Despite the blue sky background, liked how the bald eagle seems to have posed here for her mid-air portrait
I was using Zone AF area here but don't remember whether or not I was using Tracking. Unfortunately, on this one, my A1 seemed to have missed the critical focus on the eye and instead focused on the back wing. Luckily Topaz Sharpen AI seemed to do a decent job here in rescuing these frames for me...
Excellent photographs, specially the two last ones from the heron. Very evocative and nicely composed. Congrats
The more I see the A1+600 GM results the more I am finding out the 200-600 G shortcomings on the A1. The 600 GM lens retains something difficult to explain in words and that my eyes instantly grab onto it. I am talking about IQ parameters absent in the zoom. It's all about the lens (and the photographer, of course )
I've been lately watching photographs in the M43 forum and wondering about the A1 with 600 f4 or 200-600 against the OM1 with 150-400 f4.5 TC Pro or 100-400 f5-6.3 and even 300 f4. What grabs my attention is that M43 shows much more depth of field at equivalent focal lenghts, and consequently the birds (mainly if they are tiny) are rendered completely in focus from tail to beak, in a somewhat hyper realistic way... maybe too much real for my blood. I am not sure about this, so I still have to digest it to reach to a conclusive conclusion.
200-600 on A1 cropped by a factor of 1.4 (1 stop) is 840 mm f/9 at the long end.
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 is equivalent to FF 800 f/9
The resulting images are going to be of similar MP size
The two lenses are practically equivalent (without a TC), thus the depth of field should also be very similar.
These two lenses happen to be of nearly the same length 318 (Sony) vs 314.3 mm (without the hoods). The Sony is a heavier lens.
The cost of A1+200-600 is roughly the same as the cost of OM-1 + 150-400mm.
If you stop the 200-600 to f/8, this should give you the same depth of field as the 300 f4
Excellent photographs, specially the two last ones from the heron. Very evocative and nicely composed. Congrats
The more I see the A1+600 GM results the more I am finding out the 200-600 G shortcomings on the A1. The 600 GM lens retains something difficult to explain in words and that my eyes instantly grab onto it. I am talking about IQ parameters absent in the zoom. It's all about the lens (and the photographer, of course )
I've been lately watching photographs in the M43 forum and wondering about the A1 with 600 f4 or 200-600 against the OM1 with 150-400 f4.5 TC Pro or 100-400 f5-6.3 and even 300 f4. What grabs my attention is that M43 shows much more depth of field at equivalent focal lenghts, and consequently the birds (mainly if they are tiny) are rendered completely in focus from tail to beak, in a somewhat hyper realistic way... maybe too much real for my blood. I am not sure about this, so I still have to digest it to reach to a conclusive conclusion....Show more →
Thanks!
I really like the look the 600GM gives. Not sure how much is in my head. I can say the background rendering is much better as expected with the wider aperture. I have shot in the location the heron pictures were taken many times with the 200-600. An f4 vs f6.3 really makes a huge difference is rendering the ugly rocks in the background a non issue. The light at the location also helps at sunrise and sunset with the shaded dark water and lit subject.
I have no experience with M43 cameras but many people get great shots with them. I just looked up the OM1 and the stacked sensor, 50 fps and preshot buffer in a small package sure sounds nice.
I really like the look the 600GM gives. Not sure how much is in my head. I can say the background rendering is much better as expected with the wider aperture. I have shot in the location the heron pictures were taken many times with the 200-600. An f4 vs f6.3 really makes a huge difference is rendering the ugly rocks in the background a non issue. The light at the location also helps at sunrise and sunset with the shaded dark water and lit subject.
I have no experience with M43 cameras but many people get great shots with them. I just looked up the OM1 and the stacked sensor, 50 fps and preshot buffer in a small package sure sounds nice.
For sure it's not in your head I can also see what you'r seeing. The GM lens produces a so beautiful rendering, plenty smooth alongside buttery bokeh and also with very detailed and natural focused regions. So yes, it's a fantastic lens for wildlife.
Olympus' ProCapture, ie preshot buffer, is a great invention. Buffering images just when you half press shutter button and recording in the memory card the previous 14 images before the moment you completely pressed the shutter should be incorporated in the A1. This helps a lot with photographer's time reaction in critical timings. It really is "back in time".
ruthenium wrote:
200-600 on A1 cropped by a factor of 1.4 (1 stop) is 840 mm f/9 at the long end.
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 is equivalent to FF 800 f/9
The resulting images are going to be of similar MP size
The two lenses are practically equivalent (without a TC), thus the depth of field should also be very similar.
These two lenses happen to be of nearly the same length 318 (Sony) vs 314.3 mm (without the hoods). The Sony is a heavier lens.
The cost of A1+200-600 is roughly the same as the cost of OM-1 + 150-400mm.
If you stop the 200-600 to f/8, this should give you the same depth of field as the 300 f4 ...Show more →
Hi Ruthenium
Very comparable thanks to A1's 50 mpx. But I'm not certain DOF being similar at same aperture. I have seen landscape shots taken at f2.8 with everything in focus. I'm not a tech guy, but my eyes tell me that M43 photographs I am seeing show much more DOF. I suppose it's related to a quite smallish sensor. I'm also inclined to think that lots of M43 users employ excessive oversharpening to their images, making it somewhat unnatural and crispy, although this is not related to the system itself.
JeyB wrote:
But I'm not certain DOF being similar at same aperture. I have seen landscape shots taken at f2.8 with everything in focus. I'm not a tech guy, but my eyes tell me that M43 photographs I am seeing show much more DOF. I suppose it's related to a quite smallish sensor.
Very comparable thanks to A1's 50 mpx. But I'm not certain DOF being similar at same aperture. I have seen landscape shots taken at f2.8 with everything in focus. I'm not a tech guy, but my eyes tell me that M43 photographs I am seeing show much more DOF. I suppose it's related to a quite smallish sensor. I'm also inclined to think that lots of M43 users employ excessive oversharpening to their images, making it somewhat unnatural and crispy, although this is not related to the system itself.
Theoretically, a M43 system with the focal length fl mm and the aperture f and a FF system with the focal length 2 x fl mm and the aperture 2 x f should have equivalent DOF. To quote from the link suggested by Daran: "the 50mm f/2 (M43) lens is giving ... the same depth-of-field as a 100mm f/4 lens is on Full Frame." It is correct to expect that, e.g. the 300 f4 (600 mm f8 FF equivalent) should have a greater DOF vs the FF 600 mm at 6.3. Whereas one can close the aperture on a FF system to increase the DOF, one cannot open the aperture beyond the fastest f value on a M43 system.
Note that a greater DOF may or may not be beneficial. To me, the birds often look better when the background is smooth and out-of-focus. This also seems to be the case in the images you liked, obtained at 600 mm and f4 (shallow DOF) vs 600 mm and f6.3.
