Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Darn, I forgot about that. Yes, that's better. Thank you.Shogun still has it for $118:
I'm not sure I follow you there really. A 100% crop is a 100% crop, why would it be used in an inaccurate way?I should note, this is how large it is when viewed 1:1 on my 1920x1200 screen. The phrase "100% crop" is probably over used and inaccurate. The "actual" full size sample can be found here:
Hi,Can anyone with both the PL 45 2.8 and G 45 2 comment, compare bokeh and center sharpness?
Well, how is a 100% crop measured? Is it 10% of the whole image, 30%? Doesn't the whole idea of a 100% crop seem weird when everybody has a different size monitor? My 1:1 view is going to be different from somebody using a 720p monitor.I'm not sure I follow you there really. A 100% crop is a 100% crop, why would it be used in an inaccurate way?
/Jonas
The term "100%" crop is quite unambiguous -- and independent of monitor size or the size (in pixels) of the crop or of the original digital image.Well, how is a 100% crop measured? Is it 10% of the whole image, 30%? Doesn't the whole idea of a 100% crop seem weird when everybody has a different size monitor? My 1:1 view is going to be different from somebody using a 720p monitor.
I'm being serious with my questions, not condescending.
Hmmmm. I guess I understand what you're saying, but 1:1 looks different on different monitors, doesn't it? So isn't it a kind of poor universal unit of measurement? Like I said, I'm using a 1920x1200 monitor. So 1:1 magnification on my monitor is something like 1456x1120 for an M43 shot. If I were to use a 1650x1080 monitor, wouldn't the 1:1 magnification be a smaller area of the picture?The term "100%" crop is quite unambiguous -- and independent of monitor size or the size (in pixels) of the crop or of the original digital image.
You enlarge the image to 100% (or 1:1 proportion) in Photoshop/Lightroom/whatever and take a crop of the area of interest. It doesn't matter if the cropped image is (for example) 400x300 pixels or 800x600 pixels -- both of these are 100% crops because you did the crop when the magnification was set to show the actual pixels. The 100% refers to the magnification of the image when the crop was made.
The Olympus m4/3 cameras (E-P1/E-P2/E-PL1) deliver a maximum image size of 4032x3024 pixels while the Panasonic m4/3 cameras (G1/GH1/GF1) produce a maximum image size of 4000x3000 pixels.Hmmmm. I guess I understand what you're saying, but 1:1 looks different on different monitors, doesn't it? So isn't it a kind of poor universal unit of measurement? Like I said, I'm using a 1920x1200 monitor. So 1:1 magnification on my monitor is something like 1456x1120 for an M43 shot. If I were to use a 1650x1080 monitor, wouldn't the 1:1 magnification be a smaller area of the picture?
Thanks for your analysis Jonas. I have both the 20 1.7 and PL 45 2.8 and I agree with your assessment of relative sharpness of these two lenses. I like the PL 45 for its primary role as a macro lens, but I'm less enthusiastic about using it for portrait and most landscape work (the exception being landscape detail). The Contax G 45 seems to be readily available at reasonable prices so I may pick one up and see for myself how it compares with the PL 45.Hi,
I don't have both, and will never have. So, I can only give you my two cents based on indirect comparisons.
From my first, and a bit sloppy, resolution test I can say the Planar 45 has as good resolution in the center as the little Panasonic G20/1.7, maybe a tad better. At f/2 the Planar contrast may be half a notch lower, I have to do a better controlled test to see that (I had to push the Planar images half a stop as I forgot to compensate for my quick non standard setup). At f/2.8 and f/4 the Planar is as good or better than the pancake.
The pancake in turn is a notch sharper than the PL 45 2.8.
The Planar seem to hold all the way to the borders.
The Planar bokeh can be a bit busy at f/2 (this is a Zeiss after all, it is all about micro contrast). At f/2 the PL 45 2.8 doesn't do much at all...
At f/2.8 the Planar bokeh is more neutral. Also this is something I have to look closer at during the week. The PL 45 2.8 shows some bright rings and onions when looking closer at OOF highlights, I guess there is some ASPH lens elements somewhere?
But, these are different animals. A new slow macro lens with AF and AE and OIS vs a completely manual medium fast normal lens from the 90's... Now I have sold my FF stuff but for the money involved I would much rather pick up an EF100/2.8 USM MkII than the PL 45 2.8. Whatever that comment has to do with everything.
I hope somebody having both these lenses notice your request.
regards,
/Jonas