Two things: 1) can't see any evidence of diffraction, and 2) Oly pounds
Canon.
I wonder if DeepPeeve is trying show Oly favorably as compared to Canon?
What's the date on the Mayan calendar?
Joel W.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> About the only difference I can see is that the Oly is a somewhat
> smaller image and is far more saturated and, oh, the images are not the
> same. The oly image contains some small colored balls in two different
> areas that are not there in the Canon shot.
>
> It would appear that there was some attempt to equalize DOF. The Oly
> shot was made at 45mm and f/6.3, the Canon shot at 100mm and f/11...
> which also puts both sensors in diffraction territory.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 3/12/2012 7:51 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Interesting to look at higher ISO samples of OM-D compared to the new
> > Canyon. Can only tell so much out of in cam jpegs, but still. More
> > dof in Oly shots too as well as known excellent in cam jpeg engine can
> > skew the comparison. Still will be curious to see how many lens caps
> > AG and other listees give it. They must have done something right.
> >
> > Canon:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1779792/iso-1600?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples
> >
> > Oly (NR off):
> > http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1798861/iso-1600_nf-off?inalbum=olympus-om-d-e-m5-low-light-iso-samples
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
love email again
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|