p.7 #2 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
"Are you deliberately trying to make this look bad? Is this maybe your statement of how poor IQ can be for you to still enjoy it? "
That is exactly my point!
This is my best shot of a beautiful bird in flight and it reminds me of the experience so neither I, nor any of my friends who see the shot on my wall or have seen it on facebook give a d@mn about the IQ.
p.7 #4 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
"Are you deliberately trying to make this look bad? Is this maybe your statement of how poor IQ can be for you to still enjoy it? "
That is exactly my point!
This is my best shot of a beautiful bird in flight and it reminds me of the experience so neither I, nor any of my friends who see the shot on my wall or have seen it on facebook give a d@mn about the IQ.
Tom
Ah. Well, good for you then, that wasn't obvious from your posts (to me). Your "back to the actual thread" statement threw me off. I thought you were trying to argue that one could get reasonable results with the system. Which by the way is perfectly possible.
p.7 #5 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Daran,
Peace, No worries.
Tom
PS: BTW I am not very experienced in bird photography. When I scuba dived, I was near professional in underwater macro but that was back in 2011 with a different rig.
p.7 #6 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Daran,
Peace, No worries.
Tom
PS: BTW I am not very experienced in bird photography. When I scuba dived, I was near professional in underwater macro but that was back in 2011 with a different rig.
I honestly have zero idea how to even work underwater (buttons? WB??), even less using macro there (DOF? light). But for birds, I think there is some "potential for improvement" for you to discover:-D
p.7 #7 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Critters wrote:
As a scientist, let me say that one data point is meaningless!
Uh, well, yeah, no. So as a scientist, you did not pick up on this being biased? Or, maybe, being specifically selected to prove a point? Or neither participant claiming this to be representative? Are you sure you know what being a scientist involves? But sure, indeed, N was one. /notSarcasticAtAll
You are seeing critters you almost can't see with the naked eye and you can't see any detail at all.
The White Pigmy Seahorse is the size of a grain of sand and the Tunicates (blue balls) the size of the head of a pin. The Bubble Coral Shrimp showed details never before seen. They were shot in Super Macro (2:1), incredibly rare at that time, and are a serious crop to increase magnification. Noise? Nobody cared. The seawater degrades the image more than any noise can.
For larger subjects, back then, maybe no cropping but the water between the camera and the subject degrades IQ and if you light the water between the subject and the camera you will illuminate particles that will show as spots. (The secret is to have the strobes on long arms and have them angled so they illuminate the subject but not the water between it and the camera.)
p.7 #12 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Daran,
In underwater macro photography, IQ is not much of an issue. It is all about the subject and the action.
Interesting. I would have guessed that shooting through extra glass (water proofing) would rather limit what you can do with standard macro lenses.
For larger subjects, back then, maybe no cropping but the water between the camera and the subject degrades IQ and if you light the water between the subject and the camera you will illuminate particles that will show as spots. (The secret is to have the strobes on long arms and have them angled so they illuminate the subject but not the water between it and the camera.)
That sounds more like the level of difficulty I heard about. I once tried white balancing someones wider angle underwater shot. Seemed like you'd have needed a different WB per depth and per distance. Maybe the water was on the murky side.
p.7 #13 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Hi Daran, i really am sorry that my post offended you!
That was never my intention and I still am uncertain why it did. I really try hard (not always successfully) to not offend anyone and to always be kind and helpful.
Richard
p.7 #14 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Daran-
Water attenuates light but at a different rate depending on the wavelength. What the photographer must do is adjust each color individually until the image looks as it should. You set the white balance as beet you can, then use levels or curves in Photoshop to restore the color balance to the picture.
p.7 #15 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
This should be interesting.
I have a 300 F4 incoming for the OM-1. If it gets here in time I’ll shoot it side by side with an A1 200-600 as the Blue Angels are coming to town this week.
p.7 #16 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
liggy wrote:
This should be interesting.
I have a 300 F4 incoming for the OM-1. If it gets here in time I’ll shoot it side by side with an A1 200-600 as the Blue Angels are coming to town this week.
I’m interested in seeing how it does.
Good luck, and please post your observations!
p.7 #17 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
ruthenium wrote:
Good luck, and please post your observations!
Thanks! I haven't the knowledge or patience to do studio evaluations but will be happy to post up impressions on how they are to shoot - same day side by side.
Very curious myself. .
Got an attractive enough price on the lens so I can resell with a minimal loss if it doesn't work out. It's looking good for being delivered before the practice sessions begin. Fingers crossed!
Update: Arrived today. At first blush - very quick to attain focus. Grabbed an osprey really far away with no hesitation. I need to adjust the tracking sensitivity though. On bird focus and continuous shooting it lost the bird as soon as it flew away.
That seems like operator error as it might be that ProCapture is a fixed focus point even on C-AF. I need to look that up.
Seems really sharp. Also has a surprisingly good MFD.
The image looks pretty soft via imgbb. I was too lazy to downsize to 1.4mb for the forum. It looks great at full res.
). But for birds, I think there is some "potential for improvement" for you to discover:-D
. 