How satisfied are you with your E-M5?

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Questions thread
Loga
Contributing MemberPosts: 752Gear list
Like?
Re: I can show you the phenomenon...
In reply to gollywop, Jul 2, 2013

gollywop wrote:

Loga wrote:

You really don't see? On the second image, it is obvious IMHO.

I really don't see. There is nothing particularly "obvious" in the "posterization" category, and there is absolutely nothing cartoon like in either photo.

For your eyes, at your monitor, it can be. For me, there is lack of fine transitions in both photos.

And I also would not say that the first one is awkwardly exposed. Moreover, I think the first one is well exposed considering the opportunities (need flash light, no bounce opportunity).

If you're going to the trouble of using fill flash (whose presence IS obvious), then you might as well have attempted to take the shot without blowing out the sky behind. The first shot is indeed awkwardly exposed, both overall and on the face. You may not have had a bounce opportunity, but a diffuser would have helped a great deal. Your shutter speed of 1/50 sec. for that shot was clearly too long to provide a proper balance between the ambient lighting and the flash.

To my eyes, the first photo is well exposed. Both overall and on the face. Since I made more than one shot, and set the ambient and the flash with compensations carefully until I got the result I liked and this is it. The ambient is well exposed even if the sky is bright on that part. The overall brightness of the background equals with what I saw there with my own eyes. Yes, I could have underexposed to avoid highlights burnout, however, I don't think they are burned out (I can't check now), so you can make them less bright, if it matches more to your taste, but as it is now is fine for me!

The faces? They have enough light, what means to me that they are well exposed. Yes, you are right, the _quality_ of the light would have been better, and I could have used a diffuser as well; but in my view it's not the exposure = quantity of light; but the quality of light. Am I wrong?

My images often has cartoon or comic-book like look.

I too can get images to have a cartoon-like look. But this occurs either because of overprocessing or taking a shot of a cartoon-like scene (such as a group of lots of little brightly colored houses taken from afar.)

As to focus, I only homed in on the faces and didn't look at the rest of the image. Neither the 14 nor the 25 should have produced such soft results (even wide open) unless they were really out of focus or the camera focused on the wrong part of the scene, leaving the faces out of the DoF. This is particularly relevant to the second shot.

Then I have to check my OM-D with an expert, because many times this quality is what I get with my primes wide open. Above a certain subject distance, the subject became much less sharp when wide open, even if it is fully in focus (iterated shots with auto focus each time). But can be a front/back focus phenomenon with CDAF as well? Or there is some other problem with my OM-D?

Do you get much better results with 14, 25, 45 primes wide open at moderate subject distances? Could you show me examples?

Anyway, thank you for your time you sacrifice for my problem.

-- hide signature --

gollywop

 Loga's gear list:Loga's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
AlsoNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow