one of Canon's weakest lenses.
And the FE 55mm is the only Sony lens I would regard as exceptional. Sony can pull off great primes but struggles with zooms. The FE 24-70mm f4 and 70-200mm f4 from Sony, are very mediocre and far inferior to the options available from Canon. The FE 16-35mm F4 is also inferior to the 16-35mm F4 IS. Generally one is better off to use the 24-70mm Mark II, the 16-35mm F4 IS and the TS-E lenses on the A7r than Sony's own glass. Indeed the 24-70mm Mark II seems to exceed the resolution of the 36MP sensor at least in the mid frame and sensor, sharp, high contrast and flexible it is one of my favourite landscape lens.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 04, 2015 17:38 |  #1057

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17504359 (external link)
Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals tested the 24Art and provides MTF charts comparing it with Nikon and Canon offerings.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ma-24-f1-4-art-comparison (external link)

I'm rather more interested in what it does at f/2.8-f/8 than what it does at f/1.4.

It seems the Nikon 14-24 still retains its unique advantage for night landscapes of having virtually no coma aberration even in the corners.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,458 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8244
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Apr 04, 2015 17:38 |  #1058

Mornnb wrote in post #17504528 (external link)
The 16-35mm L 2.8 is one of Canon's weakest lenses.
And the FE 55mm is the only Sony lens I would regard as exceptional. Sony can pull off great primes but struggles with zooms. The FE 24-70mm f4 and 70-200mm f4 from Sony, are very mediocre and far inferior to the options available from Canon. The FE 16-35mm F4 is also inferior to the 16-35mm F4 IS. Generally one is better off to use the 24-70mm Mark II, the 16-35mm F4 IS and the TS-E lenses on the A7r than Sony's own glass. Indeed the 24-70mm Mark II seems to exceed the resolution of the 36MP sensor at least in the mid frame and sensor, sharp, high contrast and flexible it is one of my favourite landscape lens.

Can you cite some measured testing that backs up your claim that the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is "FAR" inferior to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?

Would also appreciate the same documentation backing up your claim about the Sony vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 as well.

Thanks.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Apr 04, 2015 18:02 |  #1059

David Arbogast wrote in post #17504536 (external link)
Can you cite some measured testing that backs up your claim that the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is "FAR" inferior to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?

Would also appreciate the same documentation backing up your claim about the Sony vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 as well.

Thanks.

Would like to see the reports as well.
And also, the main point to go to mirrorless was to reduce bulk and weight for me, so using a 24-70 2.8L would kill both aspects to me..


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 04, 2015 18:17 |  #1060

David Arbogast wrote in post #17504536 (external link)
Can you cite some measured testing that backs up your claim that the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is "FAR" inferior to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?

Would also appreciate the same documentation backing up your claim about the Sony vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 as well.

Thanks.

Well I've seen quite a few comparison shots, but in terms of figures it's very difficult to do such comparisons because of the differences in resolution between the A7R and Canon bodies make it impossible to get a completely accurate comparison. Looking at the performance of 3rd party lenses on the D810 and the 5D3, the 36MP sensor tends to add about a quarter to a third to the resolution score figure.

On Dxo, the lenses score the following:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM = 18P-Mpix
Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS = 23P-Mpix

23MP is quite low for a lens on a 36MP sensor, where the EF 70-200mm gets quite close to maxing out the 22MP Canon sensor.


For the wide angles:
Sony FE Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS = 16P-Mpix
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM = 15P-Mpix


This scores should not be so close together for lenses on cameras that have such different resolution.
16P-Mpix is quite mediocre performance for the Sony, given that's less than half the resolution the sensor is capable of.
Now we can look at the performance of the Zeiss Distagon 15mm on the D810 and 5D3 to get an idea of the difference the sensor resolution makes to dxo scores:
5D3: 16P-Mpix
D810: 23P-Mpix


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 04, 2015 18:21 |  #1061

David Arbogast wrote in post #17504536 (external link)
Can you cite some measured testing that backs up your claim that the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is "FAR" inferior to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?

Would also appreciate the same documentation backing up your claim about the Sony vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 as well.

Thanks.

Photozone's test of the Sony 70-200 f/4 shows poor corner performance at the long end - a significant weakness the Canon does not have.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,458 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8244
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Apr 04, 2015 18:47 |  #1062

Shadowblade wrote in post #17504572 (external link)
Photozone's test of the Sony 70-200 f/4 shows poor corner performance at the long end - a significant weakness the Canon does not have.

The "poor corner performance" was limited to 200mm @ f/4 only. Photozone is a tough review site and they rarely give "Highly Recommended" ratings for lenses. Both Sony and Canon models got that same "Highly Recommended" rating. Nothing in the Photozone review suggests the masive disparity that Mornnb claims is there.

Photozone's assessment: "The Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is, undoubtedly, a high quality with just a few weaknesses. The resolution is generally on a very high level except at 200mm @ f/4 where the corners are too soft."

Mornnb claims the FE 70-200mm f4 G OSS is "FAR INFERIOR" than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM - nothing in Photozone's review coroborates Mornnb's damning assessment of the Sony lens.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,458 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8244
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 04, 2015 19:01 |  #1063

Mornnb wrote in post #17504567 (external link)
Well I've seen quite a few comparison shots, but in terms of figures it's very difficult to do such comparisons because of the differences in resolution between the A7R and Canon bodies make it impossible to get a completely accurate comparison. Looking at the performance of 3rd party lenses on the D810 and the 5D3, the 36MP sensor tends to add about a quarter to a third to the resolution score figure.

On Dxo, the lenses score the following:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM = 18P-Mpix
Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS = 23P-Mpix

23MP is quite low for a lens on a 36MP sensor, where the EF 70-200mm gets quite close to maxing out the 22MP Canon sensor.

For the wide angles:
Sony FE Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS = 16P-Mpix
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM = 15P-Mpix

This scores should not be so close together for lenses on cameras that have such different resolution.
16P-Mpix is quite mediocre performance for the Sony, given that's less than half the resolution the sensor is capable of.
Now we can look at the performance of the Zeiss Distagon 15mm on the D810 and 5D3 to get an idea of the difference the sensor resolution makes to dxo scores:
5D3: 16P-Mpix
D810: 23P-Mpix

This is what I suspected you were doing. No actual comparitive data, just an over-the-top value judgment ("far inferior") based on extrapolating DXO Mpix scores of ZOOM lenses. Go ahead and state your doubts about the Sony zooms, that's fine. But, you didn't express doubt; you expressed absolute knowlege without any actual comparison data.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb.
     
Apr 05, 2015 00:00 |  #1064

Perhaps 'far inferior' is an exaggeration. But we do have actual comparison data from Dxo, which we can extrapolate on based on the different sensors.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,458 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8244
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 05, 2015 09:18 |  #1065

Mornnb wrote in post #17504831 (external link)
Perhaps 'far inferior' is an exaggeration. But we do have actual comparison data from Dxo, which we can extrapolate on based on the different sensors.

No, we don't have actual comparison data: that would be lenses tested on the same sensor. We have different data that you are using to extrapolate a result.

I am not trying or desiring to defend these Sony lenses, but I do get frustrated when I see these claims that one product is "far inferior" to another. We're going to see the same hyperbole when Sony/Nikon announce their 50 MP cameras. The poor 5DS R will be regarded as "far inferior". And it won't be true.

For a few months I had a D810 with 14-24 and an a7R with the FE 16-35mm. The 14-24mm enjoys a great reputation, but when I tested the two lenses on their native 36 MP sensors I struggled to find much difference in real-world scene tests at 16mm and 24mm, and I did a lot of pixel-peeping. I became comfortable enought with the FE 16-35mm performance to decide to sell the D810 and 14-24 (just preferred the smaller size). It wouldn't be surprising if the FE 16-35mm was not able to hold an equal DXO score to the Canon version if tested on identical sensor because the FE 16-35mm drops off a good deal at 35mm. But, I don't care: it's a 16-28mm lens for me. I have two 35mm primes that I will use before using the 16-35mm. These Mpix scores for zooms are likely averaged over the whole range, so they don't give any sort of detailed picture of the lens' performance.

I own/use two of the top two DXO Mpix scored lenses (Zeiss 1.4/55mm ZE, and 2/135mm ZE), so I know what amazing lens performance looks like, and yet I also enjoy my Sony FE 24-70mm, which, by most reviews, is a turd of a lens. I get nice images from that lens on my a7R somehow. Are the FE zooms "inferior" to the Canon models? Sure, they may well be. But the performance disparity is not extreme. :)


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

310,809 views & 241 likes for this thread
OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is angkorphoto
868 guests, 354 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.