My recent sale of my OM-D was linked to the fact that I didn't like its operational layout and its subjective image quality wasn't my taste. The sharpness, IS and autofocus is without peer in my current camera inventory (i.e., no other camera has the combination of all three). But it just didn't feel right in my hands and the images didn't present well to my eyes. I note the caveat that it is purely subjective to my own needs. On the other hand, the Leica X2 and the (old) Panasonic GF1 was much better suited. None of those two has fast autofocus or IS; but the tactile feel and operation of the camera and the final image all appealed to me.
What I wanted to do now, in tandem with my RAW processor comparison is to do a short comparison between the GF1 and X2. This will simply involve the comparison of a range of typical images between the two cameras. Nothing scientific. Each photo from each camera at about the same time. I will be using the 20/1.7 on the GF1, and the X2 has the fixed 24/2.8. Perspective will not change, so the images will have a different field of view. Apertures will be matched where possible. But as I said, nothing scientific.
At the moment, all my RAW convertors, with the exception of DxO 8 supports both cameras, and will also involve a RAW convertor comparison between cameras. It will be interesting to see how DxO's image processing compares with other converters (something that I have wanted to know for a very long time) and how that would compare against a hand tuned processing on different cameras. For me, that is, the question is; will getting/using DxO with a cheaper lens and camera combination better an inherent superior lens and camera?
No comments:
Post a Comment