RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘tested’

Update: Images appear to confirm Nikon’s Z9 is being tested at the Olympics, gives us the first look at its back side

30 Jul

Update (July 30th, 2021 at 1:30pm EDT): We have added a new tweet from the Photolari Twitter account that shows new images of what appears to be the same Nikon camera shown off in the two images from yesterday.

Today, Twitter account Photolari shared a tweet with a pair of photos showing what appears to be Nikon Z9 mirrorless cameras in the wild at the Olympics.

The original tweet has been deleted, but digicame-info managed to save the above images before their removal. Nikon has confirmed some details of its forthcoming flagship mirrorless camera, but only shown renderings of the front of the camera. These new images reveal the back side of the pro-style camera body, which appears to feature Nikon’s signature circular eyepiece, dual joysticks, a directional pad and a generous array of buttons. Below is a breakdown of the buttons (many of which are surely going to be customizable):

There appears to be black gaffer tape around the screen of the camera, obscuring what may or may not be an articulating display.

DPReview confirmed with Nikon earlier this week that it had its Z6 II and Z7 II mirrorless cameras and Z mount lenses on-hand at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, but there was no mention of its unreleased Z9 mirrorless camera. It’s been confirmed Canon has photographers testing out its forthcoming EOS R3 mirrorless camera at the Olympics as well, so it’s no surprise Nikon is using the Olympic Games as a testing ground as well for its professional camera system.

Below is a new tweet from the Photolari Twitter account showing off two new images of what appears to be the same camera shown off in the above images:


Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Update: Images appear to confirm Nikon’s Z9 is being tested at the Olympics, gives us the first look at its back side

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Canon R5 / R6 overheat claims tested: Stills shooting, setup quickly cut into promised capture times [UPDATED]

07 Aug
Testing conducted in Seattle by our Technical Editor Richard Butler. Real-world production experiences by Jordan Drake: the director and editor of many of our ‘DPRTV’ videos.

Originally published Aug 3, updated Aug 6: conclusions and analysis revised based on additional experience with the camera

If you have any interest in cameras, you may have witnessed the heated discussions lately around the new Canon EOS R5 and R6’s tendency to overheat when capturing video internally. The Internet tends to amplify the most extreme version of any story or phenomenon, which might have lead to you getting the impression that the cameras are unusable.

Jordan’s EOS R5 experience

We shot for 10 hours at a variety of locations, which I thought would give the camera ample opportunity to cool down. I planned to shoot the episode in the 4K HQ mode, with occasional 4K/120P and 8K shots peppered throughout. Quickly I realized that setting up a shot and menu-diving would reduce the amount of record time I had for HQ, so I found myself spending far less time previewing the shot before rolling, adding a layer of stress.

Eventually, I realized couldn’t record all the talking points in 4K HQ, and settled on using 4K HQ for wide shots and standard, line-skipped 4K for closeups. This made shooting sustainable, though I found myself avoiding trying to capture any spontaneous establishing shots or cutaways, lest I drop the dreaded overheating clock a bit lower. While our host Chris took it in his stride, I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for the talent to not know if the camera will last until the end of a take.

I also found myself heavily rationing the 4K/120P as it really chews up your remaining shooting minutes. I spent two minutes capturing the seagull footage in the episode: beforehand I the camera said it would shoot 15 minutes of 4K HQ, when I returned I had only five minutes remaining!

If the quality difference between 4K HQ and standard 4K capture were not so dramatic, this would bother me less. However, once you start viewing and editing the gorgeous 4K HQ footage, it makes it that much harder to go back to inferior line skipped 4K, and that’s a type of disappointment I don’t want to be dealing with on a shoot.

After extensive testing of both cameras, our conclusions with regards internal recording are:

  • From a cold start, the Canon EOS R5 and R6 perform in line with the company’s video performance claims.
  • Non-video use cuts into available shooting time, adding significant uncertainty for video shooters

We tested a pair of R5s and an R6 in a variety of warm conditions and found they consistently performed in line with the limitations that Canon acknowledged at the point of launch. However, the practical implications are that the cameras are prone to overheating if you shoot for extended periods and if you have crew or talent waiting to re-start shooting, they may take too long to recover.

It should be noted that Canon did not design either the EOS R5 or R6 to be professional video tools, nor does it primarily market them as such. But based on our testing and real-world usage we would caution against using them as a substitute.

So why is YouTube saying the sky is falling?

Our testing suggests that the cameras perform in exactly the way that Canon said they would. However, there is an important caveat that Canon’s figures don’t address: although the cameras can repeatedly deliver the amount of video promised, they may not always do so in real-world usage.

Even set to the mode designed to limit pre-recording temperature build-up, the clock is essentially running from the moment you turn the camera on. Video recording is the most processor-intensive (and hence most heat generating) thing you can do, but any use of the camera will start to warm it up, and start chipping away at your recording times. Consequently, any time spent setting up a shot, setting white balance, setting focus or waiting for your talent to get ready (or shooting still images) will all cut into your available recording time, and you won’t reliably get the full amount Canon advises.

Not only does this make R5 a poor fit for many professional video shoots, it also means that you can’t depend on the cameras when shooting video alongside stills at, say, a wedding, which is a situation that the EOS R5 clearly is intended for.

Even when left in direct sunshine, the cameras continued to record for the duration Canon promised. However, this is only true when you’re not using the camera for anything else.

The one piece of good news is that the camera’s estimates appear to be on the conservative side: every time the camera said it would deliver X minutes of footage, it delivered what it’d promised. You can also record 4K footage for much longer if you can use an external recorder but again, this probably isn’t going to suit photographers or video crews looking for a self-contained, do-everything device.

Click here if you want to see our test methods and results.

EOS R5 suggestions:

  • Expect to shoot line-skipped 30p for the bulk of your footage
  • Only use 8K or oversampled HQ 4K for occasional B-Roll
  • 4K/120 and 8K will cut into your shooting time quickest of all
  • Be aware of your setup time and cumulative usage (including stills shooting)

EOS R6 suggestions:

  • Don’t expect to be able to shoot for extended periods
  • Be aware of the need for extensive cooling periods between bursts of shooting

Analysis: Why hadn’t Canon thought about this?

It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking this means Canon didn’t put enough thought into thermal management for these cameras. Our testing suggests this isn’t the case, but that the cameras’ specs are rather over-ambitious.

Jordan’s EOS R6 experience

I had done some testing prior to my shoot, and was comfortable that overheating wouldn’t be a problem if I stuck to 4K/24p. Unfortunately, my experience on a warm day was quite different to that room-temperature test. There’s no line-skipped 4K mode on the R6, so if the camera overheats, you’re back to 1080P, which will be a jarring transition for viewers watching on larger screens.

While I was able to record much longer with the R6 before encountering the overheat warning, once it appears the camera takes far longer to cool down again than the R5. Our regular drives in an air conditioned car allowed Chris and Levi’s R5 to function throughout the day, but at one point I was left sitting in the car, babysitting a hot R6 while they went out to shoot. During a one hour lunch, the R5 had returned back to normal, but the R6 had a twenty minute warning still on.

This was hugely disappointing as, rolling shutter aside, the R6 video quality is excellent, and I’d be perfectly happy using it over the R5. However, the longer cool down times would probably lead me to use the R5, dropping to line-skipped 4K from time to time.

While I enjoyed most aspects of using these two cameras, I have no intention of using either of them as a primary video camera. They would be great for grabbing occasional, very high quality video clips, but I’d never want to rely on them for paid work.

With the exception of specialist video models, most cameras that shoot 4K are prone to overheating, regardless of the brand. Some companies let you extend the recording time by ignoring overheat warnings (and risk ‘low-temperature burns’ if you handhold the camera), while others simply stop when they get too hot. This should make it clear that shooting 4K for an extended period is difficult. For instance, Sony says the a7 III will shoot around 29 minutes of 4K video with the temperature warnings set to ‘Std,’ while the Fujifilm X-T4 promises 30 minutes of 4K/30 and 20 minutes of 4K/60.

The cumulative heat is constantly counting against you

8K is four times as much data as natively-sampled 4K and seventeen times more than the 1080 footage that older cameras used to capture so effortlessly. Perfect 2:1 oversampled 4K (downsampled 8K) requires this same amount of data, which is still 1.7x more data than is used to create 4K oversampled video from a 24MP sensor. Data means processing, which means heat.

What’s interesting is that the exterior of the cameras don’t get especially hot when shooting for extended periods. We’re only speculating, but this could indicate that Canon has tried to isolate the camera’s internals from external temperature fluctuations, with the down-side that they can’t then dissipate internally produced heat.

This would be consistent with us getting the full recording period out of the camera, even when tested well above the 23°C (73°F) conditions specified by Canon. And with the fact that leaving the camera’s doors closed and battery in place didn’t change the recovery time. However, while this appears to be workable for the line-skipping 4K mode, the added workload of the higher quality settings seems to present a problem. Dealing with 1.7x more data than the a7 III and X-T4 is a step too far: the R5 will match them for promised recording duration but only from cold. This leaves it much more sensitive to any other use beyond video recording.

The EOS R6 is a slightly different matter. It can shoot 40 minutes of 4K taken from 5.1K capture, which is a pretty good performance and may be enough that you won’t often hit its temperature limits. However even after a 30 minute cooling period, it has only recovered enough to deliver around half of its maximum record time, whereas the EOS R5 recovered nearly its full capability. The more extensive use of metal in the construction of the R5 seems to help it manage heat better than the R6 can.

And, as both Jordan’s and Richard’s experiences show: if you don’t have time to let the cameras cool, that cumulative heat is constantly counting against you.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Canon R5 / R6 overheat claims tested: Stills shooting, setup quickly cut into promised capture times [UPDATED]

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Canon EOS R5 and R6 overheating claims tested: cameras work as promised – but that’s not enough

04 Aug
Testing conducted in Seattle by our Technical Editor Richard Butler. Real-world production experiences by Jordan Drake: the director and editor of many of our ‘DPRTV’ videos.

If you have any interest in cameras, you may have witnessed the heated discussions lately around the new Canon EOS R5 and R6’s tendency to overheat when capturing video internally. The Internet tends to amplify the most extreme version of any story or phenomenon, which might have lead to you getting the impression that the cameras are unusable.

Jordan’s EOS R5 experience

We shot for 10 hours at a variety of locations, which I thought would give the camera ample opportunity to cool down. I planned to shoot the episode in the 4K HQ mode, with occasional 4K/120P and 8K shots peppered throughout. Quickly I realized that setting up a shot and menu-diving would reduce the amount of record time I had for HQ, so I found myself spending far less time previewing the shot before rolling, adding a layer of stress.

Eventually, I realized couldn’t record all the talking points in 4K HQ, and settled on using 4K HQ for wide shots and standard, line-skipped 4K for closeups. This made shooting sustainable, though I found myself avoiding trying to capture any spontaneous establishing shots or cutaways, lest I drop the dreaded overheating clock a bit lower. While our host Chris took it in his stride, I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for the talent to not know if the camera will last until the end of a take.

I also found myself heavily rationing the 4K/120P as it really chews up your remaining shooting minutes. I spent two minutes capturing the seagull footage in the episode: beforehand I the camera said it would shoot 15 minutes of 4K HQ, when I returned I had only five minutes remaining!

If the quality difference between 4K HQ and standard 4K capture were not so dramatic, this would bother me less. However, once you start viewing and editing the gorgeous 4K HQ footage, it makes it that much harder to go back to inferior line skipped 4K, and that’s a type of disappointment I don’t want to be dealing with on a shoot.

After extensive testing of both cameras, our conclusions with regards internal recording are:

  • Both the EOS R5 and R6 appear capable of working as promised
  • Lack of dependability makes them a poor choice for much professional video work

We tested a pair of R5s and an R6 in a variety of warm conditions and found they consistently performed in line with the limitations that Canon acknowledged at the point of launch. However, the practical implications are that the cameras are prone to overheating if you shoot for extended periods and if you have crew or talent waiting to re-start shooting, they may take too long to recover.

It should be noted that Canon did not design either the EOS R5 or R6 to be professional video tools, nor does it primarily market them as such. But based on our testing and real-world usage we would caution against using them as a substitute.

So why is YouTube saying the sky is falling?

Our testing suggests that the cameras perform in exactly the way that Canon said they would. However, there is an important caveat that Canon’s figures don’t address: although the cameras can repeatedly deliver the amount of video promised, they may not always do so in real-world usage.

Even set to the mode designed to limit pre-recording temperature build-up, the clock is essentially running from the moment you turn the camera on. Video recording is the most processor-intensive (and hence most heat generating) thing you can do, but any use of the camera will start to warm it up, and start chipping away at your recording times. Consequently, any time spent setting up a shot, setting white balance, setting focus or waiting for your talent to get ready (or shooting still images) will all cut into your available recording time, and you won’t reliably get the full amount Canon advises.

Not only does this make R5 a poor fit for many professional video shoots, it also means that you can’t depend on the cameras when shooting video alongside stills at, say, a wedding, which is a situation that the EOS R5 clearly is intended for.

Even when left in direct sunshine, the cameras continued to record for the duration Canon promised. However, this is only true when you’re not using the camera for anything else.

The one piece of good news is that the camera’s estimates appear to be on the conservative side: every time the camera said it would deliver X minutes of footage, it delivered what it’d promised. You can also record for much longer if you can use an external recorder but again, this probably isn’t going to suit photographers or video crews looking for a self-contained, do-everything device.

Click here if you want to see our test methods and results.

EOS R5 suggestions:

  • Expect to shoot line-skipped 30p for the bulk of your footage
  • Only use 8K or oversampled HQ 4K for occasional B-Roll
  • 4K/120 and 8K will cut into your shooting time quickest of all
  • Be aware of your setup time and cumulative usage (including stills shooting)

EOS R6 suggestions:

  • Don’t expect to be able to shoot for extended periods
  • Be aware of the need for extensive cooling periods between bursts of shooting

Analysis: Why hadn’t Canon thought about this?

It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking this means Canon didn’t put enough thought into thermal management for these cameras. Our testing suggests this isn’t the case, but that the cameras’ specs are rather over-ambitious.

Jordan’s EOS R6 experience

I had done some testing prior to my shoot, and was comfortable that overheating wouldn’t be a problem if I stuck to 4K/24p. Unfortunately, my experience on a warm day was quite different to that room-temperature test. There’s no line-skipped 4K mode on the R6, so if the camera overheats, you’re back to 1080P, which will be a jarring transition for viewers watching on larger screens.

While I was able to record much longer with the R6 before encountering the overheat warning, once it appears the camera takes far longer to cool down again than the R5. Our regular drives in an air conditioned car allowed Chris and Levi’s R5 to function throughout the day, but at one point I was left sitting in the car, babysitting a hot R6 while they went out to shoot. During a one hour lunch, the R5 had returned back to normal, but the R6 had a twenty minute warning still on.

This was hugely disappointing as, rolling shutter aside, the R6 video quality is excellent, and I’d be perfectly happy using it over the R5. However, the longer cool down times would probably lead me to use the R5, dropping to line-skipped 4K from time to time.

While I enjoyed most aspects of using these two cameras, I have no intention of using either of them as a primary video camera. They would be great for grabbing occasional, very high quality video clips, but I’d never want to rely on them for paid work.

With the exception of specialist video models, most cameras that shoot 4K are prone to overheating, regardless of the brand. Some companies let you extend the recording time by ignoring overheat warnings (and risk ‘low-temperature burns’ if you handhold the camera), while others simply stop when they get too hot. This should make it clear that shooting 4K for an extended period is difficult. For instance, Sony says the a7 III will shoot around 29 minutes of 4K video with the temperature warnings set to ‘Std,’ while the Fujifilm X-T4 promises 30 minutes of 4K/30 and 20 minutes of 4K/60.

The cumulative heat is constantly counting against you

8K is four times as much data as natively-sampled 4K and seventeen times more than the 1080 footage that older cameras used to capture so effortlessly. Perfect 2:1 oversampled 4K (downsampled 8K) requires this same amount of data, which is still 1.7x more data than is used to create 4K oversampled video from a 24MP sensor. Data means processing, which means heat.

The fact that the EOS R5 can shoot two hours of 4K/30p footage (in line-skipping mode) when sitting in direct sunshine suggests it’s pretty good at dissipating heat. But it seems trying to do so with 1.7x more data than the a7 III and X-T4 is a step too far: it’ll match them for promised recording duration but only just. This leaves it much more sensitive to any other use when not recording.

The EOS R6 is a slightly different matter. It can shoot 40 minutes of 4K taken from 5.1K capture, which is a pretty good performance and may be enough that you won’t often hit its temperature limits. However even after a 30 minute cooling period, it has only recovered enough to deliver around half of its maximum record time, whereas the EOS R5 recovered nearly its full capability. The metal rear plate of the R5 clearly allows it to manage heat better than the R6 can.

And, as Jordan’s experiences show: if you don’t have time to let the cameras cool, that cumulative heat is constantly counting against you.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Canon EOS R5 and R6 overheating claims tested: cameras work as promised – but that’s not enough

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Tested: Four travel tripods for every budget

26 Jul
From left to right, the MeFoto BackPacker S, Manfrotto BeFree Advanced, Peak Design Travel Tripod and Gitzo Traveler Series 1.

Although image stabilization technology has come along in leaps and bounds over the past few years, there are few things you can do to improve your low-light or telephoto images more than mounting your camera on a tripod. But many tripods are heavy and bulky, making them inconvenient to bring along on longer hikes or when traveling by air. That’s where the humble travel tripod comes to the rescue.

In this review we compare the following travel tripods:

  • MeFoto BackPacker S – $ 159.95 list / ~$ 120 street
  • Manfrotto BeFree Advanced – $ 324.99 list / ~$ 280 street
  • Peak Design Travel Tripod – $ 599.95 list / ~$ 600 street
  • Gitzo Traveler Series 1 – $ 1014.99 list / ~$ 600 street

Travel tripods are available across a very wide price range, from consumer models that cost not much more than $ 100 to professional-grade ones that can run into the high hundreds of dollars or more. But is it worth spending that extra cash, and can you expect a significantly better experience from a more expensive tripod? To find out, we rounded up a selection of name-brand carbon-fiber travel tripods spanning the pricing gamut for an in-depth, side-by-side comparison.

In many respects, all four tripods have a lot in common. They all come with quick-release plates that you can leave attached to your camera for quicker setup, for example. And they all have reversible center columns which also let you shoot straight downwards, something that can be handy for macro shooting in particular.

They also share locks and/or safety pins to help prevent your camera accidentally being disconnected, and sandbag hooks either at the end of the center column or on the side of the spider, from which you can hang some weight for extra stability. (Just remember to include this weight along with that of your chosen camera and lens when determining your required payload!)

In this review, we’ll focus mostly on how these four tripods differ from each other, and their advantages and disadvantages in real-world shooting. Read on to find out how they performed, and which was our favorite.
MeFoto BackPacker S Manfrotto BeFree Advanced Peak Design Travel Tripod Gitzo Traveler Series 1
MSRP $ 159.95 $ 324.99 $ 599.95 $ 1014.99
Street price ~$ 120 ~$ 280 ~$ 600 ~$ 600
Length and diameter (folded)* 33.5 x 9.5cm 41.0 x 10.5 cm 39.1 x 7.9 cm 42.5 x 1 cm
Max. height (with center column)* 140.0cm 151.0cm 153.5cm 164.5cm
Max. height (no center column)* 108.0cm 127.0cm 131.0cm 141.0cm
Min. height (standard center column)* 33.5cm 40.5cm 34.5cm 42.5cm
Min. height (short center column)* N/A 19cm (optional extra) 15.5cm (included) 33.0cm (included)
Weight with accessories* 1017g** 1268g*** 1342g**** 1489g*****
Load limit 6kg 8kg 9.1kg 10kg
Number of leg angles 3 3 2 2
Converts to monopod? Yes (143.0cm max.)* No No No
Bubble level? Yes No Yes Yes
Panorama control? Yes, with degree scale Yes, lacks degree scale No Yes, with degree scale
Swappable head / feet? Head only Head only Both (with optional head adapter kit) Both
QR plate type ARCA Manfrotto RC2 ARCA ARCA
Special features N/A EasyLink attachment Smartphone holder N/A
Warranty (with registration) 5 years 10 years Lifetime 7 years

* All sizes and weights based on in-house measurements.
** Includes ball head, QR plate with safety pins, center-column hook and hex key
*** Includes ball head, QR plate, EasyLink / center-column caps and hex key
**** Includes ball head with safety pins, QR plate, full center column with hook and phone holder, hex tool and tool holder
***** Includes ball head with safety pin, QR plate, long and short center columns and three hex/Torx keys

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Tested: Four travel tripods for every budget

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Video: Mathieu Stern says LomoMod No.1 is the ‘worst camera’ he’s ever tested

24 Feb

Photographer Mathieu Stern, the creator of the Weird Lens Museum and unique DIY lenses like the ice lens, has published a review of Lomography’s LomoMod No.1 featuring the Liquid Lens. The review is not kind, with Stern stating bluntly that LomoMod No.1 is the ‘worst camera’ he has ever tested.

The LomoMod No.1 is a build-it-yourself medium format cardboard camera that features a unique liquid-filled lens. Photographers can inject their own preferred liquid into the lens, such as tea, in order to create the effects they’re seeking. The DIY nature of the camera makes it seem like it would be a good fit for Stern given his lens projects.

Stern explains that though he likes to create his own lenses, building the LomoMod No.1 was ‘not a fun moment,’ and that the entire process took around two hours because some of the pieces didn’t fit properly. Among other issues, Stern shows in the video that his cardboard camera’s back wouldn’t close properly.

He had more luck assembling a second camera kit but encountered other issues. In addition to producing poor image quality, the film advance wheel — which is made of cardboard — broke, leaving him unable to use the device. ‘I was really p*ssed for spending two hours building a camera and only [getting] 10 minutes [to use] it,’ Stern explains in the video.

The reviewer was able to replace the broken wheel with the wheel from the first camera kit, but it, too, broke in a short period of time. Ultimately, Stern explains that while he liked some of the images shot with the liquid lens, the camera itself was ‘one of the worst things I [have] ever used.’

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Video: Mathieu Stern says LomoMod No.1 is the ‘worst camera’ he’s ever tested

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Video: Sony Tough SD cards torture tested with blender, washer, freezer and more

08 Aug

Photographer Steve Huff has published a new video in which he subjects Sony’s Tough SD cards to a variety of durability tests involving everything from a washing machine to a blender. According to Sony, it engineered this SD card model ‘for toughness,’ stating on its website that the Tough cards are ‘dust, dirt, water, mud, and grime-proof.’

The Sony Tough SD card has an IP68 dustproof and waterproof rating, as well as a rib-less and switchless design, which Sony says eliminates ‘risks of breakage.’ Ultimately, the company claims its Tough cards at shock- and crush-proof.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the cards are indestructible, as demonstrated by Huff. The SD cards were no match for the blender, which immediately rendered them into small bits of plastic and metal. The Sony Tough cards were able to withstand the other tests, however, including cycles through a washer and dryer, being frozen in water, submerged in a pool and left out in sunlight.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Video: Sony Tough SD cards torture tested with blender, washer, freezer and more

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Lensrentals found a dead fly inside a Canon 70-200mm, tested how it affects image quality

12 Apr
A backlit photo of a dead fly trapped inside the inner elements of a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 lens, photos kindly provided by Lensrentals.

Thanks to ever-increasing reliance on firmware, the latest lenses can sometimes have bugs, but the bug Roger Cicala and his team at Lensrentals recently came across inside a 70-200mm F2.8L IS II lens wasn’t about to be fixed with the latest firmware update from Canon. That’s because it wasn’t a bug in the programming they encountered, it was a fly that managed to trap itself inside the optical elements of the lens.

Time for its close-up!

Somehow, a sneaky fly found its way into the deepest parts of a 70-200mm F2.8 lens, where it remained until its untimely demise. Naturally, Roger and his team wanted to remove the little critter, but not before they used it as an opportunity to see just how much a fly in the lens affected the performance of a lens and share the results (and process) with the world. In Roger’s own words, the blog post was written up for two reasons:

‘1) [To shot that] this big-ass fly had almost no effect on image quality, so that little dust speck you’re frantic about sure doesn’t, and 2) getting flies (or dust) out of a lens is a lengthy and difficult process that takes a long time.’

Just how well did the lens perform with the fly stuck inside of it? ‘Pretty well, actually,’ according to Roger. The Lensrentals team took the time to run a complete set of MTF tests and stopped down the lens across all focal lengths.

What the fly looked like stopped down to F13.

As noted in the blog post, there was no sign of the fly until the lens was stopped down to F13, but even then all that was visible was a shadow in the image. Stopped down to F22 and zoomed out to 70mm showed a much more prominent black spot, but even then it only took up a fraction of the frame.

What the fly looked like when stopped down to F22 at 70mm.

The remainder of the post details the teardown process and shows just how much effort goes into thoroughly cleaning out the inner-elements of a lens, especially a zoom lens as intricate as a 70-200mm IS lens. For all of the nitty-gritty details of the teardown process and more photos, head over to Lensrentals’ blog post.

Finally, the fly is discovered.

Roger’s takeaway message from the image tests with the fly-laden lens is ‘if your dust spec is smaller than a fly (about 4mm by 1.5mm) it’s not showing up in your images.’ He goes on to say in the ‘Final Thoughts’ section:

I think this does serve as a good demonstration of how little effect even a very large object inside the lens has. It would have a more dramatic effect, probably, if it had been located closer to the rear element. It’s also a really good demonstration on why we (nor anyone else who’s qualified) won’t clean the dust out of your lens for $ 50. Sure, a lot of lenses are easier to do than this one, but it’s still time-consuming and often technically difficult.

As for how the fly got into the lens, Roger deduces that it likely made its way into the lens through the small gap that’s made in the rear of the lens that can open up during the zooming process. The lens had been in Lensrentals’ rotation for 15 months, so he believes it found its way inside the lens after it left the factory. However, Roger admits he’s not a bug expert, so he’s not against hearing other possibilities.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Lensrentals found a dead fly inside a Canon 70-200mm, tested how it affects image quality

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Nikon Z7 AF tested: Tracking lags behind the D850, mirrorless competition

16 Oct

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can’t subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Nikon Z7 AF tested: Tracking lags behind the D850, mirrorless competition

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Sony a7R III ties Nikon D850: Best mirrorless full-frame camera DxOMark has ever tested

28 Nov

DxOMark has just published their review of the Sony a7RIII’s sensor, and no surprises here: it ties the Nikon D850 as the best full-frame camera they’ve ever tested with a score of 100. This also makes it the best mirrorless full-frame camera DxOMark has ever tested, besting the former king, the Sony a7R II, which scored a 98.

From the moment Sony debuted the a7R III, it became clear there was only one competitor for this mirrorless beast: The Nikon D850. And as DxO makes clear in their review headline, the D850 has now met “its mirrorless match.” In fact, it would be a stretch to call one of the cameras better overall than the other. Here’s how their scores break down:

As DxOMark makes clear in its conclusion, which camera you prefer (or should prefer) has to do with your own use case:

Comparing the A7R III sensor to the Nikon D850’s reveals the advantage that the Nikon camera’s lower minimum sensitivity (ISO) value brings. Photographers who predominantly shoot in bright light or capture motionless subjects with the camera on a tripod will record the most information, be it color, tone, or detail with the Nikon D850 set to ISO 32. However, if they require values above that, the Sony A7R III sensor produces marginally better images.

By now it should be obvious why the Sony a7RIII tied with the Nikon D850 for our best camera above $ 2,000: it’s next to impossible to pick one over the other unless you have a specific use case in mind. Check out DxOMark’s full review for a deeper dive on this particular camera sensor, and if you want even more you can read our full review as well.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Sony a7R III ties Nikon D850: Best mirrorless full-frame camera DxOMark has ever tested

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Nikon D850 is the best camera DxOMark has ever tested, first to hit score of 100

07 Oct

Forget all of those DxOMark Mobile scores, it’s time to talk about “real” cameras again. DxOMark just completed their review of the Nikon D850 and, not entirely surprising, it is officially the best camera DxOMark has ever tested. In fact, it’s the first camera ever to reach a score of 100, pushing the Sony a7R II into second place with its score of 98.

As it stands now, the camera rankings put the Nikon D850 and its predecessor, the D810, in the number 1 and 3 spots.

While the D850 isn’t the best camera DxO has tested across the board, it nevertheless put in top notch performance in every category. “The D850’s key strengths are its outstanding color and dynamic range at base ISO, where it again ranks as the number one among all commercially available cameras we’ve tested for these attributes,” explains DxOMark. If it falls even slightly short in any regard, it’s in the low-light ISO category where its higher resolution starts to sting.

That said, you can’t help but go wide-eyed reading DxOMark’s conclusion. As they say, this camera is “in a class of its own for image quality.”:

The introduction of the first BSI sensor in a full-frame Nikon DSLR with a super-high 45.7Mp resolution puts the Nikon D850’s image quality on par with, and often better than, medium-format cameras. The first DSLR to hit 100 points — rather apt for Nikon’s hundredth anniversary year — puts the Nikon D850 in a class of its own for image quality. At base ISO, it’s unrivaled for color in the DSLR class, and its headline dynamic range score is outstanding, too.

To read the full conclusion—the full review, for that matter—and see how the D850 compares to the competition from Sony and Canon, head over to DxOMark.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Nikon D850 is the best camera DxOMark has ever tested, first to hit score of 100

Posted in Uncategorized

 
« Older Entries