mawz Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
LeifG wrote:
You'd be very hard pressed to see one stop of DR unless you do some really extreme processing of the shadows, and I mean extreme. The D750 is the true comparison given the pixel count, and 24MP versus 21MP is neither here nor there especially since the D750 has a low pass filter. So the only real advantage is 1 stop less noise, but measurements show it to be less than that and in practice the D500 noise is better controlled. So a slight IQ advantage to the D750 at high ISO, worthwhile for those who pursue high ISO perhaps.
But I'd hardly call that "a massive step down".
In fact the D500 has some advantages such as an electronic front curtain shutter and eyepiece shutter which can have a significant impact on image quality. In fact I'd say the main difference was the ability to get shallower DOF on the D750 with a given lens e.g. 24mm F1.4. ...Show more →
Having shot both the 24MP sensor FX and higher DR 24MP DX, the DR difference can readily be seen in both highlight and shadows if you do any sort of recovery or moderate curves. My experience is while I don't necessarily need the extra DR, I certainly can see it.
Head over to the dpreview Sigma 24mm Art review, or the Photozone reviews of 24mm and 35mm F1.8 lenses and the equivalent Sigma Arts. The difference is minor and perhaps only noticeable in a test environment. The key differences are the wider aperture on the Art's, and the smaller size and weight of the Nikons. You takes your pick.
OP has the 50 and 35 Art's. The 50 Art utterly humbles the 50/1.8G at wide apertures (whose major weakness is CA) just like it embarrasses most 50's other than the Otus or the 50/2 APO-Summicron-M. The 35 Art is closer to the 35/1.8G, but still significantly outperforms it in pretty much all measures. The 24's are a different story, with the 24 Art lacking the 50 and 35 Art's superbly controlled CA and having some sharpness falloff at the corners, while the 24/1.8G does very similarly.
Photozone hasn't even tested the 24 1.8G's on FX (they've only tested the 20, 28, 35, 50 and 85 on FX, plus the 35/1.8G DX on DX which isn't as good as the FX 35/1.8G) (they also really need to update their indexes, one set shows the 35/1.8G and 50 Art reviews, the other set does not). DPReview's testing supports my conclusions for the 35's and 50's.
For the 35 ART vs 35/1.8G, PZ shows less barrel distortion for the Art (1.5% vs >1%), in resolution terms the G catches up in the centre at f2.8 and in the edges at f5.6 but at f1.8 it's not as good as the Art is at f1.4, CA is better controlled on the Art at most apertures and fringing (LoCA) isn't even close (the 35G does quite poorly there while the Art is near-APO performance). The only spot where the G matches the Art is in wide aperture regular CA, but only wide open, the Art beats it everywhere else for regular CA as well.
|