The true equivalence of the OM-D+75mm vs Canon 5DIII

Started May 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,481Gear list
Re: It does not make sense or follow real world use
In reply to PerL, May 27, 2012

PerL wrote:

Anders W wrote:

PerL wrote:

According to your figures the Panasonic m43 20, 25 and 45, shot on an M43 sensor would be the worlds best performers - beating APS-C hands down and even the best FF lens/sensor combos.

Sure. For example, as you can see from my prior reply to Jim, the 20 on the E-M5 is at least on a par with the Summilux 50 on the M9 when both are shot wide open or thereabout. Nice isn't it? Quite a price difference between those two combos. And the MFT combo is smaller/lighter, has better DR at base ISO as well as considerably better performance with regard to shadow noise at higher ISOs. Not to mention a whole array of other advantages, for example IBIS.

It that was true it should manifest itself in real photos. Now, I have shot the Pana 20 1.7 on an GF-1. When I test for resolution, I do it in a way related to real use, shooting landscapes/cityscapes at base ISO, medium aperture, fast shutter speed.

I have also shot the 85 AF-D Nikkor, according to your numbers a mediocre performer, outclassed 2-3 times in resolution by the Pana lenses. Would not that be visible in 100 percent crops at the pixel level?

Here is a Pana 20 1.7/GF-1 (12 mp) shot at 5.6, 1/1000 sec, RAW. Focus on the small red building.

Here is a Nikon 85 1.8D/D300 (12 mp) shot at 5,6, 1/1000s, NEF/RAW.

And here are 100 percent crops. Different motives, but should not the alleged huge superiority of the 20 1.7 manifest itself anyway?

These images are completely useless for the purpose of comparing resolution.

First, the point at which you will see any practical difference to speak of is wide open and thereabout. At f/5.6, even a mediocre lens is likely to do pretty well. Focusing on the performance at really wide apertures is also what's important from the point of view of this thread and discussions about equivalence more generally.

Second, you need to keep the target constant in all regards. If you think that's inappropriate given the way you actually use a 20 on MFT versus an 85 on APS-C, then don't even try to compare them. Instead try to find a pair of lenses that you would use in roughly the same way on the two different platforms and shoot them in exactly the same way under exactly the same conditions.

That is not the point. The point is that the user should make the choice of how much sharpening to apply, not the testing site. What is the benefit of comparing Photozone figures showing that far more sharpening has, for reasons unknown, been applied to the FF images than to the MFT images? None whatsoever.

Why on earth would Photozone do that?

I don't know. They haven't told me. But it's clearly evident when comparing the results of tests based on unsharpened files (such as those of Lenstip and LensRentals/Roger Cicala) versus those of Photozone.

Well. look at DxO Mark (lens1) 752 (brand) Nikkor (camera1) 485 (lens2) 450 (brand2) Panasonic (camera2) 754 (lens3) 532 (brand3) Olympus (camera3) 0

What specifically do you want me to look at?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow