14-35mm f/2.0 full-size sample with spectacular detail

.... you post a great sample and phrase your experience...

--
Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

I want one...

But there is some very weird like pixel sharpening going on. Or is it just pure noise? No, these pixels are damaged. Just look into the shadows, or anything darker than off white.

Here is 100% crop of what I am talking about. My first impression was that you took several images with the phone cam and then stitched them all together. It's that familiar,

Seriously, I just do not see this kind of stuff coming from dSLRs these days.

--
-sergey

Where do you see it Sergey? I see nothing of sorts at 100%. Looks very clean, crisp detail, good transitions, amazingly sharp.

is riddled with white / gray dots. Look closer. Unless these are kind of pixels you get from this camera I say this image was modified, and quite not so nicely.

--
-sergey

Too bad you so extremely over-sharpened the image; sort of defeats your point.

--
Mark
my gallery: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5120988127/albums

If you can't see something wrong with those pixels, there's something wrong.

Its riddled with artifacting. Its got a texture in the shadows that really does look like a noise layer has been superimposed in photoshop via an opacity layer, and even the power lines have something strange going on ... look at the left hand third, it looks as if there are segments MISSING in what should be continuous wires crossing the screen!!

Smacks of the same processing Marin applies to his images, they initially look sharp, but on examination, you start to see its gone WAY over the top, and all sort of artificiality creeps in.

I grabbed the 14-35 refurbished from Oly when the price dropped to $1161 cdn for a couple of days prior to Christmas.
It blows my mind. So nice.
These are OOC jpegs, so Sergy, please tell me what is wrong with these. I know there not full from images so they have no merit. They are just some studio flash gun tests.
I also included a shot at 70mm, heavily cropped and processed, showing Jupiter and 3 or 4 of its moons.



if he posted the image unprocessed then it would be a better indication of what is actually going on.

--
The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Sergey was commentating on the OP's image which is full of artefacts, there is a big difference between the I.Q. of the different sets of images shown. He wasn't criticising the lens.

--
The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Yup, I see what you mean. Looks like oversharpening to me. I don't believe that's how it comes out of the camera, if you pull back sharpening a bit or use better sharpening technique it should go away

If I added any sharpening (Unsharp mask) there would be halos or "ringing" around edge boundaries, and my image has none of the sort. I added no sharpening to this image, but also *no noise reduction*, something that all commercial RAW developers do, whether you select it or not.

Only by using a very tunable open-source demosaicing engine, and doing absolutely no noise reduction (including no impulse noise reduction, which gets rid of the noisy pixels present in ALL digital images) can one show the true resolution of the lens, which you have to admit is impressive.

What you are looking at, my friends, is the RAW and naked truth of bayer-pattern image sensors, which can never resolve single-pixel detail perfectly. On most other cameras, you would see a smoother, blurry electric wire. The resolution is so high here, that it literally causes problems to the demosaicing engine, hence the slight discontinuity. I could have posted a perfect, smooth, 10MP downsampled image instead, but chose to show what the lens - and only the lens - can do.

If I processed this image in any other way, the clear rendition in, for example the grass, could not be done as finely as this. I did not post this image to be a smooth, noise-reduced, plasticky digital image. I posted it to illustrate the power of this lens.

I am amazed how some people can mistake the *lack* of any processing for sharpening. Sharpening can be spotted a mile away.

Hello philosomatographer,

Did you use amaze, or an alternative algorithm?  Also, have you experimented with or found any optimum values for green equilibration?

Best wishes,

Yes, I use the amaze algorithm. I have not found any general optimums yet, as such - most default settings work well for me. It's only great at low ISO, as it really brings out the noise - but also the true captured detail, without moiré aliasing - fantastic for printed landscapes.

Sharp is indeed the word. So much detail in that photo. It appears we've both recently joined the zuiko trinity club!

Yes that is a wonderful lens and almost to sharp for my liking as a wedding lens but still want it <grin>

I can't help but notice how quick some are to jump on a thread to tell someone what is wrong with an image but I never see these same people jumping on threads to say how nice an image is or how sharp a certain lens is. These folks are some of the most technically savvy people on this board, and wonderful photographers who's points are usually accurate.

I guess some folks are just more drawn to post technical flaws then they are compliments and yes they are at times helpful to me in noticing things I would not have noticed otherwise. Guess it's just human nature, some half full, others half empty. I must admit that I learn things from the pixel peepers that I otherwise would not have known.

In the above image I would not have thought to blow it up and examine it to look and see if the OP was being truthfull so at times it's almost as if some are looking for things to critisize. Still another glaring point I can't help but notice, is that these people are usually CaNikon shooters but I'm certain that doesn't affect their objectivity. (Sarcasm)

--
"Don't Be Afraid To See What You See"
Darrell

Very true words - thank you for your reply...

Here is the irony - no amount of sharpening or processing can create detail - it's either there, or it's not.

Darrell,

if you are familiar at all with my posting history, equipment I use and what I think of Olympus cameras and lenses, you are likely to agree it would be highly ironic to designate me as a troll. In this particular case however, the image was posted with invitation to analyze the IQ, with comment of no artistic value to it - and yes, I do see artifacts in particular areas that do look like effect of oversharpening. I've no idea where they came from, I don't have anything like that on my E-5 files. I'll leave it to others to find the reason - but in this particular file they ARE there.

he started a thread saying how much detail an image had and how sharp it is, and then provided a 100% image to pixel peep, whilst your argument may be valid in another post it is misplaced in a thread started to prove those very technical things you have described. If he wanted C&C he didn't mention it, he called some people trolls and then dared them to provide a image more technically sharp and full of detail than his own.

The image is also full of artefacts for some reason, and not what some of us expected from his OP, and this has been discussed in the general theme of the thread.

--
The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.