This second "test" was done as dual comparison of sharpness/resolution and noise.
All images were underexposed by about 1/3-1/2 stop deliberately as a better noise comparison.
In the first series all shots done on a tripod, same exposures, shot RAW and converted in LR3. Both taken with the Zeiss C/Y 50 1.7 @ f/2.8, position of tripod/camera was moved to adjust for the crop factor of the 5N.
By the way, if these types of comparisons are thought to be uninteresting or worthless just let me know and I'll stop posting them. On the other hand, if members here have interest in this and have any comparison that they would like me to do (something quick and simple please ) I would be happy to do it.
wow, impressed... thank for the comparison.... really close... a bit underexposed on the first one (i mean the 5n) but so close.... The 5DII has for sure a lot more advantages, but on the iso and IQ in low lite, it is definitively an outsider...
There's nothing wrong with my 20/15 vision and frankly there's NOT much between those comparisons. Not sure what is stretching your imaginations but they are so close as to be a wash. If I were hiking around the mountains or on a vacation I'd MUCH rather have a 5N thank you. And it wouldn't even require the exotic lenses to sway me.
) I would be happy to do it.
