How come the 5D IV sample is so much more softer than the R6 II?Is it just that the RF 85mm is so much sharper than the EF 85mm?Why wasn't dpreview using EF L series lenses?There are also some weird artifacts on the R6 II dpreview samples.
who fucking cares
>>4376242Clearly OP does
>>4376179because this photo was taken 15 fucking years ago and rotational velocidensity has rotted the bits in the file, reducing sharpness.because the 85L was even softer stopped downbecause practical system sharpness using normal first party lenses is more important than theoretical maximums attainable only in lab conditions with reference grade optickssee also >>4376242
>>4376255>rotational velocidensityOh no, not this /mu/ meme again...
>>4376179Dpreview fucks most of these up and has been caught missing focus and fudging the exposure or using shit lenses and neglecting mirror lockup
>>4376179Because all SLR cameras soften their own photos with the vibrations of the mirror mechanism unless you temporarily forego using the viewfinder and shoot in MUP or live view mode, and the dpreview intern shooting the 5div probably forgot to do everything right for ultimate sharpness just like they sometimes accidentally underexpose or overexpose cameras and throw their test scene way off almost like they're purposefully trying to make some models look better or worse
>>4376320this is the source of the “soft natural” look autists ascribe to dslrs htwbecause they all have mild visual impairment from computer use and think the world is actually that blurry
>>4376283so the fact that the K-1 is so much sharper than the 5D IV is because they've deliberately skewed the results?Is there any other review site where I can directly compare cameras without one using one of the sharpest lenses ever made (77 limited) and the other using a normal consumer grade lens?
