I agree that it's really quite impossible to compare these images with
the intent of saying which camera/lens is better. I have prepared some
crops that show the A65 has clearly produced a better image than the
A200 <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=13386> The problem is
we don't know why. Exposures are different, color balance is different,
lens coverage angles are different and, within that, we don't know if
it's focal length or shooting distance or both.
But whatever the shooting conditions the A65 has made a much better
image. Whether it's better enough to illustrate the actual technical
merits of the A65 and whatever lens was used is unknown.
But regardless, Boris should be quite happy since he was initially
concerned that the A200 was producing better images than the brand new
A65. No matter which lens he used (and there may be much better ones)
it has outperformed the A200. Since the A200 has a fixed lens it cannot
be improved from that standpoint. I'm still concerned that the A200's
performance may be hampered by diffraction limits but, even if that is
the case, it represents how Boris has been using the camera.
A side note. I recently send Boris a Minolta AF 50/1.7 from my
collection of camera miscellany that can be used on the A65. That one
should be a high quality lens and he has verified that it does work as
an AF lens on the Sony.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/17/2014 3:08 AM, Moose wrote:
On 6/15/2014 6:23 PM, Willie Wonka via olympus wrote:
... I have put up two pictures on zone10 one made with the A200 and
another with the A65. The A200 is a RAW converted to tiff I believe
and the A65 is the jpeg straight from the camera also converted to
tiff just to be fair. I have a RAW to tiff that wanted to post, but
the Schnozz stubbornly refused to give me an upload permission...:),
because the file was huge.
I would like to get the opinion of the pixel peepers amongst you on
the picture quality of the camera (s). I picked this scene, so I could
also get an idea of what the dynamic range and evaluate the metering
performance.
Is this like a test - for us? You make it so hard to make a reasonable
comparison. By shooting at quite different effective focal lengths,
everything is of different sizes in the two images. JPEG converted to
TIFF is not the same as RAW to TIFF. NR and sharpening default settings
in JPEGs aren't necessarily right for a pixel level comparison.
So, it is clear that the A65 makes better images, but not by nearly as
much as I would expect.
From someone used to 16 MB image files, the 24 MB A65 file looks pretty
poor. There's some really mushed together detail in some of the foliage.
I don't know if the kit lens is poor. Many are at their widest settings,
esp. away from the center. Or did something bad happen in the journey
from sensor to screen? NR?
That camera must surely be up to better than this example.
Bleary Eyed Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|