qianp2k wrote:
Anders W wrote:
qianp2k wrote:
Anders W wrote:
qianp2k wrote:
Anders W wrote:
qianp2k wrote:
Anders W wrote:
It follows, as I have already visually shown two times around based on crops/samples originally chosen by you, that the E-M5 has a clear lead over the D800 when the two are shot (for the same DoF) at ISO 1600 and ISO 6400, respectively.
The assertion that FF shooters have to shoot at the same DOF is a myth. No, you don't have to. OOF plate is NOT the same as softness but many times give a different look in nice edge blurry rendering, more layered and more 3-D look. Otherwise you'd like P&S flat look that all seems sharp but nothing popup look. In some types of photos such as in portraiture, shallower DOF is a big plus. FF can achieve the same deep DOF if necessary (such as by using tripod if necessary) and suffers much less diffraction when stop down but mFT simply unable to match FF in shallow DOF.
Where did I say anything about what you or anyone else has to do? I just responded to Jim Stirling's post, which is about comparing equivalent images produced by different systems.
Sorry I just post underneath your post but not really address to you but challenge a frequent assertion we heard in this forum.
As to the rest, see
here.
As I said it's just a different look but not necessarily worse. I'd shoot at F2.8 if I had 24-70L/2.8 II then. Or with the same lens but moved a bit closer to use WA at a different angle at the same scene
St Mark's museum, Venice, Italy. 24-105L on 5D
I shoot FF the same way as with my 60D or my S95, fit the subject into the frame, wide-open or stop down according to the scene and light.
Good example. With the E-M5 and the 12/2,
trying to compare apple to orange, lol. It's be appropriate if you use Olympus 12-50/3.5-6.3 in comparison that is a soft lens, not in the same league of 24-105L.
Why would I do that? Out of sympathy with you?
Should we compare comparable lenses, zoom to zoom and prime to prime? So what's the counterpart of 24-105L/4.0 IS from mFT?
I thought we were comparing systems. No MFT standard zoom is as clumsy and heavy as the 24-105/4.0 IS.
I could have shot that image at f/2 and 1/20 s using ISO 320 rather than ISO 1250 (for significantly less noise than you got with the 5DII).
How about I use the new Canon 24mm/2.8 IS prime with a 4-stop IS that is lots better lens, whoops.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
So why didn't you? But that wouldn't help. The 5DII has worse DR (shadow noise) even if we are both down to base ISO. On top of that, you'd probably start having problems getting enough DoF at f/2.8.
I could like as you also could in whatever assumption. What? You suggest EM-5 has better IQ than 5DII at base ISO? LOL. Look 5D2 still has much better SNR than EM-5 that means with much smaller sensor, you will see lots more noise/grains at base ISO from EM-5.
Whether SNR is better depends on where you measure it. In the shadows, which is where the noise becomes troublesome, the SNR of the E-M5 is better at base ISO. That is what the higher base-ISO DR figure for the E-M5 tells you.
Then you apparently only shoot low-DR subjects or abstain from appropriate post-processing. Have a look at
this if you are still under the illusion that Canon FF has anything to write home about when it comes to DR at base ISO. And that's the 5DIII. The 5DII is known to be even poorer with regard to banding.
In fact, I could easily have used an even lower shutter speed (thanks to IBIS) and used ISO 200 for an even greater advantage in terms of noise.
Lens based image stabilization such as IS/VR is lots more effective than IBIS. I can shoot 70-200L/2.8 IS II at 200mm at 1/30 or even 1/20 many times that not something IBIS can do.
You are incorrectly informed. Tests of E-M5 IBIS versus your 24-105 IS on a 5DIII
here. IBIS scores a clear victory.
Your link is dead.
The link is perfectly alive. But perhaps you didn't want to look at it. Or don't have a PDF reader. Try here if you continue to have difficulties (and download a reader if you don't have one):
http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/editorial/labo/reflex_2013_v8.pdf
But if you search you can find many articles to explain why lens-based IS is better than sensor-shift IBIS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
And why IBIS is better than lens-based IS. What matters in the end is how it works in practice. And in that regard, the test I linked to above shows the E-M5 IBIS to outpace the lens-IS of the 24-105 in terms of efficiency. Note that whereas the 24-105 can correct for two types of camera shake only, the E-M5 IBIS manages five.
And if the use of a tripod is your answer, why didn't you use one in this case?
That's operation advantage but not technical impossibility. As a matter of fact, I could carry my 2.2lb traveler tripod inside as only few people inside then. Nobody there when I took these shots at that scene so I could use it if necessary?
So why didn't you?
Why I'd have to? But not technical impossible. 24-105L is lots more versatile than your prime and it's sharper outside.
Sharper? Are you kidding? According to LensRentals, it manages 890/730 lp/ih (center/average) on a 5DII at f/4. The 12/2 on an E-M5 manages about the same already at f/2 (860/730) and 1040/870 at f/4.
Sources:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results
If I want to use a versatile (in terms of FL) lens, I have the 14-45. That zoom and three fast primes (12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8) weigh less than your 24-105 alone and gives me considerably better low-light capability (between 1 and 1.5 EV better DR, i.e., shadow noise, at higher ISOs) and more DoF control than the 24-105 on the 5DII.
Thanks FF IQ advantage I still can shoot in high ISO if have to. I don't see much noises in that photo.
Sure. You can shoot that statue at higher ISO than I would have to use and end up with more noise than I would. What is the IQ advantage of that?
And I am waiting to see how EM-5 could do better such as in the St. Patrick Cathedral.
Don't know what you are talking about.
I am waiting to see how EM-5 can match such IQ in natural sharpness and creamy smooth rendition are all from this 24-105L/4.0 IS. But now I replaced it with even better 24-70L/2.8 II that has no match from mFT side.
As to the quality of the 24-105 versus the MFT lens of my choice in the example we are talking about, see above.
