Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 hands-on by Dpreview

Started Oct 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
jayphotoworks Regular Member • Posts: 131
Re: they are two stops better

oklaphotog wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Timur Born wrote:

you need to use the ISO 6400 shot for the 5D3 and subtract 1/3 EV digitally to match histograms.

Unfortunately, that still doesn't give an informative comparison, because the amount of photon shot noise is set in the capture by the total light (hence exposure) at capture. That is fixed in the file and you can't adjust in processing. The only fully informative way to compare is if the exposures have actually been made at the correct ISO nominal exposue. Unfortunately neither DPR nor IR's test procedure ensures this.

This is getting into measurebater land and away from real world usage though. Measurebation doesn't always apply to real world usage. I highly doubt that the fixed constant lightsources of DPR's fixed studio scene change drastically from review to review. Matter of fact the lights probably never move and maintain a constant light to subject distance. They way you are suggesting is not how most people use cameras. Judging from the exposure times listed in the exif, they had to give the OMD a touch more expsoure (due to lower sensor sensitivity), but essentially the exposure was the same, You can tell by looking at the exposure info. Being that the ISO on the OMD was two stops less, they opened up the lens a stop and slowed the shutter by a stop. Then they opened up the lens a hair more to compensate for the lower sensitivity of the OMD sensor to get the brightness closer.

The histogram on the 5D3 image looks pretty good. I wouldn't say it's underexposed by any means, especially once you stop looking at that histogram and just look at the image itself on a good calibrated monitor. Any more exposure and it would be too bright looking. If I were to make a print of that image I wouldn't want it any brighter. In the real world, the histogram doesn't always have the final say. What you want the final print to look like has the final say. Sure you could get into semantics and say "but you could expose slightly more to the right and bring it back in post resulting in less noise" But the reality in the real world is that difference in that case is minimal to none as far as IQ is concerned in the final print. On modern cameras 1/3 of a stop doesn't make much difference noise wise, and I'd prefer the extra highlight headroom from less exposure when it comes to post and printing.

Personally I want a slightly flatter file with less contrast in the mid tones. This gives you more control when dodging and burning. For me the exposure on the 5d3 file was at the top of what I would want exposure wise and I preferred the output of the OMD exposure. Give me a slightly darker file any day of the week so I can massage the highlights and shadows more. One of the best things about FF is that you can back the exposure off a hair to maintain more highlight control and still raise the shadows with limited shadow noise. The fact that the lil' 2x crop OMD had a darker file when set two stops less on the iso dial, yet even when pushed and uprezzed showed less than 2 stops of difference in shadow noise is nothing to sneeze at.

I think real world shooters tend to go more off of the ISO standards of exposure and what the light meter tells them at a specific ISO setting, not trying to set each camera to some funky ISO to make each sensor the exact same true sensitivity before comparison. I understand why you state it the way you do, but like I said, that really only applies to scientific benchmark measurbation, rather than how people use cameras in the real world.

So in the end and staying on topic. With real world usage with the new panny lens on an OMD you can get two stops faster shutter speed, while maintaining less than 2 stops difference in noise compared to FF, all while being much smaller and lighter as an over all kit. That makes me look at my Stealth Reporter D550AW and Expedition 7X bags that are full and heavy and say.... Damn I'd sure like those to be lighter and smaller, and know that there is the possibility for that, Especially since I don't need to shoot above 3200 and rarely shoot above 400.

My problem is C-AF tracking on CDAF, and that currently keeps m4/3 out of my bag. But that is a different story.

This is also what keeps m4/3 out of my bag as well. I am still waiting for a pro-body m4/3 as well offering comparable c-af to my Canon kit, iso 100 and 1/8000 shutter speed among other things including a 7-14 2.8! That would round-out a great f/2.8 event/wedding kit: 14-28, 24-70, 70-200.

1DX ($6500), 16-35II ($1600), 24-70II ($2500), 70-200II ($2200)= $12800

PRO OMD (assuming $2000), 7-14 2.8 (assuming $1500), 12-35 ($1100), 35-70 ($1500) = $6100

I'm assuming when such a body does appear and a fast wide zoom does appear the prices will be around that ballpark. Thats an extra $6700 in your pocket or if you are a die-hard "won't let go" of ff person like myself, an extra $6100 spent out of pocket

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow