RSK01 wrote:
I think someone has recommended this before. DXO PureRaw3. There is a 30day free trial. You might be surprised with the output.
Yes, I am curious about this, but wondering about what would then be my workflow. Presently (and for the last 10 years), I open my DNG file in ACR (CS6) where I make any & all adjustments, then straight into PS for various required treatments, and then I run it through Topaz Photo AI (plug-in) for noise & sharpening, then back into PS where I save it as a full size JPG for any & all future use.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, but it's soft due a combination of the 2X TC, low light, low shutter speed, and significant cropping on a lowly 20MP sensor.
If you're THAT far away from your subject, such that 150-400+2x would still require a significant crop, then any high megapixel full frame setup will produce even worse results, since you will need to crop even more to get that close. You have more megapixels on the subject with the M43 setup because the pixel density is higher.
It converts raw to dng with sharpening and denoise. I think you can follow your workflow from there. Usually, I don't need Topaz Photo AI after using PureRaw3.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, I am curious about this, but wondering about what would then be my workflow. Presently (and for the last 10 years), I open my DNG file in ACR (CS6) where I make any & all adjustments, then straight into PS for various required treatments, and then I run it through Topaz Photo AI (plug-in) for noise & sharpening, then back into PS where I save it as a full size JPG for any & all future use.
HicHic wrote:
If you're THAT far away from your subject, such that 150-400+2x would still require a significant crop, then any high megapixel full frame setup will produce even worse results, since you will need to crop even more to get that close. You have more megapixels on the subject with the M43 setup because the pixel density is higher.
Then how do you explain this, taken with A1 and 600 f/4 with 1.4 (840mm), at the same distance?
OK, so I downloaded the free trial of DXO. I do observe a better treatment of noise, and the result on feather detail this file below is indeed better, but noticed not really any difference on some other files I had processed using Topaz. *I also felt that after DXO did its thing I needed to add just a touch of sharpening on the bird using NIK (with a brush), as is often the case when working on files that weren't sharp to begin with. The sharpening that NIK does seems to be a much "finer" sharpening, rather than the plastic-like look Topaz gives.
The main thing I'm wondering about: It seems that with DXO, there's no "controls" over noise, sharpness and especially subject selection (which any software usually needs a little adjusting/correcting), it just does it's own thing and spits out the result - is that how it works?
It's a 600mm lens with 1.4x vs a 400mm lens with 2x.
If you adapted the a 600/4 with 1.4 x on the OM-1, the results would be better.
This is a limitation of the lens, not the sensor.
Also curious how you know it's the exact same distance. Are you shooting the same perch and standing in the same spot as that 600/4 setup? Or are you guessing?
The 600/4 is also a 840mm F5.6 with the TC.
The 150-400 is a 800mm F9 with the TC.
So, you have to raise the ISO on the M43 setup. For a perched subject, 1/320 is excessive. You can get away with 1/60 or even slower. Fire burst shots and find a sharp image in the bunch. It's not ideal, but it's the price you'll have to pay when working with a lighter, slower lens.
You should be able to get very similar image quality when working with perched subjects, but you can't shoot the same way you shoot full frame. With M43, you are playing the game in hard difficulty. You need to learn how to maximize image quality when working with slower glass of a lesser focal length. Using slower shutter and keeping your ISO down is one way. Take bursts. You'll have a lot of throw aways due to movement blur from the subject moving. But you will find a sharp shot in there. I was photographing Pacific Wren in very low light, taking bursts as slow as 1/5s on a monopod. Low keeper rate, but there are sharp shots in there with minimal noise.
HicHic wrote:
It's a 600mm lens with 1.4x vs a 400mm lens with 2x.
If you adapted the a 600/4 with 1.4 x on the OM-1, the results would be better.
This is a limitation of the lens, not the sensor.
Also curious how you know it's the exact same distance. Are you shooting the same perch and standing in the same spot as that 600/4 setup? Or are you guessing?
The 600/4 is also a 840mm F5.6 with the TC.
The 150-400 is a 800mm F9 with the TC.
So, you have to raise the ISO on the M43 setup. For a perched subject, 1/320 is excessive. You can get away with 1/60 or even slower. Fire burst shots and find a sharp image in the bunch. It's not ideal, but it's the price you'll have to pay when working with a lighter, slower lens.
You should be able to get very similar image quality when working with perched subjects, but you can't shoot the same way you shoot full frame. With M43, you are playing the game in hard difficulty. You need to learn how to maximize image quality when working with slower glass of a lesser focal length. Using slower shutter and keeping your ISO down is one way. Take bursts. You'll have a lot of throw aways due to movement blur from the subject moving. But you will find a sharp shot in there. I was photographing Pacific Wren in very low light, taking bursts as slow as 1/5s on a monopod. Low keeper rate, but there are sharp shots in there with minimal noise. ...Show more →
Colin knows the distance to be the same because it is shot off his deck. The Sony was taken in stellar light and assume with faster shutter speed?
Colin was the 800mm (1600mm) at shutter speed 1/320s hand held? I ask as that slow of a shutter speed with 1600mm is looking through a longer straw and needing better support and long lens technique. Perhaps a tripod? All birds have movement even perched. Hand held we always have movement. Faster shutter speeds and or support devices help overcome our movements. Telescopes are mounded on a sturdy base support for a reason.
Your skills in capture and editing show well, I think you did a good job with the lighting and distance to subject and cropping. It would have been a fun experiment to try engaging the 1.25 extender for 1000mm (2000mm) to see more pixels on the bird and less cropping. Your SS would have been lower and a lot more magnification showing motion blur on your part.
Glad you got the Stabilizer setting sorted out and I will be adjusting our OM-1 to match.
Cheers, Patrick
HicHic wrote:
Also curious how you know it's the exact same distance. Are you shooting the same perch and standing in the same spot as that 600/4 setup? Or are you guessing?
It's about the same, as I'm shooting off my deck.
For a perched subject, 1/320 is excessive. You can get away with 1/60 or even slower.
Please, give me a little credit for knowing what I'm doing. Not only do these birds constantly move around, but there was also some wind significantly moving the perch around. 1/320 was bare minimum, with most shots blurry.
Colin F wrote:
Please, give me a little credit for knowing what I'm doing. Not only do these birds constantly move around, but there was also some wind significantly moving the perch around. 1/320 was bare minimum, with most shots blurry.
Lol, I usually browse FM from mobile, so I had not even seen this until I viewed the desktop site just now. Such an amateur!
Colin F wrote:
It's about the same, as I'm shooting off my deck.
Please, give me a little credit for knowing what I'm doing. Not only do these birds constantly move around, but there was also some wind significantly moving the perch around. 1/320 was bare minimum, with most shots blurry.
Sheesh Colin. I'm giving you credit just for managing to hold your tongue as long as you have. You're much more of a gentleman than I am
I've been watching this thread closely. Advice to some posters; It's always a good idea to "know your audience"
Tripod. The shot from the A1 was taken at 1/200 sec on a tripod.
I didn't realize you shot them on different days and conditions...that makes the whole comparison moot. You got away with 1/200 with 840mm vs 1/320 being your supposed best possible with windy conditions at 800mm. So with the A1 setup, you had faster aperture AND conditions that favored a slower shutter. Not to mention, shot on completely different days. With so many variables changing, how do you know which particular variable is the cause of the difference in results?
This whole time I thought you had a proper side by side comparison made. Not completely different lighting conditions, wind conditions and shot on different days. Even from the reflection in the bird's eye, you can see cloudy overcast light in the OM-1 shot, and clear light in the horizon on the A1 shot. Lighting conditions are completely different.
You can continue to believe that the A1 setup produces better photos, just know that your "test" is hardly scientific.
HicHic wrote:
If you're THAT far away from your subject, such that 150-400+2x would still require a significant crop, then any high megapixel full frame setup will produce even worse results, since you will need to crop even more to get that close. You have more megapixels on the subject with the M43 setup because the pixel density is higher.
*******************
Colin F Wrote
Then how do you explain this, taken with A1 and 600 f/4 with 1.4 (840mm), at the same distance?
***********************
HicHic perhaps slowing down and absorbing what is printed may help understand what Colin has said.
My takeaway is that Colin responded to your comments (on above cut and pasted text) that he should have better results. He never said it was a comparison between equipment. I think you assumed that it was. If anything the two images have in common is about the same distance. The Sony was at 840mm where as the OM-1 was at a equivalent 1600mm. You can do the math and see that the Sony was cropped a lot more than the OM-1 was. That is where you mentioned that the OM-1 would have more pixels on the subject and be better than any full frame. The Sony does very well. In fact it is the equipment to a point, but in the hands of a experienced person that gap is closed very thin.
All this over analyzing is not so much pertinent to what Colin is sorting out with a new system to him. Colin is here on the forum not to bash products, but to understand and get the most out of a system that with medical reasons, have chosen to use M-4/3 to still be able to enjoy his love and passion. Let's help him out.
I would love to spend a day out with Colin shooting birds and such. It appears he is a professional in obtaining images and how he holds his personality in check.
********************
As sum1sgrampa said:
Sheesh Colin. I'm giving you credit just for managing to hold your tongue as long as you have. You're much more of a gentleman than I am
I've been watching this thread closely. Advice to some posters; It's always a good idea to "know your audience"
RSK01 wrote:
I think someone has recommended this before. DXO PureRaw3. There is a 30day free trial. You might be surprised with the output.
The more I use DXO, the more I see what a better job it does than Topaz Photo AI, so thanks for the tip; I will buy it once the free trial month expires.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to re-process 88,569 files with it - .
PV Hiker wrote:
HicHic wrote:
If you're THAT far away from your subject, such that 150-400+2x would still require a significant crop, then any high megapixel full frame setup will produce even worse results, since you will need to crop even more to get that close. You have more megapixels on the subject with the M43 setup because the pixel density is higher.
*******************
Colin F Wrote
Then how do you explain this, taken with A1 and 600 f/4 with 1.4 (840mm), at the same distance?
***********************
HicHic perhaps slowing down and absorbing what is printed may help understand what Colin has said.
My takeaway is that Colin responded to your comments (on above cut and pasted text) that he should have better results. He never said it was a comparison between equipment. I think you assumed that it was. If anything the two images have in common is about the same distance. The Sony was at 840mm where as the OM-1 was at a equivalent 1600mm. You can do the math and see that the Sony was cropped a lot more than the OM-1 was. That is where you mentioned that the OM-1 would have more pixels on the subject and be better than any full frame. The Sony does very well. In fact it is the equipment to a point, but in the hands of a experienced person that gap is closed very thin.
All this over analyzing is not so much pertinent to what Colin is sorting out with a new system to him. Colin is here on the forum not to bash products, but to understand and get the most out of a system that with medical reasons, have chosen to use M-4/3 to still be able to enjoy his love and passion. Let's help him out.
I would love to spend a day out with Colin shooting birds and such. It appears he is a professional in obtaining images and how he holds his personality in check.
********************
As sum1sgrampa said:
Sheesh Colin. I'm giving you credit just for managing to hold your tongue as long as you have. You're much more of a gentleman than I am
I've been watching this thread closely. Advice to some posters; It's always a good idea to "know your audience"
My response is to his comment that, "he should have better results". My comment is that he shouldn't expect to, given the reasons I have provided. The conditions were different in such a way that was unfavorable on the day he shot with the OM-1. Is that hard to understand?
And yes, he has a medical condition so he needs to use M43. He should not have doubts about the system because of the poor results he got. It would help him to learn and understand that the poor results were caused by the conditions he shot in, not because of the camera in his hands.
HicHic wrote:
The conditions were different in such a way that was unfavorable on the day he shot with the OM-1. Is that hard to understand?
It would help him to learn and understand that the poor results were caused by the conditions he shot in, not because of the camera in his hands.
Interesting. You were not there, and have no idea of the conditions; yet I was, and me telling you that the conditions, distance etc were nearly identical is simply dismissed. That is revealing of your character.
Colin F wrote:
The main thing I'm wondering about: It seems that with DXO, there's no "controls" over noise, sharpness and especially subject selection (which any software usually needs a little adjusting/correcting), it just does it's own thing and spits out the result - is that how it works?
i had the same question until i looked at a few tutorial videos on control point. while others editing sw use masks & layers, dxo use control points for localized editing.
dxo took the concept of control point from the nik sw & refined it.
hopefully, i've pointed you im the right direction.
Colin F wrote:
Interesting. You were not there, and have no idea of the conditions; yet I was, and me telling you that the conditions, distance etc were nearly identical is simply dismissed. That is revealing of your character.
You had to use 1/320 instead of 1/200. If the conditions were the same, why did you need to use a faster shutter to combat the wind as you said?
I don't contest your point about distance. I'm assuming you're honest about the bird being on the exact same perch and you shot it from the same position.
As for lighting, you can easily see from the reflection in the bird's eye what the skies looked like during shooting.
You may simply have forgotten the exact conditions of the day. It may not have been "sunny" on the day you shot with A1, but there was certainly light in the horizon, and not completely grey and overcast. Just look in the bird's eye's reflection and you will see it. You are human and prone to error in memory, it's very normal to mistake the light conditions as being identical.
I don't have to be there to know these things. The photos themselves and your statements about the settings used tell the story.
.