Canon 5D mk II vs Panasonic GF1: Baby vs Goliath Pt. 3 - Wat Pho

Yesterday's post was the first of a few comparison shots I did with the 5d MkII and GF1. My aim there wasn't really to be scientific, but more to get a realistic view of how the images compare when the cameras are used in the way most people do: handheld, and with optimal ISO and aperture settings for the conditions.

Today's images are similar in that they're also hand held - in this case in a situation where you can't use a tripod - a crowded temple with relatively low light.

Click on the title to see the full blog post with comparisons!

Although I was trying to get similar images in terms of cropping and focus, I failed miserably. Being a Sunday afternoon, Wat Pho was packed with people and there was a lot of jostling going on - not really ideal for concentrating on camera settings for two very different cameras. The 40mm 5DII shots were either blury or at ISO 3200 which is in itself somewhat instructive. In the end, these two images - one at 27mm for the 5Dii and one at 40mm equivalent on the GF1 was as close as it came.

While I thought about re-shooting the comparisons, with the shots I took, I have enough information about how the nose performance etc compares at these settings. My overriding objective at the moment is to get the best out of the 5D II, not really to spend endless hours comparing cameras. I know many are interested in such comparisons so instead, I'm making my mistakes public and I suspect that in some ways this is just as instructive than perfect samples.

The Cameras:

Camera:	Canon 5D Mark II	Panasonic DMC GF1
Lens	Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric
Weight (total)	1310g	385g
Price	$3228 (body + lens)	$689 (kit)
Raw file size	29.2 MB	13.9 MB
Aperture	f4	f1.8
Shutter speed	1/50 seconds	1/50 seconds
ISO rating	1600	400
Exposure Bias	+1/3	+2/3
Focus	Auto (Center)	Auto (multi-zone)

Notes about Shooting and Processing

Both images are taken hand-held. I was aiming to equalise exposure and shutter-speed settings. In hindsight, the settings are less then optimum for both images, but amongst the other images I took, none of them are really comparible in the way these two are. As it is, the focus on the GF1 ended up completely off - basically on the roof.

The one benefit from this comparison is that the detailed elements are about the same size without one being scaled.

In post processing my aim was to get the images to look as close as possible from the RAW files - and to look realtively nice. In this situation, you have a mix of a big spotlight and smaller spotlights shining onto gold paint, mixed with daylight from the windows. At default the white balance on the 5DII was too red, whereas the GF1 was too green - I think I've over-compensated each one!

Observations:

Sharpness:

At a pixel level, both images aren't particularly sharp. These aren't ideal conditions for testing sharpness - relatively slow shutter-speed, combined with low, light, medium ISOs, inconsistent focus and wide apertures. It does however present a good reminder that often the lens isn't what you should blame if your images aren't sharp. Depth of field, shutter-speed and focus are far more important.

Noise

At a per-pixel level noise is relatively even. Of course again the 5D image is bigger, so if you look at an image with the same framing at the same size it will have less noise.

From the comparisons I've been looking at, the 5D seems to have about the same noise levels as the GF1 when shot at about 3 stops higher ISO (so if you subscribe to the equivalence theory, it has about a 1-stop ISO advantage), but image noise is highly dependent on other factors such as how evenly lit the subject is, whether you decide to sacrifice some highlights for shadow detail, or whether you can clip the blacks.

Dynamic Range

The spotlights on gold paint is an area where the 5D mkII's extra highlight range results (in my opinion) in a better looing end-result. The transitions are smoother and more receptive to post-processing.

Other Considerations

One of the problems with this type of "test" is that there are so many variables that you can't really come up with anything fair.

I'm still far from comfortable with th 17-40 and not even getting close to reaching its limits - this was my first real outing with the lens. I'm also still coming to terms with the nuiances of the Canon AF system. I'm finding the shutter-speed I need in such situations is higher on the 5D to get the same level of sharpness as the GF1 - no doubt in part due to my technique and maybe partly because there's more and bigger moving parts.

If my aim wasn't to test the 5D II out and I just had the GF1 I'd have taken along a gorillapod which often you'd get away with using in such situations and allos you to shoot at ISO 100.