Exclusive ePHOTOzine offer - 20% off Mistubishi CP-M15E Bundle!

Latest Review Comments

Latest comments, thoughts and reaction to our recently reviewed Photographic Equipment, including the Lensball Review .

altitude50
21670_1600238248.jpg


This was taken just before the lockdown, I have an intention to go back and repeat to improve it in the Winter when the holiday makers have gone.
Not something to use every day and I have not had much success with it indoors for patterns etc.

Made by altitude50 on 16 Sep 2020 7:41AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

roseblood11
How good is this lens on the 26mp sensor?

Made by roseblood11 on 13 Sep 2020 11:23PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

roseblood11
A test on the A6400 or A6600 would be great!
As there are some newer options now, it would be interesting to see this older lens in direct comparison

Made by roseblood11 on 13 Sep 2020 11:13PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

johnriley1uk
@PH56 - Thanks for that, it's an interesting idea. It used to be a bit like that in that we didn't have any figures quoted, just the descriptive words applied to a graph, so we had no idea what the actual figures were. The idea of including the figures was to increase the amount of information offered and the text describes the meaning to form a comparison between old and new methodology. Many people welcomed the figures, so removing them might cause a problem, but it certainly can be mulled over and discussed.

Made by johnriley1uk on 4 Sep 2020 5:20PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

PH56

Quote:@PH56 - the problem lies with the inevitable use of different resolutions of camera to test the lenses. The only way to standardise this is to have the same camera body with the same resolution for all lens tests. This could be done with film, when typically Kodak Technical Pan film might be used, but obviously can't be done with digital. So the ratings are relative to the theoretical maximum possible for a given sensor. So if the maximum that might be expected was, say, 4000 LW/PH the a lens that resolved 3800 might well be considered outstanding. The wording is also designed to provide a bridge between the older reviews where figures were not given and those of the past five years or so where they are given.
Nobody claims this is perfect, but it is consistent as far as possible and should be taken along with the real world pictures and commentary.
Hope that helps!



I totally understand that the same camera body is not used for all tests and that the resolution differs between models. Perhaps the LW/PH figures should not be included, instead using a scale from say 1 to 100 based on the sharpness vs maximum resolution of the test camera. That way all of the reviews will be scored in such a way that lenses can be more accurately compared. I don't believe for one minute that the latest 2400 Nikon Z lens would resolve softer images than the Sigma equivalent, but the figures shown in the reviews do suggest that. I just think that for someone looking for say a new 70-200mm f2.8 lens (not a cheap purchase) the current scoring system is a bit misleading. I do agree that the sample photos play an important part but a performance chart based on percentage of maximum resolution would also help a lot in this decision making process.

Made by PH56 on 4 Sep 2020 4:54PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

DaveRyder
As with Rees, I have spent a career work in the production of engineering plastics precursors - the body feels really good in the hand.
Take a look under the bonnet of your car and check out the 'plastics'. Then decide if a camera is likely to face the environment of an engine bay.

I just had my first day with the camera and the quality of jpeg out of camera is excellent on truepic viii.
I've spent the day setting up the buttons and dials to suit, the articulated screen is versatile and clear.
No problems with menus - but I've had a pair of M10 previous.

As a spectacle wearer the eye re-leaf on the EVF (I rarely use the screen for shooting) is excellent.
As expected the EVF is as very good with settings clearly visible.

It's sometimes the small things that stick out and having manual focus on a physical switch, just a your thumb (the Fn 1-2 switch), is really nice.

In summary - very pleased with my purchase and thanks to EpZ for reviews and information on the body and 14-150 kit lens.






Made by DaveRyder on 3 Sep 2020 9:37PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

johnriley1uk
@ChrisV - Yes, I would have preferred a Z7, but we have to accept what is available at any given time and the review samples are no doubt under a lot of demand.
As regards the 75-180mm it should have arguably been included, but this time I looked purely at the 70-200mm f/2.8 options. There are also quite a few f/4 versions.

Made by johnriley1uk on 3 Sep 2020 4:51PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

johnriley1uk
@PH56 - the problem lies with the inevitable use of different resolutions of camera to test the lenses. The only way to standardise this is to have the same camera body with the same resolution for all lens tests. This could be done with film, when typically Kodak Technical Pan film might be used, but obviously can't be done with digital. So the ratings are relative to the theoretical maximum possible for a given sensor. So if the maximum that might be expected was, say, 4000 LW/PH the a lens that resolved 3800 might well be considered outstanding. The wording is also designed to provide a bridge between the older reviews where figures were not given and those of the past five years or so where they are given.
Nobody claims this is perfect, but it is consistent as far as possible and should be taken along with the real world pictures and commentary.
Hope that helps!

Made by johnriley1uk on 3 Sep 2020 4:47PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Ilamoga
Hi Joshwa! Thanks for the 2.8 shots! It makes much more sense to shoot this lens at 2.8 and post 2.8 shots.

Made by Ilamoga on 3 Sep 2020 1:42PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

PH56
I have been wondering for a while now how your lens review performance testing varies so much. In this review you state that the lens has "outstanding" sharpness with figures of just over 3500 LW/PH, yet in other reviews (for example the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 Sport) you say that sharpness is outstanding at figures above 4500 LW/PH. How are we supposed to take these reviews seriously when trying to compare performance of different lenses in the same category? There needs to be consistency in the scoring and level at which you would describe performance as "outstanding", "excellent" etc.

Made by PH56 on 3 Sep 2020 1:28PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply