whumber wrote:
I really doubt his explanation is accurate, although it's difficult to say what could be causing the results he mentioned without fully understanding how he conducted the test. The difference he showed really looks more like fogging of a lens element than heat distortion.
There is a longer video here:
Steve is fairly well known and does excellent stuff so I do trust his process and results (not to say someone can't make a mistake) but I've personally experienced the same.
whumber wrote:
Oh, the OM workspace software is terrible. The only real use for it is generating TIFF files from hires raws.
That is not its only real use. I use it solely for culling, and for that it works fine and shows precisely what the quality of the image is. From there I convert my keepers to DNGs and proceed with ACR and PS.
HicHic wrote:
Did you try shooting again with IS 1 setting and without hood to see if it improves? I'm on the fence about buying this expensive lens and have heard many negative things about its performance given its extremely high price, so I'm a bit concerned.
i don't know what you've heard but if it's (performance) a knock against image quality of the lens...it's just wrong. Period.
the lens's suffering from heat/temp issues is an issue for all lenses of this size (and smaller). it's a large lens.
it's size takes getting used to. it takes optimal camera settings/skill to not inhibit it's performance just like all lenses in this size category.
Colin has a FF 4/600. he is used to a large lens size. he came out of the m4/3 blocks with spectacular images. he has stated that he may have some sub-optimal camera settings and heat issues to blame for some sub-par performance. i strongly suspect Colin is a very knowledgeable and experienced camera operator and may indeed be correct in his latest assertation.
Paul_100A wrote:
i don't know what you've heard but if it's (performance) a knock against image quality of the lens...it's just wrong. Period.
the lens's suffering from heat/temp issues is an issue for all lenses of this size (and smaller). it's a large lens.
it's size takes getting used to. it takes optimal camera settings/skill to not inhibit it's performance just like all lenses in this size category.
Colin has a FF 4/600. he is used to a large lens size. he came out of the m4/3 blocks with spectacular images. he has stated that he may have some sub-optimal camera settings and heat issues to blame for some sub-par performance. i strongly suspect Colin is a very knowledgeable and experienced camera operator and may indeed be correct in his latest assertation. ...Show more →
Yeah image quality, which leads me to believe the quality control is not great. There shouldn't be that many soft copies and sample variation for a lens at this price.
HicHic wrote:
Yeah image quality, which leads me to believe the quality control is not great. There shouldn't be that many soft copies and sample variation for a lens at this price.
There aren’t.
The people who say there are are wrong and/or mistaken. Period.
I came from the 4/300 and always had either TC attached.
I also had used an FE200-600.
I thought I was used to the focal length and size/weight of a large lenses. I thought I simply get a 150-400 and it’s off to the races. I was wrong.
My initial keeper rate with the 150-400 was shockingly low.
I was concerned that, for the first time in my camera operator life, I got a dud piece of equipment.
I was wrong about that too.
After a while the 150-400 keeper rate got better and better is now more than satisfactory. IQ quality easily rivals my 4/300.
These lenses are all different tools.
HicHic wrote:
Yeah image quality, which leads me to believe the quality control is not great. There shouldn't be that many soft copies and sample variation for a lens at this price.
150-400mm is hand made and tested. I think what you are seeing is people have the urge and money, purchase the lens and don't have a clue or experience how to use a long lens. Results are poor so they blame the equipment and post wherever they can.
Paul_100A wrote:
There aren’t.
The people who say there are are wrong and/or mistaken. Period.
I came from the 4/300 and always had either TC attached.
I also had used an FE200-600.
I thought I was used to the focal length and size/weight of a large lenses. I thought I simply get a 150-400 and it’s off to the races. I was wrong.
My initial keeper rate with the 150-400 was shockingly low.
I was concerned that, for the first time in my camera operator life, I got a dud piece of equipment.
I was wrong about that too.
After a while the 150-400 keeper rate got better and better is now more than satisfactory. IQ quality easily rivals my 4/300.
These lenses are all different tools. ...Show more →
Why did you have shockingly low keeper rate? What is different about using the lens compared to using the 300/4 with TCs that your skill wasn't carried over?
HicHic wrote:
Why did you have shockingly low keeper rate? What is different about using the lens compared to using the 300/4 with TCs that your skill wasn't carried over?
Different tool.
My situation was concerning as I hadn’t read any anecdotes regarding expecting an initial lower keeper rate from the 150-400.
The question is why did my keeper rate increase over and over with the same camera and lens.
I didn’t do any tooling/repairs to either the camera nor lens.
I just kept at it.
I know of a very decent wildlife photographer who claimed he purchased 3 150-400 lenses and found all 3 were soft. He returned all 3 and stated he was going to go with a Sony rig.
I don’t believe for 1 second that his luck was that bad.
I believe he thought the same as me that he was ready to handle the 150-400 and wasn’t for all three times.
Paul_100A wrote:
Different tool.
The question is why did my keeper rate increase over and over with the same camera and lens.
I didn’t do any tooling/repairs to either the camera nor lens.
I just kept at it.
I know of a very decent wildlife photographer who claimed he purchased 3 150-400 lenses and found all 3 were soft. He returned all 3 and stated he was going to go with a Sony rig.
I don’t believe for 1 second that his luck was that bad.
I believe he thought the same as me that he was ready to handle the 150-400 and wasn’t for all three times. ...Show more →
Why did you have shockingly low keeper rate? What was the cause?
Can you provide examples of softness? Many sample variations? Can you provide examples of this concern? I follow three forums for MFT and this is the first I have heard of concerns that the lens is the problem of soft photos.
HicHic wrote:
Why did you have shockingly low keeper rate? What was the cause?
I was using a completely different tool than any other I had used before. Unfamiliarity and inexperience.
Does that not make sense to you?
What do you suppose the cause is of my current, more than satisfactory, keeper rate with the identical equipment?
What is your opinion, if you looked, of the IQ of the extremely cropped samples I PM’d you?
Paul_100A wrote:
I was using a completely different tool than any other I had used before. Unfamiliarity and inexperience.
Does that not make sense to you?
What do you suppose the cause is of my current, more than satisfactory, keeper rate with the identical equipment?
What is your opinion, if you looked, of the IQ of the extremely cropped samples I PM’d you?
Not really. That answer is so vague.
What exactly did you change to your technique to improve the keeper rate?
I saw the photos and don't feel they are of good image quality, but I don't think shooting very distant subjects are a good indicator anyways.
FrankA373 wrote:
Can you provide examples of softness? Many sample variations? Can you provide examples of this concern? I follow three forums for MFT and this is the first I have heard of concerns that the lens is the problem of soft photos.
Reading user comments from various M43/Olympus user groups on Facebook, reviews of the lens on BHPhoto, and YouTube.
HicHic wrote:
Yeah image quality, which leads me to believe the quality control is not great. There shouldn't be that many soft copies and sample variation for a lens at this price.
I really haven't seen reports of IQ issues with the lens specifically. Everyone that I've seen talk about it loves it but maybe I'm not on the right forums or something.
I do think that people who aren't used to 800-1000mm equivalent focal ranges may take time adjusting. For me I really didn't have an issue but I've been shooting 600mm lenses on high MP bodies so roughly the same equivalent FL.
palmor wrote:
I really haven't seen reports of IQ issues with the lens specifically. Everyone that I've seen talk about it loves it but maybe I'm not on the right forums or something.
I do think that people who aren't used to 800-1000mm equivalent focal ranges may take time adjusting. For me I really didn't have an issue but I've been shooting 600mm lenses on high MP bodies so roughly the same equivalent FL.
I think so too. But it's concerning when the ones that have complained about the image quality are users of the 300/4 with TC.
HicHic wrote:
Not really. That answer is so vague.
What exactly did you change to your technique to improve the keeper rate?
hell if I know...like I said...i just kept at it. nothing more i can do to help on that front.
I saw the photos and don't feel they are of good image quality, but I don't think shooting very distant subjects are a good indicator anyways.
you are 100% correct on both points.
"What exactly did you change to your technique to improve the keeper rate?"
hell if I know...like I said...i just kept at it. there is nothing more i can do to help you with on that front.
you, being a 4/300 owner, do have a fair concern in reading that some 4/300 owners are/were having issues with the 150-400 but you should know now that those reported issues are not due to faulty/defective/sample variation equipment.
of course those extreme crops are not good image quality. they are small songbirds 50 meters away and 50 meters high in a tree. i was shooting handheld as I usually always do. i shot them to ID the birds I hadn't seen before or heard before. I couldn't even see anything more than movement and a splash of color by eye alone.
i posted the un-cropped shots too in order to evaluate the IQ from the extremely cropped samples.
(the cropped samples look far better when viewed in the site's viewer window)
as I said in that post, they are simply extreme samples...not keepers.
however, I posted them because i believe they are good enough samples, showing a surprisingly high amount of sharpness and detail considering the distance, to provide an evaluation of the 150-400/OM-1 combo (at one extreme) and to know that the IQ only gets better from there.
*as I said in that post...i've never used a high Mp FF milc (just a 24 Mp A9 and FE200-600).
i'd love to see the same extreme cropped samples from a FF high Mp rig to compare.
Paul_100A wrote:
you are 100% correct on both points.
"What exactly did you change to your technique to improve the keeper rate?"
hell if I know...like I said...i just kept at it. there is nothing more i can do to help you with on that front.
you, being a 4/300 owner, do have a fair concern in reading that some 4/300 owners are/were having issues with the 150-400 but you should know now that those reported issues are not due to faulty/defective/sample variation equipment.
of course those extreme crops are not good image quality. they are small songbirds 50 meters away and 50 meters high in a tree. i was shooting handheld as I usually always do. i shot them to ID the birds I hadn't seen before or heard before. I couldn't even see anything more than movement and a splash of color by eye alone.
i posted the un-cropped shots too in order to evaluate the IQ from the extremely cropped samples.
(the cropped samples look far better when viewed in the site's viewer window)
as I said in that post, they are simply extreme samples...not keepers.
however, I posted them because i believe they are good enough samples, showing a surprisingly high amount of sharpness and detail considering the distance, to provide an evaluation of the 150-400/OM-1 combo (at one extreme) and to know that the IQ only gets better from there.
*as I said in that post...i've never used a high Mp FF milc (just a 24 Mp A9 and FE200-600).
i'd love to see the same extreme cropped samples from a FF high Mp rig to compare.
Both images cropped down to about 7mp. I wouldn't say I was far away from the Harrier but to be honest once you get a certain distance it doesn't matter what gear you have, IQ is going to be subject to so many variables that it isn't going to matter.
Paul_100A wrote:
you are 100% correct on both points.
"What exactly did you change to your technique to improve the keeper rate?"
hell if I know...like I said...i just kept at it. there is nothing more i can do to help you with on that front.
you, being a 4/300 owner, do have a fair concern in reading that some 4/300 owners are/were having issues with the 150-400 but you should know now that those reported issues are not due to faulty/defective/sample variation equipment.
of course those extreme crops are not good image quality. they are small songbirds 50 meters away and 50 meters high in a tree. i was shooting handheld as I usually always do. i shot them to ID the birds I hadn't seen before or heard before. I couldn't even see anything more than movement and a splash of color by eye alone.
i posted the un-cropped shots too in order to evaluate the IQ from the extremely cropped samples.
(the cropped samples look far better when viewed in the site's viewer window)
as I said in that post, they are simply extreme samples...not keepers.
however, I posted them because i believe they are good enough samples, showing a surprisingly high amount of sharpness and detail considering the distance, to provide an evaluation of the 150-400/OM-1 combo (at one extreme) and to know that the IQ only gets better from there.
*as I said in that post...i've never used a high Mp FF milc (just a 24 Mp A9 and FE200-600).
i'd love to see the same extreme cropped samples from a FF high Mp rig to compare.
HicHic wrote:
How could you know that it's not caused by sample variation?
two things...Olympus has been known for a very long time not to suffer from sample variation.
the 150-400 is their best of the best as far as build quality/craftsmanship.
secondly.
my Nikon friend switched to M/43.
i told him to start with the 4/300 instead of the 150-400. i explained my entire history/saga with Olympus, the 4/300, and the 150-400 to him.
he ignored my advice because he admired the IQ i got from my 150-400 and he was using a heavier 60-600 Sigma lens at the time. he was used to the size, weight and focal length.
well guess what?
his OM-1 150-400 keeper rate was an issue right off the start. he stood next to me and copied all of my camera settings.
he thought his 150-400 lens must be a dud. he has been shooting a lot longer than me (more experienced camera operator)
while out shooting warblers side by side he loudly complained that his lens was junk because he was not getting the shots i was getting.
i put his lens on my camera and immediately showed him sharp crisp images that he couldn't get.
i am very confident that the 150-400 is of the highest build quality and craftsmanship from what i know and have learned along the way.
if and wen i want to I can indeed capture sub-par images from my OM-1 and 150-400 that I would never post and i don't. those are my standards and not everyone has the same standards.
you are wisely shopping. looking for positive and negatives. unfortunately there is little hard/scientific evidence to support either point(s). sure are a lot of great images to support the lens' being pretty good though.
leap of faith, buyers remorse, your decision to make. at least you now know that if you got a 150-400 and got a low keeper rate initially...you may just need to keep at it (or you may have a dud but i'd doubt it).
i will also say that if suspected the lens was garbage i most certainly would not advise anyone (including any complete stranger) that it was a great thing to have/use.
?