>>4072518>except "sensor tests" are only valid for comparison if the same exact lens is used.>1% difference at chosen aperture>INVALID REEEEEEEDid dpreview show your sensor, or your brand's prime lenses, to be shit or something? Technically, yes, you could throw a Zeiss Otus on something and it would do a bit better. But if your 20mp m43 is getting its ass kicked by a 61mp FF Sony, it's not because of the lens.
>blur <2>BLURRY CORNERSReally dude? Also: your lens tests were performed on very different camera sensors (8mp vs 18mp). It's a good bet they're not directly comparable across a gap that wide if you're going to nitpick the last couple percentage points of performance. And yes, pixel density IMPROVES sharpness. The corners of a 50mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6 would look better on a 7D than a 20D.
> they should have uaed this:>>>4072366 sharp cornersThis is your bitch? Dude...the 90D and M6 ii files are pretty damn sharp. About as sharp as they're going to get with the AA filters Canon put on them. (The newer AA filter designs on the R3/5/6 and 1DX mark III are much better.) Who the fuck is judging them against other cameras by scrolling out to the extreme corners? If they had used a Zeiss Otus or a 135 ART then you would be bitching that the other brands don't have lenses that good. When they started that tool I don't believe there was a single lens, adaptable to every mount, with extremely high IQ. If they redid the database I think they could adapt an Otus to everything. But then someone would bitch (probably you) that an Otus DSLR lens doesn't belong on mirrorless, or that nobody can afford that lens, or....
>you decide to get f1.4...you don't know you should stop down most of the time...your friend's photo is better...First world problems. Learn photography.
>or in dpreview reviews. The Studio Scene tool doesn't exist to explain photography to you. It exists to let knowledgeable people compare sensors. You know of a better tool for this purpose? I don't.
