Hi zoners,
You will surely find this link elsewhere :
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publica...n-help-you
I like the approach and the new readability it provides on some key problems (their example of the Sigma new killer on modest bodies) but I'm not sure how it's going to provide much added value (there are still many other parameters) in the end as most people will still look for "best" rather than "good enough" given cameras have such a short lifespan that it is seen as a replaceable.
Also, what I found interesting is the huge gap between FF vs APS-C/FT/MFT systems. And also how MFT primes were only overlapping with high class APS-C zoom lenses (typical 7D + 17-55 for instance).
What do you think of this new scale ?
Greetings,
S.
edited : terrible english today...
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Interesting idea. Finding it a little hard getting their example in my head though, the suggestion being the 5D1 would score higher in the real world than the 7D with those 35mm lenses. As a previous owner of the 5D1 I couldn't say it ever felt like giving much resolution by current standards. This may simply be down to my evaluation not replicating their methodology which I'll have to look into further.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
Looks like system resolution to me, expressed in megapixels.
Still doesn't tell one anything, because it will be different for each camera, and is still not comparable unless one converts it to real resolution. I have been workinh on a metric to be able to compare lenses more or less independently of camera brands, although medium (i.e., sensor) size is a factor still. I may post a few results yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />/>.
In the past it was much easier: we always used the same film and development techniques, based on photographs taken exactly the same way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />/>. I reckon they are trying to create something similar, and yes that is kinda based on human eye acutancy etc., because it is a metric based on system resolution, which by default is measured agaianst a general standard. I just wonder what their exact criteria are.
Warm regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Hi Wim,
When used in DxOmark listings as a sort criteria, it does make some sort of sense IMO. These listing are indeed a combination of lense + body. So, true to one of their goals, it does tell you if a premium 35mm "A" on a 7D is going to give a much a bigger boost than an a cheaper 35 "B" on a 5D, for instance. For their "system buying guide" purpose, it does kind of work IMHO. But it is true people still need to go deeper to get the whole picture. It was to be expected that DxO would be criticized even though they didn't ever state it was to become their one and only review criteria.
I'd be interested to see your metric :-)
Greetings,
S.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1355791835' post='21215']
Looks like system resolution to me, expressed in megapixels.
Still doesn't tell one anything, because it will be different for each camera, and is still not comparable unless one converts it to real resolution. I have been workinh on a metric to be able to compare lenses more or less independently of camera brands, although medium (i.e., sensor) size is a factor still. I may post a few results yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />/>/>/>.
In the past it was much easier: we always used the same film and development techniques, based on photographs taken exactly the same way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />/>/>/>. I reckon they are trying to create something similar, and yes that is kinda based on human eye acutancy etc., because it is a metric based on system resolution, which by default is measured agaianst a general standard. I just wonder what their exact criteria are.
Warm regards, Wim
[/quote]
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1355791835' post='21215']
Looks like system resolution to me, expressed in megapixels.
...
[/quote]
+1... And what would these max imum (?) "megapixels" mean in terms of quantifying the perceived sharpness is still open to me.
But I think it will be possible to reverse-calculate the lens' own max resolution in lp/mm for the respective f-stop value.
Serkan
|
