>>3944173I would have included a "real life" sample, but of the images he provided; (Apart from the fact he provided no raw files, only his pre-processed jpegs)
1. Every single shot for the olympus included a teleconverter, and only 2 of the Sony photos didn't include a teleconverter, we're comparing lenses, not teleconverters.
2. He didn't provide any 2 shots that were even at the same equivalent focal length, meaning that resizing would be required which defeats any meaningful comparison
3. The samples provided have been heavily cropped/resized, making it impossible to compare any 2 photos.
The MFT salesman did all he could to actually prevent any meaningful comparison between the 2 lenses. Even in the studio shots I had to use a sample much further from centre for the full frame shot than for the MFT lens.
Oh, and let's have a little check of the EXIF between those two shots you're comparing, see anything slightly out of place perchance? Maybe the 3 stop difference in iso and aperture between the 2? And the fact that the Sony shot, despite having a shorter equivalent focal length is much more zoomed in, in the original shot? Hmmm, it's almost like he fudged the noise, and then resized them to favour the olympus too, how curious.
Why is it that MFTurds can't do a fair comparison between their $7000 lens against a $1300 full frame lens?
Oh, and left or right anon. why are you dodging this question?
