GF1 vs D700 Yosemite Smackdown!

Started Jan 2, 2010 | Discussions
TEBnewyork
TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
After more reflection....

The thing is as I think about this thread I get more impressed with the GF1 output and don't think you will really ever be able to fully match them because of the ND filter on the Nikon.

I know you applied the grad filter in LR to the GF1 shots but still to have 2 stops of headroom built into the Nikon RAW gives you a lot more to work with.

I am NOT discounting the great work you have done here at all and you could not be expected to be switching which camera is on tripod etc when you are trying to capture the best shots for YOUR use.

I often shoot exactly how you have done. Get the shot set up on the tripod with the DSLR and while waiting for the light do some handheld shooting with the G1 and/or the GF1.
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

harold1968
harold1968 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,687
ignoring alot of variables

I know you said that you were after look rather then technically comparing the pictures, but I think these results are misleading, shown at the resolution they are, and the extent of PP used.

Its important to understand all the issues at play.

Lets first bear in mind a number of salient facts: you are shooting a non-moving target with alot of natural contrast with plenty of light.

To explain myself, I have a Oly E-P1 for light work and a D700 with some nice lenses. I like the E-P1 alot, and its great to have in the pocket for quick snaps without the weight disadvantage of the D700, but the D700's weight is actually useful to get sharp pictures. So its a double edged sword. Like the tripod problem, you want a tripod as light as possible for walking, but as heavy as possible for actually taking the picture - a dilema.

In summary, whilst the E-P1 is a great camera and a mile away from compacts its no match for the D700 in any circumstance. Without going into too much detail, the D700 has pin sharp pixel level detail, the E-P1 never achieves this, at any ISO or with any tripod. This allows much better cropping and a vast exposure latitude for PP. With low contrast pcitures, my end-to-end dynamic range from the D700 just blows the E-P1 away. There are many other things I could mention, but just to say that the D700 at ISO 3200 has better noise response then the E-P1 at ISO 200 (sometimes then 100 as well).

I am not knocking the E-P1, like I say its a brilliant camera. I also don't want to get flamed as the D700 is so much more. Its also a case of diminishing returns. i.e. for every extra £ (or $) you spend, you get less for youre money.

I guess the only point I am trying to make is that with static subjects, good light and good contrast and scaling pixels down, you can show pictures that look good from most cameras, including my kids panasonic Ls-80 at 5 mp. But I just find the E-P1 pixel level quality so much inferior that I take my D700 whenever I can.

just my 2 cents.
keep smiling folks

 harold1968's gear list:harold1968's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Sony RX1R Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +1 more
OP Mountain Joe Senior Member • Posts: 1,451
Re: ignoring alot of variables

harold1968 wrote:

I know you said that you were after look rather then technically comparing the pictures, but I think these results are misleading, shown at the resolution they are, and the extent of PP used.

If you look at your photos this way - meaning on your monitor at normal viewing size (ie not pixel peeping) then you will see what I have posted.

If you are printing at larger sizes or viewing at higher magnifications, then yes - the differences between the two cameras become more apparent - I would hope that is evident to most of the members of this forum.

Its important to understand all the issues at play.

Lets first bear in mind a number of salient facts: you are shooting a non-moving target with alot of natural contrast with plenty of light.

To explain myself, I have a Oly E-P1 for light work and a D700 with some nice lenses. I like the E-P1 alot, and its great to have in the pocket for quick snaps without the weight disadvantage of the D700, but the D700's weight is actually useful to get sharp pictures. So its a double edged sword. Like the tripod problem, you want a tripod as light as possible for walking, but as heavy as possible for actually taking the picture - a dilema.

In summary, whilst the E-P1 is a great camera and a mile away from compacts its no match for the D700 in any circumstance. Without going into too much detail, the D700 has pin sharp pixel level detail, the E-P1 never achieves this, at any ISO or with any tripod. This allows much better cropping and a vast exposure latitude for PP. With low contrast pcitures, my end-to-end dynamic range from the D700 just blows the E-P1 away. There are many other things I could mention, but just to say that the D700 at ISO 3200 has better noise response then the E-P1 at ISO 200 (sometimes then 100 as well).

Fully agree - but also consider possibly the GF1 RAW files are capable of sharper output than the E-P1. I don't want to start a battle here but I think this has been shown by dpreview and others - the GF1 has a weaker AA filter and different sensor which out-resolves the E-P1 (though not by much).

Also I don't know which lens you are comparing to on the E-P1. As stated before imo the PL 25mm Summulix on my G1 is capable of same or better sharpness than the best lenses I have on my D700 (and I have the Pro lenses).

I am not knocking the E-P1, like I say its a brilliant camera. I also don't want to get flamed as the D700 is so much more. Its also a case of diminishing returns. i.e. for every extra £ (or $) you spend, you get less for youre money.

I guess the only point I am trying to make is that with static subjects, good light and good contrast and scaling pixels down, you can show pictures that look good from most cameras, including my kids panasonic Ls-80 at 5 mp. But I just find the E-P1 pixel level quality so much inferior that I take my D700 whenever I can.

just my 2 cents.
keep smiling folks

Thanks for your comments - like I said - I own four hammers - they each are designed for a different purpose and excel at doing what they were designed for - I don't consider one better than the other...

-- hide signature --

Joe
http://mountainjoe.zenfolio.com/
Chop wood, carry water...

OP Mountain Joe Senior Member • Posts: 1,451
Re: After more reflection....

TEBnewyork wrote:

The thing is as I think about this thread I get more impressed with the GF1 output and don't think you will really ever be able to fully match them because of the ND filter on the Nikon.

Well in the case of the first shot, I used the 500mm Zeiss and no ND filter so they are even-Steven.

That said, I am also fully impressed with the GF1's ability to handle such a challenging exposure - full kudos are due to Pany there imo.

I know you applied the grad filter in LR to the GF1 shots but still to have 2 stops of headroom built into the Nikon RAW gives you a lot more to work with.

I am NOT discounting the great work you have done here at all and you could not be expected to be switching which camera is on tripod etc when you are trying to capture the best shots for YOUR use.

I often shoot exactly how you have done. Get the shot set up on the tripod with the DSLR and while waiting for the light do some handheld shooting with the G1 and/or the GF1.
--

I will be posting some lightly processed versions of the first two pics shortly - hopefully that will help even things out a bit.

terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

-- hide signature --

Joe
http://mountainjoe.zenfolio.com/
Chop wood, carry water...

Ehrik Veteran Member • Posts: 8,014
Re: More a processing difference than a lens/camera difference

Joe,

I hadn't read all the messages in the thread, so I missed about the ND grad. I agree with Terry that this makes a lot of difference. Not only to DR (which may not be an issue at the posted size) but by blocking some light from the brightest mountain tops, it helps increase shadow contrast. I also think the 20mm could use a generous hood under these circumstances (perhaps you used one?). The 45mm may also benefit from a deeper hood than the one sold with the lens.

As for the processing, I took the second pair (the one taken with the 45mm macro) into an image editor and the D700 image has a much more contrasty tone curve. By doing a simple curves on the GF1 image most of the difference can be eliminated, IMHO.

I think I will try to use the same exact settings in my pp programs for each version of a sample file and not use localized adjustments but that would not necessarily show the best that each is capable of (which was my intent).

And just comparing RAW files with default settings is not that interesting to me as I would never actually process a photo that way.

I am willing to post the RAW files if anyone is interested and they can have a go at it - I am sure there are folks out there who are more proficient at pp than me

Another way to compare the lenses would be to use both on the GF1, the Zeiss lenses with a Nikon adapter. Obviously, the GF1 puts higher demands on the resolution since the image needs twice the magnification for the same output size. But any differences in colour and global contrast could be settled much better.

Even though the scenes in this thread are a true treat to the eyes, a test scene without clouds or fog moving around between the shots would make a comparison easier. The fog works like a great reflector screen, potentially changing the contrast of the dark hill sides.

harold1968
harold1968 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,687
Re: ignoring alot of variables

I agree with you, they are different tools. The E-P1 takes very nice pictures scaled for most folks PC monitors. And of course I have seen very nice GF1 pictures (all RAW PPed though).

I just wanted to make the point before too many people get excited that they have not suddenly got a camera only 10% worse then one 3.5-4x the cost (in the UK anyhow). Its actually quite a bit inferior for most purposes (although most is a point for argument).

I forgot to mention that your pictures seem to reflect your name (handle).

I wish I had that scenery less then 7000 miles away. I suppose I could jump to switzerland or scotland - too cold now though

Mountain Joe wrote:

harold1968 wrote:

I know you said that you were after look rather then technically comparing the pictures, but I think these results are misleading, shown at the resolution they are, and the extent of PP used.

If you look at your photos this way - meaning on your monitor at normal viewing size (ie not pixel peeping) then you will see what I have posted.

If you are printing at larger sizes or viewing at higher magnifications, then yes - the differences between the two cameras become more apparent - I would hope that is evident to most of the members of this forum.

Its important to understand all the issues at play.

Lets first bear in mind a number of salient facts: you are shooting a non-moving target with alot of natural contrast with plenty of light.

To explain myself, I have a Oly E-P1 for light work and a D700 with some nice lenses. I like the E-P1 alot, and its great to have in the pocket for quick snaps without the weight disadvantage of the D700, but the D700's weight is actually useful to get sharp pictures. So its a double edged sword. Like the tripod problem, you want a tripod as light as possible for walking, but as heavy as possible for actually taking the picture - a dilema.

In summary, whilst the E-P1 is a great camera and a mile away from compacts its no match for the D700 in any circumstance. Without going into too much detail, the D700 has pin sharp pixel level detail, the E-P1 never achieves this, at any ISO or with any tripod. This allows much better cropping and a vast exposure latitude for PP. With low contrast pcitures, my end-to-end dynamic range from the D700 just blows the E-P1 away. There are many other things I could mention, but just to say that the D700 at ISO 3200 has better noise response then the E-P1 at ISO 200 (sometimes then 100 as well).

Fully agree - but also consider possibly the GF1 RAW files are capable of sharper output than the E-P1. I don't want to start a battle here but I think this has been shown by dpreview and others - the GF1 has a weaker AA filter and different sensor which out-resolves the E-P1 (though not by much).

Also I don't know which lens you are comparing to on the E-P1. As stated before imo the PL 25mm Summulix on my G1 is capable of same or better sharpness than the best lenses I have on my D700 (and I have the Pro lenses).

I am not knocking the E-P1, like I say its a brilliant camera. I also don't want to get flamed as the D700 is so much more. Its also a case of diminishing returns. i.e. for every extra £ (or $) you spend, you get less for youre money.

I guess the only point I am trying to make is that with static subjects, good light and good contrast and scaling pixels down, you can show pictures that look good from most cameras, including my kids panasonic Ls-80 at 5 mp. But I just find the E-P1 pixel level quality so much inferior that I take my D700 whenever I can.

just my 2 cents.
keep smiling folks

Thanks for your comments - like I said - I own four hammers - they each are designed for a different purpose and excel at doing what they were designed for - I don't consider one better than the other...

 harold1968's gear list:harold1968's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Sony RX1R Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +1 more
Diane B Forum Pro • Posts: 20,694
Re: After more reflection....

TEBnewyork wrote:

The thing is as I think about this thread I get more impressed with the GF1 output and don't think you will really ever be able to fully match them because of the ND filter on the Nikon.

I know you applied the grad filter in LR to the GF1 shots but still to have 2 stops of headroom built into the Nikon RAW gives you a lot more to work with.

I am NOT discounting the great work you have done here at all and you could not be expected to be switching which camera is on tripod etc when you are trying to capture the best shots for YOUR use.

I often shoot exactly how you have done. Get the shot set up on the tripod with the DSLR and while waiting for the light do some handheld shooting with the G1 and/or the GF1.

I gave up trying to compare my DSLR (5D) to my G1/GF1 directly. I'm happy with both--though I shoot a lot more now with the m4/3rds. I simply shoot using the technique I think will give me the best output after RAW processing (if I need to use bracketing, for instance, because its a very contrasty scene--I'll do it) and process to the best of my ability to get the best final image from each camera that pleases me--they may not be identical--likely not. You can drive yourself crazy comparing (though I understand why you did it--I did too LOL).

I finally decided I was happy enough with the IQ I got for most shooting situations with the m4/3rds (one still has the option to stitch, bracket, etc.) for all prints at 13 x 19--and most up to 16 x 24. I will keep my 5D gear--I actually felt 'bonded' to my 5D, but the Gs make a difference in my photographic life generally. It will be different for each individual--I'm older but sitll like hiking, long periods of walking in urban areas--and though I can still carry that 5D gear--I prefer not to do it all the time. I've learned to understand the role of 'small' in photographic gear.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

 Diane B's gear list:Diane B's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Apple iPhone XS Max +1 more
Melbourne Park Senior Member • Posts: 2,683
Re: ignoring alot of variables

Mountain Joe wrote:

Fully agree - but also consider possibly the GF1 RAW files are capable of sharper output than the E-P1. I don't want to start a battle here but I think this has been shown by dpreview and others - the GF1 has a weaker AA filter and different sensor which out-resolves the E-P1 (though not by much).
--
Joe

Are you sure Joe that the EP-1 has a different sensor? Both Oly and Pana publish the sensor size as being:
Imager Size-------------17.3 mm (H) x 13.0 mm (V)
Type----------------------High speed Live MOS Sensor
Total Pixel Number---13.1 Million pixels approx.
Aspect Ratio------------1.33 (4:3)

However both Pana and Oly claim different "effective" pixels. I suspect the sensors they use are the same, and the difference lies in their definition of "effective".

I'd be interested if you know more!

Thanks for the great comparisons!!

 Melbourne Park's gear list:Melbourne Park's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R II Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +7 more
OP Mountain Joe Senior Member • Posts: 1,451
Re: ignoring alot of variables

Melbourne Park wrote:

Mountain Joe wrote:

Fully agree - but also consider possibly the GF1 RAW files are capable of sharper output than the E-P1. I don't want to start a battle here but I think this has been shown by dpreview and others - the GF1 has a weaker AA filter and different sensor which out-resolves the E-P1 (though not by much).
--
Joe

Are you sure Joe that the EP-1 has a different sensor? Both Oly and Pana publish the sensor size as being:
Imager Size-------------17.3 mm (H) x 13.0 mm (V)
Type----------------------High speed Live MOS Sensor
Total Pixel Number---13.1 Million pixels approx.
Aspect Ratio------------1.33 (4:3)

I'm really not sure about this but I thought there were observed differences in ISO performance as well which would also indicate a different sensor.

They may use the same sensor but different AA filters - that would be sufficient to explain the differences in resolving power but not ISO performance.

However both Pana and Oly claim different "effective" pixels. I suspect the sensors they use are the same, and the difference lies in their definition of "effective".

I'd be interested if you know more!

Thanks for the great comparisons!!

-- hide signature --

Joe
http://mountainjoe.zenfolio.com/
Chop wood, carry water...

DimLS Regular Member • Posts: 125
Re: ignoring alot of variables

Very nice post from the author! I feel the same about the gf1, that its a more capable camera than many think.

I just want to make 2 points: a. sharpness b. image quality due to ISO. I am driven by some posts in this thread.

i had Nikon D40, Pentax K10D, Pentax K20D, Panasonic G1, and Olympus E30 together with some really fine lenses for pentax and olympus. Now i have a GF1.

Pentax: 16-35, 50-135, Limited 40, Limited 70 among others.
Olympus: 50mm f2 makro, 14-35 f2, 7-14 f4.

Keep in mind that the Olyumpus 14-35 F2 is considered may be the best zoom lens ever, and the 7-14 among the 2 best wide angle zooms (together with nikon 14-24) and 50mm f2 macro is again considered among the best.

I also have a decent and calibrated monitor.

The only reason im mentioning these is to show that i have a kind of experience and i dont talk out of my head.

The first point is about gf1 sharpness:

To get an idea of the 14-35 you could read diglloyd:

"The MTF charts for the 14-35 are unbelievably good (note that the lines are for 20 and 60 line pairs/mm, even Zeiss and Leica MTF charts go only to 40).

The Olympus SHG 14-35mm f/2 zoom might be the very best wide angle zoom ever made. No Nikon or Canon offering can produce this level of uniform sharpness. But of course this lens is covering the four-thirds format, which is a sensor size about 1/4 that of a full-frame DSLR and a 3:2 aspect ratio (more square) making lens design easier.

If Olympus could dish out a 24 megapixel micro-4/3 camera, I suspect it would easily out-resolve the Nikon D3x with equivalent zoom, because of the optics. No kidding."
And

"The amount of detail in this example is astonishing. The uniform sharpness to the corners even wide open, the lack of vignetting, the low distortion, etc are all extremely impressive. I wish I had a Nikon 28-70 zoom that could deliver this kind of performance on full frame!"

He tested the 14-35 on EP1. Which is sharper that E30. Gf1 is more sharp that EP1. All these due to the AA filter. My kit lens, my planar 50f1.4 at 5.6, my panasonic 45mm on gf1 ( not at borders) are more sharp than e30 with 14-35. Uniformity and contrast depends on lenses, but gf1 sharpness at pixel level is astonishing and by far better than any slr and lens combo i had used.

These, together with some 100% photo tests around the web, that show this clearly as far as i can tell.

Moreover, anything smaller that 100% cannot be judged regarding sharpness as some have done here. Also f11 and no tripod on gf1 might have reduced sharpness at pixel level.

The post of the author is very good and informative, i just wanted to comment on the sharpness comments, no offend pls.

The second point, regarding the high iso in D700 advantage, at least for this series of photos:

When u dont have enough available light there are 2 ways to compensate a. wider aperture b. higher ISO.

M43 lenses like the pancake 20mm and panasonic 45mm as a lot sharper and contrastier at 2.8 or 3.5 than the equivalent nikon slr lenses are at 2.8 or 3.5 Nomally u should stop down to 5.6 for slr lenses to peack performance.

In landscape shotting, with gf1 and m43 lenses you get the IQ from f2.8 if the DOF is ok (and in may circumstanses it is, since u dont have close objects in the frame)

With nikon for equivalent iq u have to stop down at least to 5.6. to get decent IQ and same DOF. Its 2 stops difference.

I have cheched it myself with panaleica 45mm f2.8, olympus macro 50mm, 14-54 f2. They can do sharp and contrasty landscapes from almost wide open.

So the High iso advantage of d700, in certain circumstances is less obvious.

Graham Gibson Contributing Member • Posts: 741
Re: ignoring alot of variables

Wow, that was a pretty long post for a thread necro.
--
--------------------------------------------
Panasonic GF1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahamgibson/

DimLS Regular Member • Posts: 125
Re: ignoring alot of variables

Graham Gibson wrote:

Wow, that was a pretty long post for a thread necro.
--
--------------------------------------------
Panasonic GF1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahamgibson/

i have just registered to dpreview forums, thats why!

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Re: ignoring alot of variables

DimLS wrote:

Very nice post from the author! I feel the same about the gf1, that its a more capable camera than many think.

I just want to make 2 points: a. sharpness b. image quality due to ISO. I am driven by some posts in this thread.

i had Nikon D40, Pentax K10D, Pentax K20D, Panasonic G1, and Olympus E30 together with some really fine lenses for pentax and olympus. Now i have a GF1.

Pentax: 16-35, 50-135, Limited 40, Limited 70 among others.
Olympus: 50mm f2 makro, 14-35 f2, 7-14 f4.

Keep in mind that the Olyumpus 14-35 F2 is considered may be the best zoom lens ever, and the 7-14 among the 2 best wide angle zooms (together with nikon 14-24) and 50mm f2 macro is again considered among the best.

I also have a decent and calibrated monitor.

The only reason im mentioning these is to show that i have a kind of experience and i dont talk out of my head.

The first point is about gf1 sharpness:

To get an idea of the 14-35 you could read diglloyd:

"The MTF charts for the 14-35 are unbelievably good (note that the lines are for 20 and 60 line pairs/mm, even Zeiss and Leica MTF charts go only to 40).

The Olympus SHG 14-35mm f/2 zoom might be the very best wide angle zoom ever made. No Nikon or Canon offering can produce this level of uniform sharpness. But of course this lens is covering the four-thirds format, which is a sensor size about 1/4 that of a full-frame DSLR and a 3:2 aspect ratio (more square) making lens design easier.

If Olympus could dish out a 24 megapixel micro-4/3 camera, I suspect it would easily out-resolve the Nikon D3x with equivalent zoom, because of the optics. No kidding."
And

"The amount of detail in this example is astonishing. The uniform sharpness to the corners even wide open, the lack of vignetting, the low distortion, etc are all extremely impressive. I wish I had a Nikon 28-70 zoom that could deliver this kind of performance on full frame!"

He tested the 14-35 on EP1. Which is sharper that E30. Gf1 is more sharp that EP1. All these due to the AA filter. My kit lens, my planar 50f1.4 at 5.6, my panasonic 45mm on gf1 ( not at borders) are more sharp than e30 with 14-35. Uniformity and contrast depends on lenses, but gf1 sharpness at pixel level is astonishing and by far better than any slr and lens combo i had used.

These, together with some 100% photo tests around the web, that show this clearly as far as i can tell.

Moreover, anything smaller that 100% cannot be judged regarding sharpness as some have done here. Also f11 and no tripod on gf1 might have reduced sharpness at pixel level.

The post of the author is very good and informative, i just wanted to comment on the sharpness comments, no offend pls.

The second point, regarding the high iso in D700 advantage, at least for this series of photos:

When u dont have enough available light there are 2 ways to compensate a. wider aperture b. higher ISO.

M43 lenses like the pancake 20mm and panasonic 45mm as a lot sharper and contrastier at 2.8 or 3.5 than the equivalent nikon slr lenses are at 2.8 or 3.5 Nomally u should stop down to 5.6 for slr lenses to peack performance.

I think you are just speculating here. When I compared the Pana 20 1.7 on a GF-1 vs a Nikkor 35 1.8 on a D90 I could see no advantage for the 20.

In landscape shotting, with gf1 and m43 lenses you get the IQ from f2.8 if the DOF is ok (and in may circumstanses it is, since u dont have close objects in the frame)

With nikon for equivalent iq u have to stop down at least to 5.6. to get decent IQ and same DOF. Its 2 stops difference.

I have cheched it myself with panaleica 45mm f2.8, olympus macro 50mm, 14-54 f2. They can do sharp and contrasty landscapes from almost wide open.

So the High iso advantage of d700, in certain circumstances is less obvious.

D200_4me
D200_4me Veteran Member • Posts: 4,526
Why not use the adobe camera profiles?

....for the D700 I mean? I always use the 'camera standard' profile made just for the D700 that's in LR. Looks much better to me than the Adobe Standard conversion. After that, I work from there. It's just a starting point.

 D200_4me's gear list:D200_4me's gear list
Nikon Z7 Panasonic G95 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 OIS +1 more
dko22 Contributing Member • Posts: 923
Re: More a processing difference than a lens/camera difference

Ehrik wrote:

To me, the processing looks different enough that it really isn't possible to say much about the lenses from the images posted in the OP. I don't think it's possible to make any conclusions about lens contrast based on that.

Maybe the OP feels he has given the files the same processing, but it seems the underlying software defaults are not the same.

Very nice photographs, though.

I agree entirely --there are some lovely photos but some of the D700's seem a bit overprocessed and I'd really like to see the RAW's so I could check for myself. Also the Zeiss lenses are known to be often very contrasty although rather nice to look at!

 dko22's gear list:dko22's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Nikon Z6 Irix 15mm F2.4 Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +2 more
DimLS Regular Member • Posts: 125
Re: ignoring alot of variables

PerL wrote:

DimLS wrote:

M43 lenses like the pancake 20mm and panasonic 45mm as a lot sharper and contrastier at 2.8 or 3.5 than the equivalent nikon slr lenses are at 2.8 or 3.5 Nomally u should stop down to 5.6 for slr lenses to peack performance.

I think you are just speculating here. When I compared the Pana 20 1.7 on a GF-1 vs a Nikkor 35 1.8 on a D90 I could see no advantage for the 20.

I dont have d700 or D90 or some very good lenses for d700, but i have tried lots of equipment of comparable sharpness plus i have read and seen a lot of tests or sample images. I dont and i cannot disagree with what you are saying but i wanted to make somewhat clear with some arguments that gf1 with its system lenses have an advantage in sharpness especially at wider apertures, which is true i believe, a lot of reviews and personal opinions demonstrate this.

Anyway this is my personal and somewhat justified view.

P.S.only the last years traditional slr factories have started to make lenses for the digital slr market and for the FF market which really seem to catch up with the resolution and quality needed nowadays. Their catalogue consited mainly of outdated lenses.

On the other hand 43 format and more the m43 format was designed with more updated standards and so the lens IQ was and still is in many cases better in amy parameters.

Probably as times passes we will see more and more adequate lenses for FF and croped as it has been the case with nikon 14-24, 35mm for cropped, 50 f1.4G, etc.

Just my humble opinion.

Ravncat Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: D700 shadows

You can get that artificial color to show up in the adobe standard profiles as well - profiling your camera directly will most certainly get rid of it.
--
A poor photographer blames his tools.

jagge Veteran Member • Posts: 4,149
Great pictures for sure..

Cheers and thanks for looking.

Hey Joe

Very interesting comparrisson. To me it shows that there is more to a sensor than MP which off course isnt surprising but still...

What really shocks me is the difference betweeen the the two when it comes to texture, depth and detail. The D700 shoots looks awsome and has another depth and clarity to them for sure.

I wonder if thats just the D700 or if the result would have been the same with a great quality APS-c as well ??

But thanks for the very interesting and great pictures

Best wishes

Jakob

dko22 Contributing Member • Posts: 923
Re: Great pictures for sure..

What really shocks me is the difference betweeen the the two when it comes to texture, depth and detail. The D700 shoots looks awsome and has another depth and clarity to them for sure.

Jakob

I've done more and more comparison pixel peeping and even printing shots between a D700 and G1 and there simply are not the dramatic differences that are shown here --indeed in properly exposed images in reasonable light processed the same way, I am pretty sure that most people couldn't tell the difference. On LR3, the Lumix images often actually appear to have better DR. Of course they don't in reality so I can only assume that the standard processing is a bit less contrasty with the G1 (though the images do not lack contrast). The D700 does have a significantly better rescue ability for badly exposed images or ones with a very high DR (of course fill-in flash or ND grads are an option in landscape). But I wonder how long this will be the case. Even now, the GH1 has a better sensor and it may be only weeks before a new sensor line is introduced which may already be getting close to the 2 year old FF technology.

Anyway, congratulations again on the images however they were done --some impressive stuff there!

David

 dko22's gear list:dko22's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Nikon Z6 Irix 15mm F2.4 Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +2 more
Anthias Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Great pictures for sure..

looks like the d700 is metering correctly and the gf1 is not. i find when i expose the gf1 for the highlights (like old slide film )it looks amazing.
-
Shoot Planner for iPhone OS
A photographer’s assistant & PA rolled into one .
http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/huwtudorware/id382310164

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads