C.H.: I think you may have missed that my pictures were taken at ISO
3200. There is a sharpness penalty at that ISO, whether due to noise or
noise reduction, or reduced microcontrast. And there may be slight
motion blur at slow shutter speed. I have to experiment with the IS
off, I've only had it on so far.
Here's a picture of me that a friend took with my camera (at my
birthday). This is at ISO 800, wide open at f/1.7. Sharp enough?
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/Thanksgiving12/PB220029+2.jpg.html>
I'm going to try ISO 1600 for my next indoor session. That may be the
"sweet spot" of IQ vs. noise and noise-related degradation.
--Peter
> I'm a little disappointed to see the E-M5+20/1.7 results (both noise and
> sharpness), my EPL-1 with 14-42 kit lens seem did better.
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/PC078597.jpg
>
>
> ISO 1250, 1/30s, IS on. Converted with Viewer 2, sharpness -2.
Resized at PS with USM 60, 0.4.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Klein" <pklein [at]
threshinc.com>
> To: <olympus [at] thomasclausen.net>
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:28 PM
> Subject: [OM] IMG: M8 vs. OM-D, real people pictures
>
>
>
> The following is unscientific, but probably useful. These pictures were
> shot at the same house, in the same general situation (festive
> occasions), with much the same lighting, some of the same people, and
> too much food. The difference is that the first picture of each pair
> below was taken with a Leica M8 and 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH at ISO 640.
> The second picture of each pair (Christmas Eve this year) was taken with
> an OM-D E-M5 and a Panasonic 20/1.7 at ISO 3200. Each pair was taken at
> roughly the same place, and so has similar lighting unless the bulbs
> were changed to something different in between the pictures.
>
> Both lenses were used somewhere between wide open and closed down one
> stop. Everything was shot RAW and processed with Capture One, using the
> defaults, and making the white balance look reasonably good to my eye,
> but without my trying to go against the basic nature of the camera.
>
>
>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/erevxmas2011/L1008813.jpg.html>
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240049-w.jpg.html>
>
>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/NewYear2011-12/L1009035.jpg.html>
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240053-w.jpg.html>
>
>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/erevxmas2011/L1008832.jpg.html>
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240067-w.jpg.html>
>
>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/ErevXmas09/L1005913.jpg.html>
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240069-w.jpg.html>
>
> Feel free to browse the rest of the folders if you want to see more.
>
> Here's what I'm seeing so far:
>
> 1. The M8 with 35mm Summilux is clearly sharper when properly focused.
> But the E-M5 with 20/1.7 is quite usable. Note that the difference in
> sharpness is less when both cameras are set at ISO 800, but it is still
> there, and you can see it even in these Web-sized JPGs.
> 2. Despite the E-M5's wonderful image stabilization, I can get sharper
> shots at ~1/60 with the M8 than I can with the E-M5.
> 3. The M8 is biased towards pink/magenta, the E-M5 towards yellow. (Yes,
> I'm using an IR filter on the M8).
> 4. The E-M5 at 3200 is a bit noisier than the M8 at 640. From other
> sessions not shown here, I see that at 800/640 the E-M5 seems a little
> less noisy than the M8 in the shadows. So 1600 may be the "sweet spot"
> for the E-M5. I'm going to shoot New Year's Eve at ISO 1600 rather than
> 3200, and see how that fares.
>
> --Peter
>
>
>
>
> --
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
