ajamils wrote:
My first outing with P 100-400 mounted on E-M1.2. I love the size, weight and reach of the lens compared to my previous rigs (A7rII + Sigma 150-600, X-T2 + 100-400) but looking at the results could be better with more sharpness and better details.
My first thought is that your issue may be a result of the raw conversion if you are using Adobe LR or ACR. The ACR for the E-M1 II is currently not the final version and produces some pretty poor results. If I'm shooting raw, I will use OV3 for the raw conversion and get better results.
FWIW, I have used the same E-M1 II and PL100-400 on Grebes, Moorehens and Turtles and got way sharper results than yours, so don't be discouraged.....try shooting raw + Super Fine jogs and see if you get the same results from the jpgs.
gary0319 wrote:
My first thought is that your issue may be a result of the raw conversion if you are using Adobe LR or ACR. The ACR for the E-M1 II is currently not the final version and produces some pretty poor results.
Since the final version of ACR is not available yet, I am using Adobe DNG Converter to convert the .ORF files to .DNG files, then opening those in ACR.
Thank you for your suggestion. Is it highly possible that your conclusion is correct because I did you LR6 to convert the RAW files to jpegs.
gary0319 wrote:
My first thought is that your issue may be a result of the raw conversion if you are using Adobe LR or ACR. The ACR for the E-M1 II is currently not the final version and produces some pretty poor results. If I'm shooting raw, I will use OV3 for the raw conversion and get better results.
FWIW, I have used the same E-M1 II and PL100-400 on Grebes, Moorehens and Turtles and got way sharper results than yours, so don't be discouraged.....try shooting raw + Super Fine jogs and see if you get the same results from the jpgs.
I might be able to trade in my Sony A7 and combine it with a current Olympus "200 dollar off" campaign when trading in another camera for a E-M1 Mk II, this would give the E-M1 Mk II for about 1500 USD rather then 1999. It's this or wait and see how the GH5 performs but the price of the GH5 in Sweden is 2499 so that's another grand. I seriously doubt I would find it 1000 USD better. The campaign lasts until the end of February.
The other alternative is to trade in the camera and waste some well saved savings and go for either the 7-14mm Olympus or the 300mm F4. Now these are of course questions I can only answer my self but I would like some input anyway.
How much use have you all found the 300mm F4 to be? How good is it on the E-M1 Mk I. I know it's a long lens and as it is now I don't do much wild life, I would like to start with it though but I also think that the 300mm won't come to its full potential on the Mk I which means I might get pissed off.
The 7-14 is another story, a lens that I want, and in many ways need but it's cheaper and thus easier to save up to again.
So, for those of you who have made the switch. Do you consider the Mk II to be worth it over the Mk I? There is nothing wrong with my Mk I, it doesn't have a lot of shutter counts on its belt (some 12k) as I do mostly portraits and landscapes. It's about a year and a half old which means it's in good condition. However, if I get rid of the A7 I will only have the E-M5 Mk I to fall back on if anything should happen. And while it's a good camera I don't trust it enough (shutter shock for one) to use it seriously on events or even on normal more important shoots such as wild life. I am considering making it my "car camera" with a prime on it.
For what you shoot, I doubt you need the Mark II. I am getting a used Mk I as a backup to my Mk II. The Mk II will have the Pany 100-400 on it and will be used mostly for wildlife and action shots. The Mk I will have the 40-150 f2.8 Pro on it and will be used for landscapes, macro, etc. I don't like changing lenses or putting on and taking off TC's.
The 300 f4 is a great lens, as is having f4. However, since I shoot at 400mm much of the time the Pany is more versatile and at web-size, I see no great difference in IQ between the two lenses.
One can pick up a used Mk I for $600US or less on eBay or FM. I just bought one for just under $600US with a 3-year warranty and less than 130 actuations.
Imagemaster wrote:
For what you shoot, I doubt you need the Mark II. I am getting a used Mk I as a backup to my Mk II. The Mk II will have the Pany 100-400 on it and will be used mostly for wildlife and action shots. The Mk I will have the 40-150 f2.8 Pro on it and will be used for landscapes, macro, etc. I don't like changing lenses or putting on and taking off TC's.
The 300 f4 is a great lens, as is having f4. However, since I shoot at 400mm much of the time the Pany is more versatile and at web-size, I see no great difference in IQ between the two lenses.
One can pick up a used Mk I for $600US or less on eBay or FM. I just bought one for just under $600US with a 3-year warranty and less than 130 actuations.
