Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · Oly 17/1.8
  
 
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Oly 17/1.8


bobbytan wrote:
and not sacrificing too much IQ and noise.


In noise alas you do. Camera is fine to ISO 800, although you can see some shadow noise even at 400 but it's no problem, but once you get to 1600 shadow increases quickly. It's not even in the same ball park as my 5D III or 1D IV.

However, level of detail you can get with lenses like the awesome little 45 f/1.8 are as good as 5D III and best glass. That 45 f/1.8 is a gem and the 75 f/1.8 is supposedly better.

I really like the OM-D overall, but I wondering if the NEX 6 is a better way to go now they are finally getting a collection of good glass. At the moment I only the kit zoom and the 45 f/1.8. I was toying with the idea of the 12-35 or 35-100 but damn they're dear and I don't want to spend as much as I would on my DSLR system



Nov 08, 2012 at 09:59 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Oly 17/1.8


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I really like the OM-D overall, but I wondering if the NEX 6 is a better way to go now they are finally getting a collection of good glass. At the moment I only the kit zoom and the 45 f/1.8. I was toying with the idea of the 12-35 or 35-100 but damn they're dear and I don't want to spend as much as I would on my DSLR system


Even with the weaker AF, I thought about going with a NEX instead of my new OM-D, but the lens line-ups are not even close. I really wanted to go with the NEX for my MF legacy lenses. But for AF, even with a few new NEX primes, the m43 system is way ahead. I do like the NEX sensors though. Maybe in a couple years Sony will have a great lens lineup but I'm not holding my breath.



Nov 09, 2012 at 12:33 AM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Oly 17/1.8


Pixel Perfect wrote:
In noise alas you do. Camera is fine to ISO 800, although you can see some shadow noise even at 400 but it's no problem, but once you get to 1600 shadow increases quickly. It's not even in the same ball park as my 5D III or 1D IV.

It depends on the shooting situation. If you're not DOF limited then yes, a FF sensor will have 2 stops less noise than a 4/3 sensor of equal technology. However if you're shooting closer where you're DOF limited then the FF offers no advantage over the OM-D since the FF has to be stopped down the number of stops equal to its noise advantage to achieve the same DOF as the OM-D. Additionally, if you're shooting static subjects with a large-aperture prime then the O-MD actually has a 2 stop advantage over FF based on IBIS, as stabilization is not available on any Canikon lens at f/1.4.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
However, level of detail you can get with lenses like the awesome little 45 f/1.8 are as good as 5D III and best glass. That 45 f/1.8 is a gem and the 75 f/1.8 is supposedly better.

The Pany 25mm f/1.4 exceeds the performance of any Canikon 35mm lens at large apertures, even accounting the extra magnification required to produce equal size prints.



Nov 09, 2012 at 01:17 AM
jonrock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Oly 17/1.8


Here are some samples for the Olympus 17mm f1.8.

http://www.m43.eu/zdjecia/olympus-17-mm-f18-pierwsze-zdjecia-obiektywem/



Nov 10, 2012 at 01:35 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Oly 17/1.8


The wall-sample with and without built-in correction is eye-opening! I find it a bit shocking that Olympus should find it necessary to design a 17mm lens with that much distortion. The problem with this approach is that no matter how much you stop down, the corners will never be really sharp, due to all the pixel-moving.


Nov 10, 2012 at 08:33 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Oly 17/1.8


surf monkey wrote:
Even with the weaker AF, I thought about going with a NEX instead of my new OM-D, but the lens line-ups are not even close. I really wanted to go with the NEX for my MF legacy lenses. But for AF, even with a few new NEX primes, the m43 system is way ahead. I do like the NEX sensors though. Maybe in a couple years Sony will have a great lens lineup but I'm not holding my breath.


That's the way I feel - I still own and use my nex 5n - the focus peaking and 1.5x crop make it better for use with legacy lenses, so I haven't sold it despite primarily using the omd recently. Also, 5n used prices have dropped so much that its just not woth selling. But for native lenses I use the omd.



Nov 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Oly 17/1.8


carstenw wrote:
The wall-sample with and without built-in correction is eye-opening! I find it a bit shocking that Olympus should find it necessary to design a 17mm lens with that much distortion. The problem with this approach is that no matter how much you stop down, the corners will never be really sharp, due to all the pixel-moving.


All the other short lenses are the same and I don't think it affects the corners much. Changing the projection with just a few percent is probably a good idea instead of having to make the lenses much larger.
An interesting question is whether the focal length actually is 17 mm, or more like 15 and then cropped. Obviously one does not use the whole sensor.



Nov 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Oly 17/1.8



Pixel Perfect wrote:
In noise alas you do. Camera is fine to ISO 800, although you can see some shadow noise even at 400 but it's no problem, but once you get to 1600 shadow increases quickly. It's not even in the same ball park as my 5D III or 1D IV.

snapsy responded:
It depends on the shooting situation. If you're not DOF limited then yes, a FF sensor will have 2 stops less noise than a 4/3 sensor of equal technology. However if you're shooting closer where you're DOF limited then the FF offers no advantage over the OM-D since the FF has to be stopped down the number of stops equal to its noise advantage to achieve the same DOF as the OM-D.


That is unless you use a tilt shift lens and then you still retain the 2 stop advantage and can often get lots of DOF with an even wider aperture.



Nov 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Oly 17/1.8


If you're using a tilt-shift for DOF, you're probably also using a tripod, which renders the point moot. Also, there isn't a two stop advantage from m4/3 to full frame...it's about a stop, maybe slightly more, but not two. I know in theory it should be two...in practice, it's not.


Nov 10, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Oly 17/1.8


Jman13 wrote:
If you're using a tilt-shift for DOF, you're probably also using a tripod, which renders the point moot. Also, there isn't a two stop advantage from m4/3 to full frame...it's about a stop, maybe slightly more, but not two. I know in theory it should be two...in practice, it's not.


I find the difference to be at least two stops, even comparing the OM-D to the four year old D700. The thing is that the IQ of the OM-D is held up with poorer colors, probably due to a weaker Bayer filter. This keeps noise down but renders the colors very dull at higher ISO:s.



Nov 10, 2012 at 03:53 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Oly 17/1.8


Makten wrote:
All the other short lenses are the same and I don't think it affects the corners much. Changing the projection with just a few percent is probably a good idea instead of having to make the lenses much larger.
An interesting question is whether the focal length actually is 17 mm, or more like 15 and then cropped. Obviously one does not use the whole sensor.


I hope that you are right, but I am skeptical. Did you see the sample shots? That lens is almost a fisheye! :/



Nov 10, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Oly 17/1.8


carstenw wrote:
I hope that you are right, but I am skeptical. Did you see the sample shots? That lens is almost a fisheye! :/


Yes, and check this out:

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/673-oly12f2?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/740-pana25?start=1



Nov 10, 2012 at 05:12 PM
httivals
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Oly 17/1.8


I don't think the distortion correction affects the corners as much as the extreme sides. I see it in the m4/3 lens especially when focused at infinity for landscapes. The best solution I've found is to process raws in DXO Optics Pro, which uses lens/camera specific measurements to correct for softness - I think it uses deconvolution sharpening. On balanace, the m4/3 is a much better compromise than full frame DSLRs, I think, where it's extremely difficult to find wide angle lenses with sharp corners. Those that do have good corners tend to be huge.


Nov 10, 2012 at 05:13 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Oly 17/1.8


Jman13 wrote:
If you're using a tilt-shift for DOF, you're probably also using a tripod, which renders the point moot. Also, there isn't a two stop advantage from m4/3 to full frame...it's about a stop, maybe slightly more, but not two. I know in theory it should be two...in practice, it's not.


Probably because Sony exmos technology scales up poorer so there are more efficiencies in Smaller sensors up to a point.

Omd colors are fine all the way to ISO 2000. I was surprised but its true. If you look at the DR graphs, it matches that of the 5n after ISO 500 or so.



Nov 10, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Oly 17/1.8


FlyPenFly wrote:
Omd colors are fine all the way to ISO 2000.


Compared to what? I found the NEX-5N better, not to mention the D700 that wipes the floor with the OM-D colors at any ISO. Which of course was expected.

Edit: Some of the difference that I've seen is probably due to the lenses though, but that's important as well.



Nov 10, 2012 at 07:21 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Oly 17/1.8


Makten wrote:
Compared to what? I found the NEX-5N better, not to mention the D700 that wipes the floor with the OM-D colors at any ISO. Which of course was expected.

Edit: Some of the difference that I've seen is probably due to the lenses though, but that's important as well.


I've actually been very impressed with OM-D colors, particularly skin tones in tungsten lighting at High ISO.



Nov 10, 2012 at 07:57 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Oly 17/1.8


Jman13 wrote:
If you're using a tilt-shift for DOF, you're probably also using a tripod, which renders the point moot. Also, there isn't a two stop advantage from m4/3 to full frame...it's about a stop, maybe slightly more, but not two. I know in theory it should be two...in practice, it's not.


Well it is also the case that if you are shooting close and need to both stop down and crank up the ISO, then you are probably running into low shutter speeds (after all that is why you are cranking up the ISO), so in many of those situations a tripod would be in order. I guess my general point is that it is only in a pretty small band of shooting (i.e., when you aren't on a tripod, you want more depth of field, if you stop down the shutter speed will drop too low for a hand held shot, so increase ISO is needed) that the depth of field advantage won't come into play. Note the full frame camera is not in a disadvantage here, it only isn't at an advantage. Now if the subject is static, then I would say in this situation it would probably be best to be using a tripod and with full frame a tilt shift lens would probably be great solution that again gives the full frame camera an advantage. So, IMO, it is still quite important that the full frame camera has the DOF advantage, which plays out in most but not all situations.



Nov 10, 2012 at 08:11 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Oly 17/1.8


Makten wrote:
Compared to what? I found the NEX-5N better, not to mention the D700 that wipes the floor with the OM-D colors at any ISO. Which of course was expected.

Edit: Some of the difference that I've seen is probably due to the lenses though, but that's important as well.

Not sure what you mean by wipes the floor. Does a d700 come in and take an omd and start scrubbing the floor? I imagine a sponge may work better.

Nikon isn't exactly known for their great colors anyway, in fact Nikon colors are probably a downside of that brand.

I was comparing to a 5n, it keeps its colors better with more aggressive post work but the omd files actually do seem to hold out okay in colors up to iso2000





Nov 10, 2012 at 08:55 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Oly 17/1.8


Makten wrote:
Yes, and check this out:

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/673-oly12f2?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/740-pana25?start=1


This'll explain why I have not been so happy with the PL25 in the extreme areas... I wasn't expecting that much from the 12, which is probably why I have been happy with it, but I also tend to use it for working up close, rather than getting a lot in, so I probably haven't seen the worst of it. Still, a 17mm is 35mm equivalent. It really ought to be straighter than that. I will wait for the detailed reviews before sinking any money into this.



Nov 10, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Oly 17/1.8


FlyPenFly wrote:
Not sure what you mean by wipes the floor. Does a d700 come in and take an omd and start scrubbing the floor? I imagine a sponge may work better.


Something like that, yes.

Nikon isn't exactly known for their great colors anyway, in fact Nikon colors are probably a downside of that brand.

Maybe, but I've always been pleased with the colors I got from the D700. Not so with the OM-D. The nicest colors I've got out of any camera is from Leica M8.

I was comparing to a 5n, it keeps its colors better with more aggressive post work but the omd files actually do seem to hold out okay in colors up to iso2000

I actually think that shot is a good example of poor color. It's just "green" and nothing more. Where are the nuances?



Nov 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password