This is a Canon EOS 40D shot taken standing close by - we were not deliberately making copy shots, and just happened to frame this view in a similar way. Shirley used 100mm focal length on the 1.5X factor A100, I chose 105mm focal length on the 1.6X EOS format, not surprising as we probably both wanted to omit messy foreground and get the mountains in with just a little sky.

Parameters are: WB As Shot, -0.65 stops exposure adjustment, 0 Recovery, 0 Fill, Black 8, 0 Clarity/Vibrance/Saturation. Sharpening is set to: Level 25, Radius 1, Detail 50, Mask 0 and Noise Reduction to Luminance 0, Colour 0.

The Canon gave an exposure of 1/160th at f6.3 ISO 100 to this scene, which the JPEG proved was really too generous. Both cameras were left to their own devices for exposure and AF. Because the Canon generally overexposed, raw processing often involved minus exposure settings. The Canon has autofocused on the foreground, making the distance hillside a little less sharp. There is less depth of field at f6.3 than f8, but the effect is more marked than expected.

I do not think it would be possible to claim that the higher-end L series IS glass has outperformed the Tamron superzoom in the sharpest areas of the image, but the left hand side of the Tamron shot shows some aberrations while the Canon lens is (as expected) more even all over with no noticeable fall off and no need for CA correction. It does have a slightly softer overall feel, and a day's shooting with the two cameras side by side indicates this is probably down to the different AA filter and CMOS noise reduction of the EOS 40D relative to the less NR-processed, weaker AA filtered A100.

Overall the results are both as they should be; there would certainly be no reason to think the Alpha 100 inferior to the Canon as a 10 megapixel DSLR for low-ISO landscape photography, and once again the Tamron lens (also available for Canon) passes with flying colours.