p.5 #1 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
liggy wrote:
As a Sony and OM-1 shooter the only thing I've gotten from this thread is another user for my ignore list.
oh my no?!
please...not the 'i'm going to ignore someone' reply.
what ever will that unfortunate person do?
how will they go on knowing you are ignoring them?
why so mean?
So, i am a Sony and OM-1 shooter too so you can't possibly be meaning to ignore me right?
p.5 #2 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Kasper6188 wrote:
If isolating your subject is your main focus, real world results will always follow the math if you can fill the frame with your subject at 600mm f4 on a full frame vs a 300mm f4 on m43. This is irrefutable
Irrefutable sure and it's not a priority.
to me, 'isolating' means a subject against a 'nice creamy background'.
"bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
we all look directly and specifically at the subject and look at the details of the subject to judge how sharp and plentiful they are." ... and therefor if the image is usable.
the folks i know and shoot with place priority on capturing the subject well and not the background.
I’m not saying the qualities of the background are not important or that I wouldn’t prefer an un-cluttered background. I’m saying most often there isn’t a lot of time or opportunity to fuss around with getting a nicer cleaner background when I’m shooting what I shoot.
p.5 #3 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
Irrefutable sure and it's not a priority.
to me, 'isolating' means a subject against a 'nice creamy background'.
"bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
we all look directly and specifically at the subject and look at the details of the subject to judge how sharp and plentiful they are." ... and therefor if the image is usable.
the folks i know and shoot with place priority on capturing the subject well and not the background.
I’m not saying the qualities of the background are not important or that I wouldn’t prefer an un-cluttered background. I’m saying most often there isn’t a lot of time or opportunity to fuss around with getting a nicer cleaner background when I’m shooting what I shoot. ...Show more →
I suppose it depends on what you shoot and for how long you have been doing it. These days I spend more time worrying about things around the subject than the subject itself unless it’s something truly special. That said I will still share shots that I like despite the background but I am painfully aware of it.
p.5 #4 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
pingflood wrote:
I suppose it depends on what you shoot and for how long you have been doing it. These days I spend more time worrying about things around the subject than the subject itself unless it’s something truly special. That said I will still share shots that I like despite the background but I am painfully aware of it.
+1
The photographer is responsible for the entire photograph, not just the main subject. The foreground & background (the 'negative space') can enhance the subject's story, detract from it, or do nothing. A 'nice creamy background' is very close to a do nothing background while a cluttered background obviously detracts from the subject. Creating a negative space that enhances the subject's story can be difficult; it rarely happens by accident.
One example of a background that enhances an animal's story is one that suggests habitat without being so cluttered that it's distracting. The photographer can create the desired negative space with choice of equipment, time of day (lighting), point of view and other variables within his/her control.
Ignore the background at your peril, it's far more likely an indifferent background will detract than enhance and it's why experienced photographers pay attention to the negative space.
p.5 #5 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
+1
The photographer is responsible for the entire photograph, not just the main subject. The foreground & background (the 'negative space') can enhance the subject's story, detract from it, or do nothing. A 'nice creamy background' is very close to a do nothing background while a cluttered background obviously detracts from the subject. Creating a negative space that enhances the subject's story can be difficult; it rarely happens by accident.
One example of a background that enhances an animal's story is one that suggests habitat without being so cluttered that it's distracting. The photographer can create the desired negative space with choice of equipment, time of day (lighting), point of view and other variables within his/her control.
Ignore the background at your peril, it's far more likely an indifferent background will detract than enhance and it's why experienced photographers pay attention to the negative space. ...Show more →
“The photographer is responsible for the entire photograph, not just the main subject”
right…responsible to whom or what exactly?
Who else might a photographer think would be responsible for specific areas of that photographer’s photograph?
Surely you aren’t suggesting that every person who operates a camera is a ‘qualified’, by some definition, photographer and also a person that is deriving income from operating a camera?
Are you suggesting that an image lacking an ideal background/foreground and/or negative space is not a photograph?
Fortunately for me I’m the only person that has to be satisfied with my images. I’m responsible only to myself.
and yes…I’ve read the books and taken the courses. I know what negative space is too.
Prepare yourself…I don’t care much about it unless I have the time and opportunity to.
p.5 #6 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
“The photographer is responsible for the entire photograph, not just the main subject”
right…responsible to whom or what exactly?
Who else might a photographer think would be responsible for specific areas of that photographer’s photograph?
Surely you aren’t suggesting that every person who operates a camera is a ‘qualified’, by some definition, photographer and also a person that is deriving income from operating a camera?
Are you suggesting that an image lacking an ideal background/foreground and/or negative space is not a photograph?
Fortunately for me I’m the only person that has to be satisfied with my images. I’m responsible only to myself.
and yes…I’ve read the books and taken the courses. I know what negative space is too.
Prepare yourself…I don’t care much about it unless I have the time and opportunity to. ...Show more →
WHOOSH went the clue right over his head.
Dude, this is why some photographers care about more than just the sharpness of the subject. There's more to a photograph than the subject's sharpness.
p.5 #7 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
I am also in the "The only one I need to please is myself". Frankly, I am more concerned with the subject's action. On my last trip I wanted a male Painted Bunting in flight--towards me or at least somewhat so. I had one opportunity on ethe entire trip and I took it. (OM-1 m2 ProCap).
Is the background great? No the background is certainly not buttery smooth and the yellow splotches distract....but...to me the beauty of the bird draws me to the subject.
Another photographer might trash this photo but for me, it's on the wall.
OM-1MarkIIOLYMPUS M.300mm F4.0 lens300mmf/5.61/3200s800 ISO0.0 EV
p.5 #8 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I am also in the "The only one I need to please is myself". Frankly, I am more concerned with the subject's action. On my last trip I wanted a male Painted Bunting in flight--towards me or at least somewhat so. I had one opportunity on ethe entire trip and I took it. (OM-1 m2 ProCap).
Is the background great? No the background is certainly not buttery smooth and the yellow splotches distract....but...to me the beauty of the bird draws me to the subject.
Another photographer might trash this photo but for me, it's on the wall.
Totally agree. My current kit includes the Nikon Z 600mm 4.0TC and as much as I love the lens I do miss shooting with the Olympus 150-400mm 4.5 TC. The 150-400 weight and low bulk made it easy to toss around and quickly shoot with---all that along with the rendering made it one as one of my favorites lens.
E-M1XOLYMPUS M.150-400mm F4.5 lens400mmf/5.01/1000s400 ISO-1.3 EV
p.5 #9 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
pingflood wrote:
While the m43 rig is no doubt easier to use most can handle a modern 600/4 with a little practice. But the m43 setup will let you quicker and easier get into position and sometimes into positions that can be quite challenging with a 600/4.
This is absolutely true, but that's just the "cost" (in terms of weight / size) of getting a 600/4 equivalent (150mm aperture diameter). Its not that reasonable to compare it to the 300/4 (which is a 600/8 equivalent and has a 75mm aperture diameter)
The increase in weight is non-linear, because the increase in glass needed as aperture radius increases is quadratic! (Pi R^2)
However if you use a lens with more similar aperture diameter, like the Nikon 400/4.5 instead (1.1kg, 23.4cm), the weight of the lens is comparable to the Olympus 300/4 (1.27kg, 22.7cm). The Nikon 400/4.5 in apsc mode is equivalent to a FF 600/6.3, which is still faster than the 300/4 (600/8 equivalent)
You end up with a FF system which is slightly lighter than the M43 kit, and should as easy to get into position with.
p.5 #10 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I am also in the "The only one I need to please is myself". Frankly, I am more concerned with the subject's action. On my last trip I wanted a male Painted Bunting in flight--towards me or at least somewhat so. I had one opportunity on ethe entire trip and I took it. (OM-1 m2 ProCap).
Is the background great? No the background is certainly not buttery smooth and the yellow splotches distract....but...to me the beauty of the bird draws me to the subject.
Another photographer might trash this photo but for me, it's on the wall.
Topaz Sharpen AI? To my eye, hideously over-sharpened or actually over-AI'd. Look at all those dots on the wings.
p.5 #11 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
WHOOSH went the clue right over his head.
Dude, this is why some photographers care about more than just the sharpness of the subject. There's more to a photograph than the subject's sharpness.
Right and the simple questions posed remained unanswered.
p.5 #12 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
+1
The photographer is responsible for the entire photograph, not just the main subject. The foreground & background (the 'negative space') can enhance the subject's story, detract from it, or do nothing. A 'nice creamy background' is very close to a do nothing background while a cluttered background obviously detracts from the subject. Creating a negative space that enhances the subject's story can be difficult; it rarely happens by accident.
One example of a background that enhances an animal's story is one that suggests habitat without being so cluttered that it's distracting. The photographer can create the desired negative space with choice of equipment, time of day (lighting), point of view and other variables within his/her control.
Ignore the background at your peril, it's far more likely an indifferent background will detract than enhance and it's why experienced photographers pay attention to the negative space. ...Show more →
“experienced photographers”
I love this.
Oh sure, photography is difficult and complicated and only experienced photographer produce pleasing results.
That explains everything.
The un-learned can’t simply read one of 10 000 photography books and apply its teachings.
That is rich.
p.5 #13 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
"Look at all those dots on the wings."
I did not. I never noticed and now that you pointed it out I still don't care. Nice bird, great experience getting the shot I wanted, end of story. That's my point.
p.5 #14 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
"Look at all those dots on the wings."
I did not. I never noticed and now that you pointed it out I still don't care. Nice bird, great experience getting the shot I wanted, end of story. That's my point.
Peace,
Tom
Come on Tom. You have to fix that. It's too nice a shot to ruin with poor post-processing.
p.5 #15 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
galenapass wrote:
Come on Tom. You have to fix that. It's too nice a shot to ruin with poor post-processing.
It's possible it wouldn't show in a print if the artifacts were caused by downsizing for the web. Sharpening can get funky when you shrink things down sometimes, admittedly I've never seen dots like that show up.
p.5 #16 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom, I really like your image!
He didn't ask for your critiques and what is the point except showing that you cannot follow the three basic rules of behavior in post...is it true (yes)...is it necessary (NO)...is it kind (DEFINATELY NOT!)
Richard
p.5 #17 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Critters wrote:
Tom, I really like your image!
He didn't ask for your critiques and what is the point except showing that you cannot follow the three basic rules of behavior in post...is it true (yes)...is it necessary (NO)...is it kind (DEFINATELY NOT!)
Richard
I thought the thread was about image quality, in particular with the kit mentioned. To make it "acceptable" that image has been processed to death. I suspect the un-AI'd image was poor. YMMV.
p.5 #18 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
formula4speed wrote:
It's possible it wouldn't show in a print if the artifacts were caused by downsizing for the web. Sharpening can get funky when you shrink things down sometimes, admittedly I've never seen dots like that show up.
I've observed this numerous times with the either the wrong noise reduction algorithm (in Topaz) or just using too much noise reduction. What you suggest is possible (sizing issue), but "over-cooking" the shot in post is most likely IMO. Painted Buntings are an really cool bird so I can see spending some time to make this right.
I should also add, to get back to the point of this thread, that I find the A1 files to be more malleable in post than my OM1 files. That, along with the ability to crop, is the reason I don't shoot birds with a m43 system anymore. That does not imply that m43 can't yield excellent results - just look at Robert's post above.
p.5 #19 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
The Painted Bunting is actually printed on metal @ 11 x 14 300dpi via Bay Photo on my wall. The viewing distance is about 6' because the dining room table sits between the picture and where one normally views it. However, I looked at the picture up close and I don't see the dots.
The problem FOR ME is the background. I want to remove the yellow splotches. I am continuing to learn ON-1 post processing software and will reprocess the shot when I get the hang of the latest release which seems to automatically mask anything no matter how small so I hope I can grab the yellow splotches and replace them with green.
This was NOT a good picture technically. The bird took off from the log below and the green and yellow is the grass and flowers directly behind it. Plus, it is a significant crop of a 20mp m43 image.
However, to get back to the original point, I seriously doubt that anybody would, absent dumb luck, get this shot with an A1/200-600. It is a pre-capture (ProCapture) shot @ 50 f/s. These birds are fast and I was not filling the frame in anticipation of the bird flying. Even @ 50 f/s I only had two shots to choose from where the entire bird was in flight and whole in the frame.
p.5 #20 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
The Painted Bunting is actually printed on metal @ 11 x 14 300dpi via Bay Photo on my wall. The viewing distance is about 6' because the dining room table sits between the picture and where one normally views it. However, I looked at the picture up close and I don't see the dots.
The problem FOR ME is the background. I want to remove the yellow splotches. I am continuing to learn ON-1 post processing software and will reprocess the shot when I get the hang of the latest release which seems to automatically mask anything no matter how small so I hope I can grab the yellow splotches and replace them with green.
This was NOT a good picture technically. The bird took off from the log below and the green and yellow is the grass and flowers directly behind it. Plus, it is a significant crop of a 20mp m43 image.
However, to get back to the original point, I seriously doubt that anybody would, absent dumb luck, get this shot with an A1/200-600. It is a pre-capture (ProCapture) shot @ 50 f/s. These birds are fast and I was not filling the frame in anticipation of the bird flying. Even @ 50 f/s I only had two shots to choose from where the entire bird was in flight and whole in the frame.
Hey Tom I like your story and why you like the image. That is what matters in photography, is what the maker likes. It also gives emotion support of a good moment in time that can be remembered when viewed on your wall.
If you do get the chance to go back to Texas for bird migration again, consider trying SH1 120 fps with procapature. Those small birds are very fast and dropping your EV some and upping the ISO you can get much more shutter speed. 1/8,000 is a good start and see if you can get more shutter speed out of it. At 120 fps will give you more wing positions to choose from. Choose a aperture where you can maintain depth of field. Really the shot is over way too quick and having the camera track with the bird may not be necessary as the shot is within around 18 inches of blast off.
Agree that the human has a 1.xx something second reaction time to push the button and most blast offs are missed. I like that you had a vision and pre-planed with your tools available and got the shot you envisioned! Nikon and Sony has also come out with their version of pre capture, so if people choose to use it can also get some results.
