That's not surprising. You couldn't see evidence of diffraction unless
you had a comparison image taken at a larger aperture.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/13/2012 11:01 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|