OMD verses Pentax 67ii

The second version of the OM-D shot looks very good to me, the first one was much flatter and I therefore preferred the film photo. If the Pentax one were less contrasty, it would just be so smooth (even at this size) which would really suit the scene and mood. Therefore I feel OM-D wins here this time.

Okay, so it's a small file. But that's anyway MFT versus MF, and you can almost forget the T in the end. Fun comparison. That 25/1.4 sure is tempting.
 
Interesting. I prefer the top shot.

I have some reservations about the comparison, which I'm sure you already understand - it was a "quick and dirty" comparison, and small Jpegs on an internet forum are ... inadequate to say the least. However, it is certainly interesting and fun.

If I had to guess in a "blind test" (which this is not), I would have said I preferred the top image as it seems more "analogue", whereas the bottom was too contrasty and hyper-detailed and "impressive" for my tastes (ie. more "digital"). This in itself is interesting to me as it reveals my preferences (a good thing) and my biases (which are bad things).

Thanks for the test. Are you using the Epson to scan ? Maybe when the new Plustek medium format eventually surfaces, I will need to learn to process my own black and white (Van Bars is too expensive for me) and pull out those film cameras I have which no longer get used ...
 
Keith,

I love the tension and the sense of scale that the figure adds to the second shot. For me this makes the second shot more interesting and dynamic regardless of exposure.

BTW I found that the P67II in 6-segment automode to be deadly accurate.

Cal
 
Interesting comparison. I find the medium format image more appealing, but I can't say precisely why; smoother probably, and a more well-defined foreground-background transition. In the OM-D shot I find the background considerably more distracting, at least on screen.
 
i immediately preferred the top one, the digital! i don't like the out of focus background of the Pentax. i owned one. A truly wonderful camera in the right hands and eyes. You do good.
Using small sensor digitals, i've learn't to appreciate seemingly "endless depth of field". i find it more like i see, not a lens thing.
Both of your shots great but comparisons like this will have you selling your 6 x 7, when all the logistics are compared!
 
Keith said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

I would not say you blotched it. The foreground trees benefit from the slight overexposure, and I wonder if the leaves at the bottom could not be recovered in printing (or are are they truly pure black on the negative?).

Also, I don't mean any offense by this, but do you think the scan is accurate?
 
Interesting comparison, Keith. In your second set of photos, I definitely prefer the 67. But you're right, for web images, the Oly does very well. On an absolute basis, the 67 beats it, though.
 
I like the 2nd shot (which could benefit from some pp). The first one is bland and looks like it could have been shot by any digicam on the market. Also find the figure walking away in the 2nd shot very distracting
 
the second one would be interesting with an OOF nude :)

all in all I prefer the OM-D shot, but really, this is just because of the different field of view and depth of field chosen. If both had the same DoF and angle of view, they would look almost identical.
 
I definitely prefer the 67 shot personally. Even though it's over exposed the depth of field, sharpness and OOF of the Takumar and the general look of film appeals to me more.

Someone suggested above that I may sacrifice the 67 for the OMD ... thats sacrilige! :D

PanF is a funny film ... Ive had experiences with it before where it seemed too contrasty in certain light. The other images I shot that day were fine ... but I managed to get the exposure right on those! :p

Very fluffy comparison I realise ... but as said, good fun!
 
Hah! I agree with both of JSU's recent comments! But after all, we are comparing digitized film verses a digital, so the person's tweaking is part of what we are judging.
 
stompyq said:
Also find the figure walking away in the 2nd shot very distracting
Click to expand...

This element I find engaging. The figure creates great tension. I find the second shot iconic because of the lasting memory.

Sometimes disturbing is good/great.

Cal
 
I love having the figure walking away in the second, but the DOF is too narrow for me - my eyes are drawn to the jittery middle and it requires focus to see the in-focus trees.

That may be less true in a 16x20ish print viewed on a wall, though. Both are outstanding images, though.
 
dreilly said:
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!.
Click to expand...

My most used camera was, until I bought the OM-D, my Plaubel Makina 670. I agree that MF with that large of a neg definitely offers something special over 35mm and especially APS-C/m43 (wasn't seeing it as much with my various Fuji 645s). I bought an EP-2 when it came out and still love that little camera. But I would still reach for the Plaubel more often than not. Since buying the OM-D, however, it is just so damn quick and fun to use that it has become my go-to camera as of late.
 
Lss said:
The second version of the OM-D shot looks very good to me, the first one was much flatter and I therefore preferred the film photo. If the Pentax one were less contrasty, it would just be so smooth (even at this size) which would really suit the scene and mood. Therefore I feel OM-D wins here this time.
Click to expand...
Had another look on a better screen. The original OM-D shot is not as flat as it first seemed, but I still prefer the second version. The Pentax shot looks much better now and not too contrasty. Pentax wins, but OM-D is good. :)
 
I prefer the Pentax shot, the image has enormous depth (not of Field) more than 3D, the OM-D is not bad but all in all the look of the Pentax beats the OM-D. The out of focus area of the OM is more beautiful though, less swirly

Dominik
 
Thanks for this Keith. Very interesting.

Looking at your second posting of the images, I had to go back and forth. I prefer some aspects of each really. So much so that I started writing in favour of the P67 then changed my mind.

I find the P67 foreground is contrasty/crispy. To my eye it looks harsh.

I'm also going to go against the flow here and say that I prefer the DoF of the OMD image. It makes the composition stronger and gives the eye more to to move around and look at. The P67 image is two sharp trees then blur. I find my eyes moving as if I was watching a tennis match.

Yes my vote is really in favour of the OMD file. But I will say that such a comparison (as presented) does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence of one capture medium being superior to the other.
 
The re-worked Oly file looks good. The Pentax is overexposed that that partly ruins the shot. I also find the DOF of the Oly better for this particular shot.

It would be even more interesting to see side by side 16x20" prints. Hard to to over WLAN though ;)
 
Interesting comparison. I much prefer the Pentax shot. The DOF is much more interesting. The OMD OOF areas look mushy and bland to my eyes. Thanks for posting.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top