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

drj3 wrote:

luisflorit wrote:

I wrote that in the very original post: "processed without any treatment with RawTherapee except for curves, everything hand held". About the EXIF, yes, you're right, it was my fault, I forgot to copy the exif from the orf (GIMP messes up the EXIF of RT output). But I wrote each relevant exif data in my original post, too, below each image.

Some RAW processors take whatever your camera setting are as the starting point for the RAW file. I have no idea about RawTherapee since I only use either the Olympus converter or Adobe. What are your default camera settings for contrast, sharpness, saturation and noise?

I don't use any camera preset, everything neutral (0). From that, I process to my liking. I usually find Oly OOC jpg slightly overcooked, specially for contrast (and I do like contrasty images). In fact, I have no idea if RT can read the camera parameters.

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.

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.

They are flat, without any treatment, not bad.

To me 3&4 look out of focus, even if all your camera settings are at -2. When I have a RAW image the looks like that at 100% - with no processing of any kind, I would not bother converting it. I have some images that look like your #1 at ISO 200 and 1/400 second, but in such cases I simply missed the focus point (something else in the image was in good focus).

Maybe you look at the camera preset, as you wrote above?

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.

Yes, I understand now. But I was used to my E3 and E5, both of which have much worse IBIS. I cannot shoot with them at full zoom below 1/160 or 1/125 (throwing away most pictures). That's why I was surprised by the EM1 IBIS.

I actually tried to keep my E5 at 1/250 seconds or slower if I wanted a high success rate at anything above 250mm (500mm equivalent).

Exactly. To get consistent results, my E5 is at 1/250. I wish I could set it even higher, but flash sync ends at 1/250 in the E5.

If the two images you posted are typical for your EC14+50-200, then I would suggest you check the focus accuracy and adjust if necessary.

Yes, they are typical when unprocessed. When I properly process them, I get good results, even with very tricky subject like black birds (exact same 50-200+1.4TC combo):

Cheers,

L.