Review of Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8
Aug 28, 2019 00:26:00 #
We may soon reach the point that the 'raw' data of every camera is modified some place between the sensor and writing out the 'raw' file.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-review/
DxOMark Review wrote:
At the extreme ends of the focal length range, there’s noticeable distortion. However, this is largely corrected by the built-in RAW profile that is applied when images are processed. There are also in-camera corrections that can be applied to JPEGs. When these are turned off, the distortion is visible in JPEG images of architecture or similar scenes that have a strong linear element, but simultaneously-captured RAW files are corrected.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-review/
Aug 28, 2019 01:07:17 #
I find the Dxomark reviews to be meaningless. What matters is how your images look when you view them in whatever software you use. Everything else is a distraction and another way of asking the age-old question, "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
Aug 28, 2019 01:12:51 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
I find the Dxomark reviews to be meaningless. What matters is how your images look when you view them in whatever software you use. Everything else is a distraction and another way of asking the age-old question, "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
A surprisingly sane and clear view of reality. Thank you
Aug 28, 2019 05:37:24 #
rehess wrote:
We may soon reach the point that the 'raw' data of every camera is modified some place between the sensor and writing out the 'raw' file.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-review/
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-review/
The problem with DXO and lenses they do not independently test the lens alone on an optical test bench, but on a camera.
So one is actually testing the camera not the lens.
I find these pretty meaningless.
In film days lenses were initially tested independently then a field test that made more sense.
Aug 28, 2019 05:57:36 #
Architect1776 wrote:
The problem with DXO and lenses they do not independently test the lens alone on an optical test bench, but on a camera.
So one is actually testing the camera not the lens.
I find these pretty meaningless.
In film days lenses were initially tested independently then a field test that made more sense.
So one is actually testing the camera not the lens.
I find these pretty meaningless.
In film days lenses were initially tested independently then a field test that made more sense.
I agree with you.
Aug 28, 2019 07:39:31 #
Architect1776 wrote:
The problem with DXO and lenses they do not independently test the lens alone on an optical test bench, but on a camera.
So one is actually testing the camera not the lens.
I find these pretty meaningless.
In film days lenses were initially tested independently then a field test that made more sense.
So one is actually testing the camera not the lens.
I find these pretty meaningless.
In film days lenses were initially tested independently then a field test that made more sense.
Totally agree with you. Some of their results suggest that lenses known to be superior, are not as good as lenses known to be "lacking". This is because their "P" rating uses different cameras when testing those lenses rather than testing them under the same conditions.
Aug 28, 2019 08:30:22 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Totally agree with you. Some of their results suggest that lenses known to be superior, are not as good as lenses known to be "lacking". This is because their "P" rating uses different cameras when testing those lenses rather than testing them under the same conditions.
That makes the objective portion silly.
There is no scientific standard that remains the same for all tests.
The subjective is good as well where you field test but only on a subjective basis.
DXO is subjective only and no comparison to any other lens on an objective basis has any validity as each sensor even same ones in different cameras give totally different results.
Bring back the objective scientific test on an optical bench.
Aug 28, 2019 08:34:34 #
Architect1776 wrote:
This is not a test of the lens - this is a test of the system the way we actually use it. In this case it revealed something about the system that some of us had not known.That makes the objective portion silly.
There is no scientific standard that remains the same for all tests.
The subjective is good as well where you field test but only on a subjective basis.
DXO is subjective only and no comparison to any other lens on an objective basis has any validity as each sensor even same ones in different cameras give totally different results.
Bring back the objective scientific test on an optical bench.
There is no scientific standard that remains the same for all tests.
The subjective is good as well where you field test but only on a subjective basis.
DXO is subjective only and no comparison to any other lens on an objective basis has any validity as each sensor even same ones in different cameras give totally different results.
Bring back the objective scientific test on an optical bench.
Aug 28, 2019 09:21:29 #
rehess wrote:
This is not a test of the lens - this is a test of the system the way we actually use it. In this case it revealed something about the system that some of us had not known.
That is the subjective test which is fine.
If you read the article though DXO stupidly compares the lens to others on different cameras and even systems which makes those comments innane.
That one lens on that specific camera works like x. That is well and fine and helps.
But once you compare it to other lenses and performance on other cameras all the objective comments fall apart and are purely subjective opinion.
How does the lens perform on the Z6 for example?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.