the deed is done

well, I've finally decided to take the plunge and around Tuesday should be the proud owner of a 7-14, 20 and 45-200 all at pretty keen prices from SRS. Another torture test this afternoon in a cemetery in bright sunshine v the D700 was comfortably passed. Just to make sure it's not just my monitor that seems to like the Panny, I did a few prints as well. The salesman said it was amazing how many people were trying out :43: cameras and then building out the system, often replacing a DSLR as they were so impressed. He himself is also a four thirder with an Oly 510 I think he said, raving about the 70-300 for wildlife (wonder how the new Panny 100-300 will compare?).

 

Hi Jonobeck,

Here are 4 sets of images. In each case the D700 is above. This was taken in deep shadow with ISO 1600 v ISO 640 (ISO is usually 100 for the G1 and 400 on the D700 for the others). As I've mentioned before the actual ISO figures (according to DxO and matching my experience) flatter the D700 so here it is more like 1250 v 800). A little fill light was needed in each and I've boosted the contrast for the G1 a little. Noise levels more similar than expected but slight advantage to the D700 though the G1 seems a little crisper.

View image in gallery​

View image in gallery​

The next two were metered on the stone in the sun, making everything else very dark. I have used fill light 50 for both --pretty extreme and you might expect the G1 to fall apart but it doesn't --just slightly more noise again but nothing obtrusive.

View image in gallery


View image in gallery​

In the next two, thanks to liveview, I got the exposure I wanted first time with the G1 but two attempts with the D700 were either side of correct so I darkened the first one slightly (of course I could have bracketed and eventually got the Nikon accurate). Note the white balance for this and the next is too cold from the Nikon which is typical of most cameras I have used in this high contrast situation but the Panny for some reason generally does much better. Fortunately, this is easily correctable in RAW

View image in gallery​

View image in gallery​

Finally another one with too wide a range of tones for any SLR type camera to full deal with but note that with an almost identical exposure and no corrections, the G1 shows more shadow detail and crisper details on the individual blades of grass (look at max size in the gallery)

View image in gallery​

View image in gallery​

Hope this gives some idea of how the two cameras deal with this kind of awkward lighting. G1 with the 14-45 and D700 with the 17-35. taken towards wide and tele end respectively. Minimal or no cropping. Apertures generally around f8-9 for Nikon and f5.6 for G1

As for the pancake, I have ordered this particularly to deal with indoor situations as certainly :43: is still a little lacking when it comes to DoF flexibility and low light in terms of dedicated fast lenses but more are on the way it seems and of course many are already using legacy glass.

David

 

I don't know how many of these tests were done. Quite a lot just use JPEGs which is a waste of time with the G1 as RAW files have much better DR and resolution. Quite a number of folk have stated that the IQ of a FF camera is clearly better than m43 which is what one would expect but i don't find many like for like comparisons, the processing method of which is known. Perhaps LR3 does above average G1 conversions and is hopeless with the D700? Doubt it somehow! Best is simply to post unedited RAW images but of course the problems is they are large and users need to spend time editing them first

 

I'm getting the overall impression that it's best to add a little contrast to the G1 files and slightly more than the default sharpness to get them to look their best which ties in with what you're saying. And I agree entirely that we should be looking at prints at least as much as onscreen which course means it's doubly hard to post comparisons online

 

Well, exactly. Of course I may well find that contrast and sharpness on the other Panny lenses I've ordered is better than the 14-45 in which case my previous comment is irrelevant. But lenses and post processing of RAW are a big part of the overall IQ equation (not that sensor limitations can totally be compensated for)