40D - 70-300IS 4.0 - 5.6 15-85IS 3.5 - 5.6
They're all just brand names ... except Sigma, the manufacturer making every Sigma-lens themselves?
Wow. Check original, outer half of frame. To me, this is nothing but superb. (start saving ... :)
Rick Knepper: Much better scene for edge/corner inspection. Thanks.
f1.4 still a bit disappointing at 100%, even 50% (especially if a crop is coming out of one of the corners). Jury is still out on full sizes images downsized to fill my NEC 26" monitor. I think there was something wrong with your metabones adapter for this series of images as there was light-colored vignetting in both lower corners that wasn't there before and there appears to be some decentering too - towards the top left.
As you allude to above, using the lens in its native mount may improve performance a lot.
Even if the adapter is misbehaving, by f5.6 the lens looks like it cleaned up its edge/corners pretty well regardless of image size.
Center frame @1.4 looks awesome as illustrated by the image of Rishi on the convention floor - don't know if that image was processed in or out of camera but looks great.
I think the word "disappointing" is utterly inappropriate, when commenting on such an awesome lens! The quality of this piece of optics is just stunning!To see a 24 MM lens perform like this at f 1.4 is simply amazing!There has been NO removal of CA, yet its very difficult to find just traces of it, on a wideangle used at f1.4! And the micro-contrast straight out of cam can best be described as incredible! Yes, the absolute extreme corners, esp. the upper left, is not pinsharp, that is so. But with all due respect Mr. Knepper, which 24 mm lens used at f1.4 on a FF in this world are you referring to as NOT disappointing in this respect? Examples, please ...
That 16-50mm seems to be something special! Top notch optics!
"... promising full native angle of view for different lens standards including Super 35, MFT, and Super 16 via its proprietary Variable Scan Mapping tech."
Please translate this mumbo-jumbo, someone?
Mike FL: I'm looking for replacing my SRL for a while, and interested in EM1 and XT1. But there is only one possible problem; "Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are doomed...".
We will see, but no one could stop it from coming when it comes as we saw it from the past...
When it comes to business, who's flexing muscles here? Panasonic (the parenting company) is one of a few giants in that respect, and I think they DO recognize the future sales potential of their m43-lineup (why else invest in developing a highend product like the GH4 ??). Most improvements to m43 sensor technology can be implemented in FF, thus keeping a permanent advantage over m43, when it comes to ISO/resolution etc... -but size matters! This permanent advantage for the m43 will show, in the long run...The wheel will turn again, regarding sales figures (as long as the m43 is fulfilling the needs of their potential buyers, of which I'm convinced). When m43-technology matures into the 20-24 mpix range, things starts to happen ...
The photographer is confirming here: The whole picture is in focus, from foreground to background. This is terrible, Panasonic! The green colours are SMEARED as a finger-painting!
Under same conditions, a top-notch cameramobile would have done better?It's plain ugly this, when viewed in 100%.
Overexposure, 'blame' the photographer! :) :) :) Just a little bit overexposed skintones here. Seem to be using (most common) center-weighted metering here, thereby the all-to-wellknown overexposure kicks in: The dark uniform is occupying MAIN part of the metering aerea. Then MOST cams would do exactly the same! (an everlasting 'calibration logic' dilemma this)Approx. -0.5 exposure compensation applied. and: Mission completed! If exposing on 'auto', at least 99 out of 100 cams would do the same: Overexposing her skin. The photographer still matters....
Beeing underexposed (-1.00) AND ISO 2000 this is good stuff! The noise in the blacks seems to disappear rather quickly, when zooming the original out to 50% (on a 15,6'' full HD LED monitor). Seems to be almost printable at that size. Thanks to the photographer for putting this cam trough this kind of realistic testing. Some underexposure always does the trick; Revealing weaknesses in 'the noise department'. I think the G7 produces OK results here, and in my opinon the critics here, they simply demands too much from 'a pocket cam' regarding high ISO's..
Bokeh, yes! Noisewise I think ISO 800 is OK (precise exp.!) for decent quality prints sized 16'' x 12'' ?
Impressive. Backlit scenes can pose some problem it seems (see some other samples her), this one is superb!
Bokeh! Looks promising this, well done Canon.