Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on December 18, 2015, 10:55:07 pm
-
Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
Bernard first brought these sites to my attention, about a year ago, and I find them a lot more user-friendly than DxO Mark. (They also seem to be more up-to-date too.)
LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) / SenScore (http://www.senscore.org)
Their rating system seems to make a whole lot more sense too.
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
By contrast, SenScore (http://www.senscore.org) rates the Nikon D4s the #1 camera across the board, boasting more dynamic range than the D810 (1321 to 928), more color range (1369 to 1073), more tonal range (1139 to 10035), it just does not have the resolving power of the D810 (563 to 1051), as the D4s only has half the megapixels of the D810. I can follow this logic, so the SenScore website makes more sense to me.
The SenScore database compiles its sensor ratings based on Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, and Resolving Power, as well as the combined aggregate (the Final SenScore), all of which are more relevant to me than what the DxO Mark tries to put out. (You can also click on each of these criterion and get a hierarchical order of magnitude based on which of each individual attribute is most important to you.)
For example, if you click on Resolving Power, up top, you see the results in this criteria alone, and it is a landslide for the new Canon 5DS R (1357 compared to the D810's 1051).
By contrast, if you click on Dynamic Range, up top, the new Canon 5DS R has a paltry 850 score compared to the D810's 1028.
(Interestingly, however, the D810 is not at the top of their list for DR, the D4s is.
Anyway, I am just curious as to the credentials of who puts the information out and what criteria they use ... does anyone know?
Jack
-
Actually it makes a lot of sense that a large-pixel sensor could out-perform a small-pixel sensor, other things being equal. More photons per pixel = more head-room in your computations to deal with noise, color accuracy, etc, OTBE.
-
Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
you might also what to see http://photonstophotos.net, for sensors only... and unlike sensorscore you can talk with the author how things are measured (if site is not enough) = http://www.dpreview.com/members/9263714680/forums/posts and see what is the deal per ISO, not some god knows how calculated "scores"...
-
If you just look at the single numbers of DxO they will give the best value among ISO, which is why the D810 has by far the best DR of any camera. If you bother to look at the curves you have much more useful data.
On the other hand, senscore computes an average accross ISO, which is why they rate the D4s as having the best DR.
There is little reason to only consider the summary rating, but if you do then DxO can be considered to be a landscape rating why senscore is a more generic one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
There is a great difference between the two sites in that DxO-mark discloses all (or almost all) measured data. Both site also gives figures of merit but with some information how those values are calculated from DxO and none at all from SenScore/LenScore.
DxO has quite a lot of credibility on the sensor side, as their measurements show good agreement with other tests at least regarding DR.
With sensors, it matters a lot if you look at base ISO or at high ISO numbers. For a tripod shooter, like me, high ISO is simply irrelevant. For one shooting sports low ISO probably quite irrelevant.
With lenses it may be a bit more complex, as DxO does not exactly say what their evaluations are based on. Still they present a lot of data across the field, so lenses can be compared.
Regarding lens tests, it matters a lot if we are shooting at large apertures, medium apertures or small apertures. Building a highly corrected lens for f/1.4 is no easy task. But, a relatively simple lens can be very good at medium apertures. So, if you don't know how performance at different apertures is weighted in the figures of merit are actually of very little use.
In addition, there is some sample variation. Some would argue that a lens should not be judged based on a single sample.
I would suggest that both sites do analysis based on adequate measurements, but the way DxO presents their data it is much more useful.
This site offers a lot of good info: http://www.the-digital-picture.com
The site also show comparisons shots: http://www.the-digital-picture.com and also MTF data: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx
The MTF data here is coming from the optical lab at Lensrentals. (*)
This site is testing lenses at the Hasselblad factory working with the engineer in charge of lens developmemt and testing at Hasselblad. Their data is comparabe with data coming from Zeiss or Leica: http://www.lensfreaks.com
Best regards
Erik
(*) For completeness, I posted some questions regarding MTF plots on some lenses to Roger Cicala, the owner of Lensrentals/Olaf Testing. From the answer I got they are looking into some issues. Another point may be that it is quite possible that cover glass effects need to be taken into account. Conventional wisdom used to be that cover glass thickness doesn't really matter for DSLR lenses, but it may play a greater role than expected.
Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
Bernard first brought these sites to my attention, about a year ago, and I find them a lot more user-friendly than DxO Mark. (They also seem to be more up-to-date too.)
LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) / SenScore (http://www.senscore.org)
Their rating system seems to make a whole lot more sense too.
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
By contrast, SenScore (http://www.senscore.org) rates the Nikon D4s the #1 camera across the board, boasting more dynamic range than the D810 (1321 to 928), more color range (1369 to 1073), more tonal range (1139 to 10035), it just does not have the resolving power of the D810 (563 to 1051), as the D4s only has half the megapixels of the D810. I can follow this logic, so the SenScore website makes more sense to me.
The SenScore database compiles its sensor ratings based on Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, and Resolving Power, as well as the combined aggregate (the Final SenScore), all of which are more relevant to me than what the DxO Mark tries to put out. (You can also click on each of these criterion and get a hierarchical order of magnitude based on which of each individual attribute is most important to you.)
For example, if you click on Resolving Power, up top, you see the results in this criteria alone, and it is a landslide for the new Canon 5DS R (1357 compared to the D810's 1051).
By contrast, if you click on Dynamic Range, up top, the new Canon 5DS R has a paltry 850 score compared to the D810's 1028.
(Interestingly, however, the D810 is not at the top of their list for DR, the D4s is.
Anyway, I am just curious as to the credentials of who puts the information out and what criteria they use ... does anyone know?
Jack
-
If you buy a high pixel camera like the D810- 7RII or the Canon 5dsr you are surely into low iso value photography.
So the low iso quality counts. But also the lens quality will count.
I have not seen too many wideangle lenses that do 36MP in the corners, but a lot do 50 MP in the centre.
The Canon has less Dynamic range than the other two.
So it depends on your type of photography what camera is best for you.
To average out the sensor as Senscore does is not very interesting.
for instance they say:
"Why is the score of the D3x so low?
While being able to produce outstanding images at base ISO, the D3x's image quality rapidly diminishes with higher ISO settings."
True! I had one and used it beneath 400 asa. Above 400 it became noisy and lost dynamic range.
The 100 asa setting however was best in class for some years and for my photography that was important.
I just have worked with the Nikon 4ds and i was not impressed. I liked the shots with my D810 better below 3200 asa.
Above 3200 asa there was a clear advantage. It is a speed king for getting the shot in every circumstance.
-
Hi,
Some interesting reading from the SenScore FAQ: http://www.senscore.org
"The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions. However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well. The break-even point is below 400 ISO, at 400 ISO the D4s is already marginally ahead. The D810 retains superior resolving power throughout the measured ISO range, but resolving power is only 20 percent of the overall score, which is why the D4s comes out atop. Thus, if a resolution of significantly more than 16MP is required, the D810 may very well be the better camera for the job even at high ISO, but if 16MP is enough, then the D4s will provide higher image quality. Many people erroneously believe that downsampling will make up for a lack of dynamic range, tonal range and color range, but that's not true. However, downsampling done right can hugely improve the noise characteristics of an image, and in case of the D4s vs the D810, this pretty much eliminates the D4s' advantage in noise performance."
Best regards
Erik
Does anyone know who runs this site or what criteria they use?
These twin sites seem to be akin to the DxO Mark, but different.
Bernard first brought these sites to my attention, about a year ago, and I find them a lot more user-friendly than DxO Mark. (They also seem to be more up-to-date too.)
LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) / SenScore (http://www.senscore.org)
Their rating system seems to make a whole lot more sense too.
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
By contrast, SenScore (http://www.senscore.org) rates the Nikon D4s the #1 camera across the board, boasting more dynamic range than the D810 (1321 to 928), more color range (1369 to 1073), more tonal range (1139 to 10035), it just does not have the resolving power of the D810 (563 to 1051), as the D4s only has half the megapixels of the D810. I can follow this logic, so the SenScore website makes more sense to me.
The SenScore database compiles its sensor ratings based on Noise, Dynamic Range, Color Range, Tonal Range, and Resolving Power, as well as the combined aggregate (the Final SenScore), all of which are more relevant to me than what the DxO Mark tries to put out. (You can also click on each of these criterion and get a hierarchical order of magnitude based on which of each individual attribute is most important to you.)
For example, if you click on Resolving Power, up top, you see the results in this criteria alone, and it is a landslide for the new Canon 5DS R (1357 compared to the D810's 1051).
By contrast, if you click on Dynamic Range, up top, the new Canon 5DS R has a paltry 850 score compared to the D810's 1028.
(Interestingly, however, the D810 is not at the top of their list for DR, the D4s is.
Anyway, I am just curious as to the credentials of who puts the information out and what criteria they use ... does anyone know?
Jack
-
Thanks to all for the responses (and thanks especially to Eric and Bernard for providing some additional insight as to how Len/SenScore work).
I agree the "sum total" scores of Sen/LenScore are not the most valuable scores to read, but their easily-switched Individual Criteria Columns are, which become especially useful because it is a cinch switch to to the categories that matter (to me/you).
As far as I am concerned, the DxO mark setup is less intuitive and less complete.
It seems to be setup by people who measure a very limited range statistics, and who may not actually be using the cameras in the real world.
For example, Base ISO measurements have almost zero relevance to a nature photographer (bird photographer/macro shooter).
I honestly don't know of any bird photographer or nature photographer who uses ISO 80 or 100 in their image-making. It simply almost never happens.
I personally enjoy macro photography, and I try my best to stick to natural light, so it is difficult to shoot below ISO 320.
(When you get extremely close to a tiny object, even if it is completely motionless, your available light is drastically-reduced).
Typically, there is always the possibility for movement, so I can only drop my shutter speed so low before I run the risk of the subject (usually an insect or spider) moving, changing positions, or even being affected by wind.
As a macro shooter, my primary hot buttons are resolution and bokeh, trying to get as much detail as possible of the subject, while blurring the background, with color and contrast being important elements also.
(Most subjects don't have a super-wide color gamut, but some do.)
Higher ISO capability is something I need to upgrade to, because I am not enjoying this right now with my 7D (I can't go above 640 without wanting to junk the file, so I am pretty much "stuck" at shooting between ISO 320 and 640 right now).
The scores across the board for my antiquated 7D are accelerating my desire to get rid of it, and finally make an upgrade, but the thought of "switching systems" has not been much of a motivator, as I really like the Canon lenses. (However, the excellence of Sigma has made me abandon 2 Canon lenses lately ...)
When it first came out, the Sony A 7R II originally seemed like the perfect solution (specs-wise), because it has the Exmor sensor and can be compatible with Canon lenses ... however for people who use cameras for nature photography, most of the reports in actual field use have been photographers "loving the images" (in the shots they "do get" with the Sony A7R II) ... but they can't stand to use it (poor ergonomics, etc.).
Right now, I am able to get plenty of decent shots with my 7D, but I am wanting to elevate from "decent" to spectacular, and I am wanting my next camera purchase to last me for a few years (not just one season).
I am not necessarily "brand loyal" (as my favorite macro lens is a Sigma 180), but I neither do I want to jump ship without careful consideration.
I was excited about the Canon 7D II, but (ultimately) while offering great ergonomic features, the 7D II simply ranks too low (across the board) in image quality for me to be satisfied with the purchase.
To me, all the bells and whistles in the world fall short if the image-quality is only so-so.
When I first got the original Canon 7D, it was a class-leading APS-C camera, but it has fallen so far behind now, that I need to pull the trigger and upgrade.
I have been tolerating the so-so image quality of my 7D for a couple of years, and now there is the recent Canon 5DS R to consider.
The DxO specs on the 5DS R (and several reviews from landscape photographers) didn't help my feeling of letdown on the new Canon FF ...
However, after hearing what many macro shooters have had to say about the 5DS R, and in going over the SenScore specs, I am 99% positive I will be buying the 5DS R by springtime.
If the Nikon D810 has been the benchmark (for landscape shooters), for a number of years, then the 5DS R has to be the macro shooter's benchmark.
While the 5DS R may still fall short of the D810 in some important respects, as a landscape camera, to me it surpasses the D810 as a macro photography camera.
Let's face it, resolution is everything in macro photography (that and bokeh).
And, in Resolution, the 5DS R beats the D810 by a wide margin (1357 to 1051) ... not to mention beating my 7D by a country mile (1357 to 475).
I am not worried about the D810 beating the 5DS R in Dynamic Range (1028 to 850), because I will not even bother taking a natural light macro shot unless I have even light.
Therefore, "High Dynamic Range" means nothing to me; it has no relevance to the way I shoot.
However, one thing that does bother me is the fact the D810 is listed as having the better Color Range (1073 in the Nikon to a measly 751 in the Canon). That really does bother me :o
Still, the Color Range rating for the 5DS R (751) is a vast improvement over the rating for my current 7D (105 :-\). Therefore, although the 5DS R rating is low, I am encouraged by the fact I have taken some pretty colorful photos with my 7D ... so I should be exhilarated at what the 5DS R can do, with more than 5x the color range of the 7D. (Also makes me wonder how much of the "theoretical" color potential is actually see-able by the human eye ...)
More than this, as far as Noise Levels go, the 5DS R beats the D810 (1041 to 1010) and in Tonal Range the 5DS R again edges the D810 (1041 to 1035).
Realistically, they're both nearly identical in these respects.
Therefore, for a macro shooter, the Canon 5DS R is actually the better camera than the D810.
While it is lacking in respect to color, I am not sure what the real-world difference is in the color disparity.
The DR makes zero difference, while the Canon surpasses the D810 in every other category, most importantly in Resolution (and widely-so).
My sticking point is the color issue. Color is important, and some insect/spider species have scintillating, metallic colorations.
That said, despite the fact that my own Canon 7D has a lowly Color Rating of 105, I have gotten a gazillion compliments on the "colors" of my images, and have been well-pleased with the colors myself.
So I believe the color range of the 5DS R will be more than enough.
The bottom line is, I have *always* been chagrined by the LACK of total resolution in my images, as there is no way around the fact the 7D is a "soft" camera.
Even while using a tripod, and a remote switch, highly-critical precision-focus of tiny subjects remains a challenge for me.
I am therefore quite sure that elevating from my Camera Resolution Score from 475 (in the 7D) to a class-leading score of 1357 (in the 5DS R) will make my macro photography take a quantum leap forward.
In closing, my apologies for "thinking out loud" here, but I hope it helps some others with their own "chin-rubbing" as to weighing the different criteria as to their next purchase.
In the end, I believe the DxO Mark system of scoring sensors is limited in value, and ultimately very misleading in their conclusions.
I think the LenScore/SenScore site is much more user-friendly, and much more helpful and realistic, in assessing the Lenses and Sensors in a more "real world"-applicable way, so I am glad Bernard shared this resource with me because it is definitely bookmarked.
Jack
-
Indeed, the 5DS is a great camera and should serve you well across the board and especially so for macro work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For example, Base ISO measurements have almost zero relevance to a nature photographer (bird photographer/macro shooter).
I honestly don't know of any bird photographer or nature photographer who uses ISO 80 or 100 in their image-making. It simply almost never happens.
did you miss the fact that sites like Photonstophotos (or DxoMark) do give you the details for various ISOs (nominal ISO in case of Photonstophotos or Ssat ISO in case of DxOMark) ? so if you are interested in DR or S/N @ high nominal (or Ssat equalized) ISOs then you can simply look at the relevant data (ignoring scores).
-
Hi,
Some interesting reading from the SenScore FAQ: http://www.senscore.org
"The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions. However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well. The break-even point is below 400 ISO, at 400 ISO the D4s is already marginally ahead. The D810 retains superior resolving power throughout the measured ISO range, but resolving power is only 20 percent of the overall score, which is why the D4s comes out atop. Thus, if a resolution of significantly more than 16MP is required, the D810 may very well be the better camera for the job even at high ISO, but if 16MP is enough, then the D4s will provide higher image quality. Many people erroneously believe that downsampling will make up for a lack of dynamic range, tonal range and color range, but that's not true. However, downsampling done right can hugely improve the noise characteristics of an image, and in case of the D4s vs the D810, this pretty much eliminates the D4s' advantage in noise performance."
Best regards
Erik
CFA characteristics do not change based on "ISO"... so for as long as a specific method of downsampling helps to increase S/N it will help with "dynamic range, tonal range and color range"... because CFA will be the same, if they are good @ base ISO in terms of color separation then they are as well good @ high ISO _if_ we manage to increase S/N... what is the math behind their statement that changing (if increasing) S/N will not affect for example DR per unit of area (not for a fixed one sensel) is not very clear.
-
Hi,
A practical example: according to LenScore the 24-70/4L is better than the 16-35/2.8LII which is better than the 17-40/4L and the worst is the 24-70/2.8LII.
According to other tests, like Photozone the 24-70/4L suffers from spherical aberration and is not really up to the 24-70/2.8LII.
The DxO data indicates that the 24-70/4L trails the 24-70/2.7LII quite a bit at large apertures but catches up nicely at f/8.
In the lens scores DxO-mark gives 35 for the 24-70/2.8LII and 25 for the 24-70/4L.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
A practical example: according to LenScore the 24-70/4L is better than the 16-35/2.8LII which is better than the 17-40/4L and the worst is the 24-70/2.8LII.
According to other tests, like Photozone the 24-70/4L suffers from spherical aberration and is not really up to the 24-70/2.8LII.
The DxO data indicates that the 24-70/4L trails the 24-70/2.7LII quite a bit at large apertures but catches up nicely at f/8.
In the lens scores DxO-mark gives 35 for the 24-70/2.8LII and 25 for the 24-70/4L.
Best regards
Erik
Two things: I once owned the original 24-70 and it was an exceptional lens, which easily outranked the 24-105 and 16-35.
Another thing is, LenScore only tests 1 lens of each type, and so copy variance is (well) copy variance.
I looked under their FAQ and here is what they say about their testing system:
- Why create another lens rating system?
Existing lens rating systems are flawed by two severe problems. The first and somewhat less significant problem is that not all lenses are tested on the same camera, making it virtually impossible to compare the results. All lenses should be tested on the same camera. The second problem is that many lenses outperform even the best full frame sensors currently available. It is impossible to determine the performance of a lens if the lens outresolves the sensor used for testing. The sensor used for testing lenses should have more resolving power than the best lens. Based on these findings, we've created a lens testing system based on a custom-built camera using a 200MP super high resolution CCD sensor, an apochromatic high-precision lens group custom-made by one of the world's best industrial optics manufacturers and 5 exchangeable lens mount adapters. The sensor of our measuring camera is very slow and not designed for low light applications, but these restrictions are of no significance when measuring the optical performance of a lens. We test every lens on one and the same camera with a sensor that easily outperforms every full frame lens in existence.
- Why are there so few lenses in the database?
The almost fully automated measuring process takes about 16 hours for primes and 48 hours for zoom lenses, data analysis takes another 2 to 6 hours of number crunching. The goal is having all current full frame Nikon, Canon, Sony, Zeiss, Leica and Sigma lenses in the database plus selected Tamron, Tokina and Schneider lenses, but it will take some time to get there."
- What can we do as a manufacturer if we suspect the lens tested was defective?
Get in touch. We will provide you with the serial number of the measured lens and schedule testing with a different copy. If the results of the second test are significantly better, we will update the database accordingly. We do not test lenses provided by manufacturers. Re-testing will be done with a lens acquired independently. We will not do more than one re-test for any given lens model.
So that might be your answer right there.
Jack
-
Under their About page:
- About LenScore™
LenScore™ is a rating system for full frame digital camera lenses. It is based on the optical performance of a lens at 8 different apertures from f/1.4 to f/16 at 5 different focusing distances. Zoom lenses are measured at 3 different focal lengths. The score does not take into account a lens' price, weight, size, build quality, AF speed and image stabilization system. It is purely a rating of optical performance. The score is calibrated based on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G measurements, i.e. the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G is the reference with a score of 1000 in each category.
The overall score ( = LenScore™ ) is a weighted average of the following 10 scores:
Resolving Power
Amount of detail a lens is able to project onto the 24x36mm square within the image circle used by full frame cameras. weight = 7
Contrast
Microcontrast performance. weight = 5
Color
Color fastness. weight = 3
Bokeh
Rendering of out-of-focus areas in front of and behind the focal plane. weight = 5
How to rate bokeh?
Star
Rendering of direct light sources at small apertures. weight = 1
Distortion
Geometrical distortions. weight = 5
Falloff
Light falloff from center to the edges (vignetting). weight = 3
How to rate falloff?
Flare
Amount of contrast reduction and ghosting caused by direct light sources within and ouside the field of view. weight = 5
LaCA
Lateral chromatic aberrations. weight = 3
LoCA
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations. weight = 5
- Declaration
We have never received any equipment from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Zeiss, Leica or any other digital camera lens manufacturer. We only test production lenses purchased and paid for in full from regular camera stores.
Our sister site SenScore™ started out as a small engineering project associated with a PhD, then more people became interested, ideas for testing lenses started to fly and here we are. Both SenScore™ and LenScore™ are strictly non-commercial. We have never received any form of payment from anybody. There is no advertising and no tracking or profiling of any kind on the websites. We are completely independent and can and will say so when a sensor's or lens' performance is disappointing without worrying about hurting affiliate sales, and when we praise a sensor's or lens' performance, then we do it because we are genuinely impressed, not because we will profit from doing so. All of us are passionate about both photography and engineering, and we believe that, for any task, chosing the right tools is important, knowing fully well that photography is so much more than numbers. Good light!
Jack
-
SenScore:
- About SenScore™
SenScore™ is a rating system for digital camera sensors. It is based on the performance of a sensor at all available ISO settings within the 100 to 25600 range as well as the sensor's resolving power across this range. The score is indicative of a camera's image quality across a wide range of real-world conditions. However, the score does not take into account a camera's speed, buffer size, AF, metering, build quality etc. and is therefore not a camera rating. The score is calibrated based on the Nikon D800 measurements, i.e. the D800 is the reference with a score of 1000 in each category. Measurements are based on raw files. JPEG engine performance is not part of SenScore™. Video performance is not part of SenScore™.
Nikon F-mount cameras are measured with: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Canon EF-mount cameras are measured with: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Sony A-mount cameras are measured with: Sony Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA
The overall score ( = SenScore™ ) is the average of the following 5 scores:
Noise
The amount of noise added by the sensor and AD conversion process.
Dynamic Range
The ratio between the lowest amount of light a sensor is able to detect and the amount of light that pushes the sensor into saturation. Not to be confused with tonal range. A sensor with a 4-bit readout able to distinguish only 16 levels of lightness could theoretically have a very high dynamic range. We measure the dynamic range of a camera sensor with a custom built device for which we are in the process of seeking patent protection.
Color Range
The number of colors a sensor is able to distinguish.
Tonal Range
The number of lightness levels a sensor is able to distinguish. The imaginary 4-bit sensor mentioned in the Dynamic Range section offering an extremely high dynamic range would score very low on tonal range.
Resolving Power
Amount of detail a sensor is able to record. The lens plays an important part in this. All F/EF/A/E mount cameras are measured with the same F/EF/A mount lenses. The 3 lenses used for SenScore™ measurements never leave the lab and are used strictly for this purpose. There is variation in lenses. The F/EF/A mount lenses used for SenScore™ measurements have been carefully selected for their performance.
-
- How does SenScore™ differ from other sensor ratings?
Most sensor ratings represent the image quality of a sensor under ideal conditions, i.e. base ISO, which is very important and useful for selecting a camera for studio use. However, most cameras do not stay in a studio or on a tripod all the time, they are taken to every conceivable dark and challenging corner of the world, and most of the time, they are used to take images under less than ideal conditions. So for selecting a camera for street photography or shooting concerts, for sports and family and the great outdoors, or maybe for a year of backpacking around the globe, SenScore™ is more useful, because it is indicative of a camera's image quality under a wide range of real-world conditions. Also, we think that resolving power is very important and must be taken into account when rating a digital camera sensor.
- Why is the score of the D3x so low?
While being able to produce outstanding images at base ISO, the D3x's image quality rapidly diminishes with higher ISO settings.
- How can the D4s beat the D810?
The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions. However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well. The break-even point is below 400 ISO, at 400 ISO the D4s is already marginally ahead. The D810 retains superior resolving power throughout the measured ISO range, but resolving power is only 20 percent of the overall score, which is why the D4s comes out atop. Thus, if a resolution of significantly more than 16MP is required, the D810 may very well be the better camera for the job even at high ISO, but if 16MP is enough, then the D4s will provide higher image quality. Many people erroneously believe that downsampling will make up for a lack of dynamic range, tonal range and color range, but that's not true. However, downsampling done right can hugely improve the noise characteristics of an image, and in case of the D4s vs the D810, this pretty much eliminates the D4s' advantage in noise performance. (Eric quoted this earlier.)
- Upcoming tests:
Sony A7 II
-
Well - Jack- or - John,
you copied about all the text of their site!
maybe it is quicker to use an URL... :)
Then might as well copy this too:
"LenScore™ is a rating system for full frame digital camera lenses. It is based on the optical performance of a lens at 8 different apertures from f/1.4 to f/16 at 5 different focusing distances. Zoom lenses are measured at 3 different focal lengths"
My idea is that if you calculate a medium value of sharpness of a wide angle lens- you still now nothing.
If you do the same for a telelens it has a lot more value...
etc..
How to measure a medium value for "star"?
-
according to LenScore the 24-70/4L is better than the 16-35/2.8LII which is better than the 17-40/4L and the worst is the 24-70/2.8LII.
Two things: I once owned the original 24-70 and it was an exceptional lens, which easily outranked the 24-105 and 16-35.
your gear list does not show that you ever owned any FF Canons... so your experience with the original 24-70/2.8 (Erik's text was about 24-70/4 ) on APS-C body is relevant how ?
DSLRs
Canon EOS 7D (x2)
Canon EOS 50D - retired
Canon Digital Rebel T2i - retired
>Zooms
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM S
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - retired
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - retired
-
Well - Jack- or - John,
you copied about all the text of their site!
I sign my name Jack, so please use that.
And, um, no, I didn't copy all their text; just the relevant parts to what Erik had posted.
maybe it is quicker to use an URL... :)
Unfortunately, their URL is static and doesn't go to specific pages; hence the copying/pasting required.
Then might as well copy this too:
"LenScore™ is a rating system for full frame digital camera lenses. It is based on the optical performance of a lens at 8 different apertures from f/1.4 to f/16 at 5 different focusing distances. Zoom lenses are measured at 3 different focal lengths"
I already did post that (see Reply #13).
Maybe you should slow down, and actually take the time to read what's posted, before offering a knee-jerk response :P
My idea is that if you calculate a medium value of sharpness of a wide angle lens- you still now nothing.
If you do the same for a telelens it has a lot more value...
etc..
Then maybe you should create your own site.
I am interested in knowing more about LenScore's testing methods, as I happen to like their site and their setup (as well as the fact they don't take $$ and refuse to test more than 1, at most 2, copies.)
How to measure a medium value for "star"?
That is not a value that concerns me.
But you should ask them, not me.
Jack
-
your gear list does not show that you ever owned any FF Canons... so your experience with the original 24-70/2.8 (Erik's text was about 24-70/4 ) on APS-C body is relevant how ?
Good catch.
What's relevant is that the original 24-70/2.8 was a really good lens, that was better than either the elder 16-35 or the 24-105, and so it is conceivable that a particular copy of the original 24-70 lens might outscore one of the newer versions 16-35 or 24-70 on their (LenScore's) setup.
But I made a mistake in not seeing the subject was the new f/4.
Still doesn't change the point though ...
-
For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)
You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality. There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer. Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.
The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better. However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match. (DO YOU HEAR US NIKON!)
-
You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality.
That is a fantasy of your own invention.
What I am preoccupied with is trying to get the most features for the money spent (which should be everyone's goal, really).
There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer. Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.
I realize this.
The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better. However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match.
That is a valid comparison, yes.
For this exact same reasoning, I stated the Sigma 150-600 was the best overall lens in its class.
It simply offers many other features others in its price range simply can't match (from the best build quality of the bunch, to the best range of the bunch, to an OS system that matches the best, to comparable image quality with any of them).
Look at your own arguments in this post here, and see how your previous arguments regarding the 200-500 don't follow the same reasoning you just now applied.
Jack
-
Hi,
Good point, except you can buy a real hammer for 10-20$ that is much better suited to the job.
Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.
But realistically, I think that sites like DxO give some help in choosing lenses as you can check out those lenses at different parts of the image and at different apertures. For me a single figure of merit is pretty worthless. Just to give a small example:
I am mostly shooting landscapes and very seldom use large apertures. Normally I would use f/8 and adjust when needed. Now, f/8 is probably not the best aperture on many lenses, but I feel that diffraction is not really taking it's toll before f/11 and f/8 gives some leeway for non-optimal focus. So, I care very little about performance at f/2.8, or f/1.4. But, there is an exception.
I really want a short telephoto lens that can be used for those ultra thin DoF shots. I may not need f/1.4, f/2.8 is actually quite OK, but I want a lens that is usable at that full aperture without magenta/green fringing.
LenScore includes this into their figure of merit, but they also include it as a parameter. The Zeiss Otuses are on top of that list. Of the affordable lenses, the following lenses are on top:
Sony Planar T* 85 f/1.4 ZA -> 1096
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM -> 1074
Canon EF 85/1.2 LII -> 1069
But on the overall rating I would choose:
Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/85 Batis -> 1003
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85/14G -> 1000
Sigma 85 f/1.4 EX -> 986
Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G -> 953
Canon 85/12LII -> 940
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality. There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer. Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.
The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better. However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match. (DO YOU HEAR US NIKON!)
-
Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.
The Canon 7D II is a fine camera, in a number of important ways, but it just ranked too low in practically every category (sensor-wise) for me to get excited enough to spend money on.
But realistically, I think that sites like DxO give some help in choosing lenses as you can check out those lenses at different parts of the image and at different apertures. For me a single figure of merit is pretty worthless. Just to give a small example:
That is a good point. The aperture you're most comfortable with (or where the lens excels at) is a good figure to know.
However, the truth is, if a particular lens is up to (or close to) the 1000 range in whatever it's being rated at, you can be assured it is pretty much above average to excellent in all areas in that category.
But what about Bokeh?
Bokeh is integral to both macro and bird photography, and the DxO mark doesn't even rate this, whereas LenScore gives it the consideration it deserves.
I am mostly shooting landscapes and very seldom use large apertures. Normally I would use f/8 and adjust when needed. Now, f/8 is probably not the best aperture on many lenses, but I feel that diffraction is not really taking it's toll before f/11 and f/8 gives some leeway for non-optimal focus. So, I care very little about performance at f/2.8, or f/1.4. But, there is an exception.
I really want a short telephoto lens that can be used for those ultra thin DoF shots. I may not need f/1.4, f/2.8 is actually quite OK, but I want a lens that is usable at that full aperture without magenta/green fringing.
LenScore includes this into their figure of merit, but they also include it as a parameter. The Zeiss Otuses are on top of that list. Of the affordable lenses, the following lenses are on top:
Sony Planar T* 85 f/1.4 ZA -> 1096
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM -> 1074
Canon EF 85/1.2 LII -> 1069
But on the overall rating I would choose:
Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/85 Batis -> 1003
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85/14G -> 1000
Sigma 85 f/1.4 EX -> 986
Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G -> 953
Canon 85/12LII -> 940
Best regards
Erik
IMO, there is a point to where you're splitting hairs and arguing minutia.
For example, if one lens scores 986 in regards to (say) resolution, while another scores 1069, the real-world difference is going to be negligible.
However, if (say) one lens scores 1250 in resolution, while another scores 785, then you are talking about a vast difference in quality.
LenScore says its "defacto standard" for excellence is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a score of 1000 in each category.
Therefore, it is probably a safe assumption that, if your lens is at (or close) to 1000 in a particular category, you have "a good thing in your hands."
If what you have is 1100-1200+, then you probably have something exemplary and beyond (as you go up);
By contrast, if what you have is rated at only 800-700-, then you probably have something average to poor (as you go down), etc.
With that said, making gear-changing decisions between 986 and 1000 would be, at best, unproductive.
But making decisions between 750 and 1050 might be something to consider.
Jack
-
Hi,
Good point, except you can buy a real hammer for 10-20$ that is much better suited to the job.
Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.
My point about the hammer is reliability and durability. A significant amount of the price of a D4s and 1Dx have nothing to do with the image quality. And I would go Semi-Pro for the 7DmkII, but the real feature that sells that camera is 10fps and the processing and data paths to support it.
For this exact same reasoning, I stated the Sigma 150-600 was the best overall lens in its class. It simply offers many other features others in its price range simply can't match (from the best build quality of the bunch, to the best range of the bunch, to an OS system that matches the best, to comparable image quality with any of them).
Look at your own arguments in this post here, and see how your previous arguments regarding the 200-500 don't follow the same reasoning you just now applied.
My arguments are entirely consistent. DXOmark sensor ratings only rate the performance of the SENSOR, not the CAMERA. The D810 sensor clearly outperforms that of the D4s. But that is not the only characteristic upon which people rely for choosing a camera.
With respect to the Sigma Sport and Nikkor 200-500mm, you have 2 lenses with comparable optical quality. One has a wider focal length range, but the cost is an additional $600 and 2lbs more weight to carry.
The larger point is that one must understand what is being tested and rated. Figure out if that matters to you at all. And then figure out how that factor weighs in comparison to all other factors among the valid alternatives. The only reason I'm considering the Nikon 200-500mm at all is that the Nikkor 80-400mm is $1000 more! For my application, I'm weighing a single body with the 80-400mm versus 2 bodies with the 70-200mm and 200-500mm!
-
My arguments are entirely consistent. DXOmark sensor ratings only rate the performance of the SENSOR, not the CAMERA. The D810 sensor clearly outperforms that of the D4s. But that is not the only characteristic upon which people rely for choosing a camera.
No so.
The D810 sensor only outperforms the D4s in resolution.
In every other category, it fails to perform as well, and I quote:
- The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions.
However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly (in the D810) with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well.
With respect to the Sigma Sport and Nikkor 200-500mm, you have 2 lenses with comparable optical quality. One has a wider focal length range, but the cost is an additional $600 and 2lbs more weight to carry.
True.
However, it all depends on what you consider important (or how you want to word it ;)).
You can say the Sigma has "2 lb more weight," or you can say the Sigma has "Vastly superior build quality."
You can say the Sigma has "Wider focal length," or you can say it has "100mm more reach, with 50 mm more width."
You can also say the Sigma "Costs an additional 600" ...
Meanwhile I will say, "The Nikon offers (in more reviews than not) somewhat inferior image quality, has a 150 mm less reach, and has nowhere near the build quality of the Sigma, but it comes at a somewhat cheaper price (with those considerations is mind)."
So, again, it's all in what you find important, or how you want to word it.
The larger point is that one must understand what is being tested and rated. Figure out if that matters to you at all. And then figure out how that factor weighs in comparison to all other factors among the valid alternatives. The only reason I'm considering the Nikon 200-500mm at all is that the Nikkor 80-400mm is $1000 more! For my application, I'm weighing a single body with the 80-400mm versus 2 bodies with the 70-200mm and 200-500mm!
I would definitely go for the newer 200-500 Nikon, over the elder 80-400, given your Nikon-limited parameters.
I completely agree there, as the Nikon 200-500 has better image quality, and longer reach, for a cheaper price, than its elder Nikon predecessor.
These arguments cannot be made, however, when the Nikon 200-500 is faced-off with the Sigma 150-600 ... here, the cheaper price of the lens is only because it offers less.
The Sigma is a few hundred more expensive, and gives plenty of reasons why it's worth the extra $$.
Jack
-
The D810 sensor only outperforms the D4s in resolution.
In every other category, it fails to perform as well, and I quote:
- The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions.
However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly (in the D810) with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well.
You made an statement and then disproved it. The D810 outperforms the D4s in almost any aspect until you start raising the ISO. The only thing the D4 sensor does better is handle higher ISOs and that is a function of the much larger pixel size. It does better with less light. The D4s is what like 16MP. Same reason the D5 will be only 20MP. The users are unwilling to trade the higher ISO performance for more pixels since they generally don't need the pixels anyway. A landscape guy, on the other hand, will almost always make this trade because they are going to shoot at lower ISOs and want more pixels, DR and color depth instead.
Which brings us back to the same point I can explain to you, but not understand for you. There is no best because our choice is not between something and nothing. It is not an absolute. It is based on personal preference. We make these choices base on MARGINAL VALUE.
For example, I might prefer steak to chicken. But, after having steak 30 nights in a row, I might opt for chicken. That is because my choice not between all the steak in the world and all the chicken, but between a 31st night in a row of steak or my 1st night of chicken.
I think we can all agree that having a wider 150-600mm focal length range is better than a 200-500mm focal length range, if all else were equal. The absolute value of that is not in question. What is in question is the MARGINAL value of the additional range over 200-500mm when compared to the increase in costs in dollars, size and weight. There is no right or wrong answer, it is personal preference. You might be surprised to learn there are people unwilling to carry the Nikon 200-500mm because it weighs 4.2lbs even though they would love to have this focal range. Even more people unwilling to carry the 6.2lbs of the Sigma Sport. For them, the smaller, lighter 100-400mm lenses might be the best inexpensive super tele zoom.
-
Hi,
My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.
On the other hand, I used to have an 80-200/2.8 or a 70-300/4.5-5.6 and a 400/4.5 APO. After that I got myself an 70-400/4-5.6 lens. So far, I have not proven to me that the 400/4.5 APO is superior to the 70-400/4-5.6, so I carry one lens instead of two. If you do air travel and care about carry on limits, things like that matter a lot.
Just to say, that 200-400 from Canon that has swallowed an 1.4X extender is quite tempting, except the price tag…
Best regards
Erik
You made an statement and then disproved it. The D810 outperforms the D4s in almost any aspect until you start raising the ISO. The only thing the D4 sensor does better is handle higher ISOs and that is a function of the much larger pixel size. It does better with less light. The D4s is what like 16MP. Same reason the D5 will be only 20MP. The users are unwilling to trade the higher ISO performance for more pixels since they generally don't need the pixels anyway. A landscape guy, on the other hand, will almost always make this trade because they are going to shoot at lower ISOs and want more pixels, DR and color depth instead.
Which brings us back to the same point I can explain to you, but not understand for you. There is no best because our choice is not between something and nothing. It is not an absolute. It is based on personal preference. We make these choices base on MARGINAL VALUE.
For example, I might prefer steak to chicken. But, after having steak 30 nights in a row, I might opt for chicken. That is because my choice not between all the steak in the world and all the chicken, but between a 31st night in a row of steak or my 1st night of chicken.
I think we can all agree that having a wider 150-600mm focal length range is better than a 200-500mm focal length range, if all else were equal. The absolute value of that is not in question. What is in question is the MARGINAL value of the additional range over 200-500mm when compared to the increase in costs in dollars, size and weight. There is no right or wrong answer, it is personal preference. You might be surprised to learn there are people unwilling to carry the Nikon 200-500mm because it weighs 4.2lbs even though they would love to have this focal range. Even more people unwilling to carry the 6.2lbs of the Sigma Sport. For them, the smaller, lighter 100-400mm lenses might be the best inexpensive super tele zoom.
-
Hi,
My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.
That is actually what makes the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E interesting other than the $1399 price tag. It is reportedly very good at 500mm, is good wide open and exhibits very little vignetting.
I actually have the 200-500mm sitting in my Amazon Cart with the Amazon Coupon for $200 credit applied and haven't pulled the trigger over size and weight.
-
That is actually what makes the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E interesting other than the $1399 price tag. It is reportedly very good at 500mm, is good wide open and exhibits very little vignetting.
I actually have the 200-500mm sitting in my Amazon Cart with the Amazon Coupon for $200 credit applied and haven't pulled the trigger over size and weight.
I have tested the 300pf and it is a very nice lens that is at its best @ f5.6 ( 6.3 according to lenscore - this time they shared some more information)
What makes it special is that i could make sharp photo's handheld @ 1/30 sec ( 1 out of 3 about - that depends on you skills)
and that it worked very good with the 2x converter, making it a F8 600mm of about 1 KG. ( worked best @F11)
I do not have the other converters, but optically it could handle the 600mm very well on a d810. With 1,4 it would be a 5.6 420mm.
just to make your choice more easy :)
-
I have tested the 300pf and it is a very nice lens that is at its best @ f5.6 ( 6.3 according to lenscore - this time they shared some more information)
What makes it special is that i could make sharp photo's handheld @ 1/30 sec ( 1 out of 3 about - that depends on you skills)
and that it worked very good with the 2x converter, making it a F8 600mm of about 1 KG. ( worked best @F11)
I do not have the other converters, but optically it could handle the 600mm very well on a d810. With 1,4 it would be a 5.6 420mm.
just to make your choice more easy :)
Thanks. While I can see over the years, various uses for this lens, my original purpose is going to have me shooting it wide open most of the time at shutter speeds from 1/500th and up. I usually shoot sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8 w/ and w/o the TC-14E II. Just not enough focal length. The graphic bellows shows my comparisons for options.
-
Thanks. While I can see over the years, various uses for this lens, my original purpose is going to have me shooting it wide open most of the time at shutter speeds from 1/500th and up. I usually shoot sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8 w/ and w/o the TC-14E II. Just not enough focal length. The graphic bellows shows my comparisons for options.
At some point 16 MP of information is all you can get with action photography due to the action and the small DOF; so even DX of the d810 is good enough...
The 300mm pf is a lens that you can ' just take with you' without a second thought everywhere - that i find is a great quality.
BTW A Nikon spokesmen told me that (extreme) telelenses are usually made to be best till about 50-100m or so, because beyond that point atmospheric problems are usually more of a degrading the image than lens quality.
-
Hi,
My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.
Wouldn't that same logic hold on the Nikon 200-500 too?
If max of 500 is thereby the weakest point on the Nikon, it is a strong point on the Sigma because it still has 100 mm to go.
There are many reports saying that the Sigma peforms acceptably on the long-end. (Not at the level of a dedicated 600 supertelephoto, but better than the Tamron 150-600 by far.)
The Sigma also performs better than any of them at 600 (seeing as none of the others go there).
And, even with an extender on the Canon 100-400 II (or Nikon 200-500) the Sigma 150-600 performs better at the 600 mm range "as-is" than either with an extender.
On the other hand, I used to have an 80-200/2.8 or a 70-300/4.5-5.6 and a 400/4.5 APO. After that I got myself an 70-400/4-5.6 lens. So far, I have not proven to me that the 400/4.5 APO is superior to the 70-400/4-5.6, so I carry one lens instead of two. If you do air travel and care about carry on limits, things like that matter a lot.
Exactly, and the 150-600 covers the most ground in one purchase ...
Just to say, that 200-400 from Canon that has swallowed an 1.4X extender is quite tempting, except the price tag…
Best regards
Erik
Optically, this is the best tele-zoom, by far, but it's also $11,000 compared to $1,900.
Jack
-
Wouldn't that same logic hold on the Nikon 200-500 too? If max of 500 is thereby the weakest point on the Nikon, it is a strong point on the Sigma because it still has 100 mm to go. There are many reports saying that the Sigma peforms acceptably on the long-end. (Not at the level of a dedicated 600 supertelephoto, but better than the Tamron 150-600 by far.)
It would if it did. The knock on the 80-400mm Nikkor is that it's performance deteriorates as it goes to 400mm. Still better than the 70-200mm with TCs to 400 though. The 200-500mm does not undergo that kind of deterioration out at 500mm Based on tests and reviews, it also appears the Sigma Sport also holds up well to the long end. At 500 and 600mm atmospherics and technique are gonna be strong factors.
One always needs to rethink past assumptions based on the advancement of technology and manufacturing capability.
BTW, just pulled the trigger on the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E. Amazon giving me $200 photo credit to use later so the price of $1196 for the lens seems worthwhile. Even if I find it not my cup of tea (too big and heavy for my anticipated use) and I end up getting the 300mm f/4 PF, I can still find uses for it and sell it later used for almost what I have in it. Win/Win!
-
It would if it did. The knock on the 80-400mm Nikkor is that it's performance deteriorates as it goes to 400mm. Still better than the 70-200mm with TCs to 400 though. The 200-500mm does not undergo that kind of deterioration out at 500mm Based on tests and reviews, it also appears the Sigma Sport also holds up well to the long end. At 500 and 600mm atmospherics and technique are gonna be strong factors.
One always needs to rethink past assumptions based on the advancement of technology and manufacturing capability.
BTW, just pulled the trigger on the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E. Amazon giving me $200 photo credit to use later so the price of $1196 for the lens seems worthwhile. Even if I find it not my cup of tea (too big and heavy for my anticipated use) and I end up getting the 300mm f/4 PF, I can still find uses for it and sell it later used for almost what I have in it. Win/Win!
Congratulations ... hope it exceeds your expectations.
-
FYI, the Sigma 150-600 also has a $200 rebate going right now (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082151-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html), all the more sweetened by offering their $59 Sigma Dock free (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967590-REG/sigma_878306_usb_dock_for_nikon.html) as well, for essentially a $259 rebate.
(The Sigma Dock allows you to connect your Sigma Global Vision lenses to your computer in order to update firmware and adjust focus setting parameters, fine-tuning the AF to custom-fit your unique camera, which is a really cool feature.)
In looking at the Nikon-equivalent, I found the reviews in the Nikon mount interesting, as the reviews were across-the-board favorable for Canon-fitted Sigma, but there were a few long faces (3-Star reviews) for the Nikon users. After reading the 3-star reviews, it was clear these were either from user-ignorance or user-idiosyncrasy (two users failed to calibrate their lenses with the Sigma Dock, thus their "inconsistent focus" was a result of nothing but their own errors/omissions, while another faulted the lens because the collar/foot couldn't be removed ... apparently the reality that this lens is made for tripod use didn't dawn on him).
In all instances, the users who were competent (and thorough in their testing) raved about the lens, one saying it equaled the 200-400 II in build quality, as well as (optically) at 400 mm ... while providing 200mm additional reach. Two others tested the lens against against the 80-400 as well as the 300 f/2.8 prime with converter. All testers who used a tripod favored the Sigma.
What's interesting is that, according to LenScore, the Sigma 150-600 is on the Top 10 of all Zooms made in any category.
What's even more interesting is 4 of those lenses are in the $3000-$11,000 price range, and every lens that rates higher is more expensive.
Yet none of the other Top 10 lenses can touch the Sigma in its optical range (150-600mm), yet the Sigma is equal (or nearly equal) to any lens under $3000.
Check-out the most important stats for the long-tele zoom lenses under $3,000:
- Resolving Power:
1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 992
2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 933
3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 891
4. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 884
The Sigma is only slightly behind, yet it triples the reach of the Canon/Nikon 70-200mms, and has 200mm more reach than the Canon 100-400 (meanwhile the Nikon 80-400 didn't make it to the Top 4).
- Bokeh:
1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 877
2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 872
3. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM C - 865
4. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 830
The Sigma Sport is #1 here, and now BOTH Sigmas are in the Top 4, again tripling the reach of the Canon/Nikon 70-200mms, while offering top tier bokeh quality (meanwhile no Nikon/Canon 80/100-400 is even in the Top 4).
- Contrast:
1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 935
2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 866
3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR - 859
4. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 852
The Canon 100-400 II is #1 here, and basically you're splitting hairs with the other 3. And, once again, the Sigma 150-600 offers 200mm more reach then the 100-400 Canon, and triples the reach of the CanNikon's 70-200s, while offering comparable stats.
- Color:
1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 947
2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 941
3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 939
4. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM - 890
This was the Sigma's weakest point, with a score of only 798, which is only an average to slightly-above-average score.
But, here again, it offers 200mm more than the Canon 100-400, and triples the reach of the rest.
And when one keeps in mind that ALL of these lenses fail to match the Sigma, in any category, with a 1.4 TC attached, the Sigma's overall value becomes even clearer.
Especially when one adds-in the fact the Sigma Sport has a better build quality than any of them, to boot, rivaling the build quality of $6000 lenses.
Jack
-
It looks like the SenScore test for the Nikon 200-500 just came out and it is very good indeed. Here is how the two stack up:
- Resolving Power:
1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 884
2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 835
The Sigma is a tad better in resolving power, but the results are fairly comparable.
- Bokeh:
1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 877
2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 786
The Sigma Sport is #1 here (and was #1 against every zoom under $3,000), and quite a bit over the new 200-500.
- Contrast:
1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 852
2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 818
Again, the Sigma is ahead, but again the results are fairly comparable.
- Color:
1. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 840
2. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 798
This was the Sigma's weakest point (against everybody), but although the new 200-500 edges the Sigma in this category it wouldn't have made the Top 4, above, either.
All-in-all, it looks like the new Nikon 200-500 got a respectable overall score (811), but it actually wasn't in the Top 4 in any category :o
Even with its marginal shortcomings (apparently across the board) in scores, it is still a more exciting zoom range (200-500) over the standard 70-200, and even over the 200-400s.
IMO, it trumps any zoom lens Canon currently has (under $3000), including the 100-400 II (in terms of useful wildlife range), with only a slight compromise in optic quality.
Still, when you expand your vision beyond "Canon or Nikon," it is hard to reconcile the fact that (for an extra $600) you can get even better (150-600) reach with the Sigma, and get better optics in virtually every important category, and vastly-better build quality.
Check out the new score for anyone who's interested: http://www.lenscore.org
Jack
-
The Sigma is overall a bit better optically. It would be interesting to get detailed results on the long end of the zoom range where these lenses will be used most often.
Practically speaking though, the real world image quality delivered on moving subjects will be impacted by the body+lens AF performance. That will have several times more impact than small optical differences.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those interested in this topic, SenScore (http://www.senscore.org) just came out with the ratings of the Sony A7R II and A7S II.
-
Jack, out of curiosity, are you considering APS-C still?
I have nothing to add to the conversation on long zooms, as I use the fossilized 7 element Canon 400 f/5.6L currently - very amenable to hand held bird-in-flight shots, image quality fine on APS-C-sized pixels for an 11 x 17 image, given impeccable hand-held technique (practice, practice!). But I am pumping iron (weight-lifting), so maybe I will graduate to a modern lens with image stabilization someday... ;) I am guessing that my major deficit is not in equipment but in fieldcraft.
-
Jack, out of curiosity, are you considering APS-C still?
I have nothing to add to the conversation on long zooms, as I use the fossilized 7 element Canon 400 f/5.6L currently - very amenable to hand held bird-in-flight shots, image quality fine on APS-C-sized pixels for an 11 x 17 image, given impeccable hand-held technique (practice, practice!). But I am pumping iron (weight-lifting), so maybe I will graduate to a modern lens with image stabilization someday... ;) I am guessing that my major deficit is not in equipment but in fieldcraft.
Don't feel bad Nancy, I opted for the 200-500mm Nikkor over the Sigma Sport mainly on price and I wasn't willing or able to hand hold 2 more pounds of lens over the 4.3lb Nikkor. Confirmed that the other day shooting soccer. Last night it was on a monopod!
John can answer for himself, but it looks like he is going my route. D810 Full Frame paired with the APS-C D500. A potent combination that covers most shooting situations.
-
Jack, out of curiosity, are you considering APS-C still?
At this point, no.
I decided to wait to get some feedback on the D500 before I buy it.
If you look at SenScore (http://www.senscore.org), the APS-C cameras are all rated below 662 (or well below). My old 7D was 355.
Having the D810 now, rated at 1039, I really don't want to go backward from where I am, but forward.
So I want to see a lot of feeback on the D500 before I spend $2,000 on it.
Canon's best, nearly 2 years later, still falls short of the D810, with an overall 1008 rating.
The best full-frame out there in this class, that just came out, is the Sony A7R II which is 1099 (which isn't much of a gain over the 2-year-old D810).
This means the D810 remains in a very solid position, with across-the-board marks in the mid-1000s.
If anything, if I want to take my photography to the next level, I am thinking my 2nd camera isn't going to be the the D500 ... but the Nikon D5.
I have nothing to add to the conversation on long zooms, as I use the fossilized 7 element Canon 400 f/5.6L currently - very amenable to hand held bird-in-flight shots, image quality fine on APS-C-sized pixels for an 11 x 17 image, given impeccable hand-held technique (practice, practice!). But I am pumping iron (weight-lifting), so maybe I will graduate to a modern lens with image stabilization someday... ;)
In keeping with this, I have returned the Sigma 150-600 Sport, and just went for it and bought the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909811-REG/Sigma_137306_120_300mm_f_2_8_DG_OS.html).
On my 7D, the Sigma 150-600 S took shots that looked like they were under water.
(I am sure that was more the fault of my 7D than anything else, but it was unacceptable compared to the Sigma 180 macro, which took very sharp images even on my 7D.)
The Sigma 150-600 is only rated about 800 & change across the board, on LenScore, and there was an undeniable degradation compared to the Sigma 180 macro, which scores in the 1000s and the difference was definitely real.
By contrast, the Sigma 120-300 rates higher than the Sigma 180 macro (and has a higher score on LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) than any macro lens out there, including the Zeiss and even the Schneider. Moreover the Sigma 120-300 is highly-corrected for chromatic aberration, rating ~1100 La, ~1400 Lo, compared to only 800-900 for the VERY best macro lenses shown, with most being in the 700-800s.)
In short, I couldn't see a reason to buy a camera that rates exemplary (1000+ across the board), like the D810, and then stick a lens in front of it that rates in the 700-800 range.
Now I have a field zoom that is of the same class as my camera (and, in fact, replaced my excellent Sigma 180 macro as well, so I sent both the other, less expensive, Sigma lenses back to get this ONE gem).
This means I no longer have a "field macro" ... I have a field telephoto, with all the creature comforts of the 180 APO macro, but even better qualities.
For my "home studio" 1:1 macro, I just ordered the Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar Macro from Japan; as well as some smaller Nikkor primes, used on reverse-mounts, for even higher magnification.
I am guessing that my major deficit is not in equipment but in fieldcraft.
Exactly right, now I just have to upgrade my skill level to that of my camera/lens combo ;D
Jack
PS: However, it's nice to know that (on the few good shots I will be taking this new season) that I will be capturing them to their uttermost.
Hopefully, as time wears on, and my skills and familiarity with my new equipment increases, that my keepers will be truly nice ... and will, hopefully, increase in number.