The 17mm lens: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090616_294162.html
.
The 14-42mm lens: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090616_294160.html
The 17mm lens: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090616_294162.html
.
The 14-42mm lens: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090616_294160.html
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
6 Responses
Can anyone interpret what we see here? I’m not familiar with MFT graphs… do we have good lenses here, does either one have better strengths over the other as far as quality, sharpness, clarity, etc.? Thanks in advance!
I’d much prefer a built-in viewfinder to keep the body easily pocketable. Shrink the LCD if needed. Having it to the left makes for better ergonomy. And I bet an accessory EVF will be very expensive.
I agree with you. A built-in EVF would be perfect!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
If I had to take a shot at interpretation, that there might be some issues with the 17mm pancake toward the edge of the frame, while the zoom’s performance actually looks pretty decent. That said, obviously the prime’s at f/2.8 and the zoom is 3.5-5.6, so sharpness has to be considered in context with that.
Obviously, you do not mean “MFT charts” but “MTF charts” which stands for “Modulation Transfer Function”.
Ups 🙁