E-P5 shutter shock ...

CrisPhoto wrote:

Anders W wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Anders W wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

...

While all other lenses are cured, the 40-150 tripod combo still shows some blur.

Interesting. Do you see this in tripod shots only or when shooting hand-held as well. Haven't yet tested my 40-150 with 0-second AS. I have just veririfed that the SS problem is gone with the other lenses where it used to be the most troubling (75/1.8, 100-300, and the 75-300 II that I just bought).

Maybe the 14-42 is similar in this regard?

Anyhow, I would also like to see a test shot ....

Christof

Don't see the double blur this often since the firmware update.

The only time I saw it again was from tripod when doing some macro shots with the 40-150 fully extended and a macro lens in front. Maybe the macro lens adds to the problem with it's weight ...

Christof

You did an interesting side note:

What is your feeling with the 75-300? Last year I replaced mine with a much more reliable 50-200SWD truck. But since the AntiShock firmware I am reasoning about re-buying a 75-30mm lens. Might be useful again with AntiShock applied ...

Depends on which of them we are talking about. The first copy of the 75-300 II that I received was ridiculously poor. It reached decent sharpness towards the left edge only. But the second time I was in luck and I now think I have something approaching a perfect copy of the 75-300 II. Can't find anything wrong with it at all which is unusual for me.

It is also better than the 100-300 I have hitherto been using. But my copy of the 100-300 is not perfect (it shows asymmetric halation) so I still don't know which of the two (75-300 or 100-300) is the better lens by design, as far as sharpness is concerned.

What I do know is that the 75-300 is better with regard to CA and vignetting. I think you already mentioned some place that the T-stop difference between the 75-300 and 100-300 is more like 1/3 than 1/2 EV and if you add the difference in vignetting, it is even less than that.

What I also know is that I have absolutely no problem with SS when shooting the 75-300 or 100-300 on the E-M1 if 0-second AS is on.

The thought occurred to me, apropos of your earlier post here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53782047

that you and I should try to stage a comparative test of the very good 50-200 you have (with TC) versus the very good 75-300 I have come across. I think we could manage to pull that off by choosing some household item that both of us have easy access to as the target and using an agreed-upon type of artificial light and of course agreed upon settings of the relevant kind. We both have E-M1s so we can keep the body the same.

I'll be busy with other things for much of the upcoming week but let me know if you are interested and we'll give it a try when we both find the time.

Anders,

thanks for your thoughts!!

Your assessment is similar to my current opinion, so if I would go back to a 300mm mFT tele, I should go back to the 75-300.

The idea of doing some "remote shootout" is compelling, cheaper than buying a tele for testing

Yes, I thought it would be fun and it may not be as impossible as one might first be inclined to think.

And maybe some people here are get some entertainment by watching us

Yes, a bit of extra entertainment is never wrong.

No idea about the item: Our EM5 are nice, but DOF is only 10mm at 300mm/f8. So top and front are not flat enough, back is boring.

Tried the EM5 box, but it very glossy and has no print details.

My first idea, which I haven't really considered more carefully, was a lens box. I have a few and so, I am sure, do you. But glossiness might be a problem. How about the warranty slip inside?

Best was a folding rule, but it is far from perfect and very boring.

For light, I tried flash, but reflections from hotshoe flash are horrible while off cam flash is not easy to reproduce. I would say bounce flash on white ceiling is best for diffuse light.

Wouldn't direct hot-shoe flash work with non-glossy paper as the target? The advantage is of course that it is easy for both of us to do in a directly comparable manner.

I made a comparison with different lenses last week, unfortunately the light and focal length was not the same.

And I thought about using the moon as common target, but the air refraction is changing very much. One day you get sharp shots, next day only blur ...

Anders, we can continue next weekend if I get a good idea for light and subject.

And big excuse to the OP, we are starting side talk. We should continue this per email and in another thread.

We don't need to discuss the matter further here. I just wanted to sound out your interest. Let's PM each other about the details. I'll let you know via that route when I have an opportunity to get started with this.