I'm currently using a Canon 6D, and have been comparing the dpreview test shots of the D810 and 5DSR as possible upgrades, and I quite the like the D810 as an option as it looks like Canon are still miles behind on shadow noise and the D810 goes a long way towards capturing the extra detail that a 5DSR would, plus the D810 is cheaper. But when I look at comparisons such as the above, it really puts me off.
Is the guy from the-digital-picture simply doing something wrong and the real-world Nikon results are nothing like that? When dpreview compared the D3x to the 1DsIII it gave a totally different impression to the above, with the D3x looking much better than the 1DsIII: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3X/28
The test shots from the-digital-picture.com are the only thing that has stopped me from switching to Nikon for a few years now, so I'd be interested in hearing views on whether they are simply not representative of Nikon results in practice, and if not, can anyone explain how exactly he's getting such poor results?
p.1 #2 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
I can't explain what is going on at TDP, but I've found the site's tests were always a bit off in terms of results. I don't compare to Canon, but when the results were stellar, they typically ran tru to real life, short if that, it was a grab bag if they were accurate vs my own experience. My own results were almost always better than TDP test would show. Odd, but any one of a 100 variables could be at play. I wouldn't let any one site's test hold you back. best bet is to rent or borrow what's of interest if able and give it a spin shooting what you normally shoot.
p.1 #3 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
A number of the lens tests I've seen contradict my experience and that of other review sites. The relative sizes of the comparison pictures vary and judging by the fringing on wide open shots I suspect he just uses the af. I wouldn't let results from one site with no published test methods stop you.
p.1 #4 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
A 100% magnified test chart shot with easily avoidable CA is not what I would be using to compare lenses, never mind camera bodies. Rest assured that all else being equal, picture quality will not be worse on the Nikon, and in some situations it will be a lot better. You could take a terrible sample shot like that with a Canon too, and it of course would not be representative of Canon's capabilities.
Why not pop over to the D810 images thread to get a much better indication of what the camera is capable of in real-world scenarios:
I can't think of many situations where I would rather be using a 5DSR over a D810 except possibly base-ISO studio-lit shots, and even then, only if I had to make enormous prints from the final product. The price difference buys you a nice lens too.
p.1 #6 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
I like the reviews on DP but the test shots are for the birds. Like others have said, I've noticed that the results of those lens tests didn't match my findings. I certainly wouldn't rely on any of their tests to determine whether I should purchase or not purchase a lens or camera.
p.1 #7 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
Thanks for the feedback everyone, I think you must all be right, and for whatever reason his test shots just aren't performed in a consistent optimal manner. It's a great shame because conceptually it's a really nice way to be able to compare different lenses, but if he's not necessarily capturing the image to the best possible standard every time, it's not much use.
I'm starting to think manufacturer MTF charts might be about as good a way as any to compare lenses, certainly the relative performance of the various Canon lenses I've owned has been very strongly related to their published MTF charts. I suspect each manufacturer's charts are probably correct relative to their own lenses. Whether it's valid to compare a Nikon MTF chart to Canon and Sigma MTF charts, for example, I'm less confident about.
p.1 #8 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
stevei wrote:
I'm starting to think manufacturer MTF charts might be about as good a way as any to compare lenses, certainly the relative performance of the various Canon lenses I've owned has been very strongly related to their published MTF charts. I suspect each manufacturer's charts are probably correct relative to their own lenses. Whether it's valid to compare a Nikon MTF chart to Canon and Sigma MTF charts, for example, I'm less confident about.
Just keep in mind other than I think zeiss, they are all theoretical not based on tests of actual lenses.
p.1 #9 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
The Digital Picture test results have never correlated with my own findings with regards to Nikon lenses. I use all the better test sites like LenScore, DXOMark, Photozone, Ephotozine etc and not rely on just one site to garner an impression of a lens. I don't know what they do at TDP, but it sure as hell doesn't correspond with my results.
p.1 #10 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
The-Digital-Picture does a very good job of describing the physical characteristics of a camera or lens, and how it handles. He describes weather-sealing, if any, in good detail, which many reviewers seem to ignore. T-D-P seems to make it a point to test compatible Canon lenses with the applicable Extenders, and provides opinion on whether it is a good idea to use specific lens/Extender combinations. (Extender = tele-converter)
I have, however, scratched my head a few times while reading and viewing his images and lens data, so have disregarded that part. T-D-P is probably much better at evaluating Canon cameras than any brand of lenses.
I'm currently using a Canon 6D, and have been comparing the dpreview test shots of the D810 and 5DSR as possible upgrades, and I quite the like the D810 as an option as it looks like Canon are still miles behind on shadow noise and the D810 goes a long way towards capturing the extra detail that a 5DSR would, plus the D810 is cheaper. But when I look at comparisons such as the above, it really puts me off.
Is the guy from the-digital-picture simply doing something wrong and the real-world Nikon results are nothing like that? When dpreview compared the D3x to the 1DsIII it gave a totally different impression to the above, with the D3x looking much better than the 1DsIII: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3X/28
The test shots from the-digital-picture.com are the only thing that has stopped me from switching to Nikon for a few years now, so I'd be interested in hearing views on whether they are simply not representative of Nikon results in practice, and if not, can anyone explain how exactly he's getting such poor results?...Show more →
This is a test of lenses not bodies and is useless for comparing bodies. To compare bodies you need to do so with the same lens and this is what DPR do making it the right resource for comparative body evaluation.
This is also a good example of the value of test charts as opposed to "real world" shooting. The 105 macro, while a very old optical design, I find is a lovely lens to use. It handles beautifully and has a very pleasant rendering. It is also plenty sharp and makes an equally nice portrait lens.
Just use the DPR results as this test is useless for your purpose.
p.1 #12 · Image quality tests on the-digital-picture.com
Mark_L wrote:
A number of the lens tests I've seen contradict my experience and that of other review sites. The relative sizes of the comparison pictures vary and judging by the fringing on wide open shots I suspect he just uses the af. I wouldn't let results from one site with no published test methods stop you.
I agree, I would never let the reviews from 1 site influence me. Especially since it's so easy to influence a test whether intentionally or unintentionally.
