DP1 Shootout Pt. 3 - Landscape Detail Comparison with 5D and E-420
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Posted by Amin Labels: detail, DP1 Shootout

12 comments:

Anonymous said... April 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM  

Great post! The side-by side comparisons really make it easy to review the results.

I was impressed by the corner sharpness of the DP1, very nice :-)

The DP1- also really stood out to me in the grass comparison area. It has very nice distinction between the blades of grass.

If Sigma does come out with the rumored longer focal length (and/or zoom) models then I could use the DP1 successor for texture map photography. Unfortunately the 28mm is just a bit wide for right now.

It would be really nice to have a super-small "go everywhere" carry around for work :-) Since they did such a nice job with the prime lens on the DP1, I halfway hope Sigma stays away from zooms.

Any thoughts on your part regarding future models? I.e. what you'd like to see added, changed, or retained

Thanks again for your comparison series!

Amin said... April 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM  

Thanks for the kind words JD. I agree with you that the DP1 lens does perform impressively throughout the entire frame.

Like you, I'd prefer to see Sigma continue to emphasize single focal length lenses in future models. The main thing I'd like to see is an improved LCD and/or integrated small optical viewfinder. In the bright sun, I simply couldn't make out the LCD. I'd also love to see the return of real old-fashioned dials for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control. The ISO dial on the Canon G9, for example, is such a pleasure. I won't hold my breath for those though =).

Appreciate the comments!

Anonymous said... April 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM  

That Canon EF 28 2.8 is really pretty bad on the full-frame 5D. Not many people would use it. The 2.8 1.8 isn't much larger and would have given you appreciably sharper results with less aberrations both in the center and in the corners of the frame.

Nice review, though. Keep 'em coming.

Amin said... April 23, 2008 at 11:04 AM  

Thanks for your comment. Having owned both the 28/1.8 and 28/2.8, I respectfully disagree. The tests at SLRGear.com agree with my experience that the performance of these two lenses at f/11 on a 5D is similar. In fact, the SLR Gear blur plot gives the sharpness edge to the slower prime when both are compared at f/11. There's also a nice comparison of 13 28mm lenses tested on a 5D here, again showing the f/2.8 lens to be as good (in fact, again slightly better) wrt sharpness and aberrations on a 5D.

Anonymous said... April 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM  

The SLRGear review is surprising. They don't seem to post any sample shots, but here is a side-by-side test at f/8 (f/11 data for the 1.8 is missing, unfortunately). It's consistent with what I've seen myself.

Regardless, thanks for all the work you've put into the reviews!

Amin said... April 23, 2008 at 1:04 PM  

Joe Mama (whom you may know from the DPReview forums) and I were having a discussion not long ago about how a number of those crops on The-Digital-Picture didn't agree with what we were seeing with our lenses and that it seemed SLR Gear was more on target. I thought that perhaps the discrepancy was due to TDP using near target shooting whereas most of what I'm shooting is more distant. I'm always a bit more trusting of crops from scenics than I am of shots of charts. For example, I really enjoy the work over at 16-9 Lens Tests.

It's interesting to hear the other perspective, that your experience agrees more with TDP. Thanks again for looking at my tests and taking the time to comment.

dalinean said... April 24, 2008 at 4:02 AM  

what strikes me with this sharpness comparison is not the differences, but the similarity in sharpness.
All three seem to make excellent sharp images.
The one big difference is in the colour tone of the dp1 images. They are surprisingly and consistently showing a greater colour contrast.
I look forward to a test with raw developer so that processing is kept the same.

Anonymous said... April 24, 2008 at 8:37 AM  

Thanks so much for this fascinating in-depth examination of DP1 performance versus the 5D and E-420. I really appreciate how much work you are doing. . .

But, there is a detail that confuses me. Maybe I missed something, but why are the landscape images made using f11 with the 5D, while the DP1 and E-420 were set to f5.6? I would imagine a difference in performance due to this aperture variation.

Amin said... April 24, 2008 at 9:05 AM  

dalinean, thanks for your comments. I agree with what you are saying. If one sits at a distance from the computer display to simulate the experience of a large print, the differences in detail pretty much melt away.

jerry, thanks for looking and taking the time to comment. I used different f-stops so that the different cameras would have roughly the same depth of field. To be precise, I should have set the DP1 to a slightly higher f-number than the E-420, but this was close enough and made the exposure settings easier. The other thing about these f-stops is that they represent settings where the camera/lens combinations used have optimal or near-optimal performance across the frame.

Unknown said... April 24, 2008 at 1:00 PM  

A very professional comparison, Amin.

The 5D is certainly a formidable challenger and a good benchmark when trying to determine how good the DP1's image quality is.

The DP1 caters to DSLR owners who want or need to leave their bulky kit at home, but don't want to compromise on image quality.

But the DP1 could also be seen as an upgrade (or complement) to small sensor compacts. In this case, comparing image quality is less straight forward. Under good light, it's certainly conceivable that the DP1 produces the better output.

But as lighting levels drop, the small sensor compact could catch up. The brighter lenses and built in stabilization of cameras like Panasonic's LX2 or Ricoh's GX100 mean that you don't have to increase the ISO as soon. Compared to the DP1, cameras like these have an advantage of 2 - 3 stops (depending on how effective each camera's stabilization system is). Of course this only applies to static scenes when hand holding the camera.

In those circumstances, it would be interesting to compare the DP1's image quality at ISO400 or 800 to a small sensor camera's output at ISO100.

As to the E-420, I think it's in a similar category to the DP1: either an alternative to a heavy professional kit or for those upgrading from compacts who don't want excessively bulky equipment. While quite compact, it's somewhat larger and heavier than the DP1. But for that you get additional features and greater versatility.

Amin said... April 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM  

Thanks Björn. I agree with all that you have said here and will feature some small sensor cameras in later parts of the shootout.

In low light as you say, a small sensor camera - particularly one with a fast lens and image stabilization - may well outperform the DP1. Also, in good light a small sensor camera may match or come close to matching the absolute detail of the DP1. I plan to test both of those predictions though.

Where I think the DP1 distinguishes itself is in good light, where the DP1 files have more dynamic range, smoother tonal transitions, and an overall cleaner quality than I've seen before in a compact.

Amin said... May 10, 2009 at 3:20 PM  

Comment by "Anonymous" deleted. Personal attacks and other extremely rude comments will be removed. Kindly spend your 2 cents elsewhere.

Post a Comment