On 12/29/2012 7:05 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> 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.
As I recall, the 20/1.7 has a rather poor reputation. Dpreview was underwhelmed
by it.
"The M. Zuiko Digital 17mm F2.8 Pancake gives acceptable results in our studio
tests, but again its extreme portability
comes at the cost of some optical compromises. Image quality at the centre of
the frame is high, but it's less
impressive towards the edges due to a combination of (relative) softness and
chromatic aberration. Compared to the kit
zoom, there's no hugely compelling optical advantage to the 17mm (although it's
faster and more portable), and overall
its performance leaves us feeling just a little 'flat'."
I haven't kept up with more recent primes, but the Panny 20/1.7 was what
everyone seemed to thing was the great lens in
that general FL range. dpreview again:
"Of course many Micro Four Thirds owners will be most interested in deciding
between the 20mm F1.7 and the Olympus M.
Zuiko Digital 17mm F2.8 Pancake. We were a little underwhelmed by the Olympus
lens - it's competent without being
outstanding - and in our opinion the 20mm is a much better choice. It's only a
little larger and heavier, yet
outperforms the 17mm in every aspect of our studio tests, while capturing
almost three times as much light. However it
is more expensive (although by how much depends greatly on where you live), and
some users will still prefer the 17mm
for its wider angle of view and E-P1-matching styling."
Oly has announced a 17/1.8, with a more complex optical formula that will
probably be excellent, when it becomes
available. Not inexpensive, for a non-Leica lens. :-) Samples images from
Oly here.
<http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/mlenses/17_18/>
As I have both an E-PL1 and E-M5, and have used both with low light levels on
the same subjects, I can assure you that,
whatever you read into Peter's web size images, noise, DR and pixel level
detail are much better in the new body.
> 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.
To the extent that I can tell from a small image, this looks like what I would
expect from the E-PL1. There are some
blocked up highlights, a subtle lack of crispness and noticeable noise. A
perfectly nice image, but not as nice as with
the E-M5.
I tend to shoot a scene like this with -0.7 EV, to hold highlight detail. -0.3
would probably be fine with the E-M5's
much more forgiving highlights and ACR. With Viewer2, I'd stick to -0.7; it
gives no help with highlights. I know that
means more noise in the shadows, but NI does a good job with that.
Hard to be sure of details, as I process with ACR/PSCS6 and always use NR, even
at base ISO, if I am going to sharpen.
Also I use FocusMagic, rather than PS USM, and deconvolution gives a different
look (better, to my eye) than USM.
Micky 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/
|
