Yeah I read it a while back, judging from the photos the difference is very big, which leads me to the question, did he do something wrong? Did he have a bad Canon lens? Or is the Oly really that much better?
Wilbus wrote:
Yeah I read it a while back, judging from the photos the difference is very big, which leads me to the question, did he do something wrong? Did he have a bad Canon lens? Or is the Oly really that much better?
As a former Canon full frame shooter, my response to the comparison is:
1) The 17-40 was never a stellar performer at the edges and corners, on full frame OR APS-C. Bad choice of lens for such a test.
2) The pixel sizes and densities of the two cameras played a role in the outcome
3) The Canon has a stronger AA filter, does it not?
4) Full frame, in general is not kind to average lenses
5) The edge-to-edge qualities of the 12-40 are very difficult to find in a full frame, f/2.8 24-80/24-70. Maybe the latest version of Canon's 24-70 is just as good. Someone else will have to comment on that.
6) Yes, the Olympus gear is THAT good.
Good answer, I've never shot with Canon gear but with Nikon and their 24-70 was nothing short of amazing in real life usage. But yes Oly gear is amazingly good, as are the high end Panasonic-Leica lenses.
veroman wrote:
Beautiful shot! The 12-40 is great. Get one when you can. Mine is on my camera 98% of the time.
- Steve
Thanks Steve and yeah, it's a good lens (I should have said, I need to "re-get" the 12-40!)
Loved it on the EM1, sharp lens - not that I have any major complains with the 14mm, especially for the size, but that extra 2mm on the wide and the zoom flexibility (and better IQ!) are all good things to have
Wilbus wrote:
Self Portrait. Eye focus AF is so lovely
Em-5 and PL 25
Capture one pro for PP with added grain.
Nice self portrait and good to be able to put a face to a name. Like most photographers, I dislike being in front of a camera. Here's a veiled/silhouetted shot of me. I was literally behind a veil, and shooting with a Canon then.
Loving my E-M5 II but to compare it to full frame, especially my D800 just isn't fair to either camera.
Dynamic range, shallow DOF and resolution can't be touched by the E-M5 II. Small portable size, amazing IS towards the wide end and cool retro look can't be touched by the D800.
They both have a place in my camera bag and both produce fantastic images. Both are capable of professional results but they are not equals.
Agree with you absolutely. But speaking of shallow DOF, you can get really shallow DOF with a fast lens like the Nocticron, 75/1.8 and the Voigtlander f0.95 lenses ... and with good technique e.g. going real close to your subject and/or increasing the separation/distance between your subject and the background. Here's a shot with the 75/1.8 wide open. Frankly I wouldn't be happy if the DOF gets any shallower than this.
Hardcore wrote:
Loving my E-M5 II but to compare it to full frame, especially my D800 just isn't fair to either camera.
Dynamic range, shallow DOF and resolution can't be touched by the E-M5 II. Small portable size, amazing IS towards the wide end and cool retro look can't be touched by the D800.
They both have a place in my camera bag and both produce fantastic images. Both are capable of professional results but they are not equals.
bobbytan wrote:
Agree with you absolutely. But speaking of shallow DOF, you can get really shallow DOF with a fast lens like the Nocticron, 75/1.8 and the Voigtlander f0.95 lenses ... and with good technique e.g. going real close to your subject and/or increasing the separation/distance between your subject and the background. Here's a shot with the 75/1.8 wide open. Frankly I wouldn't be happy if the DOF gets any shallower than this.
For sure. The telephoto lengths you can get shallow depth of field. The 75mm F1.8 gives you a 150mm F3.6 for equiv framing compared to full frame. F3.6 depth of field is very shallow especially when your sensor to subject distance is small.
Very hard to replicate a 24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4 or even a 58/85mm F1.4 DOF on 4/3rds. You can, but it involves stitching your shots for a brenizer method.
I would think that with a Voigtlander 17.5mm and 25mm (f/0.95 lenses) you can get something fairly similar.
Hardcore wrote:
For sure. The telephoto lengths you can get shallow depth of field. The 75mm F1.8 gives you a 150mm F3.6 for equiv framing compared to full frame. F3.6 depth of field is very shallow especially when your sensor to subject distance is small.
Very hard to replicate a 24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4 or even a 58/85mm F1.4 DOF on 4/3rds. You can, but it involves stitching your shots for a brenizer method.
bobbytan wrote:
I would think that with a Voigtlander 17.5mm and 25mm (f/0.95 lenses) you can get something fairly similar.
I agree, it will give similar DOF but I have read reviews and they say they are not very usable @ F0.95. I wouldn't mind trying one though as even my nikon 58mm F1.4 isn't the sharpest at 1.4.
If you don't already own the Noctricron I would highly recommend that you get one. I've used a Canon 85/1.2L versions I and II and although I loved that lens ... I don't like it as much as the Nocticron, for the following reasons:
• the lens is very sharp from wide open with very shallow DOF
• no back or front-focussing problems, unlike the Canon
• you can focus really close
• AF is extremely fast
• IBIS is incredible with this lens
• it's very compact/light compared to the Canon
What good is ultra-shallow DOF if your AF accuracy is mostly a hit-and-miss? You have to do a micro-focus-adjustment on the lens every time? Because of this problem I was shooting with that Canon lens at f2 .... which is ludicrous, as I may as well get the cheap 85/1.8 lens.
The Nocticron is a different beast altogether - it does what it's supposed to do, in great style!
Hardcore wrote:
I agree, it will give similar DOF but I have read reviews and they say they are not very usable @ F0.95. I wouldn't mind trying one though as even my nikon 58mm F1.4 isn't the sharpest at 1.4.
Well the 75mm f1.8 gives the DOF of a 75mm F1.8 but with the crop factor of a 150, if you want the same crop factor that is.
If you shoot a 75mm F1.8 from the same distance on a m43 sensor and on an FF sensor you get the same DOF but vastly different crop. One of the things I really like with m43 is the ability to crop far tighter in camera using non macro lenses then I could with FF.
Wilbus wrote:
Well the 75mm f1.8 gives the DOF of a 75mm F1.8 but with the crop factor of a 150, if you want the same crop factor that is.
If you shoot a 75mm F1.8 from the same distance on a m43 sensor and on an FF sensor you get the same DOF but vastly different crop. One of the things I really like with m43 is the ability to crop far tighter in camera using non macro lenses then I could with FF.
In theory, an f1.8 m43 lens gives you an equivalent DOF of an f4 lens in 35mm. I personally think it's less than that. Here are some old images shot with the Nocticron, all wide open at f1.2. Love the rendering, bokeh and OOF quality.
Hardcore wrote:
Loving my E-M5 II but to compare it to full frame, especially my D800 just isn't fair to either camera.
Dynamic range, shallow DOF and resolution can't be touched by the E-M5 II. Small portable size, amazing IS towards the wide end and cool retro look can't be touched by the D800.
They both have a place in my camera bag and both produce fantastic images. Both are capable of professional results but they are not equals.
How is the 63MP file compared to the 36 in the D800?
