chipvn
Senior Member
Totally agree with you Fengwei!The comparison by Ming wasn't done under well controlled condition, I'd say what he did doesn't really do justice to either camera.
A well controlled comparison like the following one is more credible IMO:
I just rewrite my opinion here on his comparision:
1. Corner resolution: the test he did with objects are not in the same plane and he focused on the object not in the center of the scene! By doing that he could clever avoid the affect of lens field curvature effect (which the GR does a much better job on control this field curvature from many controlled tests as you listed down above). Actually if there was another object at the center and in the same plane with the off-center object that he captured, the GR should be much sharper there.
2. Correct Exposure: Dynamic Range of the 2 camera should be similar. Then he assume that the 2 camera matrix metering system should have the same result! It is not true cause even with matrix mettering, each company will use different algorithm base on their experience and preference. Therefore, user need to understand its behavior to have desired exposure. To compare 2 different cameras, we need to match the exposure first.
3. RAW color accuracy: he mentioned that Jpeg color of the 2 cameras are all correct and quite similar. Then he brought RAW files of 2 different cameras in to ACR and developed using the same process (while at least, the GR has not had profile in ACR yet) then complained that GR RAW file shift color toward the Red! Without profile in ACR, if he didn't customise the process then he should understand that the result might not be correct and that is the problem with the ACR not the GR!
Last edited: