p.26 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I was about to say just this. If they update their test for the 45mp R5 we may have a more comparable sharpness score to the 85GM on the 42mp A7RIII. I believe Zach at lensrentals said the RF was the sharpest lens he's used in his review and Dustin Abbott who I trust seemed to put it in a league of its own along with only the Otus.
NJPhotographer wrote:
DXOMark's sharpness scores appear to be tied to the resolution of the test camera. So test on higher resolution camera and you get an apparently "sharper" lens. The RF lenses are bound to score lower because DXO is testing them on lower res cameras. DXO is inherently unreliable in this respect. According to DXO, the ultra-expensive mirrorless RF 50/1.2L is not the slightest bit sharper than the junky EF 50/1.4 from 1993. Both score 22 for sharpness. DXO even rates the buzzy-motor original EF 35/2 (from 1990!) as "sharper" than the new RF 50/1.2L Anybody who believes that should consider buying a large bridge in Brooklyn. ...Show more →
p.26 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Checking DXO to see which lens has the highest sharpness number is fun and all but the truth is, all these lenses are very sharp.
Rendering is a different story and I find the 85/1.4 GM hard to beat. The FE135/1.8 GM for example, sure is sharper but imo rendering is not as pleasant. Yes, the 85/1.4 GM has a bit of axial CA and RSA wide open but in exchange we get smooth rendering across the frame with beautiful round highlights all the way to the edges.
We should worry more about aesthetics than lab results. All brands have great lenses and cameras. It's a personal decision which one is better for our photography.
p.26 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
DXOMark's sharpness scores appear to be tied to the resolution of the test camera. So test on higher resolution camera and you get an apparently "sharper" lens. The RF lenses are bound to score lower because DXO is testing them on lower res cameras. DXO is inherently unreliable in this respect. According to DXO, the ultra-expensive mirrorless RF 50/1.2L is not the slightest bit sharper than the junky EF 50/1.4 from 1993. Both score 22 for sharpness. DXO even rates the buzzy-motor original EF 35/2 (from 1990!) as "sharper" than the new RF 50/1.2L Anybody who believes that should consider buying a large bridge in Brooklyn. ...Show more →
Of course, it is tied to the resolution of the test camera. This is true for all lenses. This indeed makes DXOMark's testing inherently more reliable because a lens sharpness not only depends on the lens itself but also on the camera used for the test and, DXOMark keeps that in mind when they test the lenses.
According to DXOMark, EF 50/1.4 USM scores 22 on the EOS 5Ds R and 20 on 5D mark iv. 5Ds R has a 50mp sensor while, 5D mark iv has a 30mp sensor which is probably the same sensor in the EOS R. This means the junky EF 50/1.4 lens is not quite as sharp as the new RF 50/1.2 but isn't quite far below either; only slightly less sharp. Is there anything wrong with this conclusion? I don't have any reason to think so.
The Sony FE 50mm/1.8 scores very high in sharpness. According to DXOMark, it scores sharper than some much more expensive lenses (though it may fall short in some other factors like CA, bokeh rendering, flare, etc.). Even worse, it costs a fraction of the price of those more expensive lenses.
That said, do we know how DXOMark recommend interpreting their scores relative to other lenses? I admit I have not checked on that. Maybe, they have their own recommendations.
p.26 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
That’s exactly why DxO is less reliable for assessing lens quality. It’s more of a reflection of the camera sensor resolution. It would lead someone to believe a lens like the RF 85 f1.2 is inferior to Sony and Nikon 85mm lenses only because it was tested on a 30mp sensor and thus has a max DxO sharpness score of 30mp. Now that a camera like the R5 is available I expect it to score closer to 45mp sharpness if/when it is tested on that body. The 85GM scored 36mp on the 42mp A7RII body. I fully expect the RF 85 f1.2 to outresolve the 85GM once tested and score somewhere in the 40mp+ range on the R5.
raminolta wrote:
Of course, it is tied to the resolution of the test camera. This is true for all lenses. This indeed makes DXOMark's testing inherently more reliable because a lens sharpness not only depends on the lens itself but also on the camera used for the test and, DXOMark keeps that in mind when they test the lenses.
According to DXOMark, EF 50/1.4 USM scores 22 on the EOS 5Ds R and 20 on 5D mark iv. 5Ds R has a 50mp sensor while, 5D mark iv has a 30mp sensor which is probably the same sensor in the EOS R. This means the junky EF 50/1.4 lens is not quite as sharp as the new RF 50/1.2 but isn't quite far below either; only slightly less sharp. Is there anything wrong with this conclusion? I don't have any reason to think so.
The Sony FE 50mm/1.8 scores very high in sharpness. According to DXOMark, it scores sharper than some much more expensive lenses (though it may fall short in some other factors like CA, bokeh rendering, flare, etc.). Even worse, it costs a fraction of the price of those more expensive lenses.
That said, do we know how DXOMark recommend interpreting their scores relative to other lenses? I admit I have not checked on that. Maybe, they have their own recommendations.
p.26 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
My original comments were were based on noting that the Sony images in the Youtube video review posted by someone here seemed strangely too soft in comparison to the images produced by the Canon setup. Some people might want to jump into the conclusion that the 85mm RF lens must be that sharper than the 85mm GM. I would say I am surprised and hold on my conclusion until I see what other reviewers may come up with before jumping on any conclusion. This is in conformant with scientific methodology. If a scientist does a test and gets a result, other scientists would independently test it again. If they can repeate the same result, that hypothesis is elevated to the level of a 'theory'. If further testing keeps confirming it, it may even become a scientific law. If other scientists get different results then, the hypothesis may even be considered disproved and with it, the credibility of the original scientist on the merits of his work may even be compromised.
My point is that it doesn't make sense to say Canon lenses are better options now because a random guy posted a video on Youtube with results which showed so. DXOMark is much more reliable to my eyes than that random random Youtube guy who brings a cute girl around only to attract more audience. If he is so desperate, his test results seem even less reliable to me.
p.26 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
raminolta wrote:
My original comments were were based on noting that the Sony images in the Youtube video review posted by someone here seemed strangely too soft in comparison to the images produced by the Canon setup. Some people might want to jump into the conclusion that the 85mm RF lens must be that sharper than the 85mm GM. I would say I am surprised and hold on my conclusion until I see what other reviewers may come up with before jumping on any conclusion. This is in conformant with scientific methodology. If a scientist does a test and gets a result, other scientists would independently test it again. If they can repeate the same result, that hypothesis is elevated to the level of a 'theory'. If further testing keeps confirming it, it may even become a scientific law. If other scientists get different results then, the hypothesis may even be considered disproved and with it, the credibility of the original scientist on the merits of his work may even be compromised.
My point is that it doesn't make sense to say Canon lenses are better options now because a random guy posted a video on Youtube with results which showed so. DXOMark is much more reliable to my eyes than that random random Youtube guy who brings a cute girl around only to attract more audience. If he is so desperate, his test results seem even less reliable to me....Show more →
I agree that we can’t determine which lens is sharper until a more comparable megapixel Canon body (R5) is readily available to test on. I don’t think either DxOMark or Gaston are reliable to determine that. Lensrentals with their tests of ten copies are perhaps the only review to trust from a single source. And as Fred and others mentioned, sharpness is just one quality among many.
I’m very curious to see how the eye AF, skintones, high ISO, and dynamic range perform with the RF85 + R5 vs. 85GM + A7RIII/A7RIV. I may be able to test the RF85 vs. 135GM but it depends on how quickly I pick up the 85. If the R5 performs as well as I hope with other lenses then I may have the RF85 sooner than later.
p.26 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
That’s exactly why DxO is less reliable for assessing lens quality. It’s more of a reflection of the camera sensor resolution. It would lead someone to believe a lens like the RF 85 f1.2 is inferior to Sony and Nikon 85mm lenses only because it was tested on a 30mp sensor and thus has a max DxO sharpness score of 30mp. Now that a camera like the R5 is available I expect it to score closer to 45mp sharpness if/when it is tested on that body. The 85GM scored 36mp on the 42mp A7RII body. I fully expect the RF 85 f1.2 to outresolve the 85GM once tested and score somewhere in the 40mp+ range on the R5.
DXOMark has not told the audience how to interpret their results. If a reader jumps into a wrong conclusion, that's their fault. One is at liberty on how to interpret their scores, wrongly or, correctly, modestly and reasonably. It has nothing to do with the score itself. Uneducated people often misunderstand scientific facts, theories and conclusions. That does NOT mean science is wrong. It only means it takes an astute person to understand science correctly.
Maybe the 85mm RF lens on the new R5 scores higher than the GM 85mm does on A7r ii; maybe not. We don't know yet. Common sense only dictates to wait before making on a conclusion. Until then, it is better to just go out and take pictures with whatever lens we have right now. The winner of this discussion is the one who goes out to take pictures while some others sit in front of the computer arguing about things they don't know or, things that don't matter much.
p.26 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
raminolta wrote:
Of course, it is tied to the resolution of the test camera. This is true for all lenses. This indeed makes DXOMark's testing inherently more reliable because a lens sharpness not only depends on the lens itself but also on the camera used for the test and, DXOMark keeps that in mind when they test the lenses.
According to DXOMark, EF 50/1.4 USM scores 22 on the EOS 5Ds R and 20 on 5D mark iv. 5Ds R has a 50mp sensor while, 5D mark iv has a 30mp sensor which is probably the same sensor in the EOS R. This means the junky EF 50/1.4 lens is not quite as sharp as the new RF 50/1.2 but isn't quite far below either; only slightly less sharp. Is there anything wrong with this conclusion? I don't have any reason to think so.
The Sony FE 50mm/1.8 scores very high in sharpness. According to DXOMark, it scores sharper than some much more expensive lenses (though it may fall short in some other factors like CA, bokeh rendering, flare, etc.). Even worse, it costs a fraction of the price of those more expensive lenses.
That said, do we know how DXOMark recommend interpreting their scores relative to other lenses? I admit I have not checked on that. Maybe, they have their own recommendations. ...Show more →
No, the old 50/1.4 is far below the RF 50/1.2. The-Digital-Picture has comparisons in their Lens Image Quality tool. It's not even close. The old 50/1.4 at 1.4 is hazy throughout: center, middle and corners, topped off with purple fringing. The new RF 50/1.2 is neither hazy nor purple. It's 25 years newer and a big step up in quality. Yet on DXO they both score the same. That's not useful. If we relied on DXO, we could all save a lot of money by buying 1990's lenses, thinking they're just as sharp as the latest big-priced lenses.
p.26 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Well said
NJPhotographer wrote:
No, the old 50/1.4 is far below the RF 50/1.2. The-Digital-Picture has comparisons in their Lens Image Quality tool. It's not even close. The old 50/1.4 at 1.4 is hazy throughout: center, middle and corners, topped off with purple fringing. The new RF 50/1.2 is neither hazy nor purple. It's 25 years newer and a big step up in quality. Yet on DXO they both score the same. That's not useful. If we relied on DXO, we could all save a lot of money by buying 1990's lenses, thinking they're just as sharp as the lastest big-priced lenses.
p.26 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
We all have limits on how much our gear weighs and that also depends on whether you shoot professionally or not, what genre of photography are you into, etc. For what I do; travel, street and documentary photography where you walk a lot and this could be an all day affair, I don't want ultimate 1.2 lenses or f/2 zooms that weighs a ton. Besides, pointing a very big lens has that extra shock effect if you shoot candidly. I do also realise that when using a very heavy lens, I become less creative maybe the weight is causing me too much drag.
Shooting the Nokton 40 1.2 vs Sigma 35 1.2 is quite interesting case study. When shooting the Nokton I didn't wish it had Sigma's better abberation control and perhaps wide open sharpness increase, I just wish it had AF! The Nokton has nicer colors, rendering, and is much lighter so you just throw it in your bag even though you didn't know what for
I'm not in a hurry but if Sony manages to create sensibly sized 15 GM, 35 GM, update the 85 GM, I will gladly buy them. OTOH, if you're longing lenses such as 28-70/2 or 135/1.4 better get the RF system, from various Sony interviews, I dont think its the direction they're heading into.
p.26 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
raminolta wrote:
My original comments were were based on noting that the Sony images in the Youtube video review posted by someone here seemed strangely too soft in comparison to the images produced by the Canon setup. Some people might want to jump into the conclusion that the 85mm RF lens must be that sharper than the 85mm GM. I would say I am surprised and hold on my conclusion until I see what other reviewers may come up with before jumping on any conclusion. This is in conformant with scientific methodology. If a scientist does a test and gets a result, other scientists would independently test it again. If they can repeate the same result, that hypothesis is elevated to the level of a 'theory'. If further testing keeps confirming it, it may even become a scientific law. If other scientists get different results then, the hypothesis may even be considered disproved and with it, the credibility of the original scientist on the merits of his work may even be compromised.
My point is that it doesn't make sense to say Canon lenses are better options now because a random guy posted a video on Youtube with results which showed so. DXOMark is much more reliable to my eyes than that random random Youtube guy who brings a cute girl around only to attract more audience. If he is so desperate, his test results seem even less reliable to me....Show more →
Well, to be honest the 85 GM isnt known for wide open sharpness, more of a dual character lens which is a bit smooth wide open and picks up considerably by f/2. This is nice for portrait photographers, wedding etc. Its like the new Z6/7 converts, picking up the Nikkor 85/1.4 D over the 85/1.4 S or even the Z 85 because its imperfections create a more subjectively pleasing image.
I want a sharp wide open 85 mm so at that time its the Milvus 85 or Sigma 85, I chose the Milvus because I like Zeiss rendering. Turns out its very sharp wide open without using aspheric (might want to check that again) so bokeh is also smoother. The RF being years younger will no doubt be sharper at 1.2. As a halo lens, I don't see Canon messing around doing character lenses!
p.26 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I had some really good time with the new R5 & R6 yesterday. Canon are back in the game no doubt. Im not going to pick holes in them but they are finally a product worth giving serious consideration. The eye focus is as sticky as you could ever want. A9ish and better occasionally. Cameras hold well etc etc. Jpegs are great but I can't comment on the raws as I don't have a convertor on hand.
The lenses overall are phenomenal. The 28-70mm (huge) has an amazing look to the files and the 50mm is another favourite. All in all a great system now which will help push Sony to greater things...
p.26 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
photomadnz wrote:
I had some really good time with the new R5 & R6 yesterday. Canon are back in the game no doubt. Im not going to pick holes in them but they are finally a product worth giving serious consideration. The eye focus is as sticky as you could ever want. A9ish and better occasionally. Cameras hold well etc etc. Jpegs are great but I can't comment on the raws as I don't have a convertor on hand.
The lenses overall are phenomenal. The 28-70mm (huge) has an amazing look to the files and the 50mm is another favourite. All in all a great system now which will help push Sony to greater things... ...Show more →
p.26 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
With Exiftool you can edit the R5/R6 RAW files so you can open them in LR/PS (by renaming the camera to a 1DXIII for example).
I did that with quite a few of those files and it's clear that (luckily) both sensors are a step up from the R. The dynamic range is so much better now. Seems comparable to what we're used from Sony.
p.26 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I find it almost unfathomable why people would switch to a lens mount with ~0 third-party lens support and far fewer first-party lenses. But to each their own!
p.26 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
I find it almost unfathomable why people would switch to a lens mount with ~0 third-party lens support and far fewer first-party lenses. But to each their own!
Well a lot and I mean a lot of people switched to Sony with a limited initial lens selection, no 3rd party support and only EF glass to adapt for the most part. The R5/R6 can use the entire EF/EF-S catalogue of lenses which is the most complete set of lenses from any company without any compromise other than having the adapter add length to the setup.
p.26 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
And those EF lenses focus as good, and in many cases better than they do on EF mount bodies.
The lack of affordable RF mount lenses is a bit of a pain, but with the 85/2 coming out, there will at least be two very nice affordable primes at 35 and 85 to go along with two good 24-105 options (the slow kit 24-105 is remarkably sharp and very compact.)
They do need an affordable native wide angle zoom...hope to see that soon. But adapting any of the many EF options certainly works well in the meantime.
p.26 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Well a lot and I mean a lot of people switched to Sony with a limited initial lens selection, no 3rd party support and only EF glass to adapt for the most part. The R5/R6 can use the entire EF/EF-S catalogue of lenses which is the most complete set of lenses from any company without any compromise other than having the adapter add length to the setup.
Adapters introduce additional variables (sealing, electronic contacts, possible skew). I had my only bad experience with moisture when using adapters. I don't know whether this was coincidence.
Many lenses weren't optimised for CDAF. Of course you can use them, esp. during transition, but "no compromise" is a bit too rosy, imo (unless you define it as getting rid of AFMA etc.).
It would be interesting to compare the performance of a 600/4 designed for the R system compared to attaching the DSLR 600/4 with adapter. I could easily imagine differences. How bif this compromise would be is the intersting question.
