Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 (Sony E)
#11
Quote:Even Samsung has a much better selection of quality glass.
Just to add: Samsung's NX system is quite competent IMO, it just lacks the marketing splash of the others.
#12
Be it as it may - I like shooting with my Nex-6, my most often used lens is actually the wonderfully sharp Sigma 60mm f/2.8.

#13
Another question - and this could be the really interesting one with regard to Sony's behavior in this respect - is whether all of this is noticeable without pixel-peeping or printing relatively large. My guess here is that the vast majority of Sony's customers don't notice the problems on the image borders and thus Sony does not care enough to change something. Doesn't make things better though...  :ph34r:

 

 

 

DAVES CLICHES;  The deal is there's little point in making advances in sensors with the removal of low pass filters without corresponding quality in lenses to match, we are already "there" with both, there is just to ascertain which lenses on which bodies, I for one don't want to find out the hard way, that is the beauty of being able to read reviews knowing what you actually going to get in terms of results, so theses test serve something to Sony users.   

#14
Quote:Yep, a big question mark with Sony's Nex and it's registration distance, I'm not sure if my Pentax K3 doesn't use the same sensor, (similar if not)  but with it's 43mm approx. reg distance it has no problems with sharp corners and borders, in fact quite the contrary.

 
That can't be right, as Canon has a flange distance of 44mm. I looked it up and behold, Pentax' flange distance is 45.46mm (same as M42) B)
#15
I did say approx!  I was within a foot of being spot on!

#16
Well, as some hinted - the (primary) competition (MFT & Fuji) stays at 16mp thus 24mp may just stretching things too much.

Things weren't too bad during the initial series of Sony NEX tests (at 14mp).

 

On the other hand the Samsungs are quite good on 20mp at least.

#17
Quote:Well, as some hinted - the (primary) competition (MFT & Fuji) stays at 16mp thus 24mp may just stretching things too much.

Things weren't too bad during the initial series of Sony NEX tests (at 14mp).
MFT at 16 MPs has the same pixel density as APS-C (Sony) at 24. But yes, somehow 24 MPs are troublesome with Sony mirrorless cams. As said, I like my Nex-6 a lot Rolleyes !!
#18
Quote:Mostly irrelevant.  These are the combination of lens + sensor system.   You can't make strong conclusions on the lenses alone.  

The confounding NEX-7 sensor not only seems to give relatively poor corner results, but conversely seems to give exceptional center results which makes the graphs look even more skewed.  

 

As long as PZ insists on keeping on testing on the outstanding-and-flawed NEX-7, it's a waste of PZ's time and the reader's time.  Sorry to say.  The results just keep on repeating what we already know, which is that the sensor dominates the lens-sensor system.
 

 

Couldn't agree more. The old 16MP sensor works wonders on my lenses. But the 24MP sensor on the Nex7 and SA77 was terrible. Nearly every lens looked bad on it, and that is based on my 5k+ or so shots on my own A77.

 

The 24MP sensor is  so flawed many lens reviewer wouldn't use it. Seriously, please use the newer 24MP sensor or the older 16MP APSC sensor for reviews, so the review would actually mean something.
#19
As mentioned - the results on the A6000 don't seem to be better. I will do another formal test here to verify this though.

Going back to the 16mp sensor doesn't make any sense - it is essentially deprecated.

The 20mp sensor could be an option but honestly we prefer to go for a top of the line sensor (at the point in time when starting the tests).

Honestly I don't even think it's the sensor itself but the thickness of thr protective glass. See the discussions around the Loxia lenses.
#20
I think I mentioned this before but lensrental did an article how the thickness of the filter infront of the sensor has a huge impact on lens performance. They inserted some filters on certain cameras to improve lenses. I can see how this would be more problematic for 'generic' lenses that are designed for multiple cameras which has varying filter thickness.

 

It was not clear to me why this was the case given that the filter did not appear to be optical but it might explain some of the result differences between sony and fuji for the 'same' lens.

--

Here is a link to part 3; part 1 or part 2 has some real data how adding a bit of glass behind the lense improved the performance:

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/...he-summary

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)