03-17-2011, 11:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2011, 02:36 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1300357692' post='6896']
Funny "test." Different cars, different lighting, different cities, and probably even different countries!!, and he comes up with his "conclusion." IR tested 7D and A55 side-by-side, and there is no reason to claim that they are lying except bias. A55 AF tracking is above average, acccording to IR side-by-side test.
[/quote]
I do not see how "different cars" and "different cities" would make the test invalid. I actually shot 3 different cars, and as you can see, the results are relatively consistent.
The light was different, yes. In the IR test's advantage.
The distance was different, yes. Because the distance IR said they did it in was incorrect. And that too was an advantage for the A55v.
So, 2 things to the advantage of the A55v, yet the results are WORSE than the results for my 450D. And then there is the fact that I had an f4 lens, also an advantage for the A55v's AF sensor.
So. worse reults, but conditions that were in its advantage.
Now about IR:
- They claimed the most OOF shot was camera moved, not OOF. The green LoCA shows it was severely back focused. The fact that it was a shot from a sequence of 9 within one second, shows it is nonsense to claim that shot was "moved" (other shots had to be moved then too). The fact that the lens was wide open, and the light was bright, and the focal length was only 150mm, indicates camera shake was never a reason for the image to be that soft. And the fact that the A55v has in body IS, also makes camera shake very unbelievable. So, the camera shake excuse was a lie.
- They claimed they shot from 21 meters, from my shots (starting at 20 meters) it is clear that was false.
- They claimed they "felt that" the A55v's performance was pretty similar to that of the 7D. "felt that". They did not find that, they use "felt", as some obfuscating politician.
- They never show any comparison, yet they claim a comparison. I have never encountered that in any source, be it in print or online.
Many reasons do doubt the claim from IR, not in the least the shown crops from the A55v with 4 back focused shots and 4 front focused shots, with 2 shots very OOF.
You dismissing my test as "funny" shows one thing, bias. A shame, I had hoped for a more serious response.
Funny "test." Different cars, different lighting, different cities, and probably even different countries!!, and he comes up with his "conclusion." IR tested 7D and A55 side-by-side, and there is no reason to claim that they are lying except bias. A55 AF tracking is above average, acccording to IR side-by-side test.
[/quote]
I do not see how "different cars" and "different cities" would make the test invalid. I actually shot 3 different cars, and as you can see, the results are relatively consistent.
The light was different, yes. In the IR test's advantage.
The distance was different, yes. Because the distance IR said they did it in was incorrect. And that too was an advantage for the A55v.
So, 2 things to the advantage of the A55v, yet the results are WORSE than the results for my 450D. And then there is the fact that I had an f4 lens, also an advantage for the A55v's AF sensor.
So. worse reults, but conditions that were in its advantage.
Now about IR:
- They claimed the most OOF shot was camera moved, not OOF. The green LoCA shows it was severely back focused. The fact that it was a shot from a sequence of 9 within one second, shows it is nonsense to claim that shot was "moved" (other shots had to be moved then too). The fact that the lens was wide open, and the light was bright, and the focal length was only 150mm, indicates camera shake was never a reason for the image to be that soft. And the fact that the A55v has in body IS, also makes camera shake very unbelievable. So, the camera shake excuse was a lie.
- They claimed they shot from 21 meters, from my shots (starting at 20 meters) it is clear that was false.
- They claimed they "felt that" the A55v's performance was pretty similar to that of the 7D. "felt that". They did not find that, they use "felt", as some obfuscating politician.
- They never show any comparison, yet they claim a comparison. I have never encountered that in any source, be it in print or online.
Many reasons do doubt the claim from IR, not in the least the shown crops from the A55v with 4 back focused shots and 4 front focused shots, with 2 shots very OOF.
You dismissing my test as "funny" shows one thing, bias. A shame, I had hoped for a more serious response.