Very cool, I can certainly say learned something new today!
I'll be sure to give your profiles a try though
Thanks again for posting and the info Ken
kwalsh wrote:
The fisheye conversions you can do with lens corrections in LR are all radially symmetric. The ones I have in there are some standard projections that mostly lie between rectilinear and "equal area" (the typical projection of a fish-eye lens and a close match to the 7.5).
Hemi does something more clever which the LR tools don't support. Hemi uses different transforms in the vertical and horizontal dimensions. This is how it can play tricks like straightening vertical lines while letting horizontal ones bend so you end up with a projection that looks visually appealing without the extreme stretch of a rectilinear conversion. The projection Hemi uses is called the "Panini Projection" which was based on some painters' renderings of perspective. A nice short write up here:
So Hemi can definitely do more and can do it "better". My profiles were just an easy way to quickly find a better result in the fast LR workflow without needing to break out Hemi or Panotools.
3200 iso Videos are soo clean! Cleaner than my old 5N And 5D2!!!
And of course, IBIS. Makes videos look like they were shot on a tripod, fluid head or shoulder-rig. No more need to lug around big gear for casual shooting and no more shaky footage! Awesomeness!
So far... my only gripe... no magnify in Video mode; not even with MF assist nor if setting Fn2 to
muti-function" (which includes Magnify in its' included 4 quick-chose-options). I guess I can switch from still modes to video modes quickly though. Also noticed a small bug. If your Video-mode Exp setting is set to M, it [I]Has[/I] to be in video-mode. Ie: if you hit the video-record button in m/s/a/p, even if video-mode exp. setting in the menu is set to M, it will record in Auto-Exp permanently...
So you have to make sure your left mode-knob is always on Video-Mode if you want to shoot Manual Video...not a huge deal, but I can see that I and others will forget from time to time, especially in the heat of the moment when out shooting... and might come home to find out you just captured a bunch of clips, that are ruined because it's on auto-exposure.
Just found out a great fix for the "accidental Auto-exp in Video while on m/s/a/p stills-mode".....
Set the custom button function for the Red-Dot-Video-Record-Button to off or something useful, like WB or ISO, etc. This way, it will be impossible to record video in Auto-Exp accidentally in the m/s/a/p stills-shooting modes, and you have to turn the left Mode-Dial to Video-Mode in order to shoot Video (manual-video); no more accidental auto-exposed-video!
Doing this, the Red-Dot-Video-Record button will stay as-is in Video-Mode, or however you custom setted it to, and to record video, you now have to use the regular Shutter button to activate/start video recording.
....as for Magnify view in Video/Mode... no fixes or solutions yet. But, hope the above will help some out
C3 was using a Sigma 19mm, E-M5 was using the Panny 14-45.
Shot it under exposed. Boosted exposure +2.0 and shadows +100 in LR4.
Will be doing a lot more tests.
The comparison with the NEX-7 should be a lot more fun but resizing and doing all that is a bit of a pain.
RAW on both of course.
The CA is easily removable in LR4 so that's not a big deal and of course one is a zoom vs a prime so I don't think one should look at sharpness.
However, I'm very surprised how well the E-M5 did here in this made up torture test. In the past, this sort of torture test would have had MFT fall on it's face. The C3 retains a bit more shadow detail but the E-M5 isn't terrible here either.
In the normally exposed file, the E-M5 seems to have a weaker AA filter and has overall a bit more detail than the C3. I'm not 100% sure if that has to with funkiness from the difference in aspect ratio however.
One thing to also check is latitude in the highlights for the same exposure. The E-M5 can recover a LOT at the high end in RAW...curious how it stacks up to the NEX.
The water has clearly moved between your two shots, these tests are thus totally invalid. I'm sure you have no idea how to use a camera as well. You must be a Sony fan-boy or something - no wait - an Olympus fan-boy. Wait I'm confused now.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was DPR for a second
Nice comparison, and thanks for sharing! Look forward to your additional tests.
Must say that's an impressive result from the E-M5 there, the C3 has excellent DR and the E-M5 seems close to matching it (ignoring possible vagaries in ISO ratings and what not). Also interesting is the chroma handling in the shadows. Like you I think there may be a bit more shadow detail on the C3, but it also has some splotchy chroma in there. The E-M5 shadows seem to have no chroma splotches but might be a bit of a color shift there?
Anyway, like you said a torture test. I doubt one would try to push either camera quite this far, especially the deep shadows. Interesting to look at the quarter tones here. At first glance the C3 looks like it might have a bit more to work with, but I also expect that could be skewed by the prime vs. zoom detail you are starting with.
millsart wrote:
How does one long running thread dedicated to the OM-D and one long running m4/3 image thread "clog up" or dominate the Alt Gear forum ??
There is just as much talk about all things Leica and Zeiss and NEX etc as m4/3 if not more so.
Do we need a Leica dedicated forum and a Sony NEX forum as well ?
Yes. I think that these options are expanding so rapidly that they do need their own forum.
jstephens62 wrote:
Yes. I think that these options are expanding so rapidly that they do need their own forum.
I hope Fred doesn't discount the socializing aspect of a mixed forum when considering an independent mirrorless one. How otherwise will the CaNik legions be exposed to the greater world out there?
Just following up on Edgar's efforts, here's a quick freehand video that would have been an opportunity for IBIS on legacy lenses; in this case, an OM Zuiko 90mm f/2.
I don't see any negatives if Olympus does add the capability. Anyone who even considers it even potentially useful should consider submitting feedback to that effect. It's no great effort for the submitter, and at worst Olympus will simply ignore the requests. Quite possibly they will eventually listen, as this issue does partially step into bug territory.
I've had 3 others get responses and also myself, the following similar replies back from Olympus... "....our R&D department does not plan to add that function (adapted/non-native support for Video-IBIS) in the future... ...IBIS will only be designed to function properly with m43 lenses"
Oh well. I tried. I'm over it lol. I want IBIS NOW, and don't feel like waiting forever.
So I will settle for that Oly 45mm/1.8 now. Gonna be a great match with my anamorphic lens
Also.... the new, super nice, expensive, VC f/0.95 17.5mm and 25mm lenses do not have Video-IBIS neither, even though they are indeed "native" m43 lenses... that must be very disappointing since those lenses are the most expensive m43 lenses at $1k+ and still don't have the OMD's full IBIS support.
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
I've had 3 others get responses and also myself, the following similar replies back from Olympus... "....our R&D department does not plan to add that function (adapted/non-native support for Video-IBIS) in the future... ...IBIS will only be designed to function properly with m43 lenses"
Oh well. I tried. I'm over it lol. I want IBIS NOW, and don't feel like waiting forever.
So I will settle for that Oly 45mm/1.8 now. Gonna be a great match with my anamorphic lens
It's not reasonable to expect instant gratification on an issue like this. Even a small firmware change will have to go through extensive regression testing before it gets released.
You've done your bit, but issues like this simply boil down to numbers. It's out of your (and my) hands, and really will be decided by how many other people are ready to submit that feedback form.
How about just collapsing all these stray threads into two, a discussion thread and an image thread. Of course, the photos could also be posted in the MFT thread. That would be enough, I would say, no need for a forum (which you won't get anyway).
In general, and this is not just OM-D owners, there is just much too strong a tendency for people to start their own threads and pollute the forum that way.
I agree, lets keep the OMD thread to technical discussion and use the MFT Image thread for images. Although photographs of the camera and lenses would be quite welcome here.
The silver OM-D is a thing of beauty. I like it much better than the black, and for those who were not aware, they actually have different grips. THe one on the black has a very rubberized grip with straight lines on it, while the silver one has a leathery look and feel. I'm very surprised. I suppose they wanted to give the black a more modern look, and the silver a more classic look.
For those that are on the fence about the grip..GET ONE! I'm usually not big on grips, but the half grip that you get included with the full grip makes the camera wonderful to handle, and completely changes the feel of it, by not making the camera bulky, and instead just giving it a better grip on the right side. Oh, and it's metal too, so it feel solid, and not cheap.
Please excuse the crappy iphone photos, but I love the look of the camera!
It's not as pretty or as cool as the original OM-D horizontal-cum-vertical grip but it's nice to see some less expensive generic grips. I am sure there will be more generic options down the road that looks more like the OEM grip.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Also, not sure it's been posted here, but cool grip for around $100
