On 11/4/2012 9:33 AM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
> Interesting series Moose.
Thanks.
> A couple of observations. Looking at the
> reflection in the water tells me that the dof was different in the two
> images.
I agree, DOF is different. F7 on FF vs f9 on 4/3, but the boat was angled
differently, more parallel to the film plane
on Mike's shot, which should tend to even things out.
And then, Moose can be pretty tricky with different amounts of deconvolution
masked to different areas in the FM version.
> Also since both shots were hand-held by different photographers I assume we
> can't really compare sharpness.
I'm not so sure about that. The 24-105L has IS and the E-M5 has IS. Seems to me
that 1/125 sec. on FF @ 105 mm shouldn't
be bad without IS, and pretty darn good with IS.
Maybe the E-M5, 1/80 sec. on 4/3 @ 120 mm eq. should get the benefit of the
doubt? :-) Well, does format matter when
subject size in pixels is the same? Also, the Oly is at ISO 800, vs. 400, which
could possibly lose a little detail. But
hey, it's a tiny bit sharper, so it don't need no stinkin' excuses.
> All exif data attached is from the OMD.
Which is why I included this little table in the original post:
Moose Mike
Camera E-M5 5D II
Shutter 1/125 1/80
EV comp -0.7 -0.33
Aperture f9 f7
ISO 800 400
FL-mm 60 105
> Still an excellent real life comparison.
Thanks. I thought it was useful.
Comparative Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|