Back on Sept. 30th., Mike was riding shotgun in Marnie's SUV, and I was riding
behind him. One of us (me?) asked her to
stop when we came upon one of "those" scenes.
Mike was a few feet in front of me, the boat was moving slowly and rocking
slightly. Marnie may even have moved a few
feet forward between my shots and Mike's. So the angles aren't quite the same.
Still, an interesting comparison:
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
Oddly enough, the larger pixel count of the Canon, with 105mm lens, and
cropped, ended up with the boat almost the
identical size in pixels to the Oly with 120 mm eq. lens.
Once I started looking at these images, I couldn't resist bringing ACR vs. Oly
Viewer 2 into it.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-M5/5DII/_9302328.htm>
What first got me interested in details, though, was looking at the boat and
buoys at 100%.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-M5/5DII/_9302328fp1.htm>
I don't know whether the 5DII image is the JPEG from the camera or the CR2
converted and processed.*
I noticed two things right away:
The Oly was showing more, more clearly defined fine detail. I'd used my normal
NR on the Oly image, and assumed that
either the JPEG engine or Mike had applied some to the Canon image. With Focus
Magic, though, the Canon image gets
gritty really easily, so I added NR before FM, but it didn't really help. The
Canon image just won't take as much
deconvolution as the Oly one.
I had used the Exposure (-55) and Highlights (-82) controls in ACR (same
controls as in LR4) on the Oly image, which
held a huge amount of subtle highlight detail. The Canon image has no visible
detail in the highest levels, on the hull
and the buoys. The histogram doesn't have stacked blown pixels on top, but the
image simply has no tonal detail there at
the high end.
I tried opening the JPEG in ACR, and pulling down highlights, but that didn't
help.
Curious, I opened the ORF file in Viewer 2. I pulled down the exposure until
there were no blown highlights. There's
still a lot less highlight tonal detail than with ACR. I've tried this with
other images. OV2 just doesn't do a good job
with highest highlights.
This other 100% selection shows even more clearly how much better ACR is with
highlights.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-M5/5DII/_9302328fp2.htm>
Look at the shadows on the left buoy that go yellow and the dark marks on the
right one that disappear in OV2.
Mike was using a 24-105/4 L, $1,000+, 670 g. I was using the $600, 280 g M.Z
14-150/4-5.6. Whatever the comparison of
detail resolution may show about the cameras, it does NOT show that the Canon L
is a better lens. A 4x, premium zoom
'should' outperform a regular 11x zoom - not so here. :-)
Hundred Percent Moose
* Yes, Mike, I know I could have asked, but it was the middle of the night, and
I was on a PS roll. :-)
--
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/
|