Taylor Hobson Cooke Kinic , Part 2 @ f2.8: a video sample in 4K
Is m43 flat? The side by side comparisons feat. the Lumix GX8 (Yannick Khong).
Panasonic Announces Firmware Upgrade for AG-DVX200PJ 4K Handheld Camcorder (Panasonic).
David: “I’ve recently updated my brief reviews of MFT lenses and lens-accessory combinations with additional lenses and combinations, image samples, and comments (especially about lens infrared-compatibility). It’s at: http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm MFT gear is just plain FUN to use!;-) ”
Germany:
List of todays Gold Box deal at Amazon.de (full page here).
Bis zu 150 EUR Sofortrabatt auf Olympus Objektive at Amazon.de.
100 EUR Amazon Aktionsgutschein beim Kauf einer Kamera E-M5II/E-M1 at Amazon.de.
50 EUR Amazon Aktionsgutschein beim Kauf einer E-M10/E-M10II Kamera at Amazon.de.
UK:
Up to £150 Cashback with Selected Panasonic Cameras and Camcorders at Amazon.co.uk.
Claim up to £100 Cashback when Purchasing a Selected Olympus Lens or Camera at Amazon.co.uk.
France:
Offre de remboursement OLYMPUS – Jusqu’à 150€ remboursés sur une sélection de produits at Amazon France.
25 Responses
Do people actually believe BS pseudo-science articles like the one linked?
You’d be amazed at how much psuedo-bollocks people will believe if it’s on the Internet. And FUD like this _can_ influence people’s purchasing decisions. People spouting crap need to be called out on it.
You betcha!
Here in America, we all know that the world is flat, evolution is only a theory, climate change is a myth and Jesus rode on dinosaurs, Every problem is the fault of Obama and all those goddam liberals!
I think the guy just really likes that bunny a little too much. He’s really just a Brony in disguise!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/01/inside-the-bizarre-world-of-bronies-adult-male-fans-of-my-little-pony.html
I’m sorry but Yannick Khong is so full of it it’s not even funny. He is widely and effectively disproven in his own comments section by his own readers.
Yeah didn’t he start an article with “if you can’t see the difference between these two photos then don’t bother commenting”?
To be fair, he said to just ignore this article and be happy shooting what you are shooting. I did actually see a difference, though it looks like it has more to do with m43’s correcting spherical distortion moreso than the Nikon (Books are straighter with m43’s, the Nikon shows the books slightly bowed). Either way, I have to A/B the christ out of them to see it. It’s there, but it requires too much effort to notice.
I actually have impression that the “flatness” he complains about is actually effect of the lens correction, to correct the WA distortions.
Click bait?
Can an expert give his opinion about the “flat m43” blog post ? To me it’s complete bullshit… There are effects from dof, perspectives, distorsion corrections, but flatness doesn’t mean anything.
Is it a parody article? i.e. a joke one? I honestly can’t understand or see the differences he is talking about.
I can see the differences, but I just don’t understand how the number of lens elements in itself is the problem.
I’m no expert, but I’ve compared the pictures and indeed, most of the problems are parallex and perspective mismatches. The cameras simply weren’t lined up the same. Of course there is difference between lenses and their barrel distortion – but again, at the centre point there is no difference between the images.
He’s clutching at something that simply isn’t there. It’s pseudo wish wash.
I want the same drug of this guy: life could be more fun and less… flat.
I’d say WAAAAAAAY less fun. Maybe ZERO fun.
This guy’s obsessive compulsive disorder is showing.
Warning: symptoms make include schizophrenic utterances such as, “If you haven’t seen enough already, the type of cinematic photography I practice requires various pushing and pulling of the dynamic range to render a scene as the augmented reality of it in my head.”
Reminds me of audiophiles who can hear the differences between cables only if you tell them which one they’re listening to. Double-blind and it’s 50-50.
exactly what it reminded me of, complete with hand-wavey pseudo science explanation
“3D pop”. Such a precise technical term. NOT.
Build variation and minute differences in perspective can account for all of these differences ie. his 85mm Nikon might actually be an 84.3. A difference of a few millimetres in camera position would result in the differences that are highlighted.
The only recognizable difference in “flatness” was the 15mm m43 vs the FF 28. This difference could easily be attributed to the fact that 15mm m43 = 30mm FF equivalent NOT 28! These two lenses are not equivalent in focal length. They are close but they are not the same.
He is really picking at minutiae here which do not constitute meaningful differences between formats. If you have to work that hard to show the difference then the difference isn’t that meaningful. This is not a real world issue and certainly not a reason to dump a whole system.
I guess he doesn’t use telephoto lenses that much. The nature of the beast is that a telephoto will always flatten and distort perspective and it doesn’t matter which system you use.
“If you have to work that hard to show the difference then the difference isn’t that meaningful.”
*Nod*.
But you know how it would work on the echo chamber of the internet forums: “the difference was found! is now undoubtedly superior!!”
Hilarious.
The amount of comments here, in defense of M43 not being “flat”. Haha! Truth be told, M43 images are flat, especially when I turn them black & white.
Whether it’s because it’s more elements, size, whatever it is, I’ve always questioned it. And let’s be honest, this isn’t something new. There are discussions everywhere on M43 images looking flat. On DPR, flickr, etc..
I think it also has to do with the sensor size, because my Canon 40mm seems to show way more depth, than my Lumix 20mm.
Fanboys just don’t like to hear the truth and love being blind.
It’s all in your head. My shots from look no “flatter” than my shots from Canon 10D, 40D, 1D, 1Ds, 1DII, 1DsII, 1DIII, 1DsIII, Contax RTSIII, Contax 167MT, Contax Aria, Contax G2, Pentax 67 or Pentax 67II. The only thing that’s made a difference in “flatness” or “3D pop” (whatever that is) has been choice of print media. Cibachrome was especially lively.
I’m genuinely confused by that “flat” rendering article.
I own m43 gear for a variety of reasons, but I’m not obsessed with it. Watching a hired pro studio photographer at work today with some top-of-the-line (and physically immense) gear while I took some ancillary shots with my E-M5, I didn’t feel defensive, nor did I assume that I’d get results as good as her. Every physical object is a compromise in some way, and the particular advantages of m43 for me outweigh the disadvantages.
That said, coming back to that article, I genuinely can’t tell the difference between the “flat” shots and the “3D” ones. If I look super closely, there are some extremely subtle differences in color and contrast rendering in the sample shots, but none of them seem to affect the illusion of depth to me. The “biggest” difference example the “better” one looks very slightly warmer, and seems to have very slightly more contrast (and brighter highlights), but that’s it, and unless I look exceptionally closely I wouldn’t even have noticed that.
Is it really that obvious to other people?
Assuming it really is that subtle–that, like me, you have to look back and forth at close-ups to notice anything–it sure seems like a difference that small would be far outweighed by even very slight differences in post-processing settings unless you really only use out-of-camera JPEGs.
That is to say, if you gave me the same starting RAW and asked me to adjust it on two different days in Adobe Camera Raw, there would probably be a bigger difference in the output than those two images.
Which is shocking to me for an entirely different reason. What’s shocking to me is that a photo taken with a GX8 and Panasonic glass is nearly indistinguishable to one taken with a full frame D750 and Nikon glass. I’d have expected far more dramatic differences, even if only from differences in the lenses.
The only important thing, of course, is whether you like the photos you take with your camera and it doesn’t have some obvious technical limitation that is holding you back.
I put a comment on his web site asking what difference he would see if he used the “big” lenses with adapters on the m43 and then compared with the same shot from the native “big” camera. My post was not printed.
Complete BS. There are differences in the image. But more likely they can be attributed to any of these factors: Focusing errors, curvature/distortion of the lens, difference in distance to subject, variation in lens specifications between manufacturers (Focal Length, Aperture, light transmission and perspective). I am not even sure that Sensor size crop factor is EXACTLY 2X anyway.
So many variables, that the differences are so small to be utterly insignificant.
Show me two lenses from two systems when used at “equivalent” settings that will produce exactly the same image, perspective, or DOF. I will say this is near impossible and irrelevant.