Jonas B wrote:
At page 61, post 16, I showed a High resolution image taken as I'm in the process of learning the camera. Some other HiRes images looked cleaner than expected making me saying the result look different than what we get from FF cameras with high native resolution. I had a further look into this and found interesting things:
The HiRes mode makes all lenses looking better. The better the lens the better the result. Small details benefit the most, obviously, but really everything in the images improves. There is an interesting lack of moire and false colours. The images can take a lot of sharpening.
Some of this was expected from reading elsewhere. Some of this was news to me. All this is probably old news for experienced users reading this thread but here are a couple of examples anyway:
It's a good thing the world is looking better to the south and west.
But what if keeping the new big size? How big can I print? Here you can judge for yourself:
I think you did just fine. Most of the bird's face and breast are in focus. I wouldn't go beyond f4 as you don't want to risk camera shake - a good shutter speed is just as important if not more so.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Which apertures would you suggest for these kinds of shots?
Or put another way, which constrains should one put on ISO and shutter speed and let the aperture result?
TIA.
Iwas joeking wrote:
I would think top quality optics would be mandatory using hi res mode. I'm sure it will really show weaknesses.
The lens used was the M Zuiko 17/1.8. It is often mentioned as mediocre, a weak lens in the Olympus line of µ4/3 lenses. An average lens in other words. Maybe I was lucky and got a very good sample? In any case it is easy to see the improvements in resolution when using it in the Hi Res mode.
I'm sure it shows weaknesses meaning that a better performing lens would give even better result in HiRes mode than the mediocre 17/1.8. But wth, we have to work with what we have and I became happy seeing the lens benefits from HiRes mode.
Would you care to elaborate a little? Why would a top notch lens be mandatory when HiRes mode improves the image for any lens? Or do you judge the demonstrated improvements as meaningless?
A higher-resolution pro lens will definitely give you better results i.e. more detail. I compared a shot I took with my Oly 300 PRO to a friend's shot from a Sony A7R II with a Sony consumer-grade zoom lens and I thought my image had better detail. I believe that's because the 300 pro/prime lens was able to resolve more detail than his cheaper consumer-grade lens, in spite of the much smaller sensor.
Jonas B wrote:
The lens used was the M Zuiko 17/1.8. It is often mentioned as mediocre, a weak lens in the Olympus line of µ4/3 lenses. An average lens in other words. Maybe I was lucky and got a very good sample? In any case it is easy to see the improvements in resolution when using it in the Hi Res mode.
I'm sure it shows weaknesses meaning that a better performing lens would give even better result in HiRes mode than the mediocre 17/1.8. But wth, we have to work with what we have and I became happy seeing the lens benefits from HiRes mode.
Would you care to elaborate a little? Why would a top notch lens be mandatory when HiRes mode improves the image for any lens? Or do you judge the demonstrated improvements as meaningless?
Jonas B wrote:
The lens used was the M Zuiko 17/1.8. It is often mentioned as mediocre, a weak lens in the Olympus line of µ4/3 lenses. An average lens in other words. Maybe I was lucky and got a very good sample? In any case it is easy to see the improvements in resolution when using it in the Hi Res mode.
I'm sure it shows weaknesses meaning that a better performing lens would give even better result in HiRes mode than the mediocre 17/1.8. But wth, we have to work with what we have and I became happy seeing the lens benefits from HiRes mode.
Would you care to elaborate a little? Why would a top notch lens be mandatory when HiRes mode improves the image for any lens? Or do you judge the demonstrated improvements as meaningless?
You explained my point actually. I forget who did the tests, maybe Lensrentals? They showed with their bench tests that every lens shows improvement with higher sampling(more megapixels). My point is just that any lens shows imperfections more with higher megapixel sensors compared to lower sensors which tend to be more forgiving of lens aberrations. I didn't mean a slight against your lens choice, just an overall observation. To me it's a great feature to have.
DamC.Licks wrote:
For something that close I would say at least f/5.6 if not f/8. Better to risk a little more noise ("grain") than have so much out of focus.
IMO with birds , as long as the eye is sharp, and it is here, then the narrow depth of field is fine and publishable. If the eyes not sharp, then I'd toss it.
The image looked decent on my cell phone. Just had another look at your full-sized image on my desktop computer. Your focus point is actually just behind the eyes. Had it been just in front of the eyes it would have looked much better as the red feathering and front zone of the hummingbird would have been in focus. Because of the shallow DOF any forward or backward camera movement will cause the zone of sharpness to shift. f4 with better focus accuracy would have helped this image. But you did get a decent/useable image as the eye is within the zone of sharpness ... well, only just.
bobbytan wrote:
I think you did just fine. Most of the bird's face and breast are in focus. I wouldn't go beyond f4 as you don't want to risk camera shake - a good shutter speed is just as important if not more so.
Thanks everybody for the feedback. Much appreciated. I am glad I asked.
I'll put your advice into practice once the Hummingbirds return in April. Thanks again.
May I also solicit your feedback with regards to the deer image.
It was late afternoon, overcast, and already getting darker when I took the image.
I know the Nocticron delivers sharp images wide open although with an extremely narrow DOF.
Typically I would use a longer tele lens of max F/2.8 or F/4 design.
But yesterday I only had the E-M1.2 and Nocticron with me.
I briefly stopped the car and took pictures through the open window focusing on the deers' head.
If I had gotten out of the car the deer would have quickly left. So that was not an option.
It snowed last night, the clouds left, and we have partially blue New Mexico sky.
I'll try again, this time with the E-M1.2 and the 40-150/2.8 Pro lens to try for some head shots as well.
I would appreciate again your advice how to proceed. TIA.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks everybody for the feedback. Much appreciated. I am glad I asked.
I'll put your advice into practice once the Hummingbirds return in April. Thanks again.
May I also solicit your feedback with regards to the deer image.
It was late afternoon, overcast, and already getting darker when I took the image.
I know the Nocticron delivers sharp images wide open although with an extremely narrow DOF.
Typically I would use a longer tele lens of max F/2.8 or F/4 design.
But yesterday I only had the E-M1.2 and Nocticron with me.
I briefly stopped the car and took pictures through the open window focusing on the deers' head.
If I had gotten out of the car the deer would have quickly left. So that was not an option.
It snowed last night, the clouds left, and we have partially blue New Mexico sky.
I'll try again, this time with the E-M1.2 and the 40-150/2.8 Pro lens to try for some head shots as well.
I would appreciate again your advice how to proceed. TIA.
I think the face is a bit soft because of missed focus. A couple of thoughts. Raise the ISO to 400 or 800 and close down a stop or two to increase the DOF. Use focus magnify so you can tell if the face is in focus.
Yes, the deer's face/head is soft. Looks to me like it could have been caused by camera shake. If you don't have very steady hands or cannot brace yourself on something, crank up the shutter speed and/or ISO. For a shot like this, f2.8 or f4 would have been better ... but even f1.2 is doable if you can nail focus on the eyes. The nice thing about a shallower DOF is that it will blur the busy background more which in turn gives your subject a little more snap or pop.
Iwas joeking wrote:
I think the face is a bit soft because of missed focus. A couple of thoughts. Raise the ISO to 400 or 800 and close down a stop or two to increase the DOF. Use focus magnify so you can tell if the face is in focus.
Iwas joeking wrote:
You explained my point actually. I forget who did the tests, maybe Lensrentals? They showed with their bench tests that every lens shows improvement with higher sampling(more megapixels). My point is just that any lens shows imperfections more with higher megapixel sensors compared to lower sensors which tend to be more forgiving of lens aberrations. I didn't mean a slight against your lens choice, just an overall observation. To me it's a great feature to have.
OK, I hung up on the word "mandatory". I completely agree about "the better the lens the better the result (in HiRes mode)".
I'll investigate this further. Normally I'm not thinking resolution is the most important parameter when judging an image technically but I think I see other improvements as well in HiRes mode which makes it interesting.
Great shots, Tony. Couple questions, if you don't mind:
1. Did you notice an improvement in AF tracking with the PL 100-400 over the adapted Canon? Would you say your in-focus rate was less than/about the same as/better than with your Canon setup?
Very nice, Tony! What sequential mode/settings did you use? What are your thoughts on C-AF vs C-AF TR? And what are your general impressions of the E-M1 Mk II so far?
mitesh wrote:
Great shots, Tony. Couple questions, if you don't mind:
1. Did you notice an improvement in AF tracking with the PL 100-400 over the adapted Canon? Would you say your in-focus rate was less than/about the same as/better than with your Canon setup?
2. What was the reason for stopping down so much?
TIA!
Thanks, Mitesh.
1. What with the cold and gloomy weather for last few weeks, I did not really have a chance to shoot much. I think the focus rate was better with the PL. The main plus for me is the smaller size and weight. I really enjoy walking around with the lighter package.
2. With my Canon gear, I mostly shot in shutter priority with ss around 1/2000, but I had Safety Shift enabled so ss would automatically drop if lighting did. With the Oly, I was trying auto ISO, but in those shots the light was bright enough so the camera automatically stopped down to those f-stops.
Still working on best setup and finally getting used to buttons, etc.
bobbytan wrote:
Very nice, Tony! What sequential mode/settings did you use? What are your thoughts on C-AF vs C-AF TR? And what are your general impressions of the E-M1 Mk II so far?
Thanks. For action, I am usually using Sequential Low, which I have set at 8fps. If I want silent shooting, I will use Silent Low at same frame rate. I have the High frame rates set at 15fps. Nice to have the higher rates available, but have not found the necessity to use those high rates so far.
I am tending to use the C-AF TR for subjects against plain backgrounds. I do believe the C-AF TR generally works better in those cases. Still getting used to the EVF for tracking.
A very capable camera that should be supported with better telephoto lens options. I would say "lame", but would get severely flamed by the roasters on this forum, although they are on my HIDE ME list.
It is a shame one has to buy the P/L to get a 100-400 MFT telephoto zoom. The 300 f4 Pro with the TC is not a viable option for most people, and neither is it as versatile. It is a shame there is no Oly 400 f5.6. It is a shame the MC-14 only works on 2 lenses. It is a shame they don't make a 2x TC.
No matter how good the Oly 300 f4 Pro is, it is still ridiculously over-priced. The excellent Canon 400 f5.6 at $1200, and the Canon 300 f4 at $1350 are more sensibly priced.
Imagemaster wrote:
Thanks. For action, I am usually using Sequential Low, which I have set at 8fps. If I want silent shooting, I will use Silent Low at same frame rate. I have the High frame rates set at 15fps. Nice to have the higher rates available, but have not found the necessity to use those high rates so far.
I am tending to use the C-AF TR for subjects against plain backgrounds. I do believe the C-AF TR generally works better in those cases. Still getting used to the EVF for tracking.
A very capable camera that should be supported with better telephoto lens options. I would say "lame", but would get severely flamed by the roasters on this forum, although they are on my HIDE ME list.
It is a shame one has to buy the P/L to get a 100-400 MFT telephoto zoom. The 300 f4 Pro with the TC is not a viable option for most people, and neither is it as versatile. It is a shame there is no Oly 400 f5.6. It is a shame the MC-14 only works on 2 lenses. It is a shame they don't make a 2x TC.
No matter how good the Oly 300 f4 Pro is, it is still ridiculously over-priced. The excellent Canon 400 f5.6 at $1200, and the Canon 300 f4 at $1350 are more sensibly priced. ...Show more →
