Canon 5Dm2+L glass vs GH1

[stormy_weather]

There is no point in comparing lenses at other than equivalent apertures. As there is no mFT lens with an equivalent aperture to the 1.4 of the Canon 24mm, there is no point in comparing anything.
The Canon may be good or not, at 1.4 it is the best out there, and nobody knows if an equivalent Panasonic or whatever lens would be better or worse.

A second point: downsizing an image (as you have done with the Canon image) usually also lets the image appear less sharp (which cou can counteract with some added sharpening). So the fact that the Canon image appears less sharp initially, does not say much.

Lastly, you need to keep in mind that all DOF calculations depend on assumed circles of confusion and viewing distances. They are certainly not meant for 100% views on computer screens, iow, if something does not seem perfectly sharp on a cropped view on a screen, it might still be perfectly inside the depth of field.

So, as much as I love testing (and I also own a 5DII...), this will not get further as to the conclusion that under favourable lighting conditions and if not more than 12 Megapixels are needed, mFT does a perfectly good job at 1/3 of the weight.

Sorry if I have been beating dead horses :deadhorse: (this is wonderfull!)

Regards,

Sven

 

[slau]

GH1 is good but not that good . I think I should know as I own both G1/GH1 + Canon pro bodies + L lenses.

 

[Jonas]

I can perfectly well understand why this sort of, basically not necessary, test is carried out. How can one avoid to? In some way we always compare things to each other. I didn't set anything up when I bought my 5DMkII but you can be sure I in some way compared the images from it to what I got from my G1.

But, as many already mentioned; you need to focus super carefully, you need a tripod, you need to compare at equivalent aperture values, you need to compare lenses of the same sort (sort of speaking), you need to adjust the shooting distance to get the same framing. If testing the AF you need a target the AF mechanism can lock on to.

You also need controlled light and exposure all the images correctly (avoid lifting images in PP) and to decide on the goal with the test. Depending on what images you want to capture you should tailor your test in a way matching that.

Reading this far it is more or less obvious that your test is kinda superfluous.

I bought the 5DMkII mainly for a documentary project. There was no doubt I got more details and more robust raw files being able of taking some post processing way better than my G1 images do. At the same time there is no doubt the G1 is more practical for my everyday snaps. I also don't mind carrying around less value and weight. Nothing new under the sun there.

Your Jupiter-9 is way better than mine, which is an old uncotaed version.

regards,

/Jonas

 

[nugat]

£

Initially I planned to answer point by point using as much science as possible to defend my "unscientific" test. But this is of course self-contradictory and self-defeating a task. So I'll answer plainly.
I tested the 5Dm2 and its lenses for a week on an assignment covering a TV production of a survival type show. I find the system lacking in two areas: focus/sharpness and environmental durability ( cold and wet). Whether it's the lenses or the inadequte AF is secondary to me (although the AF falling reliability in low light is especially defeating the camera's skills here). The final proof is in the pictures: I get more (twice) sharp pictures from my Leica and 4/3 systems. The overall "takers/good" rate is even higher (3-4:1) for the two smaller cameras. Maybe it's the workflow, maybe ergonomics, maybe habit. Canon 5Dm2 is not for me. I am sure it can be great for landscapes, weddings, packshots etc etc. For an impromptu coverage of surprising and fast moving events-no. Even my Leica is better for me here. Next I'll look at the D700 or its successor and te GH2. High ISO low noise is more important to me than megapixels, I can easily rest at 12MP. And fortunately I am not in a hurry. All of the above without prejudice to all those who own, use and love their 5D's.
PS
Yes, it might be my meagre technical skills after all.

 

[Vivek]

That is good to hear.

I thought you own a 5DII and are using it to do these tests.

 

[pellicle]

Re: £

Hi

I find the system lacking in two areas: focus/sharpness and environmental durability ( cold and wet).

first time I brought my G1 in from -25C (I'm in Finland after all) it packed a wobbly and wouldn't play for a while (even after the mist had left). I now ziplock bag it or leave it outside most of the time (bring in the battery).

So, I can't say my G1 is much better at this sort of abuse

ok ... on with the skiis and off into the paddock ... we've got sunshine today!

(no, its true, we have got sunshine, yes, even Finland gets it now n then)

 

[Robert Campbell]

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
K

But they did have their uses in the days of the original Kodachrome -- ISO 10.

 

[Paratom]

I believe there is no doubt that both combos can produce great images.
Of course it is much harder to nail focus/hit the focus plane when you have a shallow DOF compared to a larger DOF.
And you normally would stop lenses further down on larger sensors than you would do on small sensors.

My wife owns the gh1 and I use Canon (besides Leica and MF) and in my opinion it comes more down to the following points:
-optical viewfinder vs eVF (I prefer the first but I know there are also reasons to prefer the second)
- AF - does one want/need a servo AF which works well for sports etc. or is a contrast AF fine
- lenses: are the lens options for m4/3 enough? If one uses third party lenses: is one willing to manually focus?
- MP: how big does one want to print, are 10 MP enough or does one want more?
-size: of course the m4/3 bodies and lenses are smaller, on the other side a camera in the size of a 7d/5D might be easier to hold steady

In the end for me it comes down to:
m4/3: more portable, less expensive, maybe fun for experimenting with all brands and old lenses, but on the other side limited regarding higher ISO, shallow DOF, fast lenses and overall lens selection, fast tracking AF, and probably Dynamic range

what I realized after once trying a 50 Summicron on the gh1 was that if I would use m4/3 I would rather use the original m4/3 lenses since I felt the 50 Summicron doesnt really lead to that much better IQ over the Pana Zoom.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

what I realized after once trying a 50 Summicron on the gh1 was that if I would use m4/3 I would rather use the original m4/3 lenses since I felt the 50 Summicron doesnt really lead to that much better IQ over the Pana Zoom.

I agree with you here. I had an EP-1 for awhile (my dad is now using it on a long-term loan), and I am also a Leica shooter, so I had lots of lenses to try. In general, the Leica lenses do not do much better on the micro 4/3rds cameras than the dedicated lenses. A lot of this has to do with the lack of micro-lenses...Leica lenses that are sharp from corner to corner on the M9, M8 or film are really soft in the corners on micro 4/3rds. Then there is the general problem in focusing these manual lenses at arm's length on a small screen...even the magnified view is not much help because it is hard to hold it completely steady while turning the ring, and you also lose sight of the overall scene, so it makes composition difficult. Better to stick to the dedicated lenses for most things I think.

 

[pellicle]

Better to stick to the dedicated lenses for most things I think.

ouhh ... but my FD and OM lenses are so much fun! Jokes aside my OM 50mm f1.8 is a great portrait lens (though perhaps easier to use on G1 than EP at least for someone with trouble close focusing on a camera back like me) and I'm really quite happy with my telephotos. But there are advantages to lenses like the 45-200 that you don't get with legacy stuff (its just that viceverca is also true)

perhaps I don't feel its better for me, but would not say that's universal

yours "sitting on the fence"

 

[Vivek]

Better to stick to the dedicated lenses for most things I think.

After I bought that wretched 20/1.7, I lost several weeks of shooting.

 

[JMaher]

"horses for courses"

I love that this discussion exists. I love having both formats.

However there is a saying "horses for courses" that I think applies here. I have a 5DMKII and L glass and an EP-1 and a few lenses including a 20 1.7. They are both great for what they are designed for. I carry the EP-1 to be inconspicuous and to take great pictures in good light and where I don't need speed to capture an image. In perfect circumstances they are both great - in less perfect circumstances or where I may need to heavily crop the 5DMKII shines. Unfortunately I don't have access to M9 so I can't comment on that.

Jim

 

[Vivek]

Jim, One of the reasons could be that users of many brands and systems use the m4/3rds through converters and lenses.:thumbs: