PDA

View Full Version : FT to fourthirds comparison


RogerMac
4th March 2013, 04:31 PM
I have just bought a FF Canon - really to do some night time photography that my existing kit is just not able to offer. However I have just tested it against my existing E5 kit (2 year old sensor, not the latest one) and I have no doubt that at normal ISO levels the IQ of the FT is just as good at the centre and better at the corners.

Judge for yourselves
Firsts the Canon 6D with f4 24-105 lens:
Canon at f5.6 (http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/Photos/CanonTest56.jpg)

Then the E5 with 12-60mm lens, same tripod, same testchart

Olympus at f5.6 (http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/Photos/Olympus56.jpg)

I am not in a hurry to replace the E5 with an E7 when it comes out as one camera a year seems quite enough but I do intend to use FT most of the time and just use the 6D for what it is good at


Roger

Daveart
4th March 2013, 04:41 PM
Hi Roger, I have looked at the canon v E5 test card, I would say that the E5 looks to me a lot sharper than the canon one, by a good margin the canon one is hardly readable at the edges and soft in the middle in comparison.

Dave

David M
4th March 2013, 05:26 PM
A tip I picked up from a couple of Canon users I know is to buy 3 copies of a lens, test them and return the worst 2.

Ulfric M Douglas
4th March 2013, 05:31 PM
I have just bought a FF Canon ...
Judge for yourselves
Firsts the Canon 6D with f4 24-105 lens:
Canon at f5.6 (http://www.macdon.demon.co.uk/Photos/CanonTest56.jpg)
That lens is a right lemon!
(Probably)

David M
4th March 2013, 05:45 PM
Actually I'm not joking. I borrowed a Canon outfit, a 5D and 30D with 17-40L, 28-85 (or something like that) and 100-400L. After being unimpressed with the glass I started questioning the Canon nature/landscape photographers I know. One of them brought 3 copies of the 17-40 to find the best copy.

Greytop
4th March 2013, 06:22 PM
Actually I'm not joking. I borrowed a Canon outfit, a 5D and 30D with 17-40L, 28-85 (or something like that) and 100-400L. After being unimpressed with the glass I started questioning the Canon nature/landscape photographers I know. One of them brought 3 copies of the 17-40 to find the best copy.

I think a read somewhere that the 17-40L is one of the worst examples of L series glass.

I must admit those examples a shockingly revealing Roger, I've seen examples in the past of full frame corner softness but this takes the biscuit.
Funny thing is that both m4/3rds and 4/3rds are a full frame system with native glass fitted but neither exhibit the same deficiency ;)

David M
4th March 2013, 07:10 PM
The reputation of the 100-400L isn't much better. I know a photographer whose sample was soft beyond 300mm. That is until he sent it for repair for another fault and it came back sharper beyond 300mm.