Is it my imagination or does the canon lens have a much nicer rendering then the 300f4 pro. Also does it auto focus with the metabone adapter ?
DanC.Licks wrote:
Now the Canon 400/5.6 is another story. It is a wonderful match for the E-M1, Mark I or II (Metabones adapter). I got a very nice new copy a short while ago for a steal, and on my new Mark II it is, well, simply great!
Why would you even bother with the generic/universal L-plate? Since it's not a dedicated plate, I am assuming that the generic/universal L-plate will not be of the anti-twist type, which is no good. If you are using a ballhead, you can always use the drop notch and flip your camera sideways. For short lenses twisting is not going to be a problem. For longer lenses you should be using a lens plate, so again, locking the rig down shouldn't be a problem.
ijm5012 wrote:
Just placed an order for my RRS base plate. I didn't go for the $100 L-plate, as it's just absurd. What I'll do instead is just purchase a generic L-bracket, and anytime I want to shoot portrait orientation on a tripod I'll attach it beneath the RRS plate.
I have an RRS plate for my E-M1 & E-M5 II and love them both. Excellent products, although there's definitely a bit of price-creep that's taking place. The base plate for the E-M1 costs $65, while the one for the E-M1 II is $15 more expensive at $80, and for no real reason either, as the cameras are extremely similar in size....Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
Why would you even bother with the generic/universal L-plate? Since it's not a dedicated plate, I am assuming that the generic/universal L-plate will not be of the anti-twist type, which is no good. If you are using a ballhead, you can always use the drop notch and flip your camera sideways. For short lenses twisting is not going to be a problem. For longer lenses you should be using a lens plate, so again, locking the rig down shouldn't be a problem.
Because the generic L-plate is $15 vs. $100 for the RRS, which is a complete rip-off (how can they charge $80 for the entire baseplate, and then charge $100 for the smaller L-bracket?).
The notch in the ballhead works fine for a single shot, but most of the time when I'm orienting vertically on a tripod, it's because I'm going to be putting the camera on a panoramic head (not one of the large multi-piece units meant to correct for parallax, just a base that rotates about the central axis of the tripod). By using the notch on the ballhead, you're bound to get an uneven horizon as you rotate, which can ruin an image when cropping to remove the mis-alignment.
By using the panoramic base, I avoid this entirely, and can take multi-shot panoramas in a vertical orientation, without concern that part of the image is going to be chopped off when I merge the shots together.
ijm5012 wrote:
Because the generic L-plate is $15 vs. $100 for the RRS, which is a complete rip-off (how can they charge $80 for the entire baseplate, and then charge $100 for the smaller L-bracket?).
The notch in the ballhead works fine for a single shot, but most of the time when I'm orienting vertically on a tripod, it's because I'm going to be putting the camera on a panoramic head (not one of the large multi-piece units meant to correct for parallax, just a base that rotates about the central axis of the tripod). By using the notch on the ballhead, you're bound to get an uneven horizon as you rotate, which can ruin an image when cropping to remove the mis-alignment.
By using the panoramic base, I avoid this entirely, and can take multi-shot panoramas in a vertical orientation, without concern that part of the image is going to be chopped off when I merge the shots together. ...Show more →
I think I need to shoot a flat target and not a tree trunk as I did here.
My preliminary take: big tuna improves from f/2.8 to f/4 significantly.
At f/4 the two lenses seem comparable to my eyes.
I also shot a dark low contrast target with big tuna.
C-AF focused with flying colors, S-AF failed.
These tests require more work if I want to believe them.
I think I need to shoot a flat target and not a tree trunk as I did here.
My preliminary take: big tuna improves from f/2.8 to f/4 significantly.
At f/4 the two lenses seem comparable to my eyes.
I also shot a dark low contrast target with big tuna.
C-AF focused with flying colors, S-AF failed.
These tests require more work if I want to believe them.
Good night, K-H.
Thanks for your effort and initial impressions, K-H. Yes, a flat, contrasty target would help eliminate possibility of focus error. I'll keep an eye out for your continued experimentation between these two lenses.
Hi Mitesh,
Naaaaah... I just point and shoot! I usually don't have time to be looking at histograms when things happen fast, and blinkies get on my nerves...
Seriously... I try to keep things to the right to make up for the huge discrepancy in the rated and the measured ISO in the Mk II. They say they did it to protect the highs, and maybe they are right, but almost two stops? Extreme... (see DxO)
In general I find the Mk II files somewhat more forgiving, and as the ISO goes up, less noisy than the Mk I.
Is anyone else having trouble with the camera losing the time and date settings if the battery is out of the camera for more than a few days? I've left the battery in for multiple days thinking maybe the internal battery or capacitor or whatever just takes a while to charge, but every time the camera sits empty for a while I have to reset the time and date. I'd rather not have to keep the battery in the camera all the time when I'm not using it. My Nikons for the same time period have no trouble keeping the settings without the battery installed.
Hi Erich,
As a matter of fact, mine keeps jumping forward a day. I have reset it four times and my computer keeps telling me the pictures I shot this afternoon I actually shot tomorrow!
I haven't noticed when it happens.
I will reset it now and leave the battery in over night and see what happens.
mitesh wrote:
Thanks for your effort and initial impressions, K-H. Yes, a flat, contrasty target would help eliminate possibility of focus error. I'll keep an eye out for your continued experimentation between these two lenses.
Hi Mitesh, I finally have something you were asking for. Here https://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2017-04-03-E-M1230028-SHG-Focus-Chart-AFMA-0-10-1/i-wmbd9bN
you find 3 images, shot at 6m distance, in this order big tuna 300/2.8 SHG @ f/2.8, f/4.0, 300/4.0 PRO @ f/4.0.
As my big tuna was back focusing about AFMA = -3 to -4, I set the AutoFocusMicroAdjustment in the E-M1.2 to AFMA = -3.
I didn't adjust my 300/4.0 Pro as I didn't see the need to carefully examine it. From my experience it seems spot on.
For big tuna the main difference I noticed when going from f/2.8 to f/4.0 seems to be an increase in microcontrast.
Many thanks, fascinating. Here are the numbers from my camera.
MS: mechanical shutter 003691
S: Flash fired
C: manual sensor cleaning
U: ultrasonic sensor cleaning (effectively how often you turned the camera on) 001075
B: Number of actuations with IBIS switched to on 027696
Amazing, I haven't used the mechanical shutter in quite a while, K-H.
In the feathers of the front bird in the last image a moiré pattern is visible, indicating a sharp lens with feathers in focus.
Using f/3.2 seems a good compromise to keep ISO low and shutter speed high to counter subject motion.
DanC.Licks wrote:
Hi Erich,
As a matter of fact, mine keeps jumping forward a day. I have reset it four times and my computer keeps telling me the pictures I shot this afternoon I actually shot tomorrow!
I haven't noticed when it happens.
I will reset it now and leave the battery in over night and see what happens.
Turns out to have been the incorrect date on my iPhone 4s! If you use OiShare the camera automatically syncs with the phone. Shows how dependent I am on my iPhone!
I actually only bought it because there was no other possibility to remotely control an E-M1.
My ancient iPhone 3G was good enough for my needs....
K-H
Those look good. I would say the focus is just where it should be. I would actually vote for f/4. The mass of the lens will add lots of stability, and I find the DoF on the third shot just right, but a tad too shallow on the second.
Lovely lens, that!
DanC.Licks wrote:
K-H
Those look good. I would say the focus is just where it should be. I would actually vote for f/4. The mass of the lens will add lots of stability, and I find the DoF on the third shot just right, but a tad too shallow on the second.
Lovely lens, that!
Thanks Dan. Generally - if there is sufficient light - I agree with you.
I had in mind taking images of Turkey Vultures when they return to their roost for the night.
It's already pretty dark then, in particular on an overcast day.
Also, in my experience many Olympus lenses have peak sharpness when stopping down 1 f-stop.
, let's just try four distances: 5m, 10m, 20m, and infinity. Thanks, buddy!
