>mfw most lenses can't even produce an image sharp enough

>>2770862
Many can in the center.

So you can crop without losing sharpness.

>>2770862
That sounds like a fatal blow for cameras with shit lenses, like Sony.

File: if i see that fucking dxomark one more time.png (26KB, 900x591px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 900x591px

>>2770862
Even a shit lens will still improve with more sensor megapickles. It will just gain progressively less.

Also, dxomark's wonderful testing method produces 13 MP resolution on a 12 MP 5D with certain lenses, so take it with a grain of salt.

File: kvD5XaM.png (149KB, 2043x417px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 2043x417px

>>2771556
but seriously though. MP does matter if you're doing studio work and can get perfectly still images. Canon used be fairly low on DXO's lens sharpness charts but they completely dominate everything now with the 5DSR.

>>2771761

Wow, DXO is fucking worthless.

>>2771763
how so?

>>2771556
>>2771761
Is this true?

Why have I not heard this before.

I suspect it is false because I have not heard it before.

>>2771763
It's the best thing we have - otherwise it's just retarded statements from people who can't shoot for shit bitching about "front focusing" or whatever dumb shit they complain about.

I'd rather look at scientific objective numbers over listening to talentless shills about their lens recommendations.

>>2771766

Changing the camera body makes the lens sharper? It's idiotic.

File: sex.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>2771549
>55/1.8
>Batis
>GM Lenses
>Literally any lens adapted with IBIS + AF
weak bait

>>2771782
You mentally challenged or something? Lenses aren't rated by megapixels. They're more along the lines of "if this lens is good then you'll get 90% of the sensor's resolution rather than just 60%"

>>2771782
The lens has a dropoff - it's capable of maintaining sharpness at 22mpg of resolution, but not at the 50mp the 5Dsr has.

Is that difficult to understand?

So is the 5DS trash or not?

>>2771790

That's easy to understand. The lens's jump in rating isn't.

>>2771789

No, they aren't rated by megapixels, but apparently DxO rates them by which body they're attached to.

>>2771798
>lens' jump in rating
Are you retarded? The camera (5DSR) on the left is 50MP and the camera on the right (5DmkIII) is 22MP. Of course they're going to have different ratings.

Do you even photo?

>>2771806
Why the fuck does the base Effect the lens?!?!

>>2771798
Well how else are you going to test the lens for sharpness then? There's not some sort of 200MP FF sensor that is only used to test lenses for sharpness now is there? There's also no sense in getting the sharpest damn lens if the camera body sucks ass. I mean what would be the point in attaching a Summicron on a 5MP CCD sensor? And fuck off with the "Leica glow" crap.

>>2771811
>200MP supercamera
Large.
Format.
Film.

>>2771808
It doesn't affect the base. The test is done with the camera - the maximum megapickles the 5DmkIII can generate 22MP.

The lens' sharpness falls off after 45MP.

The 5DSR has 50MP. If the lens had a sharpness of 65MP, it would have shown 50MP on the 5DSR test.

>>2771813
And what good will that do with a lens that only covers FF? Film resolution maxes out around 40MP either ways.

File: 1450746233128.png (49KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 200x200px

>>2771814
>the 5DS is a better, sharper, camera than the sony a7

>>2771814
lenses aren't rated by megapixels. go learn an MTF chart.

>>2771819
when doing highly controlled studio shots with top of the line lens then it is sharper than any other FF camera. you can't deny this.

>>2771821
You're on a photography board. Learn about photography or something.

File: 1451277420318.png (456KB, 804x876px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 804x876px

>>2771821
>muh mtf chart which can't be utilized by my low resolution sensor

File: 1448739775549.jpg (2MB, 4940x3740px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4940x3740px

>>2771826
Why does it only apply in studio cases?

Do my images suddenly drop in resolution when I go outside?

What kind of black magic sensor is this?!

Surely you wouldnt be exaggerating a basically meaningless Delta in dynamic range! One trivially solved via bracketing, which all landscape shots of note use!

>>2771815
>LF is only 40MB
[citation needed]

Sorry guys, I'm in the "DxO is stupid" camp for this one. I can't in any way imagine a situation in which their lens test results would ever matter to me. I buy lenses based on focal length and aperture, and there's usually only one decent option for any combination of the two available. When there are more than one, there are usually differences in things like build quality and AF performance that matter far more to me than some tiny difference in corner sharpness.

>>2771841
It seems pretty obvious to me that he was talking about a 35mm film frame.

If you put a 35mm lens in front of a 4x5 frame, you're still only going to properly expose a 24x36mm area of that film, and the practical limit for 24x36 is about 40mp.

>>2771858
The highest scoring lenses are virtually always the best lenses in terms of provided features.

Your point is retarded.

We peep scores to discern out the best among the best.

Sharpness is by far the most important Key Performance Indicator of a lens.

>>2771859
Except that's not true. Some of the sharpest lenses out there are also some of the slowest focusing, or have no AF at all. If you're a landscape photog who shoots everything at f/8 and on a tripod, then sure, maybe it matters to you that an 85 3.5 Macro is sharper than an 85 1.4 or whatever, but for the vast majority of photogs it's irrelevant, and that super-sharp lens will make major sacrifices in other areas.

And best of the best for what? If you're actually in the market for "best of the best" lenses, it's usually pretty damn obvious which lens to buy.

I guess maybe DxO is great if your main focus in the photography world is having "best lens" arguments on /p/, but that's about all it's good for, IMO.

>>2771862
t. Shitter with bad gear

File: DSC_6022.jpg (324KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1000x668px

>>2771872
yup, no sharp lenses here.

Seriously though, it'd actually be nice if DxO tested MF and LF lenses. Those are markets that care a lot more about sharpness than 35 guys, and there are a lot more competing options for any given focal length there.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:17 21:35:03
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2771862
I cared about lens sharpness when I was 'building' my camera system and wanted to have something I wouldn't regret later on.

I actually ended up getting a used 14-24 Nikkor over the 16-35 Nikkor because of the difference not only in sharpness but in distortion. I actually didn't use DxO though, I used a site called Photozone.

>>2771905
See, I'd choose the 14-24 as well, but for the extra 2mm on the wide end, the pro build quality, and the extra stop of aperture.

I like Photozone a billion times more than DxO, too. He actually talks about things other than optimal sharpness in studio conditions, like build quality, AF performance, bokeh, etc. I look at Photozone when considering a new lens, and almost never bother with DxO.

>>2771911
Are you retarded? dxo just measures optical performance for lenses. That is like whining about crash safety ratings because they don't talk about top speed, ride comfort, and mpg.

>>2771549
>sony g 90mm f2.8
>sharpest lens on dxo
>sony g master 85 1.4

cool story canonfag

>>2771901
>MF and LF lenses. Those are markets that care a lot more about sharpness

Not really. MF is more of a professional tool. You pay a premium and your equipment must perform. A company that doesn't do that likely wont be around for long. Professionals who use MF don't have time or need to look at detailed lens performance. They likely wont even buy their own equipment. What dxo tests is mostly consumer equipment that people wouldn't know the sharpness difference between wide open and stopped down.

>>2771921
>>sony g 90mm f2.8
>>sharpest lens on dxo
I think you should check your settings. It shows a lot of sharper lenses.

>>2771916
The point I've been trying to make is that focusing on DxO results when choosing a lens is a really stupid way to do things, and is a really bad habit of internet photo forum people. DxO should never be your first stop when choosing a lens, and honestly, I don't think it serves much of a purpose at all, because pretty much any modern lens that isn't 3rd party shit or a kit lens is more than sharp enough for anything 99.9% of photogs are going to do with it.

If you're going to go with a car analogy, DxO is more like shopping for a family sedan and then basing your purchase on one of those sites that lists nothing but 1/4 mi or 0-60 times.

>>2771934
prius driver spotted

>>2771821
lol so you're saying that the sensor has nothing to do with the resolution of an image? tell me more please!

>>2771965
Actually, I own a Fiesta ST and an AP2 S2000.

Interestingly enough, both of them are cars that are completely underwhelming on paper, but are excellent real-world driving experiences. I guess the way I choose cars is very similar to the way I choose cameras and lenses.

I also until recently had an E36 M3 track car project, but ran out of time and money to work on it and sold it off.

>>2771934
>pretty much any modern lens that isn't 3rd party shit or a kit lens is more than sharp enough

Third party manufactures right now are making lenses as good if not better than first party and kit lenses are good enough for most people.

>>2771993
I should have phrased that more clearly. There are shit 3rd party lenses and shit kit lenses out there, but there are also some amazing ones.

I own a Sigma 35 Art and a Rokinon 85 1.4, and absolutely love both of them. I'm not sure how much I'd trust some of the cheap Tamron superzooms and stuff, though.

>>2771996
Tamron is a quality brand now. They provide great alternatives to first party stuff.

Stop this talk about 1st and 3rd parties, the Communist Party is the only party.

Also, when it comes to image quality, I think my Samyang 35mm 1.4 is one of the best I've when it comes to pure sharpness, bokeh, etc. in it's respective range.

>>2772013
I totally believe it about their high-end lenses, but they have some pretty old designs in their low end that have pretty mediocre reviews.

Anyway, all I was trying to say is that any Nikon/Canon lens except maybe some of the cheapest kit lenses when shot wide open, and any midrange or high-end third party lens, will be more than sharp enough that you'll never be able to tell the difference in sharpness between it and a DxO high scorer at the sizes most of /p/ is posting or printing.

>>2770862

DxOmark's "muh equivalent MEGAPICKLES" is one of the most offensive fucking things I have ever seen in photographic testing. Their abuse of terminology leads plebs to make stupid assumptions about cameras, lenses, resolution, etc.

There is no such thing as "equivalent" megapixels. Megapixels is a measure of sensor pixel count, NOT system resolving power. Your sensor has the same MP count whether you put a Leica lens in front of it or a Coke bottle. But a tiny phone camera sensor with the same MP count has a DSLR won't necessarily have the same resolving power.

The proper way to measure and report resolving power is with a MTF curve that charts system contrast response at different detail resolutions expressed as lpmm.

One of the things that quickly becomes apparent when looking at MTF curves is that films / sensors almost never "out resolve" lenses. Even when discussing today's 36-50 MP FF sensors. This is one of the stupid memes that results from idiots like DxO abusing terminology.

It also leads to the misunderstanding that a sensor or lens can "cap" the other. Resolution does not work like that. Total system resolution is always less than the weakest component. But improving any component in the chain will continue to bring system resolution closer to the level of the weakest.

I get that plebs don't care about the details and are used to comparing single numbers. And I would be OK with DxOmark scoring sensor+lens combos on some arbitrary scale. But by claiming to tell people how many "real" or "equivalent" megapixels a combo produces they have fucked pleb understanding up beyond all repair.

>>2775587

Another problem which is exhibited in some of the posts/arguments above: detail != sharpness. They are two weakly related but different things.

You see this expressed clearly with an MTF curve. With "equivalent megapickles" you do not.

To get their EM ranking DxO is choosing an arbitrary contrast level, then converting that lpmm into "equivalence."

But things like AA filters shift an MTF curve down, while firmware / software can shift it up.

So you get some idiot running around saying "muh X brand camera has more REAL megapickles then your Y brand camera" even if Y has more sensor pixels, is resolving more detail, and can even look sharper in post because there's more room to sharpen.

Fucking dxo....

>>2771837
Well, if you were shooting in lower light, you'd probably get better results out of the Sony.

>>2771978

Sensors have everything to do with the resolution of an image.

Sensors have nothing to do with the resolving power of a lens.

>>2771996
I've got a 30mm Sigma that I rarely leave home without.

>>2771784
That's not a Sony lens though

>>2775621
and?

glorious sharpness