Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And the same 100% crop from the CL...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an out-of-focus area from the M10...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the same out of focus area from the CL at 100%...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for (perhaps) the most controversial.  Here is the ISO 1600 crop of a low-detail area to show the noise characteristics on the M10.  I blew this up to 200% to make it easier to see.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally, the same crop at 200% from the CL at the lower ISO 800 (to get the same exposure value since this was at f/1.4 rather than f/2)...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my eye, the results are really, really similar.  Certainly the differences are well within the range of what one could attribute to sensor technology, individual lens rendering, slightly different dynamic ranges (and thus contrast choices) between the two cameras.  That's about all I see.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this:

 

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

 

FYI, don't mind the title and the bias against full frame it implies. He's just responding to the marketing hype around the words 'full frame.'

 

It's a very concise and accurate explanation of how photographic perspective and depth of field interact with focal length.

 

 

 

 

Good article you linked to.  The only thing I can think of that he missed (or chose not to cover in the interest of clarity) is that pixel counts are often quite different between formats, and that is a major reason the 5D he referenced, for example, doesn't have a full two stops better noise performance than the Olympus 4/3 camera.  Yes, there are differences in sensor generation and sensor quality, but I think the larger issue for that particular comparison is resolution. I bet if one down-sampled the 5D MkII to the same megapixels, it would be much closer to a two stop advantage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Most people would just apply a touch of noise reduction instead. Arguably, though, downsampling can be a smarter approach. But we have all been trained over the years to crave more pixels, even when those extra pixels come with a cost. Even when those extra pixels contain no additional true resolution. And, yes, at normal screen resolutions we are all spoiled with incredibly clean images at ridiculously high ISO’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...