taob wrote:
Except that's a 46-megapixel Foveon X3 APS-C sensor, which means in terms of spatial frequency (which is what they are measuring), it is only equivalent to a 15-megapixel sensor or so. That's still pretty good (the pixel pitch approaches that of the D800), just not as amazing as they probably want everyone to think.
What you write is absolutely true, however you are missing an extremely large part of the picture here, too, that I feel I should point out.
Lenses that have full frame coverage will have several shots taken, moving around to cover the full frame corners. ;-) So, really it's like checking each lens on a D800. =p
You are right in that it isn't a tiny pixel pitch, but eh, as long as they move the test sensor around to cover the corners, and if their standards are good enough, it means everything that passes will be capable of rockin' quality on a d800. I'm happy about that. lol
Thanks for the link mshi.
I'll share these with the others on Nikon Cafe.
At the end there are more links, one looking at resolution compared to Samyang 35mm f1.4:
AF was very reasonable speed - about the same as Canon 35 f/1.4 on a Canon body, and usually Sigma's AF a bit better in Nikon mount.
Most impressively to me was that it didn't hunt in low light. Again on Canon bodies that's been an endemic issue. I won't have a Nikon mount for some time, though, so I can't compare to the Nikon 35 yet.
RCicala wrote:
AF was very reasonable speed - about the same as Canon 35 f/1.4 on a Canon body, and usually Sigma's AF a bit better in Nikon mount.
Most impressively to me was that it didn't hunt in low light. Again on Canon bodies that's been an endemic issue. I won't have a Nikon mount for some time, though, so I can't compare to the Nikon 35 yet.
This is obscure and hard to test, but I would be curious if they finally reduced the size of an af step.... For example, an MA correction of 5 on a sigma 85 is HUGE compared to a Canon/Nikon lens.
