/p/ - Photography » Thread #3054648

[60 / 12 / ?]

55KiB, 791x558, tstop.png

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 07:44:01 No.3054648 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3054663 >>3054666 >>3054684 >>3054689 >>3054706 >>3054916 >>3054924 >>3054959 >>3057266 >>3057317 >>3059121

What's the deal with DXOmark

No memes please. Why the fuck are their testing different on Nikon and Canon? Do they really favor Nikon( or Sony sensors in general)?

Pic related.

The Nikon sensor is slightly larger, but 3 MP more resolution??
Apparently the exact same lens transmits 0.3 stops more light on nikon?

Also the vignetting is slightly lower on a larger sensor?? What.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 08:44:09 No.3054663 Report

Quoted By: >>3054665

>>3054648
it's just lens variation.
they also tested on cameras and not test bench.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 08:51:47 No.3054665 Report

Quoted By: >>3054675 >>3054706

>>3054663
If you select same third party lens on different systems their values will vary. You can see how the pattern is towards a currently favored system.
Also, notice there are no open descriptions of their measuring methods and no raw data or photos of the charts published.
There is literally nothing to support their scoring.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers049.jpg, 238KiB, 533x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 08:55:43 No.3054666 Report

Quoted By: >>3054676 >>3054706 >>3057280

>>3054648
I think what it's saying is that you can safely disregard DXOMark.
Regarding that actual lense though, if you're looking to buy one, rather than just shitposting about a website; it's good, you should get it and use it on a film camera.
On digi it has a little barrel distortion and very prominent longitudinal CA, but generally it's the cheapest, widest, fastest, sharpest option.

OP Mon 10 Apr 2017 09:49:29 No.3054675 Report

Quoted By: >>3054706

>>3054665
>Also, notice there are no open descriptions of their measuring methods and no raw data or photos of the charts published.

This is what makes me call bullshit. At least I can count on 3rd party lenses to be accurate if I look at the favored systems and the measurement.

OP Mon 10 Apr 2017 09:51:04 No.3054676 Report

Quoted By: >>3054683 >>3054977

>>3054666
>Regarding that actual lense though, if you're looking to buy one, rather than just shitposting about a website; it's good, you should get it and use it on a film camera.

I'm going to get it for my Canon 80D.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:20:58 No.3054683 Report

Quoted By: >>3054687 >>3054759

>>3054676
The optics in that lens were designed for film and lower MP FF (big pixel size) so expect some unpleasant things happening at 100% crop.
It is still a nice lens though, especially stopped down to f/2 or more. If you frame properly there will be no visible problems at A4 size prints.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:27:47 No.3054684 Report

Quoted By: >>3054706

>>3054648
dxo tosses all their canon stuff down a few flights of stairs before testing them

OP Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:31:34 No.3054687 Report

Quoted By: >>3054688

>>3054683
What makes you say it was made for film?
I was under the impression no one was making modern film lenses anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:37:47 No.3054688 Report

Quoted By: >>3054700 >>3054759 >>3059478

>>3054687
It is an old optical design.
For example, Tamron recently updated their 90mm macro lens with a new optical formula. The one they sold for DI as in Digitally Integrated or designed for digital was the same they had in the early 90s in the Adaptall mount and later the screwdrive Pentax and Nikon mounts. The same optics designed for film (because not even the early 640x480 p&s sensors were in development) was later sold for digital with simply using a newer coating and calling it a day. Same thing goes for the Sigma 30/1.4, same old optics used for film primarily in a new digital packaging and coating and recently slapping the "Art" badge on them.
With Sigma, "Art" doesn't necessarily mean it is a new optical design, it is mostly just a PR badge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:44:53 No.3054689 Report

Quoted By: >>3054706

>>3054648
>What's the deal with DXOmark
>No memes please
>DXOmark
>No memes
keked

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 10:47:25 No.3054691 Report

Quoted By: >>3054706

DORXmark

OP Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:09:29 No.3054700 Report

Quoted By: >>3054704

>>3054688
interesting. Do you have a link to where I can read more about old designs etc?

What lens is the 30mm "art" based on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:23:19 No.3054704 Report

Quoted By: >>3054759 >>3057292

>>3054700
I usually use various forums discussions including MFforums for vintage designs and Pentaxforums has the biggest third party lens database.
If only Canon had a similar thing including third party database...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:28:02 No.3054706 Report

Quoted By: >>3054708 >>3054713 >>3054716

>>3054648
Sample variation and differences in cover glass may account for differences across mounts.

>>3054665
>>3054666
>>3054675
>>3054684
>>3054689
>>3054691
Lol, spot the salty canon and fuji users
You're anger is based on misconceptions btw, dxo publish their full testing methodology.

https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:32:23 No.3054708 Report

Quoted By: >>3054718

>>3054706
Please post the test chart photos of the lens in OP

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:35:30 No.3054713 Report

Quoted By: >>3054718

>>3054706
LOL https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/Testing-lab
>DxO Labs’ testing facility consists of a large room

Spot the faggot that relies on DXO to spam his favorite brand

OP Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:39:04 No.3054716 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054706
>Sample variation

I thought DXOmark was supposed to "scientific"
>1 sample

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 11:40:00 No.3054718 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054713
What's wrong with them using a large room, painted neutral matte grey, which is temperature and humidity controlled and light checked for colour neutrality with a spectrometer?

Sounds decent to me son.

>>3054708
Why? You're not dxoanalyzer software?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 30VHP505.jpg, 124KiB, 576x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 12:51:43 No.3054759 Report

Quoted By: >>3054767 >>3054914

>>3054683
>>3054688
>>3054704
Holy shit, you're very retarded.
The Sigma 30/1.4 has always been a digital-only lense, it is only designed to cover an APS-C sensor.
It has two versions, the older one was also designed for APS-C digital.
The whole point of it is to be a fast normal for the smaller sensor.
The reason I suggested it for film is because the new version on vignettes softly out towards the corners, as shown in my example, and it's brutally sharp in the centre.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 13:11:40 No.3054767 Report

Quoted By: >>3054912 >>3054974 >>3059478

>>3054759
The 30/1.4 A is a baffled version of the old 30/1.4 EX DC that is FF. Same thing that Pentax did with their old FA 35/2, baffled and the aperture also limited to f/2.4 for the DA line.
Optics are the same, the image circle has been limited.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 19:54:45 No.3054912 Report

Quoted By: >>3059478

>>3054767
>30/1.4 EX DC
>DC
DC is for crop sensored cameras only

DG is engineered to cover 35mm frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 20:04:11 No.3054914 Report

Quoted By: >>3054974

>>3054759
I'm confused by your exif

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 20:05:09 No.3054916 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054648
Canon bodies make lenses shittier.
This is well known fact.

But more seriously: stuff like vignetting does depend on the particular sensor.
Don't see how the transmission could be that different though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 20:16:47 No.3054924 Report

Quoted By: >>3054942

>>3054648
>D500 Vs 7D mk2
Here's your problem. Also DxOmark is fucking irrelevant. You use a lens because you need it, not because of Muh per-pixel sharpness in shenanigans benchmark.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 20:45:29 No.3054942 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054924
You're not supposed to compare camera bodies.

You're supposed to select your own body and compare how lenses perform FOR YOU.

It's not DXO's fault Canon users are so insecure and butthurt.

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Mon 10 Apr 2017 21:27:54 No.3054959 Report

Quoted By: >>3054961 >>3055406 >>3059045

>>3054648

>crop-babby pixel-peeping proletariats butt-jelly their shit-tier glass performs bad on soccer mom sensors

Say it ain't so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 21:32:38 No.3054961 Report

Quoted By: >>3054974

>>3054959
Sugar, you are a crop babby pixel peeper trucking proletarian

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO binnaburra051.jpg, 291KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 22:02:26 No.3054974 Report

Quoted By: >>3059457

>>3054914
That is a film photo taken with the Sigma 30mm Art, scanned with a Canon 100mm Macro on a 550D.
>>3054767
Again, you are entirely wrong. There has never been a Sigma 30mm designed to cover full frame.
The optics are completely different between the EX and the Art version.
The EX version has a "hard" vignette on full frame, with cut off image corners. The Art *just* throws light all the way to the corners, but doesn't give sharp definition to the very edge.
>>3054961
Stop, you'll just make him post more phone snapshits of his new Df.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pst001.jpg, 630KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 22:06:14 No.3054977 Report

Quoted By: >>3054979

>>3054676
>I'm going to get it for my Canon 80D.
You will be happy as a pig in shit.
My very first set for /p/ was taken with that lense on my 550D.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pst003.jpg, 1MiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 22:08:05 No.3054979 Report

Quoted By: >>3054981

>>3054977

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pst005.jpg, 1016KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 22:10:06 No.3054981 Report

Quoted By: >>3054982

>>3054979

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5399.jpg, 137KiB, 600x800

Anonymous Mon 10 Apr 2017 22:12:53 No.3054982 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054981

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO adqMQ7d_460s.jpg, 58KiB, 460x460

Anonymous Tue 11 Apr 2017 16:40:59 No.3055406 Report

Quoted By: >>3055969 >>3055972 >>3057273

>>3054959
See
>>2975237
>>2983946
>>2997574
>>2999251
>>3008473
>>3048113
>>3051287

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Apr 2017 20:56:25 No.3055969 Report

Quoted By:

>>3055406
that last truck pic is actually alright, but worse than the red singer pic he was needlessly shittalking

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Apr 2017 21:02:01 No.3055972 Report

Quoted By:

>>3055406
give it back

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 10:01:07 No.3057266 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054648
So did you buy one yet, OP?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 10:09:11 No.3057273 Report

Quoted By:

>>3055406
What's any of that got to do with your endless whining due to your crop babby camera and shit tier lenses not performing the same as an a7rii and otus even though your photos are "perfectly sharp" and images look "great" and dxo is just a marketing tool.

If you only ever eat hersheys chocolate or worse, of course you have no idea what you're missing from a proper chocolate bar. But you have to break free of your povvo cunt lifestyle to experience the difference, which none of you whiney cunts ever do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 10:34:49 No.3057280 Report

Quoted By: >>3057288

>>3054666
>On digi it has a little barrel distortion and very prominent longitudinal CA
and on film this disappears? how

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 11:10:42 No.3057288 Report

Quoted By: >>3057294

>>3057280
Well if you shoot black and white the longitudinal CA does disappear.
And yeah actually, I think a lot of the distortion is mainly around that middle ground section of the image field that forms the crop sensor borders, before straightening out a bit at the FF image circle's edges. And I think the distortion is more pronounced at close focusing distances. This probably comes from the combination of the internal focusing design and aspherical lense elements.
But also, I suppose when I'm intentionally shooting a special effects lense on film, I'm a little less critical of the IQ than when I'm shooting a $500 prime on digital, even if they are the exact same lense; the different application for the same tool will change your impression of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 11:28:26 No.3057292 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054704

Isn't dyxum bigger than pentaxforums?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 11:31:40 No.3057294 Report

Quoted By:

>>3057288
ah, so you are comparing full frame black&white photos to color cropped photos
makes sense

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2017 12:50:17 No.3057317 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054648
>The Nikon sensor is slightly larger, but 3 MP more resolution??
Different AA filters.
>Apparently the exact same lens transmits 0.3 stops more light on nikon?
>Also the vignetting is slightly lower on a larger sensor?? What.
Different structure of cells.
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 11:39:51 No.3059045 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054959
Bumping for patrician lense slash remind sugar to kys himself.

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v Tue 18 Apr 2017 12:39:15 No.3059068 Report

Quoted By: >>3059074 >>3059089 >>3059342

Ask yourself "when was the last time a DxO score told me anything that mattered to my photography?"

When you realize the answer is "never"

And you realize a lot of their lens/body scores are interpretation vs. testing

...you start to lose reasons to go there and fuck with their app

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 12:43:42 No.3059074 Report

Quoted By: >>3059306

>>3059068
Actually I used the sharpness maps to confirm that the 28-75 tamron is awesome value on a crop body as its centre 2/3 is crazy sharp even wide open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 12:53:37 No.3059089 Report

Quoted By: >>3059137

>>3059068
I find the T-stop measurements to be valuable.

I'd like to know if a lens is shit or not for low light.

example: For low light, the canon 35 f2 IS is just as good as the Sigma 30 f1.4. Actually its better since it has IS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 14:01:38 No.3059121 Report

Quoted By: >>3059131 >>3059271

>>3054648

It's a meme, probably funded by Sony desu

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 14:25:47 No.3059131 Report

Quoted By: >>3059136

>>3059121
Fab argument, I like how you backed it up with unjustified biased opinion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 14:28:40 No.3059136 Report

Quoted By: >>3059143

>>3059131

t. Sony worker

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO obiektyw2-1-medium.jpg, 32KiB, 500x364

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 14:29:21 No.3059137 Report

Quoted By: >>3059143

>>3059089
This. Nothing worse that realising that a lens' light transmission is actually one stop slower that the f number marketed because of all the insane amount of elements used.

Pic very related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 14:54:24 No.3059143 Report

Quoted By: >>3059248 >>3059361

>>3059136
another superb rebuttal
You never did debate at school huh.

>>3059137
The fuji 56mm f1.2 apd is over a whole stop slower than advertised, coming in at nearly t1.8.
The Sony 55mm f1.8 is t1.8, because Sony are Based. the discrepancy between the 2 values is a good indication of the quality of glass used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:03:06 No.3059248 Report

Quoted By:

>>3059143
>The fuji 56mm f1.2 apd is over a whole stop slower than advertised, coming in at nearly t1.8

its also not advertised as a t1.2 lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:45:36 No.3059271 Report

Quoted By:

>>3059121
If it was funded by Sony the A6300 and A6500 should be in the lens database by now, they aren't.

If it was funded by Sony, the A7Rii wold have been in the lens database long before the 5DS R. But it isn't, it wasn't added until much, much later.

Sony is given third rate treatment despite having all the most exciting sensors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 22:17:05 No.3059306 Report

Quoted By: >>3059342

>>3059074
I've also use the sharpness maps.
But to see if a teleconverter would be worth it, and if it should be 1.4X, 1.7X or 2.0X.

I've also used the noise charts to see at which point raising ISO doesn't perform better than raising exposure in post.

People only hate on DXO because they jump to the combined score instead of looking at individual measurements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Apr 2017 23:45:27 No.3059342 Report

Quoted By: >>3060949

>>3059306
>I've also used the noise charts to see at which point raising ISO doesn't perform better than raising exposure in post.
This.
>>3059068
>Ask yourself "when was the last time a DxO score told me anything that mattered to my photography?"
I selected my camera so that it requires as weak profiling as possible. DXOMark helped me in that. If I did not do it I would probably end up buying a fucking Canon because of cheap optics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Apr 2017 00:47:18 No.3059361 Report

Quoted By:

>>3059143
>The fuji 56mm f1.2 apd is over a whole stop slower than advertised, coming in at nearly t1.8.
That's because it has an apodising filter, you bloody moron.
It is essentially an aperture stop made from an ND filter that is clear in the middle and dark at the edges.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO BinnaburraEOSITN00019.jpg, 908KiB, 1500x1000

Anonymous Wed 19 Apr 2017 04:13:10 No.3059457 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054974
I went back to the same forest with the 30/1.4 Art and a camera loaded with Fuji IT-N, shooting at ISO 1.5 on a tripod with a remote release, and took a direct comparison shot. This is obviously also wide open.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ElanAgfaPro20000016.jpg, 335KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Wed 19 Apr 2017 05:13:34 No.3059478 Report

Quoted By:

>>3054912
>>3054767
>>3054688
And for the posters who don't believe there's any difference between the old SIgma 30mm and the new one, here is a snap taken with the original non-Art 30/1.4 in EF mount, on shitty old Agfa "Pro" 200.
It clearly don't even come close to covering the full frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Apr 2017 03:45:30 No.3060949 Report

Quoted By:

>>3059342
>I selected my camera so that it requires as weak profiling as possible
What kind of "profiling" do you think a camera needs?
To achieve what purpose?
You know actual photographers don't waste their time with this trivial shit, right?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches