This is why I really wanted the E-M5, a sealed body and lens combo I could use for fun shots. It didn't disappoint. Though f/2.8 would have been nice after sundown I don't know if it's worth the cost and size.
Those shots seem to have lost a lot in compression? High ISO? High JPG compression?
Lovely shots otherwise, just feels way bad quality wise for m43.
And the 12-40 2.8 is well worth it. Comparing it to the Nikon 24-70 (I had the first "new" one, released with the D3) it's the same high standard if not higher. Olympus knows how to make optics and how to build them like tanks.
I did use a fairly high compression rendering JPEGs which may be part of it. Looked okay on my screen at the time but didn't do any comparisons. Also probably not great at processing the RAWs yet. Actually don't "feel" too different than Sony files, lots of head room in the highlights, but obviously not as clean shadow recovery. Thanks regardless for the thoughts.
Wilbus wrote:
Those shots seem to have lost a lot in compression? High ISO? High JPG compression?
Lovely shots otherwise, just feels way bad quality wise for m43.
And the 12-40 2.8 is well worth it. Comparing it to the Nikon 24-70 (I had the first "new" one, released with the D3) it's the same high standard if not higher. Olympus knows how to make optics and how to build them like tanks.
Sorry, didn't mean the Oly 1.2 lenses couldn't be fun. I meant that more as I take it places like the beach with my family, I don't necessarily want a large or overly expensive setup.
And actually, the Nikon 50/1.2 on an A7II and Techart Pro is a blast to shoot. Without the Techart it would be a nightmare at f/1.2. As Wilbus notes below, it's not a sharp lens at f/1.2 but if you take the overall image instead of pixels, it draws in an attractive way. The Techart puts the sliver of focus right where you want it, and A7II's IBIS works well, this combo can shoot handled well into the evening. Obviously it's a larger setup though.
I'm also not a shallow DoF junkie, which is actually another reason why I wouldn't spend on the f/1.2 lenses. f/1.4-f/1.7 on m4/3 is thin enough for me. Subject separation and focal distance are still playing a larger role than just a stop or two of aperture.
millsart wrote: Mathieu18 wroteF1.2 glass isn't fun on m43
You can shoot at lower shutter speeds and/or lower ISO, and paired with the amazing IBIS, and AF ability it opens up quite a world of shooting.
Sure your Nikon 50/1.2 on the FF can get shallower DoF (if that is important to you) but how "fun" is it to shoot ?
I'd rather give up a little DoF (I'm honestly not a fan of ultra shallow DoF anyways, because to me it all too often looks like the subject is standing in front of a green screen) and have the ability to handhold my camera, in low light, touch the screen to focus on my subject's eye, and still get a crisp, in focus shoot, at ISO400 and a shutter speed of 1 second.
Again, I'm not a shallow DoF junkie, but I certainly found fast glass on m43 really expanding the shooting envelope of the system, and to me, that brings the fun and enjoyment of the hobby.
I've owned Nikon DSLR's, A7Rii, you name it, fastest and most expensive lenses made, and while some of them were truly exceptional, like the Nikon 105mm f1.4, they weren't that fun, because the operating range was fairly limited. Focusing the 105/1.4 was tricky as I missed a ton of shots with any slight movement, not to mention needing to keep the shutter speed surprisingly high due to no IBIS.
Sure I could produce an image of just an eyeball in focus, so its was a good tool, but it never really felt "fun" as you really had to work at getting the best results. Nothing wrong with working hard mind you, but with m43, the fun, to me, comes from being able to near effortlessly produce results that would of been far more challenging with other systems, if not impossible. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Wilbus wrote: Mathieu18 wroteAgreed, but point being I'm not going to shell out for f/1.2 lenses in M4/3 world. I have an A7II and some nice glass, plus a Techart Pro. If I want thin DoF the Nikon Ai-S 50/1.2 on the TAP is pretty stellar. M4/3 is more about fun and convenience to me.Not saying you should go with F1.2 lenses on m43, I totally understand if you have another system as well BUT the Nikon Ai-S 50mm F1.2 can't be compared to any of the F1.2 m43 offerings. (I have the Nikon 50mm F1.2 Ai-s).
The Nikon is Good at F2 and great beyond that. At F1.2 it's dreamy and characteristic, which is really just a friendly way of saying it's down right optically poor
Now I use it at F1.2 and it can give good results, even in sharpness OK but it really lacks everything in terms of quality at F1.2. Usually not sharp, often depending on distance to subject. Low contrast, dreamy and hazy in highlight areas, lots of CA. Basically every optical flaw a lens can have. Though it does have gorgeous bokeh
The m43 offerings are great from F1.2 and very well corrected for most optical things, not only sharpness.
No, no, I agree with you. The old Ai-S 1.2 doesn't compare to any modern offerings. Part of why I like that lens is it's dreamy at f/1.2 and f/1.4 then switches over to very sharp at f/2. I have no doubt that the f/1.2 Oly lenses are optically pretty good at f/1.2, but then they don't really have an advantage over the Nikkor at f/2... Not arguing against those lenses by any stretch, they just don't make sense for my kit.
Back to photos... If I may, where did the quality come up short on the photos from the other evening? I did compress at a quality of 4, which I've learned anything below 7 compresses tonality as well and things can look muddy, but its also likely my processing. Wondering if you have any detail so I can see where it's coming up short.
bobbytan wrote:
Whatever .... 2 stops more DOF than FF.
k-h.a.w wroteF/2 or f/2.4?
F1.2 is an F Stop marking for both 1/2 as well as 1/3 stops. So in fact a F 1.2 is either half a stop faster or 1/3 of a stop faster than a F 1.4 lens.
Using the conventional 2 stop deficit of m43 sized sensor compared to FF, then is either the dof equivalent of a f 2.5 or an f 2.4 on FF. So either a one and a third stop or a one and a half stop. I don't think Olympus has said, and if that's the case it's probably a safe bet that it's 1/3 better than a f 1.4. Just in the name precision.
I found these recently in a folder that I had processed to ask the folks at phase one why the output sharpening was so far off from what the screen displayed. It was somehow sharpening like crazy in the output, so I need to find the raw files again and re-do them, as I now kind of like the shots. But I know that they are "cruncy" almost to the point of bizarre. Still, I kind of like them now.
They would have been shot with either a Panasonic GF1 or a Panasonic DH2 which were the two I was using back then.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Back to photos... If I may, where did the quality come up short on the photos from the other evening? I did compress at a quality of 4, which I've learned anything below 7 compresses tonality as well and things can look muddy, but its also likely my processing. Wondering if you have any detail so I can see where it's coming up short.
Thanks.
Yes the Nikon 50mm 1.2 does render a dreamy cool look at 1.2, makes it worth keeping
It's hard to say exactly why I think the photos looked compressed. The shots are very nice, nothing about that, just the quality that is far bellow what your camera should deliver and I am quite sure this is the compression.
Do you save in Photoshop? If so, I always save at 12, maximum quality and least compression and rather scale down the photo instead of pulling back on quality. You should easily be able to save a highest quality at 1200px (long side) and still be able to post to FM.
Where I do see the pixel/compression misstakes most is your daughter(I suspect daughter?). I can see the edges around her being pixelated, almost like an old 1990's PC game although far from as much. Also, I see it in her hair, it's very pixelated.
Like I said, I am almost sure this has got to to with the saving and compression. Nothing to do with your processing.
@pr4photos those are all excellent yet again, but what really stands out is the shot with the mushrooms, it's down right excellent. Great colors and composition, love that it feels as if though the we're actually looking up at the mushrooms.
@DarellC excellent photos, my favourites are number 1 and 2, looks lovely and good compositions. How are you finding the GH5 btw? Would be great to here your opinion about it since most of us still photographers use Olympus. Also, how do you find the Oly 25mm on it?
@Pavel, they look great with that gritty look. It suits the stone objects. High contrast, high sharpness looks very cool here. They don't seem over sharpened to me though.
Did you ever send them to C1?
As far as Capture One goes though, I've sometimes found that what looks great in the program, with sharpening and dynamic range etc doesn't always look the same once exported to JPG or even TIFF. It's almost as if the program shows some magic that it just can't simply reproduce after exporting. It's only happened a few times and I easily fixed it by pulling back on some sliders in local editing.
Wilbus wrote:
As far as Capture One goes though, I've sometimes found that what looks great in the program, with sharpening and dynamic range etc doesn't always look the same once exported to JPG or even TIFF. It's almost as if the program shows some magic that it just can't simply reproduce after exporting. It's only happened a few times and I easily fixed it by pulling back on some sliders in local editing.
Reminds me of Sony's IDC raw converter, where photos looked great at 25 % on screen. Sometimes I would take a screen grab, crop and use it online.
mortyb wrote:
Reminds me of Sony's IDC raw converter, where photos looked great at 25 % on screen. Sometimes I would take a screen grab, crop and use it online.
That's one way to go!
C1 files I had problems with looked great at 100% in C1 as well but once converted and exported it fell apart. Like I said, probably over processing on my side but still weird.
That's one way to go! 
