arbitrage wrote:
Just give up the dream now Mitesh....no matter what you try Romy will have you beat and you will just embarrass yourself anyways...
Ok, doctor of dentures, the gauntlet has been thrown down! I hereby challenge the Birdman of the Philippines and all other takers to a focal length duel!
Just ordered some microwave popcorn from Amazon. Fun times ahead!
mitesh wrote:
Ok, doctor of dentures, the gauntlet has been thrown down! I hereby challenge the Birdman of the Philippines and all other takers to a focal length duel!
MedicineMan404 wrote, at page 77, post 17:
Lets start a 'detail' competition.....not really to win, no medals to be issued....just to motivate at least me to put the Nocticron on and have a go.
The original and then the crop as the individuals discretion
Shame, the long lenses never leave the M1ii, there's 23 mFT lenses here
I know Poof would like the challenge.
At page 63, post 5, you can see an hi-res image taken with the mundane Olympus 17/1.7. The USAF chart test in the same post clearly shows a higher resolution is achieved. Here is another example, not showing very much but at least something. The high resolution mode has to be the feature of the OM-D E-M1 I miss most of all. I like how the hi-res images are free from false details and colours. Maybe I'll try to find a used Pen-F some day just for this.
MedicineMan404 wrote, at page 77, post 16:
I do have a nit someone might help me with.
Camera held away from face, I press 'play' wanting the image to viewable by the time I get the camera up to my eye...all I see is viewfinder view until I press play again. Just me? Cant this be beat? Minor nit though.
Thick skin on MM? What you describe may be one of the problems I had with the camera. Check my post at the top of page 75 (and skip reply #4 on the same page - you have already read it). The camera behaviour is logic in a way, in another way not so much. Then again, I still haven't run into a camera making everything "right".
BTW I just ordered the 25/1.2 lens for my trip to Venice in a couple of weeks!
I have seen some remarkable images taken by you at Venice!
I liked the 25/1.2 very much. However, if focusing is critical (as when printing big) and you work with f2-f2.8 there is a slight focus shift. The solution was to focus manually with the aperture blades closed. Wide open of course works fine and at f4 or so the problem is again solved, partly thanks to the DOF I guess. Maybe check this out before you leave for Venice.
You'll get great images with less longitudal CA than any other lens this fast I know of. Clean and crisp and when needed really sharp from border to border. Congratulations and good luck with portraits and colours at the festivitas!
mitesh wrote:
Ok, doctor of dentures, the gauntlet has been thrown down! I hereby challenge the Birdman of the Philippines and all other takers to a focal length duel!
Simple, just buy a Pentax Q and stick a 1200mm lens on it!
Jonas B wrote: bobbytan wrote, at page 78, post 8:
I have seen some remarkable images taken by you at Venice!
I liked the 25/1.2 very much. However, if focusing is critical (as when printing big) and you work with f2-f2.8 there is a slight focus shift. The solution was to focus manually with the aperture blades closed. Wide open of course works fine and at f4 or so the problem is again solved, partly thanks to the DOF I guess. Maybe check this out before you leave for Venice.
You'll get great images with less longitudal CA than any other lens this fast I know of. Clean and crisp and when needed really sharp from border to border. Congratulations and good luck with portraits and colours at the festivitas!...Show more →
Thank you Jonas, and thank you for the advice on the focus shift problem. Didn't know that a mirrorless camera with a native lens would have a problem with focus shift. I thought focus shift was only a DSLR problem. I was hoping to use that lens at f2 which I think is a good balance between lens speed, background blur and sharpness/resolution.
I was planning to have the 25/1.2 on one body and the Nocticron 42.5/1.2 lens on my other body, attached to my custom double shoulder strap .... and Oly 12-40/2.8 and Panny 7-14 in my photo vest pockets.
But because we will be doing quite a bit of available light photography I may have borrow a friend's A7R II + 24-70 GM lens for that. This means I may end up with the Sony on one side and the E-M1.2 with either f1.2 lens on the other side. I don't like the idea of shooting with different systems though - and having to take different batteries, etc. So I may just forget about the Sony combo and hope that I don't have to go beyond ISO 1600.
Five days ago our neighbor reported her first seasonal observation of Sandhill cranes heading north above her house in White Rock, NM.
Today I spotted a flock of 15 Sandhill cranes heading north, pretty close to the direction of the Sun from my location.
Nice Tony. Wondered where you had disappeared to the last couple weeks. I see you were just waiting for the beast to arrive...or maybe you just lost power and were buried in snow
Will look forward to both yours and Mitesh's reviews on that 300 vs the 100-400.
Oh and by the way, here is a nice thread that some guy from V. island started that would be more suited to just sharing images with the camera if you aren't going to discuss the camera along with your image.... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465619
Assumptions, assumptions. My Mac's graphic card packed it in and put me out of service.
A generous FM'er has lent me his 300 for a few days. Flu and snow has also slowed me down. Took 4 test shots yesterday and was surprised that the 300 Pro images did not look noticeably sharper than the Pany shots. Bare 300 and Pany at 300mm looked very close, as did 300 with TC and Pany at 400mm.
Imagemaster wrote:
Assumptions, assumptions. My Mac's graphic card packed it in and put me out of service.
A generous FM'er has lent me his 300 for a few days. Flu and snow has also slowed me down. Took 4 test shots yesterday and was surprised that the 300 Pro images did not look noticeably sharper than the Pany shots. Bare 300 and Pany at 300mm looked very close, as did 300 with TC and Pany at 400mm.
Good to hear that the average user can't see a difference between the two, that speaks highly of the Pany. Although for low light I think the little extra room on the 300f4 will make a difference.
Imagemaster wrote:
Assumptions, assumptions. My Mac's graphic card packed it in and put me out of service.
A generous FM'er has lent me his 300 for a few days. Flu and snow has also slowed me down. Took 4 test shots yesterday and was surprised that the 300 Pro images did not look noticeably sharper than the Pany shots. Bare 300 and Pany at 300mm looked very close, as did 300 with TC and Pany at 400mm.
In terms of sharpness you are probably right, but the Olympus prime lens should give you far more resolution/detail if we go by the Image Resolution charts from LensTip:
bobbytan wrote:
Thank you Jonas, and thank you for the advice on the focus shift problem. Didn't know that a mirrorless camera with a native lens would have a problem with focus shift. I thought focus shift was only a DSLR problem. I was hoping to use that lens at f2 which I think is a good balance between lens speed, background blur and sharpness/resolution.
I was planning to have the 25/1.2 on one body and the Nocticron 42.5/1.2 lens on my other body, attached to my custom double shoulder strap .... and Oly 12-40/2.8 and Panny 7-14 in my photo vest pockets.
But because we will be doing quite a bit of available light photography I may have borrow a friend's A7R II + 24-70 GM lens for that. This means I may end up with the Sony on one side and the E-M1.2 with either f1.2 lens on the other side. I don't like the idea of shooting with different systems though - and having to take different batteries, etc. So I may just forget about the Sony combo and hope that I don't have to go beyond ISO 1600....Show more →
Hi,
Focus shift is a lens property, it doesn't matter if there is a mirror behind the lens or not. I described my experience of it somewhat here. Just to check I also shot two series of USAF charts. Boring images of course but also revealing.
Series 1 carefully focused, manually, at f/1.2 and then I took an image at every f-stop without touching the focusing ring. The images then looks the same as when autofocusing (which always is done with the lens wide open) if the camera nails the focus every shot.
Series 2 carefully focused, manually, but now refocused for every image and that with the aperture blades stopped down to the working aperture.
At f/2 and f/2.8 the manually refocused images was slightly sharper. That explained the results Castleman got when reviewing the lens and it also explained why I the the day before thought the camera sometimes missed the focus slightly.
The auto-focused images are (unlike the images taken with a Canon and their 50/1.2L, or the Minolta 58/1.2, or the Summilux-M 35/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE) usable no doubt but they aren't as sharp as they can be. This is true at both short and long distances. There simply is some residual SA making the focal plane move a little.
Anyway, I think it's worth to check out before shooting those importing and detailed images.
Lenstip is the only bad review of Panny, though none is glowing like 300mm's. A fellow member here who runs admiringlight.com has a very good review of the Panny.
I haven't seen mind blowing shots from Panny yet.
bobbytan wrote:
In terms of sharpness you are probably right, but the Olympus prime lens should give you far more resolution/detail if we go by the Image Resolution charts from LensTip:
nandadevieast wrote:
Lenstip is the only bad review of Panny, though none is glowing like 300mm's. A fellow member here who runs admiringlight.com has a very good review of the Panny.
I haven't seen mind blowing shots from Panny yet.
I don't think it's that bad of a review. It is a long zoom, and a slow one, so the results and conclusions are not unreasonable. The flexibility of the zoom is a huge asset, and as a previous poster noted, he can't tell a difference so it may not matter to a lot of people depending on their experience and requirements.
As always, there are compromises to be made, I would loved to have purchased the 300f4, the best lens so far for m4/3rds in my view, but, its too heavy for in both weight and cost terms and won't zoom
So I had only the one option, despite no in-lens focus limiter (but a three setting in-body focus limiter that works well with the 100-400) and for me, no sync IS or pro capture , I could afford it, hand-hold it all day and rapidly change focal length when the subject races toward me (surf board, bird or what ever it may be)
