https://youtu.be/vKhRvGqq7xQ
So, the Canon TSE 24 is better than the Rodenstock HR40
isn´t this some sort of .. blasphemy??
So, the Canon TSE 24 is better than the Rodenstock HR40
isn´t this some sort of .. blasphemy??
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
100mp Phase One vs Canon 5DSR and A7RII
- Thread starter Phase V
- Start date
Looking at the files he linked in the description, from the 24TSE and the Rodie 40 on the IQ250, the IQ250 is sharper, as in - I can read the menu on the other side of the room from the IQ250, I can't from the Canon,
What's also weird, is that in some of the tests the IQ3100 is softer than the IQ250, so there's something amiss there,
but overall the Rodie seems sharper to me with both @ F8
Can you tell the difference?
What's also weird, is that in some of the tests the IQ3100 is softer than the IQ250, so there's something amiss there,
but overall the Rodie seems sharper to me with both @ F8
Can you tell the difference?
He had 2x Phase One comparisons on there, he accidentally did testing with an IQ250 AND an IQ3100 in the same folder, I sneakily downloaded them
I think the guy is high on drugs to be honest, the 24 TSE is a hell of a lens for Canon one of the sharpest SLR lenses, but if I go to 300% and go around the edges of the frame trying to read the signs, I can clearly read the signs/menus on the Rodenstock, whereas from the Canon - any of the small text is blurred and unreadable,
From the way he's performed the test, I think he's gone in with a high degree of bias and basically imaged the results.
So much total BS in this video.
To claim that the Canon 24 is "the best lens for architectural photography", and that "nothing beats it" is ridiculous.
/edit
Having now watched the video to its conclusion, with the presenter telling medium format manufacturers that their lenses are no longer good enough, I can't help coming away from this with the conclusion that this is simply deliberate click-bait to drive people to watch and comment on the video, so that the guy can make some advertising dollars.
Given that, my recommendation would be to not bother watching it.
To claim that the Canon 24 is "the best lens for architectural photography", and that "nothing beats it" is ridiculous.
/edit
Having now watched the video to its conclusion, with the presenter telling medium format manufacturers that their lenses are no longer good enough, I can't help coming away from this with the conclusion that this is simply deliberate click-bait to drive people to watch and comment on the video, so that the guy can make some advertising dollars.
Given that, my recommendation would be to not bother watching it.
lol I couldn't resist and had a debate in the comments section, and he ended up conceding that the rodenstock was sharper, when I actually looked at the files it's pretty easy to see the difference... (unless you're high on cocaine)
I also think the tech cam wasn't setup properly, as the rodie does look anormally soft on the left of the image,
Nicely done.
Just scrolling through the comments further now and came across this absolute beauty -
Yeah, these medium format lenses that cost a fortune suck pretty bad........ :loco:
From the files in his own comparison.......
Canon + TSE 24: (from the right hand side)
IQ3-100 + Rodie 40: (literally right in the corner hanging off the edge)
It winds me up when you these cretins who have no clue, start running their mouths off on things they know nothing about, with all their followers in line behind them... this guy clearly has no idea how to test something, nor how to analyse results... Because the results are pretty darn obvious, even the IQ250 is far sharper.
I'd not got so far as bothering to download the files, but that is just a ludicrous comparison.
WTF is wrong with this guy if he's produced these results and then comes out and says the Canon is the better lens?
Just more evidence for my earlier assumption. Test two things. Tell everyone the one that is clearly better is worse, sit back and let the clickbait generate you ad revenue.
WTF is wrong with this guy if he's produced these results and then comes out and says the Canon is the better lens?
Just more evidence for my earlier assumption. Test two things. Tell everyone the one that is clearly better is worse, sit back and let the clickbait generate you ad revenue.
voidshatter
Member
Only a decentered or out of focus 40HR can be softer than a 24TSE
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
He compares the images at same magnification, like 2:1. That essentially throws away half the pixels on the MP100. The proper way to compare images is scaling to the same resolution.
My own sample of the 24/3.5 TSE LII is not so great, but there may be better samples.
Best regards
Erik
He compares the images at same magnification, like 2:1. That essentially throws away half the pixels on the MP100. The proper way to compare images is scaling to the same resolution.
My own sample of the 24/3.5 TSE LII is not so great, but there may be better samples.
Best regards
Erik
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
He obviously started with his own bias, which I concede is different to MY bias, and shows screenshots to support it. Did he apply lens CA/diffusion corrections in C1 for the Rodie & Canon TSE?
I actually use both of these lenses myself, including testing the 24TSE II on my IQ150 & IQ3100 with Actus DB+ / ACB-CA and my A7R II. There is NO comparison. Well, maybe if I used some wire wool on the Rodie they might be closer I guess :ROTFL:
Also, despite all of his discussion about focal length / DoF, he then goes and attempts to compare shots of a curved building at the same f-stop where obviously the DoF difference will be exaggerated.
I agree that it's click-bait ...
I actually use both of these lenses myself, including testing the 24TSE II on my IQ150 & IQ3100 with Actus DB+ / ACB-CA and my A7R II. There is NO comparison. Well, maybe if I used some wire wool on the Rodie they might be closer I guess :ROTFL:
Also, despite all of his discussion about focal length / DoF, he then goes and attempts to compare shots of a curved building at the same f-stop where obviously the DoF difference will be exaggerated.
I agree that it's click-bait ...
Even that part I am not sure I agree with. It is good for a T/S lens, but the center sharpness is far from impressive. Its main quality is the uniformity over a wide area.
Btw, it has since then been clearly over taken by the Nikon 19mm T/S by a pretty wide margin in terms of being the best DSLR T/S lens.
Overall, the 24mm being close to the Roddy 40mm HR is plain ridiculous. It is even more amusing if you consider the sensor quality btwn the 5Ds and the IQ250. Not in the same ball park clearly when considering DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Some explanation?
Hi,
I just looked at two of the tiffs I managed to download.
First I scaled the 5DsR image up to the same size as the the Phase/Rodie image. The Canon still looked sharper. Just to say, I have not yet figured out the aperture in the Rodie image. I think that the clock on the wall is not the point of focus in the Rodie image, the stairs in the centre may be.
Checking that detail the Rodie gains advantage. So, I guess that he compares out of focus part of the images.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I just looked at two of the tiffs I managed to download.
First I scaled the 5DsR image up to the same size as the the Phase/Rodie image. The Canon still looked sharper. Just to say, I have not yet figured out the aperture in the Rodie image. I think that the clock on the wall is not the point of focus in the Rodie image, the stairs in the centre may be.
Checking that detail the Rodie gains advantage. So, I guess that he compares out of focus part of the images.
Best regards
Erik
One thing that I find interesting, is that he compares pretty vague areas of the image that are low in contrast, which makes it quite hard to tell - such as the walls or the clock, however as soon as you look at text - you can either read it or you can't... Like an eye test - they show you letters at different distances because it's not open to interpretation - it's either legible or it isn't, that determines how good your vision really is.
I also agree regarding the focus, I think each image is focussed on a different area and that's making a mess of the results, but still......
Like the below two examples from the mid-right
Canon;
Phase:
I mean, lol it's not even hard to tell.. :wtf:
I also agree regarding the focus, I think each image is focussed on a different area and that's making a mess of the results, but still......
Like the below two examples from the mid-right
Canon;
Phase:
I mean, lol it's not even hard to tell.. :wtf:
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
Have you considered that both images are useless? Both are out of focus images. It may be that the IQ3-100 MP image is better, but it could be suggested that lens/camera/sensor combos should not be compared on out of focus images.
Both images have two things in common:
I have some respect for the the guy posting this, he reports on what he sees. I may think that the viewpoint he has is not a good one. But, it comes to the citat, "He, who is without sin may throw the first stone." It is easy to ridicule posters. Making an objective real world test is hard. Doing any good test needs lab conditions. Tests are prone to mistakes. In lab conditions you see the issue, reconsider your methods and make a new test.
Testing in the real world, you can not reproduce anything. So, proper testing needs lab conditions...
Best regards
Erik
Have you considered that both images are useless? Both are out of focus images. It may be that the IQ3-100 MP image is better, but it could be suggested that lens/camera/sensor combos should not be compared on out of focus images.
Both images have two things in common:
- The are out of focus
- They are not accepatble
I have some respect for the the guy posting this, he reports on what he sees. I may think that the viewpoint he has is not a good one. But, it comes to the citat, "He, who is without sin may throw the first stone." It is easy to ridicule posters. Making an objective real world test is hard. Doing any good test needs lab conditions. Tests are prone to mistakes. In lab conditions you see the issue, reconsider your methods and make a new test.
Testing in the real world, you can not reproduce anything. So, proper testing needs lab conditions...
Best regards
Erik
One thing that I find interesting, is that he compares pretty vague areas of the image that are low in contrast, which makes it quite hard to tell - such as the walls or the clock, however as soon as you look at text - you can either read it or you can't... Like an eye test - they show you letters at different distances because it's not open to interpretation - it's either legible or it isn't, that determines how good your vision really is.
I also agree regarding the focus, I think each image is focussed on a different area and that's making a mess of the results, but still......
Like the below two examples from the mid-right
Canon;
Phase:
I mean, lol it's not even hard to tell.. :wtf:
Hi,
This remembers me of this comparison some time ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD3An09hmjU&t=2s&ab_channel=KjellPost
I question his decision to use Capture One with the Canon files, clearly that set them in a disadvantage, as Phase is invested in showcasing the "colorcast" of the Nikon and Canon cameras. Even so, the reviewer does an excellent job.
He is surprised that the Hasselblad lens appears to be better. Exotic names are not equivalent to superior performance.
The best part is that people are starting to test MF systems against the best of the DSLR and Mirrorless worlds, instead of listening to a soft talk. Phase One and Hasselblad are lucky that it was known that they have high dynamic range sensors and not before. People can still select the CCDs for the color and sharpness, but they now know what are they getting and what are they leaving on the table by taking the MF route.
About this test: This is a risk, many people that don't understand MF are making the tests, and find the cameras deficient for reasons not related to image quality. We know that many MF users could not care less that the machines do not have a tilt screen, or fast AF, or that you need patience to learn to use an exploit a MF system. In fact, that (you need to work and study the machine and the craft) is something many people love about thier MF systems.
Best regards,
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I can't speak specifically to Canon files but I have extensive experience with Nikon files and TBH C1 Pro consistently killed Adobe processing and even Capture NX struggled to keep up. Whilst I might diss C1's performance with my Leica files, I wouldn't put CanNikSony file s in that same bucket - heck they also nailed Fuji X-trans files too.