-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
When the M stops being cheap...
- Thread starter Swervin Mervin
- Start date
tedolf
Forum Pro
tedolf
Forum Pro
Who said anything about landscapes?
If I shot landscapes I wouldn't be shooting a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor I would be shooting with a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor and it wouldn't be Canon's.
See above
OK, not great.
No, it is better. The test charts show that, as is the Oly non-collapsible 4/3 version (not the m4/3) 9-18 with the adapter.
Tedolph
Last edited:
tedolf
Forum Pro
it make a nice 11x14" print at 300 dpi with no interpolation.
Once you print bigger than that you start stepping away from the print and less printing resolution is required. I wish m4/3 would go back to 12mp and optimize that.
Tedolph
tedolf
Forum Pro
You can't compare DXOMark across formats. DXOmark says so themselves. Now, this does seem to show that the Panny lens is sharper than the Oly, but it isn't that simple. First, the focal lengths really don't match up between the formats or even within the formats. Second, this chart is not quantitative-just green blobs fading to light green. Is the panny at f/5.6 7mm sharper than the Oly at 9mm f/5.6? Even if it is, is that meaningful given the difference in focal length. At that wide angle, 2mm of focal length makes a big difference in FOV and thus DOF. So it all starts to get somewhat meaningless. I would rather see the tables it is based on, and preferably a standard test chart-same focal length, same F stop, etc.DXOmark Sharpness ALL DATA at a glance.
.
.
$850 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
.
$600 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
.
$385 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
Which one is better ?
Tedolph
photog7320
Senior Member
What are you shooting at UWA? Portraits???
It doesn't matter what the subject, 4x5 format eats into the sweeping look of an UWA. Which I guess is another argument for the Canon lens
What test charts? The only charts posted show that the Canon 11-22 is the best of the three, at which point you cried the charts were invalid.
Guess what? If you browse user comments on the lenses in question they concur with the charts. The 11-22 is sharp into the corners wide open. The other two are not, especially the Oly.
Why are you in the M forum whining about a soft cornered Oly lens and a 2x price Pany lens...that still isn't as sharp...any way?
photog7320
Senior Member
SLRgear charts have the same problems when comparing across formats that DxO charts do!!!
But in this case I would say DxO is telling us the general story because it concurs with reviews and user testimony. The 11-22 is so well loved because it is sharp, sharp, sharp into the corners. The lenses you keep bringing up are not.
That doesn't make them bad lenses. We are making comparisons among very good lenses, especially when viewed in light of lens history.
But without question the 11-22 has the highest IQ of the three yet it is also the lowest in price. And not because of overstock / fire side sales either. That's Canon's chosen price in this case. The 11-22 justifies buying an M body all on its own. (So does the 22 f/2.)
Why are you insisting that you are right when you have zero evidence and all the evidence posted points in the opposite direction?
tedolf
Forum Pro
I agree 3:2 is better for landscapes; 4:3 is better for portraits.What are you shooting at UWA? Portraits???
It doesn't matter what the subject, 4x5 format eats into the sweeping look of an UWA. Which I guess is another argument for the Canon lens
Just to keep things straight, I was talking above about the Panny 7-14 v. the Oly 9-18. And really, the differnces in focal lengths and lens size are big enough that the lenses are only grossly comparable.
Moving on to your point, I said that the DXO numbers are not applicable across different formats. They are applicable within formats so they are a valid basis for comparing m4/3 to m4/3 if the focal length sample points would have been the same-but they are not!
Besides others, e.g. SLRGear have tested both and there are standard test charts.
Why quibble? The Oly 4/3 9-18 non micro version is very nice.
Uh.....I am not wining about anything. It is the OP who contends that M "looks pricey" when you start considering this lens. Complain to him, not me.
TEdolph
photog7320
Senior Member
Technically Imatest (SLRgear; photozone) and DxO comparisons are not valid across different sensors either. But that doesn't mean they are completely useless. Reviews and user comments concur with the DxO lens charts presented in this thread. Normally I am very critical of DxO, but if user reports are matching the general story their charts are telling, it's a good bet they're right in this case.
I wouldn't trust a cross sensor/format comparison down to the lpmm in this case, but overall the story is that one lens is sharp into the corners wide open, and the others...not as much.
tedolf
Forum Pro
Didn't know that.
No, but they are most valuable in determining how different tested lens are going to work on your camera. Not a FF camera compared to a u4/3 camera, etc. At that point, I am not sure the DXO numbers are meaningful at all.
I would say that subjectively that is probably true if the comparison was the same scene. It if is just general, "man, my lens is sharp in the corners" v. "I am disappointed with my lens in the corners" I don't think you can definitively say that the first lens is better than the second.
That is what I am saying about DXO.
Well, there we have it "not as much". I am not sure you can make definitive statements with that level of quantification.
Anyway, we are arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin at this point.
I think it is fair to say as the OP has postulated, that the M with a 22mm lens is a real steal, not so much when you consider this lens-its just an OK deal-not a steal.
tedolph
photog7320
Senior Member
I would call it a steal. Nothing else in that focal length range offers near the price/performance.
SmoothGlass
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,277
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 782
If you're talking about the 11-22, then the Samyang 12/2 I'd say offers similar price/performance depending on how much you value larger aperture vs. zoom range.
tedolf
Forum Pro
I would say the Zuiko ED 9-18 (not the m4/3 version) is about $500.00 and has similar performance.
I am sure there are other examples I could site if I looked for them. THat is one I know.
You have to use the adapter but if you already have it that brings the cost in line. Again, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the EOS-m lens, just that it is an OK buy. Not a steal like the M with the 22mm is.
The whole point of this thread, which has devolved into minutia is that the M is a great buy at $300.00 with the 22mm lens. You can overlook its faults (sort of) at that price. Once you start paying non-fire sale prices it is kind of a dud. Really, would you buy the M and 22mm lens for $800.00?
Or would you look at other options too?
tEdolph
tedolf
Forum Pro
photog7320
Senior Member
For this focal range I would value zoom and IS over aperture EXCEPT for astrophotography. Not knocking the Samyang at all, it's a good lens and I can see owning both actually.
SmoothGlass
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,277
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 782
Yeah I can see people going either way. Just reminding people that the Samyang exists and is a good deal.
tedolf
Forum Pro
you don't need IS for an 11mm lens!
You should be able to hand hold this at 1/6 sec. w/o IS.
The wide end is far more valuable in this type of lens than the long end.
A fixed focal length super wide angle probably makes more sense than a zoom.
Tedolph
photog7320
Senior Member
Except that it doesn't.
Pointing out that the 9-18 is clearly not as good as the 11-22 is not "minutia." It goes to the heart of your claim.
Except that it's not. The cheaper MILCs aren't all that different. A Fuji X-Pro might have a lot of feature advantages over the M, but the X-A1 doesn't. (Yes, I know, tilty screen. That's about it for significant differences since the built in flash is comparable to an iPhone.) Same in Oly's line.
The M got a bad reputation because of firmware 1. With firmware 2 it's competitive with the other entry level MILCs out there.
I probably would not, though even at that price you would be hard pressed to match IQ at or near that specific focal length. People have paid nearly that much for a Ricoh GR, and much more for a Coolpix A, each with a 1 stop slower lens. The 22mm f/2 is a stupid good lens.
But I would buy the M+11-22 for $700. Grab the cheapest m43 body you can find and the 9-18 and you STILL pay more and STILL have significantly lower IQ.I'm not aware of any body/lens combos to match that one at that price point. If you want the ultimate lightweight UWA setup for hiking, street, etc, that gives up practically nothing to DSLRs with much more expensive UWA lenses, that's it right there.
Last edited:
tedolf
Forum Pro
There aren't any cheaper MILCs!
THAT IS THE POINT!
Sorry for yelling.
tedolph
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum