qianp

qianp

Joined on Jan 9, 2013

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:19 UTC
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:16 UTC
On WhichIsWhich? photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:16 UTC
On WhichIsWhich? photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 14:29 UTC
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 14:28 UTC
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 15:30 UTC
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 15:27 UTC
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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 :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 15:26 UTC
On WhichIsWhich? photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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 :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 15:26 UTC
On WhichIsWhich? photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (11 comments in total)

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?

According to Photozone tests
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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2013 at 01:20 UTC as 2nd comment
On WhichIsWhich2 photo in Phil M Winder's photo gallery (15 comments in total)

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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2013 at 01:12 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11