• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Interesting ...


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:33 AM

I'm currently revisiting the 11-24L to get the 21mp MTFs.

Quite a change ... ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:55 AM

Also funny - the 11-24mm has a maximum CA of 8px in the extreme corner (on 51mp).

One of the reasons why the resolution tanked so much at 11mm.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:22 AM

The software you use is nit very reliable to measure CA anyway, as we have noticed in other reviews (sometimes the samples do not tell the same story at all as the software's number). Not your fault, of course. But it is then a bit difficult to rely on the CA test numbers to compare lenses.

 

And I still am on the position that the sharpening done in the MTF workflow is to blame for skewed lower results for corners. It would be interesting to see scores with no sharpening applied at all in the MFT measuring workflow. My prediction is that the difference between center and corner sharpness is very much reduced.



#4 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:49 AM

What is the real world use case for non-sharpened results ? On the 5Ds R (and A7R II, Fuji X-T1) the sharpening is already minimal (due to the lack of an AA filter).

 

Also - those 8px wide CAs are clearly visible.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#5 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:07 PM

The sharpening exaggerates the sharp results (center) and will not touch results below a certain threshold (corners). Especially the minimal sharpening will have this effect... Stronger sharpening will have a lower threshold. 

 

The sharpening just makes corner results look weaker in comparison to center, that they really are. Of course, not talking about the CA that also lowers resolution and contrast.

 

I do not have the camera(s) and equipment to test the difference, so I can't show the difference.



#6 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:27 PM

Sure, you are right but again - what is the point of using unsharpened images ? Nobody uses unsharpened images in the real life.

In essence we are using the default output of a camera (not really but sort of) - just like the rest of the photographic world.

Numerically this is emphasizing sharper spots ... so ? It's just a increased spread - no more, no less.

 

We've been through all this numerous times.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#7 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:57 PM

Ah, I now understand what you mean here. Yes, the 21mp are relatively sharper on pixel level thus more receptive to sharpening.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#8 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:32 AM

 My 2 cents!

                   It's not just about sharpness and sharpening, but also about detail and resolution. A blurred edge in an image of 50 Mps could cover 6-8 pixels, on 21 Mps it might only cover 3 pixels, on 6 Mps it maybe only one pixel, or with positional luck, maybe even none at all, giving the impression of perfect sharpness, in-spite of low resolution and poor detail,  hence the sharp images we were getting years ago from 4Mps sensors. (not breaking news,  however, it is a contributing factor nonetheless). 

 

  The bottom line is, that, after being tested on the 5DSR, a lot of perfectly good lenses will find themselves,  standing about trembling shamefully.......... with their pants around their ankles!



#9 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 09:47 AM

Didn't we say that already ;-)

 

However, at the end of the day it doesn't matter - if the blur is higher - thus less receptive to sharpening - the chart will only express that the lens is not up to the task of exploiting the sensor potential ... which is the idea behind all this in the first place. :-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#10 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 12:52 PM

"Didn't we say that already?"

 

Where?    In another life? ..... I've looked high and low and I see nothing whatsoever about lenses having their pants around their ankles!

 

 

BTW.  Klaus I see your letter representatives for emoticons but I never see the faces!  :o



#11 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:17 PM

The discussion about the EOS 5Ds R is a bit funny to me.

I've had this discussion with the Sony troops for years regarding the NEX 7. The NEX 7 has a 24mp APS-C sensor - the pixel density is equiv to a 56mp full format sensor (there it is again EQUIVALENCY! ;-) ) ... which explains a lot regarding the border quality issues on that system.

 

Klaus


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#12 AN2

AN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 03 December 2016 - 02:39 PM

Any plan of re-test the EF 70-200 F2.8is II and EF70-200 F4 IS with 5DSR?



#13 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 04 December 2016 - 05:11 AM

Any plan of re-test the EF 70-200 F2.8is II and EF70-200 F4 IS with 5DSR?

 

With a new 70-200mm f/2.8 on the horizon ? Nope.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#14 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 December 2016 - 10:28 AM

Well, bummer... I thought the 70-200/2.8 IS II could have been a great reference lens if retested on 50 MP. A few other lenses that could serve this purpose are the 16-35/4, the 24-70 II, the 35A and the 50A.



#15 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 05 December 2016 - 11:25 AM

A new 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM will be some time into the future still. Just because Nikkor had to update theirs due to various factors (change to electronic aperture in the line, the strong focal length loss) and finally caught up with the Canon and Sony does not automatically mean a new Canon?



#16 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:51 PM

A new 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM will be some time into the future still. Just because Nikkor had to update theirs due to various factors (change to electronic aperture in the line, the strong focal length loss) and finally caught up with the Canon and Sony does not automatically mean a new Canon?

 Even now it's an epic lens!



#17 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,357 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 05 December 2016 - 09:33 PM

http://photorumors.c...00mm-f2-8-lens/

 

Canon will not do it to deliver something substantially better. They will do it in order to have a reason for a much higher price tag.

Same goes for the 24-70mm f/2.8.

 

I don't see how I can do re-testing at the moment. There's just too much stuff out there. 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#18 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 11 December 2016 - 10:18 AM

Well, between the new reviews and re-tests... of course you know what I'd choose. :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de