m4/3 (EM1ii) vs 6D: I found this quite interesting... While up at the Grand Hotel, getting our pictures taken before dinner, the resident photographer offered to snap a shot with my...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I found this quite interesting...
While up at the Grand Hotel, getting our pictures taken before dinner, the resident photographer offered to snap a shot with my camera after he took one with his. His was a 6D with a 24-105mm f4 L lens, mine was the EM1ii with a Panasonic 25mm f1.4

73mm ISO 320 1/100s f4.5 (flash used)
vs
25mm (50mm equiv) ISO 400 1/160s f2.5 (natural light)

Both are zoomed in at 100%...attached is a screen shot. They are obviously different poses, but...one is much, much clearer than the other.

Who says FF is superior...I think he should switch ;-)

(Download)

SS319

I like the one on the right better. I don't know if it is the fill flash or the capabilities of the camera and lens but your Sig Other's face is cleaner, purer. especially under the chin. interestingly, even though he used flash fill in the one on the right, the background is brighter - that is not normally the case.

Again, it may be altitude, attitude, or distance, but on the left, her eyes are darker and deeper in their sockets than on the right. The whites of the eyes are more prominent on the right

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Cdouthitt wrote:

I found this quite interesting... br While up at t... (show quote)

There seems to be more detail in the left shot. Look at the eyebrows and eyelashes. Let us know later which is which.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

SS319 wrote:

I like the one on the right better. I don't know ... (show quote)

The sun was behind us...I'm not particularly concerned about the poses...as I agree the one on the right is much more pleasing...however, I was surprised at how fuzzy the image was from the Canon. Some of things you mentioned can easily be fixed in LR with with minor adjustment brushes. I wish I had my flash with me for a better comparison.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

wdross wrote:

There seems to be more detail in the left shot. Look at the eyebrows and eyelashes. Let us know later which is which.

Left m4/3 Right FF.

SS319

Cdouthitt wrote:

can easily be fixed in LR with

Popular Photography, back in the 80s, when comparing films, would always blow up a lady's eye until the image started to degrade.

If you blow up this photo until the 4/3 image begins to pixelate, and then compare the left eye of the lady in the pictures, you will see the difference between these camera-lens systems.

Yes, you can make this better in LR, ASP, PSP-X9 or PS, and you can paint in a line drawing to achieve that perfect print, The point being that, with the ff, you have a lot less lab and a lot more time to shoot. That equates to a lower cost per finished photo.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

When is there enough "detail" and when is there not? That is the question. I'm constantly puzzled by it. I'm not even sure what "detail" I look for, but know when I see enough.

I shoot with smaller cameras, never print above 13x19 and don't crop much.

Cdouthitt, both of your images have enough detail to display well. The one on the right has some distracting small white dots that show up when I magnify my computer screen. Did the flash reflect off of the glasses and the eyes?

Bill

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

SS319 wrote:

Popular Photography, back in the 80s, when compari... (show quote)

100% 400 x 400px crop of each...
Not quite sure that I follow. The one on the left is less pixilated...I also made one minute worth of adjustments to the one on the left.

(Download)

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

bsprague wrote:

When is there enough "detail" and when i... (show quote)

the one on the right had a flash...which is why I prefer to not to use one.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Too many variables and no EXIF data to tie down the reason for the difference (f-stop, flash vs natuaral light, different FL, ISO, etc). Also, it wasn't mentioned if either or both were raw or JPEG or had any PP. As a portrait photographer, he may not have been set up for or wanted max sharpness in camera, lens could have needed MAF, and a host of other things, but regardless, I do like the results from your EM1.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

TriX wrote:

Too many variables and no EXIF data to tie down the reason for the difference (f-stop, flash vs natuaral light, different FL, ISO, etc). Also, it wasn't mentioned if either or both were raw or JPEG or had any PP. As a portrait photographer, he may not have been set up for or wanted max sharpness in camera, lens could have needed MAF, and a host of other things, but regardless, I do like the results from your EM1.

I'm 99.9% sure they shoot in jpg...doubtful that they'd spend the time with RAW due to the amount they shoot year round...it would require gobs of storage.

I'm just surprised at the 6D and L glass quality, I would have thought it would have been better.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Cdouthitt wrote:

I'm 99.9% sure they shoot in jpg...doubtful that they'd spend the time with RAW due to the amount they shoot year round...it would require gobs of storage.

I'm just surprised at the 6D and L glass quality, I would have thought it would have been better.

I would have too. That's why it would be nice to see the EXIF, assuming it would show the in-camera sharpness setting... I have mine set to max sharpness, but I'm not a portrait photographer, and as you know, portrait photographers often want a "softer" look to hide blemishes. Either way, your EM1 is doing a fine job for you 👍.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I hate that threads like this get moved from the main photography forum section to the photo gallery section.

I'd create a new thread and add a link this this thread, but then it would get moved to the damn links forum.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Cdouthitt wrote:

I found this quite interesting... br While up at t... (show quote)

I suspect you prefer the shot taken with your camera. The picture on the left is sharper, so that's probably the one taken with your camera.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Cdouthitt wrote:

I hate that threads like this get moved from the main photography forum section to the photo gallery section.

I'd create a new thread and add a link this this thread, but then it would get moved to the damn links forum.

Yeah. I think a lot of the moving is done automatically. A suggestion: Post an article about how a pro took two pictures of you, one with your camera and one with his. Say that you think your camera produced the better result. A member will soon ask if you can post those shots. In the third (or fourth) post, you will post your images. I bet that will keep it from being moved.