X_Holger
Forum Enthusiast
see above
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!
- Thread starter luisflorit
- Start date
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Funny conclusions you arrived to. I don't need to conclude anything, but just read what you wrote: you processed the images completely differently (sharpening! proprietary software that who knows what other presets apply, totally different RAW processors...), you took a shot of a different image, you were a few thousand miles away (different days, humidity, heat from the roofs, etc).I looked at these first four images (I am assuming 100% crops) and concluded one of the following.
1. The OP let the camera focus and the first four are completely out of focus.
2. The OP turned off IS for all the first four images and the images are blurred due to camera movement.
3. Both lenses are defective.
I took a photo of my grey roof focusing on the bottom of a 2,5 inch vent from approximately 20 meters and raised the shutter speed to give f5.6. The full resolution image is attached. Then I took the OP image a selected the same number of pixels around the only detail in the first image and took the same number of pixels from the focus point from my image. Note the difference in clarity (Olympus Viewer 3 conversion to tiff, LR - sharpening 35 with radius .7 and saved as jpg from CS6 - no noise reduction) compared to the image OP image. You can easily read the small print on the vent cover that says you should tear out the center ring for a 3 inch vent.
Anyway, I've a sharpening slider too. I swear!
Something I also did was to shoot hand held, since this is the only thing that matters to me (if it is the IBIS that doesn't work well with the 50-200, it is irrelevant for me). Certainly that added small amounts of blur. Yet, the crop you choose was at 1/400s, while the toucan was at 1/30s. And, as I wrote, I took 10 pics of everything, with virtually identical results.
Cheers,
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
luisflorit
Veteran Member
We shoot at different apertures, it could be that. At more than F5.6 you get diffraction phenomena with a 2x crop sensor. Not sure how you processed the RAW files, nor which RAW processors you used. And, after all, we have different copies of the lenses.I don't think that the findings of "luisflorit" are correct.
There is something wrong with his set-up.
I did a short test with the 50-200 SWD + EC-14 compared to the Olympus 75-300 at 300mm.
Here is a 100% crop at F6.3 / F6.7
both manually focussed with 14x magnification
Sturdy tripod, no IS, 75-300 with Manfrotto 293 Telephoto Lens Support, AntiShock 10 sec, cable release
First 50-200 SWD + EC-14 F6.3 (officially 283mm)
Second the Olympus mFT 75-300 F6.7 at 300mm
I think the difference is easy to see ......
And I doubt it would be any different with the Panasonic 100-300
Cheers,
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Last edited:
Anders W
Forum Pro
If it is noisier than your E-5 at base ISO, even if comparing on a per-pixel basis rather than at equal resolution, there is something wrong. Although I don't know the E-5, I know both sensors. I have a G1 (E-5 sensor), an E-M5, and an E-M1, and the last two are miles ahead at any ISO. Don't have anything but uninteresting test pictures to offer from the E-M1 yet. But do you see much in the way of noise here?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53777038
bgalb
Senior Member
Without commenting on the various photos shown on this thread, I find that my 100-300 is sharper at full zoom than my 50-200 SWD +1.4 TC. My 50-200 without the TC is an all around sharper lens than my 100-300 at any common zoom level.
Edit: I can also hand hold the 50-200 at least 1 stop faster than the 100-300.
Edit: I can also hand hold the 50-200 at least 1 stop faster than the 100-300.
Last edited:
micksh6
Senior Member
I think this is correct.
I mostly go by your statement "E-M1 is noisier at base ISO than my E5". I think you discovered something new here, a revelation that nobody was able to find before. I suggest to create a separate thread for this finding, and see what happens.
E-M1 (and actually all Olympus m4/3 cameras since 2008) has blinkies to help you in choosing proper exposure. E-5 couldn't have them with optical viewfinder. The blinkies have been the way to set proper exposure for a while now. So, you probably have a room for improvement in mastering exposure with micro 4/3.
Too bad that you couldn't keep the files for a few days. Now we won't know the truth.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).
People here forbid me to shoot without it, so I enabled it while the camera was locked in the box.
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.
I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.
But, now I see at least two posters also came up with controlled tests of the same lens combo and the results confict with yours. I think you need to come to agreement with them first.
X_Holger
Forum Enthusiast
These are jpegs out of the camera (E-M1) cropped with photoshop, each crop is 4,18 x 4,18 cm.
No RAW processing .... no additional sharpening .... distance from target around 3 meters.
The full size jpegs give exactly the same impression.
No RAW processing .... no additional sharpening .... distance from target around 3 meters.
The full size jpegs give exactly the same impression.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Wihat shutter speed was used? Why no EXIF? With 10-second AS (as opposed to 0-second), there are serious shutter-shock issues that may well work out differently for different lenses.
luisflorit
Veteran Member
I observed it mostly in landscapes shots, in large even areas (not necessarily deep shadows, but also not so dark areas). Skies are noisier, too.
To be fair, I would rather say that the noise is "different". There is more absolute grain in the EM1, but it is finer, and doesn't bother me. But sharpening brings it up.
Next sunny day I will take a shot for you to see what I mean (cannot take a shot with my E5 since my 12-60 is dead).
OTOH, my E5 was nailed at ISO500, since anything above that was too noisy for my taste. And yesterday I took several ok ISO2500 shots with my EM1 (like the toucan I posted), and even one usable ISO4000.
Cheers,
L.
I have a 100-300 and I just ordered a 50-200 Mk I (KEH) and a cheap EC14 (EBay). I seem to remember finding several similar comparisons on the web that reached different conclusions....to read such a thread - after all i just hit the buy it now button for a Pana 100-300 a few minutes ago
I'm not wildly thrilled with the 100-300 at full zoom so this could be disappointing (if true).
luisflorit
Veteran Member
The E5 (like virtually all decent cameras) also have what you called "blinkies", only in the LCD, of course. The only difference is that you have to take you eye from the viewfinder to check for exposure after shooting (something that is actually quite important to me, a big plus for m43rds).
We? You don't, I do.Too bad that you couldn't keep the files for a few days. Now we won't know the truth.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.
How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test?? I have extremely sharp images from the 50-200 with both TC's, you just have to process them correctly instead of flat for testing. This shot was taken with the same 50-200 copy, but with the "quite soft" 2.0TC:
Best,
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Yes, that's why I wrote "surprised" in the title. But others also say differently (read below the thread).I have a 100-300 and I just ordered a 50-200 Mk I (KEH) and a cheap EC14 (EBay). I seem to remember finding several similar comparisons on the web that reached different conclusions....to read such a thread - after all i just hit the buy it now button for a Pana 100-300 a few minutes ago
Well, we will have different copies, so maybe your 100-300 is softer than mine. Actually, I've read in this very forum people strongly complaining about the 100-300 at full zoom, and others posting shots showing that this was not true (I'm sure you read these yourself). Maybe everyone is right, and there is lots of variations in the 100-300? This was the case with the famous Bigma (Sigma 50-500), for example.
I'd wait for your lens to arrive, and do your tests.
Cheers,
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Last edited:
drj3
Forum Pro
I have a 100-300 and I just ordered a 50-200 Mk I (KEH) and a cheap EC14 (EBay). I seem to remember finding several similar comparisons on the web that reached different conclusions....to read such a thread - after all i just hit the buy it now button for a Pana 100-300 a few minutes ago
I'm not wildly thrilled with the 100-300 at full zoom so this could be disappointing (if true).
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Even worse then!! Oly STRONGLY processes their pictures on camera.
I can process shots to sharp as yours, but that was not the intent of my thread (posted this above to answer the same complain, same 50-200, but with the "softer" 2.0TC):
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Last edited:
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Yes, I expect that too. I just didn't test it without the TC because I never use my 50-200 without it, since it is too short for wildlife photography. I think it is glued...
Interesting. We were discussing about this the other day. My conjecture is that this is because of inertia, since the 50-200+TC weights almost 2 pounds more than the 100-300. I will test that.
Something funny is that I expected to be able to handhold the 12-40 at 1/5s or so after what I saw about the 100-300, but was wrong. Need to go at 1/30s or so to get consistent results.
Cheers!!
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Last edited:
Anders W
Forum Pro
This is with the E-M5 rather than the E-M1. But do you see much in the way of sky noise here? And I couldn't go all that far with exposure in this case since the scene is counterlit (sun lurking behind a tree) and I didn't want to clip any highlights.
You should sharpen less as the pixel count goes up. Sharpening brings out noise badly with LR if you go beyond default. I am now using Focus Magic to deal with that. It does a better job than LR with sharpening. Normally, LR default is enough for me. But sometimes I want more.
You are a much better bird photographer than I am (I am just dabbling in this department) and these are nothing to write home about. But I think they demonstrate pretty well what the E-M5 (and I am sure the E-M1) with the 100-300 can do, technically speaking (both available at 100 percent).
Good. Looking forward to that.
Yes, it's a big difference in how far you can go.
Last edited:
luisflorit
Veteran Member
No, definitely the grain I see in your shot is better than the one I see in mine. However, as you know, this is a processed shot, so it is in fact very hard to tell just from this. I can of course process mine to look even better than yours, and so you can (read below).
Yes, sure. What I do, ALWAYS, is selective sharpening. Yes, I know is a pain in the a**, but the results are much better. This is hard for birds in rainforests, but much easier in a shot like yours, because you can select the whole sky with the click of a button. You won't find any noise in any sky in my home page shots.
Good example!! I'm so pleasantly surprised...
Cheers!
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Anders W
Forum Pro
OK. But there was no selection of anything here, or in the shot below. And no NR beyond LR defaults. I would have to look back to tell for sure when it comes to sharpening. But my guess is that the first is with LR deffaults and the second a bit more than that (but in way that does not provoke too much noise).
Yes, sure. What I do, ALWAYS, is selective sharpening. Yes, I know is a pain in the a**, but the results are much better. This is hard for birds in rainforests, but much easier in a shot like yours, because you can select the whole sky with the click of a button. You won't find any noise in any sky in my home page shots.
Good example!! I'm so pleasantly surprised...
Cheers!
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Yeah, I suspected that.
Maybe is that. I never used LR (Linux user here). I hate noise, but hate NR even more. The finest detail is very important to me.
I see.
I'll take a shot, and post the ORF file for you to play with. That's the only way for you to understand what I mean.
Anyway, I will apply exposure shift of +2/3 EV to all my pictures, as I do with my E5, since Oly RAW files are exposed to the left for ISO 200 and above (since the E620). That will take care of good amount of noise.
L.
PS: some of the arguments here in my thread remembered me why I left the forum, that you asked me the other day...
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Last edited:
drj3
Forum Pro
I at least indicated specifically how I processed my files and attached a full resolution file with EXIF. You provided cropped files with no information about the crops or processing. I save RAW files and use a single focus point and choose targets with at least moderate contrast for testing. You supplied none of the information about your image or processing and the first target had little contrast except for the roofing screw. However, if you would supply your original EXIF file, I can easily process my file in exactly the same way using Olympus Viewer and export them to jpg, since Viewer can replicate any camera settings. You lighting conditions were not that different (one stop). If you used some other processor rather than the Olympus image processor to convert Olympus RAW files, then that my explain why your files look so blurry.Funny conclusions you arrived to. I don't need to conclude anything, but just read what you wrote: you processed the images completely differently (sharpening! proprietary software that who knows what other presets apply, totally different RAW processors...), you took a shot of a different image, you were a few thousand miles away (different days, humidity, heat from the roofs, etc).I looked at these first four images (I am assuming 100% crops) and concluded one of the following.
1. The OP let the camera focus and the first four are completely out of focus.
2. The OP turned off IS for all the first four images and the images are blurred due to camera movement.
3. Both lenses are defective.
I took a photo of my grey roof focusing on the bottom of a 2,5 inch vent from approximately 20 meters and raised the shutter speed to give f5.6. The full resolution image is attached. Then I took the OP image a selected the same number of pixels around the only detail in the first image and took the same number of pixels from the focus point from my image. Note the difference in clarity (Olympus Viewer 3 conversion to tiff, LR - sharpening 35 with radius .7 and saved as jpg from CS6 - no noise reduction) compared to the image OP image. You can easily read the small print on the vent cover that says you should tear out the center ring for a 3 inch vent.
Anyway, I've a sharpening slider too. I swear!
Something I also did was to shoot hand held, since this is the only thing that matters to me (if it is the IBIS that doesn't work well with the 50-200, it is irrelevant for me). Certainly that added small amounts of blur. Yet, the crop you choose was at 1/400s, while the toucan was at 1/30s. And, as I wrote, I took 10 pics of everything, with virtually identical results.
Cheers,
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Your files 3&4 were extremely blurry with both lenses, however, without any other information and no original file, there is no way to know why this is true. Both are really bad even for 100% crops given that this was a stationary target. It really just looks like they were not in focus. Was the target really that blurry? If so, then why not choose a very detailed target for comparisons.
I did not say anything about your Toucan. That image was what I would expect in clarity and resolution, based on my experience with the Olympus 75-300 and the E-M1. I also hand hold everything and can hand hold the EC14-50-200 down to 1/30 and the EC14+70-300 down to 1/50 (about 50% success rate at those shutter speeds - depends on the time of day, how tired I am and how much coffee I have had) and so I am not surprised at the 1/30 second image. My gallery contains a fairly large number of hand held images at low shutter speeds.
--
drj3
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum