100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!

micksh6 wrote:

Torlang wrote:

How can the image quality out of the EM1 be too grainy at ISO200?

It's only possible if OP underexposes.

This is incorrect.

It can be grainy if you shoot high contrast scene and boost shadows a lot, but it's not what many people do, so it's probably not the case here.

No. I've shoot at base ISO (200) sunny landscapes with "proper" exposure giving an on-camera even histogram.

However, you have to push the curves when processing RAW since a flat curve gives you underexposed shots (unless the RAW processor applies a preset curve for you). This is a "philosophy" Oly adopted since the old E620: ISO200 and ISO100 has identical sensor sensitivity/gain (supposedly to protect highlights), with different exposure curves applied. Because of this, I've set my E3 and E5 with an Expose Shift of +1EV, to expose to the right. The problem with that is that the VF tricks you... But you get used to that. I will quite probably do the same with the EM1 (Gears > Utility > Exposure Shift), it's the only different setting I have from my E5 (as possible).

Especially when OP says that E-M1 is noisier at base ISO than E-5, a camera with 6 year old sensor. This tells that mastering exposure and camera settings properly should be the first item in to-do list.

Indeed.

However, while the EM1 and E5 are different, I've swept the whole menu of the EM1 to match as close as possible my E5. The differences now are all in favor to get an EM1 proper exposure thanks to the beautiful EVF (Live histogram, etc).

As for comparison test - close-up pair shows that 100-300 is sharper. But, at least some telezooms can show good quality at closeups and then degrade at longer focusing distances. So, 1st pair should be more relevant comparison. I also wonder if 0s anti-shock was enabled during the test.

People here forbid me to shoot without it, so I enabled it while the camera was locked in the box. I didn't enable the "short" lag setting, to save battery.

And regarding the first image pair - I have a weird feeling that 50-200 shot was focused farther than what crop shows, above cropped area. I could be wrong, of course. OP, would you be able to show full image?

Unfortunately, the tests are deleted. But, as I said, I shoot 10 pictures with each setting, and kept the sharpest (it was difficult to choose, since all pictures were very similar). It's only a weird feeling.

Also, was there any reason to choose non-flat, inclined surface for lens resolution comparison?

As you wrote, it's much better to decide if there is a front/back focusing when the surface is inclined. Same for the statue, with lots of details at different distance just to detect focusing problems. That's the reason.

Cheers,

L.