Comparison of the 7-14 Ultrawides: Olympus v Panasonic

Olympus: 4 out of 5
Pansonic: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: They're both excellent.

The Long Version: I've been using the Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 for ages; I reviewed it over a year ago, and gave it pretty good marks. I've only gained the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 quite recently - my full review of it is now online here - and for just a few moments I had the chance to compare both of these awesome lenses. I was looking at four different things: sharpness, distortion, flare, and build quality. The Olympus lens was mounted to the E-3, and the Panasonic was attached to a GH1 shooting in the 4:3 ratio. And no, before anyone says that I should test something else or do something differently, I can't do a re-shoot. I don't own both lenses any more.

Build:
The first difference between the two lenses is huge: the Olympus is a hefty, imposing lens; the Panasonic puts the micro into Micro Four Thirds. The Olympus is something that really needs to be experienced - it's an awe-inspiring sight. In the hand the lens is absolutely solid and quite heavy, and the build is as good as anything I've ever tried. Even the metal lens cap demands respect: the lens seems destined to produce greatness. The Panasonic is petite by comparison, almost verging on 'cute', with a mostly-plastic construction and smaller lens elements that puts it a full pound lighter than the Olympus. It's an amazing difference, and it's even more incredible to consider that they're both constant f/4.0 zooms feeding the same sensor size.

Even beyond the difference in camera mounts, there's such a massive difference in the physical size and build that they're going to appeal to different audiences. If you want the smallest possible kit for the best wide-angle photography, there's no question that the GH1 (reviewed) and Panasonic 7-14 is the best choice. If you need something that will survive harsh conditions then get an Olympus 7-14 and E-1 or E-3. In fact, this might be the single biggest difference between them, so if size or weatherproofing is most important factor in your choice, skip the rest of this review and just buy the appropriate one.

Flare:
Both lenses share an essential characteristic - big heads and little arms. Getting that huge field of view takes large, protruding front elements, and there's not much that the built-in hoods can do to shade them. This makes both lenses inherently vulnerable to flare, but the Olympus lens does a better job of suppressing it, and it's less prominent when it happens. It's still hard to miss, but not as bad as it easily could be. The Panasonic lens isn't as good, with its flare being brighter and more prominent in the frame.The Panasonic is on the left, and the Olympus is on the right: flare control is a clear win for the bigger lens.

What surprised me the most in the comparison was a problem with the Panasonic: the front element attracts dust like spam to a gmail account. With both lenses sitting upright, caps off and side-by-side, and the Panny would have specks of dust on the lens while the Oly element remained clean. It's possible that the majestic dome of the Olympus just sheds dirt through the force of its sheer awesomeness, like an ultrawide Henry Winkler, but I've also noticed that my cleaning cloths don't slide very smoothly across the Panasonic. Its coating is 'grabby', with problematic results.

Every little speck of dust, when caught in the wrong light, becomes a source of flare. In all of my time shooting with the Olympus, I'd never noticed this as a problem; with just a week with the Panasonic, it was obvious. With the flare test samples I never wondered which camera I was looking at, while for most other issues I'd have to check the metadata to be sure. Even in these tiny sample photos, dust spots are visible at the edges of the frame.

Distortion:
Optical distortion control has also been a traditional strong point for Olympus, and is one way that it's clearly superior to the newer Nikon 14-24/2.8. With the Micro Four Thirds format distortion is corrected on-the-fly within the camera, and Adobe Camera Raw adjusts the raw files automatically. But while the new m4/3 format has finally made it practical, it's not a new idea. Compact cameras have been doing it for some time now, and it was also part of the original 4/3 standards. With the Olympus E-1 the processing power needed for in-camera 'shading correction' made the camera unusably slow, and the distortion correction needed Olympus's own raw converter, which simply wasn't worth the effort.

As a result of the combined optical and electronic approach, the Panasonic is almost perfect for almost all of its zoom range. The Olympus needs a maximum '3' value in photoshop's Lens Correction filter, although the actual amount will change depending on the focusing distance and focal length. That's still an excellent result, but the Panasonic has the undeniable advantage of youth.

Sharpness:
With the Olympus 7-14 review, the only strong optical issue that stood out was a certain amount of corner smearing on the ground when I'd shoot photos from a very low perspective. It's not quite corner softness: imagine a lens traveling through perspective distortion at warp speed, and that's about right. Whatever the actual source of the aberration - I'm absolutely nothing like an optics expert - the Panasonic seems to have less of it. Usually. When it comes to corner softness at more traditional distances, the Panasonic has a slight but slightly more definite edge. (Below, GH1 on the left, E-3 on the right.) That suggests that the amount of software tweaking that's being done to correct lens distortion isn't causing problems elsewhere. When looking at central sharpness, once again the Panasonic wins, but this time it's definitive.

There is a huge caveat with the sharpness comparison, though. The Panasonic camera has a slight resolution advantage, which was fairly easy to equalize for comparison, but the true test for sharpness would have had both lenses on a GH1. All that this comparison really shows is that the Olympus camera and lens wasn't showing as much detail as the Panasonic combination once the images had been processed in Lightroom 2. Panasonic bodies have a reputation for delivering more detail than Olympus cameras, and while this test is far from proving that true, it's also far from being a true test of the optics. If someone ever does this test with an adapter to put the lenses on the same body, believe those results instead of mine. I'm always happy to be wrong.

Finally:
I'm going to do something that's very unusual for me: pick a winner in a direct comparison. The Panasonic 7-14 is the better lens, or to be more accurate, the GH1+P7-14 mostly beats the E-3+O7-14. Yes, the Panasonic 7-14 gives up the weather sealing and the 'I am a god' feeling that comes with picking up the Olympus lens. Yes, the Olympus E-1 and E-3 are better cameras than the GH1, even if the newer Panasonic produces better photos. The m4/3 kit comes across as a bit of a toy, a hobbyist's amusement, when they're set side-by-side. But the Panny still wins.

It's taken me four days to write this conclusion, and it's not the one I expected to reach. My reasoning behind it is that the Olympus 7-14 is mostly better at things that should be avoided anyway. Weather sealing doesn't include windshield wipers, and worse flare isn't that much worse than regular flare. So while the need to carry a Swiffer for the Panasonic is an annoyance, it's weaker in a situation that all wide-angle photographers already need to be wary of. In exchange, the Panasonic 7-14 is a full pound lighter, possibly sharper, and has zero distortion for everything except the ends of its range. It's also cheaper enough that it'll buy half of a GF1 or Olympus Pen. Naturally, if you're happy and/or heavily invested with Olympus cameras and lenses, their 7-14 remains an exceptional choice.

But there is another nagging little issue: competition. Nikon has the 14-24/2.8 for its full-frame cameras, which snags the high end of the market away from the Olympus. There's also the inconceivably awesome Canon 17mm TS-E., which takes the very high end away from Nikon. Coming up soon will be the Sigma 8-16mm lens, which will give a 12/13mm equivalent lens to the great unwashed hordes of APS-C cameras. Unless it's a real lemon, people who really need 114 degree ultrawide coverage won't have any special reason to buy either Panasonic or Olympus cameras - unless they want the small size that's still only possible with Micro Four Thirds.

Just three years ago there was absolutely nothing that could match the Olympus 7-14mm for any digital camera system. We live in interesting times.

You may also be interested in the thewsreviews' illustrated collection of observations on a wide assortment of lenses: "Quick Thoughts on Lenses for Micro Four Thirds Cameras".

Comparison: Camera Shutter Sounds

Nikon F100: 5 out of 5
Olympus E-1: 4 out of 5
Nikon D700: 3 out of 5
Olympus E-3: 2 out of 5
Olympus E-300: 1 out of 5
Yashica GSN: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: These numbers are a ranking, not a rating - and higher numbers are better.

The Long Version: I'm preparing a review of the Nikon F100, and without giving too much away, I'll admit that I'm absolutely in love with it. The shutter sound is part of what has captured me, so I wanted a recording of its action to include in my write-up. As my mother never said, in for a penny, in for a pound: I decided to record all six of my cameras that have mechanical shutters. I always read the conclusion first, so here it is: The Nikon F100 and Olympus E-1 quietly and pleasantly spank all of the others.

Click the play icon beneath the photos for that camera's sound, and some notes on my methodology and further thoughts are at the end of the review.

Nikon F100:

The Nikon F100 is a film SLR from 1998/1999. It appears here without the MB-15 grip that would boost it to 5fps; instead this recording includes a few single frames and two 4.5fps bursts. It was shot without film: it can eat an entire roll in only eight seconds. The recording meter stayed comfortably around -12 to -14dB.

Olympus E-1:

The Olympus E-1 (reviewed) is a contemporary of the Canon EOS-10D, being released in 2003. It shoots at 3fps and has a twelve-shot buffer. During recording the meter peaked around -14dB, making it a touch quieter than the F100.

Nikon D700:

The Nikon D700 (first impressions) hardly needs an introduction; here it's being recorded with the MB-D10 grip and 8xAA batteries to shoot at 8fps. I used it to set my recording levels, with the prolonged shutter bursts measuring -3dB.

Olympus E-3:

The E-3 (reviewed) is the replacement for the E-1, and was released in the fall of 2007, around the same time as the D300. It officially has an eighteen shot (raw) buffer, but a UDMA memory card expands on that. It's shooting three single exposures before shifting to 5fps, where the recording meter hit -7dB.

Olympus E-300:

The second Olympus interchangeable-lens digital SLR, the E-300 is a consumer camera with a four-frame buffer that shoots 3fps. It dates from the end of 2004; in terms of metered sound levels, it's pretty much interchangeable with the E-3.

Yashica GSN:

I included the Yashica GSN (reviewed) as something of a lark; it's a thirty-five-year-old rangefinder that has no business hanging out with this crowd. Its tripod position put the camera body (but not the shutter mechanism) closer to the recorder, but even with a little forgiveness, it was clearly the loudest of the cameras. Its shutter, which is heard first in this recording, is moderately loud at -8dB, but the sharp mechanical 'thwack' that starts the rewind action caused my recording meter to peak. This recording captures three shutter-wind cycles, and like the F100, it was shot without film.

Making the Recordings:

If I had a dedicated studio, it would have lights and translucent tables, not acoustical treatments. These were recorded in my bedroom, which I chose for its relative quiet and ample reverb-dampening surfaces. Then I positioned the camera and recorder about two feet from the sheetrock wall. (You win some, you lose some.) My Sony PCM-D50 had its microphones in XY stereo position, and were about four inches from the centre of the lens mount, positioned to the left. The Olympus cameras were mounted to the Sigma 150 Macro, while the Nikons were on the Sigma 180 Macro. Since they share a tripod collar with very similar positioning, I didn't adjust the tripod position during the recordings. (Like my mother actually did say, leave well enough alone.) The exception is the Yashica GSN, but that wasn't really meant as a serious part of the comparison anyway. The cameras were all set to manual focus and shutter-priority at 1/500s, proving that there actually is a use for that mode.

Conclusion, part Two; Or: To Make a Short Story Long:

I do have a sound meter that can measure both dBA and dBC, but the added complexity of using it wasn't going to add much to my inherently subjective conclusions. (Plus, I forgot about it.) My opinion is that the F100 has a more pleasant sound than the E-1, even though the Olympus measures slightly quieter. Similarly, I prefer the crisper sound of the D700 to the E-3, but neither would be my choice for photography where subtlety is required. For that matter, even the E-1 is much louder than the Leica M5 that I was able to play with last week, and the Micro 4/3 cameras are also a big improvement over SLRs. I was originally planning to record my Canon SX20, but it's so close to silent that it wouldn't be able to be heard with the gain setting that I needed for the other cameras.

The appreciation of sound, like vision, is subjective. I leave it to the interested readers to listen to the recordings and decide for themselves which camera they prefer. (For added entertainment, play several of them simultaneously.) As I mentioned in the introductory conclusion, this article is a result of my liking the sound of a legacy film camera, and even I expected this article to be pretty much irrelevant to anyone's camera choice. But the more I think about it, the more meaningful it seems. Certainly, I wouldn't expect anyone to choose between an E-1 and D700 based on the sound of the camera; there are a few more important differences. But any serious photographer who is using a digital camera more than four years old has either made a conscious decision to not use the latest-and-greatest, or has mentally turned a necessity into a virtue. I assume the same of anyone who has a toaster oven instead of a microwave, or who shoots with film instead of electronic capture - which brings me right back to the old Nikon F100 that started this thought process in the first place.

If someone is using a film camera, or a classic digital camera, it's almost certainly not for the image quality. So why not choose the camera with the best feel and sound? Photographs are strictly visual, but photography doesn't need to be.

Comparison: Sony ADPCM1 and Røde 'Dead Kitten' Windscreens on the Sony PCM-D50

Sony: 2 out of 5
Rode: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Imagine if they were actually designed for the PCM-D50.


The Long Version: As part of my never-ending quest for expensive hobbies, I've decided to take up audio recording. After months researching portable field recorders, mostly spent on other people's review blogs, I chose the Sony PCM-D50. You will never, ever find a review of this excellent field recorder here - it's been done and there's nothing that I can add. I can only direct people to a few of the sites that helped me: Brad Linder, Transom, O'Reilly, Wingfield, Future Music, and F7 Sound. What I can do is fill in a little bit of information about the accessories.

The Sony D50 is equipped with a pair of condenser microphones, so it's very sensitive to wind noise. Some sort of windjammer is mandatory, but Sony doesn't include one in the box. Their recommended screen is the ADPCM1, and as its name suggests, it's also/originally for the $2000 PCM-D1. It has mid-length fur that's neatly trimmed, and the D50 still squeezes inside the fancy Sony flip case with it in place. My biggest complaint about the screen is that, despite being hard to put on, it has a very loose fit. I have no doubt that one day it will run away from home. I've already dropped it on the sidewalk a couple of times, and even the addition of some ponytail-elastics hasn't really helped.

Since I'm sure that I'll lose the Sony windscreen eventually, it seemed prudent to preemptively order its replacement. I had read on a forum that the Rode 'Dead Kitten' would fit the PCM-D50, so that was the one that I picked. (RØDE, for what it's worth, is Australian.) It has a taller and boxy design that's intended to go over the NT4 and Stereo VideoMic, but it has a very strong and narrow elastic cuff that holds snugly around the D50's roll cage. Its fur is also much longer and floofier than the Sony windscreen, making it look like the D50 is having a lot more fun.

The elastic on the Kitten is so strong that when it's off of the recorder it rolls into a little ball, and it can be hard to find the opening. It also has sides, with one flap that's longer than the others. With that put at the back, the -12 and 0dB LEDs on the D50 are somewhat visible, but mine will still get a slight haircut to help that out. And yes, I did include this photo just in case anyone thought I was being funny with the 'Dead Kitten' name. Did I mention that Rode is Australian?


Testing:


I wanted a simple way to compare the performance of the different windshields, so lacking any better ideas, I set up an oscillating fan. I've read somewhere that a fan doesn't provide a realistic test, since its steady output doesn't match the force or variability of real wind, but it was the best I could do for repeatable and consistent conditions. I set the recorder up about one foot from the fan and one foot from the ground, and positioned it so that it was catching the fan on one end of its travels. Even if it's not scientific in its rigour, the results do seem indicative of real-world performance.

These are Audacity's audio waveforms from the original 48KHz/24-bit .wav files for the Dead Kitten, Sony windscreen, and the bare nekkid PCM-D50. The mics were set to XY stereo, the gain was set to 7, and the low-cut filter was off. I set the levels so that the Sony windscreen was barely clipping, hitting +03dB, which the D50's fancy limiter handles with ease. The Rode peaked at about -3dB at the same position and settings; for the screenless recorder that was enough to cause serious hard clipping, which is the first time I've ever actually heard it with the D50. (A gain setting of '2' stopped the wind noise from clipping, and completely removed the sound of the pesky fan.) With the screens, the sound of the gears is audible underneath the hum of the blades, and with the Dead Kitten it can be heard even when the full force of the fan is hitting it.


You can click on these links to listen to the mp3 versions of the files. They're each 25 seconds long, start two seconds before the first pass of the fan, and end five seconds after the second pass. You'll want to turn the volume down for the last one.

Rode Dead Kitten:


Sony Windscreen:


Bare PCM-D50:



I have a habit of being very conciliatory in my comparison conclusions, and this isn't going to be an exception. The Dead Kitten is clearly the more effective windscreen, but at the expense of a slight overall reduction in sound levels. That's not a big deal, since the PCM-D50 has plenty of gain to spare, but the larger hairdo makes it very difficult to fit into its fancy case (sold separately). So I'm striking a compromise: dedicated recording sessions will use a tripod and the Rode screen, and the Sony windscreen is the one to use when I'm just carrying the D50 around in its case.

...at least until I lose it.

Comparison: Nikon D700 and Olympus E-3 in Low Light

Nikon: 4 out of 5
Olympus: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: What are numbers when we have pictures?

The Long Version: Go on any internet camera forum, and there will be 'what should I buy?' questions. Someone will start a thread with a message that reads "I'm choosing between X and Y, and would like insightful comments from people with experience using these two thingies." It's guaranteed that someone, usually the first person to reply, will start their message with "I've never used either thingy, but _________".

My mother always said, "Why would I want the opinion of someone dumber than me?"

So with that in mind, here's my disclaimer:

I've never claimed to be an expert on anything in this blog: if you do a google search on "reviews of dubious consistency", thewsreviews is ranked second. (Disappointing, actually, I was hoping for first place.) I'm just a guy who uses various thingies and writes about them. Secondly, I don't generally "test" anything. I use things. In this case, I've compared these two cameras with the lenses that I have in the way that I usually use them. Different people will differ, and that's not anyone's fault. (My other blog has almost five years worth of photos - 600+ posts - and is almost entirely composed of hand-held static subject photography.) People who need to freeze action, or who are smart enough to use a tripod, don't need to read any further.

Finally, this whole experiment is personal and the interpretation of the results is subjective, so don't expect any Authoritative Numerical Values (ANV™) to neatly summarize the conclusion.

Meet the Contestants:

The Nikon D700 is currently DxOMark's top-rated camera for low-light ISO performance, with an ANV™ of 2303. I doubt that many people would dispute that it's the camera with the lowest noise on the market right now.

The Olympus E-3 is about a year older than the D700, and has an ANV™ of 571 for low-light ISO from DxOMark, putting it in 37th place - tied with the Canon 10D, but slightly ahead of the Nikon D60. Some people might argue with that, but an equal number would probably be surprised that it ranks that highly. Four-thirds ("4/3") format cameras have traditionally had higher noise than the slightly larger 'cropped' cameras. What the E-3 offers is in-body image stabilization, which I will be abbreviating as IBIS to make this review go faster.

My goal is to get the best results for low-light hand-held photography for static subjects from two different technologies, high-ISO and IBIS. My best autofocus Nikkor is the 85mm f/1.8, so I matched it with the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro lens. They're nearly the same weight, have a similar field of view, and B&H even sells them for the same price. The E-3 came out to 1.22 kilos, while the D700 checked in at 1.47kg. It's interesting to note that while the lenses cost the same amount, the difference in the body price means that I could buy two of the E-3+50mm kits for less than what the D700+85mm costs at B&H right now, but it's not really relevant to how I evaluated their results.

The Setup:

I shot two different angles on an abandoned car in an underground parking garage. The lighting is consistent throughout the test, and each camera had a custom white balance set. Both were set to continuous shooting at five frames per second, and I kept the second photo from each setting. Both were only using their single central AF point. I stepped through the apertures from wide open until I was getting shutter speeds around 1/5 of a second, bumped the ISO up one stop, and then repeated until I maxed out the ISO on both cameras. For the Nikon, I shot at f/1.8 and f/2.2 before picking up the traditional whole stops at f/2.8; for the Olympus I just shot the whole apertures.

The tail-light test was shot from about 20-25 feet away from the subject, using my best hand-holding technique while standing upright and unsupported. I set my Sekonic meter to a shutter speed of 1/100, which is about the reciprocal of the focal length, and ISO1600. It told me that I should shoot at f/1.4. My focusing point is the yellow turn signal lens.

For the second test, I was leaning against a pillar that put me 10-12 feet from the subject. My Sekonic-metered exposure was 1/100, iso1600, and f/3.6 - eight-thirds of a stop brighter than the tail-light test. The focusing point is the lock in the door handle.

The Cull:

I took many, many photos. Once I'd reduced them to only the second frames, I made another three passes to select the best images. For the first pass, I magnified the images to 100%, centred on the focus point, and selected them based on sharpness. I was surprised to see that I cut all of the shots taken with the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 wide-open: in my years of using this lens, I've never felt that sharpness was lacking. The cutoff for shutter speed with the IBIS-equipped E-3 fell at about one tenth of a second. The D700 wasn't as clear-cut, with some of the photos at f/2.2 being acceptable and some were rejected; likewise some photos taken at 1/30s were acceptable for motion blur, although most needed to be at 1/60 or higher. Naturally, I wasn't looking at the exif data while sorting through them.

For the second pass I was looking only at noise. I set the magnification to 50%, as this is still far larger than web display and more demanding than printed output. I found that I cut all of the E-3 photos taken at iso3200, and all of the D700 photos taken above iso6400. I may have been a little more forgiving with the Olympus, but I also think that Lightroom does a better job converting the D700's noise to monochrome. So count this as a two-stop advantage to the D700, since DxOMark consistently measures the D700's actual sensitivity below its nominal rating. ISO6400 is actually 4871, while the E-3's iso1600 is measured at 1587 - to the D700's 1277.

Finally, once I had photos that I considered good for both sharpness and noise, I went through them again. Rather than judging them only on their own merits, I took only the top six from each test, regardless of which camera they were from. I cropped a section from these in an agnostic 4x5 ratio and printed them out, with the average DPI being in the low-to-mid 300's. Then I took them to the camera store where I work part-time, and let a half-dozen other photographers pick their favourites for detail, sharpness, and noise.

The Results: Tail-Light Test

Nikon D700, 1/25, f/4.0, iso1600

The photo above was consistently picked as the best for sharpness, detail, and noise. It's not a surprise that it was shot with the Nikon. I didn't tell my judges which was from what camera, and even I didn't know the shooting settings for each one, but these are camera-savvy people and could usually figure it out.

Olympus E-3, 1/13, f/2.8, iso400

Coming in second overall, but with less enthusiasm from the judges, is this shot from the Olympus E-3. The differences are obvious: darker exposure, the tonal range is more compressed, and there's less variation in the colour. Compared to the original scene the Olympus is more accurate, but the Nikon's file is going to allow more modification with less deterioration. From the exposure data we can see that the Oly has a shutter speed one stop slower and an ISO two stops lower, showing that IBIS isn't making as much of a difference as it's supposed to. Theoretically I could get a faster shutter speed or lower sensitivity from the Olympus by opening the lens up one stop for equal depth of field, but I had already rejected the f/2.0 shot for lacking sharpness. This goes back to the witticism that in theory, theory matches reality, but in reality, it doesn't.

My co-worker image evaluators didn't get to see these, but the previous two photos are the full images after being put through Lightroom's Auto Tone feature. It has brought down the D700's highlights, and shows just how little real difference the E-3's extra depth of field makes in the full-sized picture. It may also explain a bit of the metering difference, and shows a how the colours are rendered even after setting the white balance with my Ezybalance. Once again, I'm going to say that colour is more accurate and consistent from the Olympus, but anyone who really cares about colour should be profiling their cameras and not relying on the default Adobe profiles the way these images are. They would also be editing the raw file to get the most out of if, which I haven't done. Look for that in a future comparison.

Two more Nikon photos were mid-pack for the tail-light series. One was 1/50, f/5.6, iso6400; the other was 1/160, f/2.2, iso3200. The other two Olympus photos were considered the least technically adequate, and were shot at 1/25, f/4, iso1600; 1/50, f/2.8, iso1600. These two were pretty much interchangeable as the weakest, so the one above the one shot at f/4. I'll say that the best of the Olympus results are close to the best Nikon image, and there's more variation in the quality within each camera than between the brands. But that on average and in particular, the Nikon does produce superior files.

The Results: Door-Lock Test

This test was less extreme, being both brighter and shot with a bit more support. I expected this to be the place where the Nikon stomped the Olympus, but in a reversal from the first test, it just didn't happen. Overall these photos didn't get as much attention, and two photos were picked as the better ones but without a clear preference between them.

Olympus E-3, 1/40, f/2.8, iso1600

Nikon D700, 1/30, f/2.8, iso1600

Once again the Olympus has metered the scene darker, with a shutter speed 1/3 of a stop faster. Shot at the same aperture, the greater depth of field is obvious in the Oly image; shot at the same iso sensitivity, there's not much difference in noise. The second tier of photos were another Nikon-Olympus tie, and shot at 1/160, f/2.8, iso6400, and 1/15, f/4.0, iso1600. It's not a big leap to guess which camera produced which file. The photos with the lowest approval rating were shot with the D700 at iso12800, one at f/2.2 and 1/400, the other at f/2.8 and 1/160. It seems like the E-3's high-iso results suffer more dramatically in the lowest light, and there's also a clear degradation in the colour and clarity of the D700 above iso6400. In fact, one of my judges singled out the Nikon's photos as inferior because of their lack of colour, even though he mistakenly thought that meant that they were taken with the E-3.

Choosing a Winner:

I'm lucky - I don't need to choose a winner. I own both cameras, and have no vested interest in proving one superior or defending the underdog. I didn't buy the D700 for its high-iso ability, and don't need to freeze motion: I'm a stationary-object kind of guy. Since this is a subjective evaluation I'll leave choosing a winner to each individual, and can even supply the gallery link and password to the full-sized photos if anyone wants to write their own conclusions in a comment.

But I won't cop-out completely - the D700 is better in low-light. Its files also have much greater latitude and can be modified more extensively. There's no surprise there. The surprise is that the E-3 remained competitive, and captured better colour. If I had to take photos that would be well-served by a short telephoto, then I'd immediately reach for the D700. But if I had some low-light needs that would benefit from my Olympus 7-14 or 35-100, I would use my E-3 without hesitation. I'd just keep it at iso1600 or lower, and be more careful with the exposure.

Choosing a different lens, for either camera, would naturally change the results. The previously mentioned 35-100 would make the price of the Olympus kit match the Nikon, and its greater weight makes it easier for me to hold steady. If I had chosen the Nikon 105/2.8 VR Micro lens as a better spiritual match for the Olympus 50/2.0 Macro, then the Nikkor's image stabilization would have completely changed the outcome. While this has been a comparison of ISO vs. IBIS, the combination of the two technologies would be unbeatable. But if a camera that's twice as expensive also needs a lens that's twice as expensive in order to be definitively and unquestionably better than a camera with a sensor that's one-quarter the area and a year older, is that still a win?

If you know that a camera will give you a specific ability that you need, buy it. If you want a particular camera and can afford it, buy it. But if you feel like you need the latest and greatest because it scored better in a test, don't forget to look at the rest of the picture. There may be a whole lot of other things that are as important, and possibly more important, than any one single factor.

And don't forget that the point of having a camera is to take pictures.

Comparison: Gitzo 2941 and Manfrotto 679 Monopods

Manfrotto: 2 out of 5
Gitzo: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Choose the one that will get used.


The Long Version: A group review of these two monopods seems appropriate, since they're both made by the same company, and they're both the only ones that I own. It would be impossible for me to review one without referencing the other.

Except for the one-leg extendable camera support attribute, these two are completely different ways to solve the exact same problem. The locks, colour, cost and material give some significant differences to choose from. Naturally, they're also both discontinued, making this comparison useful in only the most general terms. But they both support the same amount of weight, weigh about the same, and are about the same height when collapsed and extended.

Meet the Contestants:

The Manfrotto 679 is a little bit taller, and only compares to the weight of the Gitzo 2941 because it has only three sections, making it longer when collapsed as well. The aluminum-coloured aluminum 679 has been discontinued in favour of the black-coloured aluminum of the 679B, which B&H lists for $45.

The Gitzo 2941 is part of the 'Basalt' series, so it's lighter than metal and cheaper than carbon-fiber. The new model is the GM2942, which B&H has for $200.

Colour: I highly prefer the black of the Gitzo, but Manfrotto also has black versions available, even though the camping gear store where I bought mine didn't. I prefer black for its subtlety, not least because it doesn't reflect as much in windows.

Locks: The Manfrotto has flip-locks, while the Gitzo uses twist-locks. Neither system is hard to use or slow, but I do find the Gitzo's system faster to use and doesn't loosen over time. The flip-locks are bulkier and close with a snap louder than a Sony Alphas' shutter. While a lot of people seem to think that the Manfrotto's system is an upgrade over twist-locks, they're only an improvement over bad twists. Gitzo's system does not fall into that category.

Material: Some photographers forget that they're not buying racing bicycles, and look for the weight-savings of carbon fiber and other exotic materials. The reality is that the weight reduction of one's wallet is usually much greater than the weight saved by going with the different tube materials. But unlike ABC detergent, price isn't the only difference - there are real advantages from stepping up to a non-metal monopod. They transmit less vibration, giving a more stable support, and they're much more pleasant to use in a Canadian winter.

Cost: The basalt Gitzo tripod costs over four times what the aluminum Manfrotto does, making this an easy decision when cost is a primary consideration. The 679 (and its four-section friend, the 680) is a real workhorse, able to add stability and sharpness to just about any camera/lens combination. It needs no excuses.

Verdict: The Gitzo is made of a better material, with locks that are a matter of personal preference, in a colour that's also available from Manfrotto's 679/680 family, and the difference in cost is enough to pay for round-trip Greyhound tickets to an interesting and photogenic place. Spending the extra money seems silly, but what can I say? I use the Gitzo when the Manfrotto sat at home.

If the equipment isn't going to be used to take better photos, then it's a waste of whatever money it costs - even if its a great product and a great value. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 679, except for the solvable silver colour, and the rest of it comes down to personal choices. Either one will make your photographs better. Neither one will make your photos better than the other. Get whichever one you'll use.