Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was out taking some photos in a hoop pine forest recently and was shooting with the 67ii (Takumar 105mm f2.4) on a tripod and using PanF+. When I got to the end of the roll of Ilford just out of curiosity before packing up I grabbed the OMD with the PanaLeica 25mm f1.4 out of the bag and took a quick hand held shot roughly from where the Pentax had been set up. I let the OMD do the metering in AE and focused manually and the ISO was 400 ... the aperture was at f1.4.
The end results are interesting ... the little Oly didn't disgrace itself at all in the presence of MF IMO and it also did a better job of metering in AE than I managed with the 67ii using the spot meter. I managed to over expose the PanF+ slightly and consequently the highlights are a little burnt in the Penatx shots.
I've posted both images so you can have a looksee and note what the major differences are ... and I'd be interested to hear some thoughts and opinions. I know what I think but I'm curious about whatever observations are made by other eyes.
The end results are interesting ... the little Oly didn't disgrace itself at all in the presence of MF IMO and it also did a better job of metering in AE than I managed with the 67ii using the spot meter. I managed to over expose the PanF+ slightly and consequently the highlights are a little burnt in the Penatx shots.
I've posted both images so you can have a looksee and note what the major differences are ... and I'd be interested to hear some thoughts and opinions. I know what I think but I'm curious about whatever observations are made by other eyes.
Lund
Established
I like the top one. Deep and moody. The bottom one however glows. The texture and feel really makes things pop, the tree trunks up front is almost 3d and makes me move my head around to see behind them.
Proportions and exposure should give that the bottom picture is the pentax one. But since you didn't specify which camera took which image I cannot for sure say I like the 6x7 shot better than digital. At least not in web sized pictures.
In the end, a good picture is a good picture even without technical perfection.
Proportions and exposure should give that the bottom picture is the pentax one. But since you didn't specify which camera took which image I cannot for sure say I like the 6x7 shot better than digital. At least not in web sized pictures.
In the end, a good picture is a good picture even without technical perfection.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Interesting comparison Keith. Thanks for posting.
Of course you can only tell so much from a small JPG, however...
The top image looks nice. More like a PanF film shot than the bottom one, but the increased DOF strongly suggests that this is from the micro four thirds camera.
The bottom image appears overly contrasty for this scene, to my tastes, with quite a few blown highlights. Are you sure the highlights aren't recoverable and that the contrast can't be reduced? If the bottom shot is film then it looks very contrasty for PanF to me. I assume you've been at it with the levels or contrast slider.
I think the differences in processing confounded my expectations of the two cameras in this case, but hats off to the little digi it looks to have done well.
Bob.
Of course you can only tell so much from a small JPG, however...
The top image looks nice. More like a PanF film shot than the bottom one, but the increased DOF strongly suggests that this is from the micro four thirds camera.
The bottom image appears overly contrasty for this scene, to my tastes, with quite a few blown highlights. Are you sure the highlights aren't recoverable and that the contrast can't be reduced? If the bottom shot is film then it looks very contrasty for PanF to me. I assume you've been at it with the levels or contrast slider.
I think the differences in processing confounded my expectations of the two cameras in this case, but hats off to the little digi it looks to have done well.
Bob.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hi, Keith...
The Oly shot in the first one is flat on my monitor. No depth, too much of the same texture and not a shallow enough DOF, IMO, at least.
Despite the burned highlights in the bottom photo, the 6x7 does a much better job and would most likely produce the better looking print. Spot metering, for me, would have to be bracketed so I could pick the better image.
Even so, the 6x7 is much better to my eye. Well done.
The Oly shot in the first one is flat on my monitor. No depth, too much of the same texture and not a shallow enough DOF, IMO, at least.
Despite the burned highlights in the bottom photo, the 6x7 does a much better job and would most likely produce the better looking print. Spot metering, for me, would have to be bracketed so I could pick the better image.
Even so, the 6x7 is much better to my eye. Well done.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting comparison Keith. Thanks for posting.
Of course you can only tell so much from a small JPG, however...
The top image looks nice. More like a PanF film shot than the bottom one, but the increased DOF strongly suggests that this is from the micro four thirds camera.
The bottom image appears overly contrasty for this scene, to my tastes, with quite a few blown highlights. Are you sure the highlights aren't recoverable and that the contrast can't be reduced? If the bottom shot is film then it looks very contrasty for PanF to me. I assume you've been at it with the levels or contrast slider.
I think the differences in processing confounded my expectations of the two cameras in this case, but hats off to the little digi it looks to have done well.
Bob.
The bottom one is very contrasty I agree which also suprised me a llittle for PanF! I've pulled the highlights back quite a lot in that image and I developed the film with Xtol which usually doesn't give this much contrast ... I think it was a good stop over exposed so maybe that has a bit to do with it.
The tones the OMD's MFT sensor produced really impressed me ... though as you say the image lacks the 3D feel of the MF film.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hi, Keith...
The Oly shot in the first one is flat on my monitor. No depth, too much of the same texture and not a shallow enough DOF, IMO, at least.
Despite the burned highlights in the bottom photo, the 6x7 does a much better job and would most likely produce the better looking print. Spot metering, for me, would have to be bracketed so I could pick the better image.
Even so, the 6x7 is much better to my eye. Well done.
I wish I had bracketed Dave but I was down to the last few exposures on the roll so chose not to. And yes the Oly effort does look flat in comparison and the short depth of field of the Takumar at f2.4 was always going to be a huge advantage over the 25mm PanaLeica at f1.4 and the smallish MFT sensor.
The OMD still suprised me though because MF film is a hard act to follow for any digicam IMO.
dave lackey
Veteran
Of course, the top image is a fine one, indeed. The whole point of the 6x7, IMO, is to give it a "3D" effect, among other things, I suppose. They are both good.
The really cool thing is not having to set up a tripod to get a good image with the Oly.
Yes, I think people are being too hard on the Olympus in this case. It did a great job despite its limitations compared to MF film.
gavinlg
Veteran
Thats a seriously good performance from the panasonic 25mm there - a canon/nikon f1.4 lens in that same situation would have been glowing and soft in all the places they need to be sharp (trees in the foreground, sides of frame) and messy/harsh in the out of focus areas.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I think the film would have won by a little bit had it been properly exposed (no offense, Keith!). Even still, I think the OMD did a nice job.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
True and that's another very interesting comparative point ... the little digicam got the exposure bang on in AE and I botched it with the very good metering system of the Pentax used manually.
gavinlg
Veteran
I gotta say after coming back to it a few times, the top photo is more pleasing to me. The bottom one is a little too unsettled to my eyes, not as smooth.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The top photo is definitely much gentler on the eyes ... though the 3D effect is lacking by comparison and the in focus details are a fair bit sharper with the film image.
That Takumar lens, as you know, is pretty darned good wide open!
venchka
Veteran
Since The Beast got a CLA, a new return spring and the Pentax split image ground glass I'll be keeping it. I will also be keeping the 45mm lens. In the right place at the right time it is a great lens. I wonder what the focal length equivalent would be on the Oly? 10mm?
This really is an apples & oranges comparison. Too bad the mass buying public always votes for easy and never for quality. Remember Betamax?
Wayne
This really is an apples & oranges comparison. Too bad the mass buying public always votes for easy and never for quality. Remember Betamax?
Wayne
DaveW
Established
Keith, I think the bottom photo is much more interesting. Like Dave, the top one for me is just dull but properly exposed. The bottom one shows more details in the front trees, the bokeh is nice, but the exposure is off a bit. The person in the frame gives it a point of interest, although I would have posed this person differently. Couldn't you try to match the contrast with the Oly shot with software?
filmfan
Well-known
Not too shabby for the OMD. I would however like to see both in a 11x14 or 16x20 print and then we can compare...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I posted both of these a few days apart in the gallery this week and the top two in my original post are directly linked to the gallery.
As you can see I've reposted them ^ and matched the highlights and contrast and size better. I should have done this in the first place!
They are a lot closer than I first realised ... the Oly ain't that far behind. Amazing IMO!
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Check your Takumar front element, there appears to be a person-shaped blob on it! Seriously though that's the biggest difference between them. The DOF difference is not as great as I thought it would be if both were shot wide open (seems they were).
The bokeh of the Takumar has just the slightest swirlyness to it, at least to my eye. I don't mind swirly bokeh. Is that spherical aberration?
Interesting comparison even if it is apples and oranges. Often we have to choose between fruit like that. Matter of face, I just bought a Makina 6x7 for the added depth...(and for the joy of film which I miss, but I choose MF over 35mm for a different look, m43 and aps-c are just too close to 35mm to make it worth the extra effort for me). I'll have to try some side by side images as well!
If the film shot wasn't as contrasty, I'd suggest a print test.
Seriously though that's the biggest difference between them. The DOF difference is not as great as I thought it would be if both were shot wide open (seems they were). The bokeh of the Takumar has just the slightest swirlyness to it, at least to my eye. I don't mind swirly bokeh. Is that spherical aberration?
Interesting comparison even if it is apples and oranges. Often we have to choose between fruit like that. Matter of face, I just bought a Makina 6x7 for the added depth...(and for the joy of film which I miss, but I choose MF over 35mm for a different look, m43 and aps-c are just too close to 35mm to make it worth the extra effort for me). I'll have to try some side by side images as well!
If the film shot wasn't as contrasty, I'd suggest a print test.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Both images are so very different in feel. I like them both for different reasons. I do like the shallow depth of the bottom image.