But 24-105L/4.0 IS is a very nice constant F4 weather sealed zoom. The only mFT zoom can compete is overpriced Panny 12-35/2.8 OIS that is $100 more in Amazon. You can get 24-105L around $800 or less these days in eBay. 24-105L has 35mm extra at tele side that is very useful. Many times people only need to carry one lens and this is the lens used to stay on my 5D series 90% of time.
DXOMark has not tested Panny zoom. Canon will be noticeable sharper if DXOMark ever tested. Here is Photozone tests between two lenses. You can see at FF eq 24mm, 24-105L resolves noticeable more in center and edges but Panny only slightly better in far corners when both shoot wide-open (there is only one stop of light between two lenses). When stop down to F5.6, 24-105L leads confortablely in all areas including the far corners
Photozone Canon 24-105L/4.0 IS vs Panny 12-35/2.8 OIS
No, check again as DXOmark shows 5D2 has better SNR in entire ISO range including at EM-5 base ISO 200. EM-5 will have noticeable more noises/grains in shadows. Can you show some 100% cropped EM-5 photos at 100%? You will see noticeable grains in dark blue sky and in close-up portrait photos. I'd have no problem to show 5D1/5D2/5D3 photos at 100% cropped at base ISOs.
Now you conveniently borrowed D800, lol. We compare mFT to FF here not between 5D3/2 and D800 that is another beaten to death topic in Canon and Nikon forums. Sure I give D800/D600 advantages if you need to pull shadow in extreme. But I don't want to pull shadows 4-5 stops but only moderately as extreme shadow pulling is not a good technique then the difference is not big or even noticeable. But I can pull shadows even with 5D2 if necessary. Check these,
forgot carried GND filter, OOC
+100 shadow and +0.20 EV in LR4
Processed result
100% cropped in the darkest area. I don't see obvious banding
Another sample in the St. Patrick Cathedral with 24mm TS-E II that is under-exposed. Again I don't see obvious banding after +100 shadows and +1.50EV in LR4!
OOC raw
+100% shadow plus +1.50EV in LR4
processed result
Canon banding is over-exaggerated. You're right that 5D3 and 6D are only better. Check the thread below. You'd have to pull 6-stops before you can see small difference at pixel level between 60D, 5D3, D600 and D800
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3344702#forum-post-50384062
Tried EM-5 in those senarios, the 1/4 size small mFT sensor simply cannot overcome the huge SNR deficit. After many stops pulling the noises will be huge from EM-5, banding or not really will be irrelevant, lol. After 4-5 stops pulling in shadow areas the best DR D800 will have ISO 1600-3200 eq noises even w/o banding, no mention extreme shadow pulling will damage critical mid-tone that results surreal look, deterioration in color fidelity, so it's not a free ride. See in the link you quoted why Fred used 5DIII in most his shots at end of day and he seem never bothered by 5D3 DR that is good enough actually in most scenarios. He did the test mainly for balancing his report but no doubt you can figure out which camera he prefers and use most these days.
I am not be able to open, time out. But really doesn't matter most reviews you can find said lens based IS is better and more effective than IBIS. Canon developed hybrid IS as in 100L/2.8 IS macro and Nikon even claims 5-stop VR in its new 70-200G/4.0 VR.
24-105L IS is pretty good. many times I can shoot at low as 1/6 with F18 aperture at 24mm side hand-held such as below. Another sample your ISO 200 based EM-5 unable to match w/o severe diffraction. I don't think you can shoot sharp at 1/6 with IBIS.
hand-held in rain in Alaska, 1/6, ISO, F18 and ISO 100 w/o using any filters
You are very confusing now you compare prime 12/2 to a zoom 24-105L/4.0 IS? Did I say you need to compare prime to prime and zoom to zoom? I have compared your best mFT zoom Panny 12-35/2.8 against 24-105L above and you see latter beats former easily. If I bring new 24-70L/4.0 IS and flagship 24-70L/2.8 IS II, the gap will be much bigger.
Here is the right comparison between Olympus 12/2.0 vs Canon 24/2.8 IS as I said in last post. That's the comparison you don't want to look but check now.
Canon 24/2.8 IS vs Olympus 12/2.0
Canon 24/2.8 IS vs Olympus 12/2.0
Sharpness FieldMap between two lenses, not even close
Are you kidding me? Panny 14-45/3.5-5.6 OIS (weather sealed?) compare to weather sealed 24-105L/4.0 IS constant F4. Check Photozone and the resolution is not very close. 24-105L is lots sharper than cheap Panny variable F 14-45. 24mm is much wider than 28mm FF eq. Once you used to 24mm you don't want to go back to 28mm. No way I will get a FF zoom starts at 28mm . According to many 24mm is wide enough but not 28mm.
No I don't have to as simply it's rubbish I have to shoot at the same DoF. What counterpart mFT lens to match to the new Sigma 35/1.4? Check below (you see most appreciate shallow DoF from FF prime lenses not P&S look flat look from smaller sensor).
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3368723
And what are counterparts of mFT lenses as Canon 50L/1.2 and 85L/1.2?
I know. I am still waiting EM-5 with Panny 20/1.7 can match to Canon 40/2.8 STM Pancake. check my test samples here Don't think Panny 20/1.7 is in the same level.
What above? 24-105L is sharper than mFT flagship Panny 12-35/2.8 OIS, cheaper, better build probably and 35mm longer.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Attachments
Last edited:
