Phil M Winder

Photo
49 / 51
Navigation
Back to all photos
Slideshow
Start
WhichIsWhich2
Viewed 2195 times
WhichIsWhich2
Crops of Canon 40mm f2.8 and Panasonic 20mm f1.7
This photo is in 1 album:
Misc
(3 photos)
This photo is marked as:  Safe.
Available sizes: Small, Medium, Large, Original (1860×833, 766.7KB)
Captured: -
Uploaded: Jan 25, 2013 (UTC)
Focal length: -
Shutter speed: -
Aperture: -
ISO: -
Exposure comp.: -

Comments

Total comments: 15
Phil M Winder

If you couldn't tell which is which, just say so. :)

My original is 2048x1536. Not sure why it would matter if you claim the Canon "beats it hands down".

The fact that you are fretting over such small details does not help your case.

0 upvotes
qianp2k

Again that's not my original photo but thru your twisted and "processed" by your hands. When we compare to our respective original photos, the difference is very obvious. Look those details washed out in your photo such as on ones on sculptures.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5539443941/photos/2406435/canon40f2-8vspanny20f1-7_center

You can claim on whatever you "believe" but DXOMark and DPR are not at your side that have far more credibility. The claim that FF shooter must use the same DOF is rubbish. Overpriced 20/1.7 simply is not in the same league of Canon 40/2.8 pancake.

0 upvotes
Phil M Winder

How does "your one" beat anything hands down if you can't figure out which is which??

That is your photo, from your gallery.
The one your offered up as a challenge.

None of your photos were "twisted" or "processed". Anyone who really cares (nobody) can replicate:

1) Take both Originals. Not Large. Not Medium. Not Small.
2) Open both in separate windows side by side.
3) Use Windows 7 Snipping Tool to grab the selection.

Presto.

0 upvotes
qianp2k

Either you're incompetent or deliberately thru cheating tacit. My original one is at 2000-pixel wide while yours is only 1600x1200 size. You reduced my photo size thru your hands rather compare them directly by using our respective original unaltered photos. Check the links I provided in my last post. The difference is very clear. Check your photos that are pretty mushy and soft, details washed out such as on sculptures. You can still claim no difference as the emperor insists he has the new clothes :-)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5539443941/photos/2406438/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii_3b4a0589?inalbum=ffvsmft

0 upvotes
Phil M Winder

You still can't tell the difference here, can you??

1 upvote
The Davinator

Look identical to me. And yes...he's running multiple user IDs....which is against forum rules.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
qianp

So now you finally turn on "original size" link at my suggestion, lol. That shows the difference clearly by checking details in sculptures and stones that washed out in your photo especially at both sides. Photozone shows clearly the difference between two pancake lenses and SNR difference between Canon FF and mFT sensors. It’s only wishful thinking thru fanboyism :-)

0 upvotes
qianp

fuzzy, stop stalking me please. Why you're keep following me?

0 upvotes
qianp

stop following me fuzzy. i know whatever I say yes you said no, that is totally non-sense in zero-sum game.

0 upvotes
Phil M Winder

Since there are 2 qians, maybe one can help the other figure out which image is which.

But I suspect they will disagree, as they usually do, and end up bickering and fighting with each other. LOL

1 upvote
qianp

Serious. it's a silly self-entertained game. You need to remove your comparison photo as you used my photo without my permission that violates common rule. You can link my photo but you cannot directly post it without owner’s consent, no mention you actually altered my photo for your purpose. I will do the same but I did only for responding your post.

0 upvotes
Phil M Winder

Now you have a problem with your images being posted?
You didn't seem to have a problem using mine in your ridiculous forum arguments.
You even made excuses that it was ok for you to do.

Once again, there was no modifying or alteration of your image. You are now making false accusations because you did not like the results.

Remove the images from your gallery, and I will remove them from here.

Once all is removed, I expect this to be the last of this nonsense.

1 upvote
qianp

This is ridiculous. It's you to posted and altered my photo first (reduced size and made soft on it) in your stupid comparison. Only a fanboy who doesn't admit any creditable reviews to believe your GF1 and 20/1.7 can compete to 5D3 and 40/2.8, not even close as a matter of fact.

You need to remove your comparison photo first as you did first. I will remove it then. Or you want to leave this way to show what a stupid comparison that shows difference so clearly.

0 upvotes
qianp

BTW, It's nothing wrong to link another member's photo (you have a choice to hide it otherwise) but not post directly,no mention you deliberately altered my photo.

0 upvotes
qianp

This is a joke. According to Photozone tests, Canon 40/2.8 STM pancake beats Panny 20/1.7 pancake hands down. Canon pancake's edges are sharper than Panny's center. Check here

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5539443941/photos/2406438/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii_3b4a0589?inalbum=ffvsmft

Notice your photo is 1600x1200 while my one is 2000x1357. So you need to compare them at their original size side by side, or you need to post a 2000-pixel wide to compare at the same size. You can see Canon 40/2.8 STM pancake easily out-resolves Panny 20/1.7 pancake. Not surprised as Photozone tests confirms. How naively think a small sensor GF1 thru a 2.0x crop magnification can compete a FF sensor with 4x bigger on a native 40mm lens?

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/752-canon_40_28_ff
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Total comments: 15