SFlights wrote:
I don't see a difference between the two photos...
Check out the color fringe on the leftmost tree (etc.) in the background and the bokeh variance.
For many folks, they'll not give a darn about it, claiming that anyone who would notice it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Some will dismiss it, citing an easy fix in post. For others, it means something else. What it means to any given person ... that's an individual call.
The two images have been fairly presented in a reasonable real world manner (thanks again Michael). Our individual opinions of whether the differences are significant or matter, that's a personal choice ... but the differences still exist in an objective realm and deserve to be presented as such, rather than a broad sweeping claim that no differences exist, or it doesn't really matter.
RustyBug wrote:
.... Our individual opinions of whether the differences are significant or matter, that's a personal choice ... but the differences still exist in an objective realm.
Agreed.
For much of what I shoot the OM-D is plenty good - in fact in some cases its better than my 6D!! - but there are sometimes that I do still prefer a FF dSLR.
For me, I often still use my 6D in the following circumstances...
1. When I want that "fast and wide" look - I still find that difficult to reproduce this with smaller sensors.
2. High ISO - the OM-D is very good at high ISO, but I actually rarely use it at high ISO because the IBIS is so good, and many of subjects are stationary, but when I shoot moving subjects at high ISO I still prefer my 6D.
3. Sometimes I just crave an optical VF, esp with MF primes.
4. Flash use - just habit, but when I shoot people indoors with flash I still use my 6D - this may change though if I get a better flash for the OM-D.
5 .Moving subjects, like kayking.
Again, sometimes it does matter to me.....(in this shot I prefer the better subject isolation with FF)...
Bottom line for me is that at this point I can't commit to just one system (at the clear disappointment of my wife )- sometimes I prefer the OM-D, sometimes the 6D.
Its not really about which one is better, its about which one is better on that particular day for what I want to shoot.....and how I feel that day - call me fickle.
For much of what I shoot the OM-D is plenty good - in fact in some cases its better than my 6D!! - but there are sometimes that I do still prefer a FF dSLR.
For me, I often still use my 6D in the following circumstances...
1. When I want that "fast and wide" look - I still find that difficult to reproduce this with smaller sensors.
2. High ISO - the OM-D is very good at high ISO, but I actually rarely use it at high ISO because the IBIS is so good, and many of subjects are stationary, but when I shoot moving subjects at high ISO I still prefer my 6D.
3. Sometimes I just crave an optical VF, esp with MF primes.
4. Flash use - just habit, but when I shoot people indoors with flash I still use my 6D - this may change though if I get a better flash for the OM-D.
5 .Moving subjects, like kayking.
Again, sometimes it does matter to me.....(in this shot I prefer the better subject isolation with FF)...
6D with NIkkor 50 1.8 @ f/2.8....
OM-D with PL 25 1.4 @ f/2....
"Fast and wide" examples where I would reach for the 6D rather than the OM-D...
6D with ZE 35 f/2 @ f/2.8....
Same combo, f/2.2...
Bottom line for me is that at this point I can't commit to just one system (at the clear disappointment of my wife )- sometimes I prefer the OM-D, sometimes the 6D.
Its not really about which one is better, its about which one is better on that particular day for what I want to shoot.....and how I feel that day - call me fickle.
RustyBug wrote:
Check out the color fringe on the leftmost tree (etc.) in the background and the bokeh variance.
For many folks, they'll not give a darn about it, claiming that anyone who would notice it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Some will dismiss it, citing an easy fix in post. For others, it means something else. What it means to any given person ... that's an individual call.
. . .so indulge us, what does it really mean to you?
miguel_13 wrote:
. . .so indulge us, what does it really mean to you?
Sure, that's fair enough.
Honestly ... I don't care for color fringing and nervous bokeh ... I like smooth tonal transitions.
The subsequent pics with the PL 25 shows even more pronounced fringing. I realize those are aspects of the two lenses moreover than the sensor, but if that is the native glass to the system, then it isn't doing me any convenience favors and I'll have to continue looking for a combination I like (OM not ruled out just yet) as sensor alone isn't the only issue that matters to image IQ ... i.e. glass projects, sensor captures, algorithm interprets.
Looking at how the sensors recorded the scene between the OM vs. the Canon, I felt they were reasonably close together and the OM looks like it handles things (jpg) differently than the Fuji profiles @ clipping. The significant fringing though is a real issue for me as seen in following image, so I'd have to look seriously at glass options for that system before I'd be sold on it overall. Granted it would still allow for my alt glass to be mounted, but if I'm getting the smaller system for convenience then I'd want to use convenient AF glass too ... otherwise, I'm good with the size weight of my FF.
In a perfect world I'd have a small travel kit and a nice DSLR but I don't shoot enough of anything to warrant 2 systems. I sold my 5Dc because I hated lugging it around, especially on vacation... 5D, 24-105L, 50 1.4, diaper bag, stroller, backpack, you get the picture.
Having used the 5D, 5D2, OM-D, and X-E1 extensively I feel comfortable downsizing that old kit to an X-E1 or XPro and 1 or 2 lenses. It is just so much smaller and lighter. Yesterday I had the OM-D / PL 25mm and X-E1 / 35mm together in a bag that used to barely hold the 5D / 24-105. I was quite surprised that the X-E1 and 35 1.4 allowed so much control relative to my expectations, and wide open the DOF can get pretty darn shallow so I don't see myself missing FF at all. I enjoy the photos I'm able to get out of the Fuji just as much if not more, and know I won't leave it at the hotel when I travel. It has been beat to death by others (and better than I can put it) but all of the systems we are discussing have their place. The best part about all this? If I get the urge I can sell it and get something else
Honestly ... I don't care for color fringing and nervous bokeh ... I like smooth tonal transitions.
The subsequent pics with the PL 25 shows even more pronounced fringing. I realize those are aspects of the two lenses moreover than the sensor, but if that is the native glass to the system, then it isn't doing me any convenience favors and I'll have to continue looking for a combination I like (OM not ruled out just yet) as sensor alone isn't the only issue that matters to image IQ ... i.e. glass projects, sensor captures, algorithm interprets.
Looking at how the sensors recorded the scene between the OM vs. the Canon, I felt they were reasonably close together and the OM looks like it handles things (jpg) differently than the Fuji profiles @ clipping. The significant fringing though is a real issue for me as seen in following image, so I'd have to look seriously at glass options for that system before I'd be sold on it overall. Granted it would still allow for my alt glass to be mounted, but if I'm getting the smaller system for convenience then I'd want to use convenient AF glass too ... otherwise, I'm good with the size weight of my FF.
miguel_13 wrote:
So you didn't notice any fringing in the 6d shots? I think this may mean something.
I noticed the OM had more in the first set.
Btw, are you referring to the amount in the 6D image with the Canon 100/2, the 35/2 or the Nikon 50/1.8?
Which setup would you suggest showed the least amount?
A) Canon 100/2 on Canon
B) Nikon 50/1.8 on Canon
C) Oly 45 on Oly
D) PL 25 on Oly
E) ZE 35/2 on Canon
Edit: Realized I originally wrote Canon instead of ZE for E)
RustyBug wrote:
I noticed the OM had more in the first set.
Btw, are you referring to the amount in the 6D image with the Canon 100/2, the 35/2 or the Nikon 50/1.8?
Which setup would you suggest showed the least amount?
A) Canon 100/2 on Canon
B) Nikon 50/1.8 on Canon
C) Oly 45 on Oly
D) PL 25 on Oly
E) Canon 35/2 on Canon
To begin with, I did not raise the subject in the first place, but I am interested in your analysis. In the post where you first mention the 'fringing' it was done somewhat cryptically, as if hinting at some hidden knowledge or expertise beyond the grasp of some readers while simultaneously omitting that there is also fringing in the samples from the canon. I don't really have a 'dog in this fight' as they say, and I will leave it to others arrive at their own conclusions regarding your 'fringe analysis'.
No worries ... at the time of the first two images compared, I didn't say anything about them. I was only "hinting" in an area to look at for someone who had indicated they didn't see a difference. I didn't want to "tell them what they were/weren't seeing" ... just an area for them to revisit to see if they might detect a difference.
Some will see it, some won't ... some will learn to see it, some never will. I certainly couldn't see the difference at one time. Now, I see it more readily.
Does it matter if it is there or not, or if someone sees it or not ... that kinda depends. Largely, it depends on the audience/purpose. If the audience that it is being shown to won't notice or care ... then it may not matter much. If the audience does care, then maybe it is prudent to care about it.
A snapshot of a kid finding easter eggs can probably have a zillion technical issues wrong with it ... and it'll still melt everyone's heart 50 years from now. An image presented for portfolio, gallery, sales or competition ... those same issues might matter a bit more.
rustybug wrote: Some will see it, some won't ... some will learn to see it, some never will. I certainly couldn't see the difference at one time. Now, I see it more readily.
Where else have I heard this cryptic talk before?? hmmmmmmmm
Jack, so how much do you want for your under performing D800, 14-24 and full filter kit? All that stuff weighs like 15 pounds and I don't think you really want to carry it with you while your on vacation with your family. The Fuji xe1 is a much better camera!
Hulk2006 wrote: Jack, so how much do you want for your under performing D800, 14-24 and full filter kit
Thanks for the offer. It will be on the buy/sell here within a week or so. Done with big bulky gear, I've already sold off most of my Nikon stuff (85 1.4, 35 1.4, and 70-200). The Fuji has made shooting fun for me again and the image quality is more than adeqaute for what I'm shooting. The Fuji lineup of the 14 2.8, 35 1.4 and upcoming 56 1.2 will take care of my shooting needs for a long time to come. As Zack Arias declares in his X100s review "the DSLR is dead" Based on my shooting needs and my experience with the Fuji I have to agree with him.
So you'll be shooting professional sports with the Fuji now, is that correct ... or will this be pleasure shooting only ... or something else?
Obvious answer to this is I shoot for pleasure only now. I was lucky enough to have a side thing going where I covered the NHL, MLB, PGA, and NCAA for a wire service. It was a great experience and fun but the fun turns to work and it's a lot of hours, lot of work and a lot of use on your gear for not a lot of money.
In the last year or so my gear just sat in my bag becuase it became a pain in the ass to lug around a packback and a bunch of lenses. Shooting the Fuji has made photography fun again. I go out the door with a small camera, one lens and shoot what I can with it and get great results from it. I'm shooting more as a result. Simplified my shooting and I don't spend hours in front of the computer processing my images.
Got serious into weddings back in the 80's/90's ... lost some of the joy. The simplification process has a way of restoring the joy. Makes more sense as to what you were trying to share regarding the joy you had found.
Good stuff, joy is good.
Now, bring on some more pics, and I promise to view them with a renewed joyful perspective.
)- sometimes I prefer the OM-D, sometimes the 6D. 
