The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Canon 5Dm2+L glass vs GH1

nugat

New member
I borrowed some L pro Canon glass to play with, so I tested it against the GH1 and its Sunday best.
Both cameras at base 100 ISO, fast shutter (sun!snow!), handheld from ca 25m from the focus plane, several shots taken and the best picked, LR 2.6 raw no tweaking. My usual garden view which is fairly challenging: sun and snow and contrasts. Focus on the double red-yellow swing. Crops from GH1 are 100% 1600 pixels wide, the 5Dm2 got a preferred treatment by downsampling from 21MP to the same crop (ca 2:1).
Here I compared wide/fast glass. 5Dm2 sported: 24mm/1.4L II and 24-70/2.8, GH1 wore Schneider Kreuznach 10mm/f1.8 c-mount , lumix 7-14 and lumix 14-45. All glass at/around 24mm FF or equivalent , wide open and then slightly closed down. You can read pix descriptions with mouse covering and EXIFs are there too.
Next I'll test around normal f-lengths (50mm FF) and finally a slight tele.

From left-right and then top-down:
1) full view 24mm FF 2) GH1+SK 10/f1.8 3) GH1 + SK 10/f2.8 4) GH1 + lumix vario 7-14 at 12mm/f4
5) GH1 + lumix vario 14-45 at 14mm/f3.5
6)5Dm2 + 24-70/2.8 at 24mm/f2.8 7) 5Dm2 + 24-70 at 24mm/f6.3 8) 5Dm2 + 24/f1.4 at f1.4 9) 5Dm2 + 24mm/f1.4 at f 2.8
 
Last edited:

kevinparis

Member
kind of non test.... GH1 or indeed any micro 4/3 camera will take great pictures... but the 5D Mk2 will be capable of taking even better pictures IQ wise. I know.. I own a e-p1 a 510 and a 5d Mk2 - the differnce comes out not in these sort of shots - but in areas where low light and DOF are more of a factor

just my opinion

K
 

nugat

New member
My view of the above (don't read if you don't want to get prejudiced before reaching own conclusions):
-better 12MP with good sharpness than 21MP with worse one, especially when not printing billboards or going to 6400ISO.
In other words GH1 and its glass performs surprisingly good compared to full frame "semi-pro" Canon 5Dm2 and the pro line of best L lenses (here the wide ones).
My special disappointment is the 1600$ 24mm/f1.4 LII USM when wide open at 1.4. I just could not get it focused at the double red-yellow swing. 5Dm2 has a known problem with focusing, only the center cross mark is reliable, so I used it exlusively. Never mind, several tries and still very soft. Even worse, there seems to be no other plane of focus before or behind the swing. Is the flagship lens simply so soft wide open at f 1.4? I prefer to think my unscientific method failed somewhere. See the attached 100% BEST crop though...The 24/1.4 gets sharp in my test at f2.8, same as the vintage Schneider Kreuznach Cinegon 10mm/f1.8 which is several times smaller and cheaper, and after cropping the vignetting out...(SK is soft wide open too at f1.8). The 24-70 L glass is sharp from f.2.8 wide open but so is the amazing 7-14 lumix vario and...kit 14-45--which is the winner to me given the price and size.
 
Last edited:

nugat

New member
kind of non test.... GH1 or indeed any micro 4/3 camera will take great pictures... but the 5D Mk2 will be capable of taking even better pictures IQ wise. I know.. I own a e-p1 a 510 and a 5d Mk2 - the differnce comes out not in these sort of shots - but in areas where low light and DOF are more of a factor

just my opinion

K

Yes, it is a non-test of 3200ISO and higher and shallow DOF. Only real pros go to such dark places and like to blur their backgrounds to hide the surroundings . Us mere mortals like to see clearly what's in the pictures. I know it's crass...
 

s.agar

Member
I have a GF1 with 7-14 and 14-45 lenses. I also have the 5DII with a 28-70mm and 17-40mm. Although GF1 is an exceptionally good camera, and so are the 14-45mm lens, and especially the 7-14mm, for critical work I take the 5DII with me, especially for high ISO, like in museums etc.

But because of its smaller size and weight, I think 80% of the time I carry rhe GF1 setup with me.

These are very different systems for comparison.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
My special disappointment is the 1600$ 24mm/f1.4 LII USM when wide open at 1.4. I just could not get it focused at the double red-yellow swing. 5Dm2 has a known problem with focusing, only the center cross mark is reliable, so I used it exlusively.
Regardless of the AF prowess (or the lack thereof) of 5DII, why would you shoot landscape with a 24/1.4 at f/1.4? :confused:

Which system lens for m4/3rds offer an f/1.4 lens and would it focus on such an object, reliably within a reasonable time period? I would not think so.
 

kevinparis

Member
OMG... i think vivek and I agree :)... you know i'm kidding vivek

The point of a 24/1.4 isn't to take landscapes. But if you are a photojournalist that ability might get you the shot that gets you paid. Horses for courses

I am not a real pro... not even a fake pro... but i do recognise that the full frame of the 5D offers me an alternative set of opportunities that I cant get with current lenses on 4/3... whether one is better is entirely down to your own judgement

here is the same lens - OM 24/2 on the 4/3 and the Canon - each is in my mind good - but i could not have got the canon shot on the Ep-1 and probably vice versa.




K
 

madmaxmedia

New member
I think it goes without saying that they are very different cameras, with different advantages. And that glass has a big impact on the output. If you are really in the market for these cameras, this sort of testing is not that useful.

But I find these comparisons interesting, especially since OP included many different lenses on the GH1. Maybe moreso because there's a SK 10mm available locally to me for a relative bargain. ;) (I don't think I want it due to too much crop.)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
You read my mind, Kevin! One way to take care of any AF problems! :D
 

nugat

New member
Regardless of the AF prowess (or the lack thereof) of 5DII, why would you shoot landscape with a 24/1.4 at f/1.4? :confused:

Which system lens for m4/3rds offer an f/1.4 lens and would it focus on such an object, reliably within a reasonable time period? I would not think so.
Ok, let's see how the 20mm/1.7 panny and 25mm/1.4 luxD behave wide open in comparison-top row the two pics on the left (from the same distance of 25m). Unfortunately the sun came out and the shutter 1/4000s on GH1 was not enough for the snow (I had no gray filter). Next-top row the two pix on the right- both lenses slightly closed down (f4). And the Canon equivalent of 50mm/f.1.4 wide open-middle row and at 2.8-bottom row. (Don't know why the site software places the pictures that way...) How is that for sharpness wide open in the focal plane? The 5Dm2 still draws the premiun from downsampling the crops. Is it too much to expect from a 1600$ lens (24mm/f.1.4) to be sharp in the focal plane? Again the 20mm/1.7 panny costs as much as the 50mm/f.1.4 canon. One does it, the other does not.
 
Last edited:

kevinparis

Member
oh one other thing when doing these sort of comparisons is to remember that the DOF will be different for equivalent focal lenghts at the same f stop - eg a 17mm at f2.8 on a ep-1 will have more DOF than a 35mm at f2.8 on a FF camera

K
 

nugat

New member
oh one other thing when doing these sort of comparisons is to remember that the DOF will be different for equivalent focal lenghts at the same f stop - eg a 17mm at f2.8 on a ep-1 will have more DOF than a 35mm at f2.8 on a FF camera

K

And?
We are talking sharpness in focus plane, not DOF.
Anyway, from the 25 meters I shot the DOF extends from 5.36 meters and 9.16 meters to infinity respectively for the the two examples above.
 

kevinparis

Member
think you need
1) to check you DOF calculations... according to dof master canon 5d 50/1.4 goes from 17m to 43m, and 4/3 25/1.4 goes from 13.5 to 164m - certainly never to infinity...

2) realise that the canon and indeed nikon an olympus OM 50/1.4 lenses were made for bragging rights and to offer the brightest view for manual focussing in the view finder... they are all notoriously soft wide open... especially hightlighted at the distances you are shooting at.

I did note that the Canon at 2.8 was in the same ballpark as the panaleica at 1.4 which kinda bears out my ideas... plus the canon still seemed to me to have a greater 3 dimensionality.


I am not trying to put you down... i know the 4/3 cameras produce great results... but no matter which way you cut it a canon full frame used correctly in a real world situation is capable of producing a superior result.

If it wasn't the case most photographers who depend on their tools for a living would be using 4/3... but oddly they aren't

K
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
think you need

I am not trying to put you down... i know the 4/3 cameras produce great results... but no matter which way you cut it a canon full frame used correctly in a real world situation is capable of producing a superior result.

If it wasn't the case most photographers who depend on their tools for a living would be using 4/3... but oddly they aren't

K
What he said.
 

nugat

New member
think you need
1) to check you DOF calculations... according to dof master canon 5d 50/1.4 goes from 17m to 43m, and 4/3 25/1.4 goes from 13.5 to 164m - certainly never to infinity...

2) realise that the canon and indeed nikon an olympus OM 50/1.4 lenses were made for bragging rights and to offer the brightest view for manual focussing in the view finder... they are all notoriously soft wide open... especially hightlighted at the distances you are shooting at.

I did note that the Canon at 2.8 was in the same ballpark as the panaleica at 1.4 which kinda bears out my ideas... plus the canon still seemed to me to have a greater 3 dimensionality.


I am not trying to put you down... i know the 4/3 cameras produce great results... but no matter which way you cut it a canon full frame used correctly in a real world situation is capable of producing a superior result.

If it wasn't the case most photographers who depend on their tools for a living would be using 4/3... but oddly they aren't

K
My figures were for the lenses you brought in, or just as it's written "examples above" (see below). I don't feel put down. We are talking numbers, math, sums. Cannot dispute facts, can one...?
I use Leica, Canon, 4/3 and compacts. Leica is not soft wide open-at a price. Horses for courses.


ORIGINAL POST AND DOFMASTER FIGURES
Re: Canon 5Dm2+L glass vs GH1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinparis View Post
oh one other thing when doing these sort of comparisons is to remember that the DOF will be different for equivalent focal lenghts at the same f stop - eg a 17mm at f2.8 on a ep-1 will have more DOF than a 35mm at f2.8 on a FF camera

K

And?
We are talking sharpness in focus plane, not DOF.
Anyway, from the 25 meters I shot the DOF extends from 5.36 meters and 9.16 meters to infinity respectively for the the two examples above.
END OF QUOTE
 

nugat

New member
Re: Canon 5Dm2+L glass vs GH1--short tele

Here we go: Russian 50$ 85mm/f2 Jupiter and Lumix Vario 45-200 on the GH1 and the 1800$ Canon 70-200/f2.8 L. This time Canon does it. Beauty of a lens.
Top row Jupiter, middle and first of bottom the 45-200 Lumix, th elast three Canon.
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I am sorry, but I also have to take the side of Kevin and Vivek here. Another thing to note here is that the 24/1.4 you are talking about is covering double the image area -- the larger the image circle and the faster the lens, the more difficult it is to design. This is why you don't see f/1.4 medium format lenses, or even f/4 large format lenses. The 24mm f/1.4L is an old lens (it was first released in the 80s), and as Kevin mentioned it was designed with photojournalists in mind. Speed was a priority, not absolute resolution.

BUT

You may want to check the shot of the 50mm f/1.4 Canon again. At f/1.4 it is not focused on the swing set -- take a look at the barn directly behind the swing-set...it is sharper. The lens is focused behind the swing-set, so the swing-set looks soft because it is out of focus. You might try focusing in live view and see if you get similar results.
 

nugat

New member
I am sorry, but I also have to take the side of Kevin and Vivek here. Another thing to note here is that the 24/1.4 you are talking about is covering double the image area -- the larger the image circle and the faster the lens, the more difficult it is to design. This is why you don't see f/1.4 medium format lenses, or even f/4 large format lenses. The 24mm f/1.4L is an old lens (it was first released in the 80s), and as Kevin mentioned it was designed with photojournalists in mind. Speed was a priority, not absolute resolution.

BUT

You may want to check the shot of the 50mm f/1.4 Canon again. At f/1.4 it is not focused on the swing set -- take a look at the barn directly behind the swing-set...it is sharper. The lens is focused behind the swing-set, so the swing-set looks soft because it is out of focus. You might try focusing in live view and see if you get similar results.
Don't be sorry, I'm not. I am not sure what side they take? The side of personal preferences? Then they cannot be wrong. The 24/f1.4 LII I show here is the new version-- Lll not l. The purpose of redesign was to dramatically improve performance wide open. As I said (from everyday experience) Leica fast glass is never soft wide open (except old Noctilux f1). All Leica glass is full frame, third the size and only three times the price (hi hi). If I was a photojournalist covering a battle in Afghanistan I'd like to see the glint in the eye of the taliban sniper from far away...when printing big, not on the spot there...

And one last thing. Let's not forget it's a semi-pro (some say pro) full frame 21 MP camera with the best pro glass against a quarter-size-sensor 12MP enthusiast small gadgetry.
David: Goliath 1:0. The little shepherd's got four more pebbles for his slingshot.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34608542
 
Last edited:

nugat

New member
BUT

You may want to check the shot of the 50mm f/1.4 Canon again. At f/1.4 it is not focused on the swing set -- take a look at the barn directly behind the swing-set...it is sharper. The lens is focused behind the swing-set, so the swing-set looks soft because it is out of focus. You might try focusing in live view and see if you get similar results.
You are right, the barn seems more in focus than the swing. I took several pics always focusing with the central main target on the swing. The barn is some 20 meters behind but not even on the line of sight! Darn, that 5Dm2 focusing mechanism is really bad for such an expensive toy. Strangely the seemingly ulterior contrast detect on GH1 almost never fails that badly.
 

pellicle

New member
Nugat

your tests are interesting, but (forgive me if I did not spot this particular point in the above) I wonder if you are getting a few things confused

for instance you write:

Is it too much to expect from a 1600$ lens (24mm/f.1.4) to be sharp in the focal plane? Again the 20mm/1.7 panny costs as much as the 50mm/f.1.4 canon. One does it, the other does not.
firstly I would say yes, it is too much to expect that a 24mm f1.4 is sharp all over the focal plane, expecially wide open. That is not the objective of the lens. My ultrabright lenses are not sharp wide open, but when stopped down to 2.8 are far sharper than the same focal lengths which are native 2.8 wide open.

Next I notice you seem to make shots which do not compare feature size directly. Doing so makes for quite problematic interpretation of the test data, so I prefer to to my testing so that I get the framing of each subject similar. I have (for instance) tried to compare my 10D to my 4x5 camera. On my 4x5 a 90mm is a wide angle lens, but I would not however put a 90mm on the 10D and compare the images. In this test I used a 10D with a EF24 f2.8 and the widest on the 4x5 is a Fujinon 90mm f8. The results are in favor of the 4x5 in many ways.

Even though the 10D got to record details of only a smaller portion (thus potentially be advantaged) I decided to do this test anyway as I was curious to see how a 5D (which has similar pixel density) would compare to my 4x5.



Segment from the 10D
http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/CP20D10D/10D-seg1.jpg

segment from the 4x5


Now if I had used a 90mm lens on the 10D I would of course see that the 10D captured more information.

This is the problem that I had with your test when you used
Ok, let's see how the 20mm/1.7 panny and 25mm/1.4 luxD
closer to the mark of your own test I also put a 5DMkii against my G1 in my blog on Bambi vs Godzilla. But my purpose was to compare per pixel detail with the same focal length, I was interested to see what possibility there was for a camera such as a hypothetical 5DMkIII which would have the same pixel density as the G1.

Lastly I think it is important to remember DoF as everyone has been talking about because at the magnifications you are using to examine your images (100% view of what is essentially 3744 pixels per inch expanded to your monitor of approximately 90 pixels per inch is a x40 magnification). In this situation DoF is a very significant factor. Accuracy of placing the focus zone precisely on the target you are seeking to evaluate will play a major factor. Please remember that DoF is related to the aperture diameter NOT the f stop, so if your focal lengths vary you will need to alter f-stops to match the DoF between comparisons.

The G1 is outstandingly good a tool for accurate focus placement using its live view, did you do the same for the 5D??

Lastly if shutter speeds and other such things were not identical and a tripod was not used then the effects of tiny 1/2 pixel radian camera shake will blur the image and be impossibly difficult to determine from focus issues or resolution issues (well, it is a resolution issue, just not a sensor one).
 
Top