Reading mode: Light Dark

Evolution: The Moon with the Oly 300 F4

Go to last post
luisflorit

luisflorit

Veteran Member
Messages
8,536
Reaction score
1,322
Location
Rio de Janeiro, BR
Since I began playing with photography, I tried many times to get a good shot of the moon with my cameras/lenses from my apartment window. I was never satisfied. Not surprising: I live in Rio de Janeiro, a huge city with pollution, and worse, lots of humidity, and the worst: lots of heat and the implied atmospheric distortions. Or so I thought...

Now, I got the 300 F4, and tried it with my EM1.1. The sky looked 'ok', but it was a particularly bad day, since we have had a full month with max temperatures around 37 degrees Celsius during the day, and even up to 32C at 1:30am. Very hot, the city is an oven. However, yesterday the temperature was not bad at 26C, so I gave it a try, just for fun. All images below 100% crops, taken handheld, and RAW processed with RawTherapee.

But first, for comparison, here is one of my best Moon shots after several years of choosing nights with my EM1 + Pany 100-300 (a lens that I really like for its price and weight, sharper than my SWD 50-200+TC1.4!!) . No sharpening applied, no NR, only contrast by details and exposure correction (it was underexposed):

No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction
No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction

And this is my very first EM1 + 300F4 shot (also at F5.6), with the exact same processing parameters except for the exposure curve:

Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)
Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)

The above, but with even less contrast by details:

Half the local contrast of the previous one
Half the local contrast of the previous one

And with no contrast by details at all, only a simple exposure curve:

Only a simple exposure curve
Only a simple exposure curve

Although #2 may be good for "educative purposes", I prefer #3. Even #4 is quite nice IMO, but you have to look more closely to perceive the details.

I know this test is not really fair, because the pictures were taken in different days, with different atmospheric conditions. However, the new images were my very first try, against years of opportunities with my other combo.

Much more importantly, this shows to what extent I had to add local contrast to my files to try to get more detail out of them. Same for sharpening. I think I will save lots of PPing time with this toy.

Looking forward for 1/4 Moon shots! :)

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
nzmacro said:
Very nicely done on the full moon. Yep, #2 would be my pick.
Click to expand...
You probably meant #3? #1 was taken with the old 100-300.
nzmacro said:
Nice details in there and yes, bring on the 1/4 and 1/2.

All the best and great to see.
Click to expand...
I was surprised with the difference at 100% crops. I didn't expect such a big gap. This lens should provide a strong cropping flexibility (that's why I canceled the 1.4TC).

Thanks Danny!

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
luisflorit said:
Since I began playing with photography, I tried many times to get a good shot of the moon with my cameras/lenses from my apartment window. I was never satisfied. Not surprising: I live in Rio de Janeiro, a huge city with pollution, and worse, lots of humidity, and the worst: lots of heat and the implied atmospheric distortions. Or so I thought...

Now, I got the 300 F4, and tried it with my EM1.1. The sky looked 'ok', but it was a particularly bad day, since we have had a full month with max temperatures around 37 degrees Celsius during the day, and even up to 32C at 1:30am. Very hot, the city is an oven. However, yesterday the temperature was not bad at 26C, so I gave it a try, just for fun. All images below 100% crops, taken handheld, and RAW processed with RawTherapee.

But first, for comparison, here is one of my best Moon shots after several years of choosing nights with my EM1 + Pany 100-300 (a lens that I really like for its price and weight, sharper than my SWD 50-200+TC1.4!!) . No sharpening applied, no NR, only contrast by details and exposure correction (it was underexposed):

No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction
No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction

And this is my very first EM1 + 300F4 shot (also at F5.6), with the exact same processing parameters except for the exposure curve:

Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)
Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)

The above, but with even less contrast by details:

Half the local contrast of the previous one
Half the local contrast of the previous one

And with no contrast by details at all, only a simple exposure curve:

Only a simple exposure curve
Only a simple exposure curve

Although #2 may be good for "educative purposes", I prefer #3. Even #4 is quite nice IMO, but you have to look more closely to perceive the details.

I know this test is not really fair, because the pictures were taken in different days, with different atmospheric conditions. However, the new images were my very first try, against years of opportunities with my other combo.

Much more importantly, this shows to what extent I had to add local contrast to my files to try to get more detail out of them. Same for sharpening. I think I will save lots of PPing time with this toy.

Looking forward for 1/4 Moon shots! :)

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Click to expand...


I think it's a slightly unfair comparison as your 100-300 moon shot is not sharp at all, and it should be possible to get a sharp shot with that lens.

Your first 300/f4 image with the increased contrast is quite good, but I think you could do some further processing to increase local contrast in the centre of the moon.
 
Boss of Sony said:
luisflorit said:
Since I began playing with photography, I tried many times to get a good shot of the moon with my cameras/lenses from my apartment window. I was never satisfied. Not surprising: I live in Rio de Janeiro, a huge city with pollution, and worse, lots of humidity, and the worst: lots of heat and the implied atmospheric distortions. Or so I thought...

Now, I got the 300 F4, and tried it with my EM1.1. The sky looked 'ok', but it was a particularly bad day, since we have had a full month with max temperatures around 37 degrees Celsius during the day, and even up to 32C at 1:30am. Very hot, the city is an oven. However, yesterday the temperature was not bad at 26C, so I gave it a try, just for fun. All images below 100% crops, taken handheld, and RAW processed with RawTherapee.

But first, for comparison, here is one of my best Moon shots after several years of choosing nights with my EM1 + Pany 100-300 (a lens that I really like for its price and weight, sharper than my SWD 50-200+TC1.4!!) . No sharpening applied, no NR, only contrast by details and exposure correction (it was underexposed):

No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction
No sharpening, only exposure and contrast by details correction

And this is my very first EM1 + 300F4 shot (also at F5.6), with the exact same processing parameters except for the exposure curve:

Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)
Again, only exposure and contrast by details, no sharpening (I swear!)

The above, but with even less contrast by details:

Half the local contrast of the previous one
Half the local contrast of the previous one

And with no contrast by details at all, only a simple exposure curve:

Only a simple exposure curve
Only a simple exposure curve

Although #2 may be good for "educative purposes", I prefer #3. Even #4 is quite nice IMO, but you have to look more closely to perceive the details.

I know this test is not really fair, because the pictures were taken in different days, with different atmospheric conditions. However, the new images were my very first try, against years of opportunities with my other combo.

Much more importantly, this shows to what extent I had to add local contrast to my files to try to get more detail out of them. Same for sharpening. I think I will save lots of PPing time with this toy.

Looking forward for 1/4 Moon shots! :)

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Click to expand...
I think it's a slightly unfair comparison as your 100-300 moon shot is not sharp at all, and it should be possible to get a sharp shot with that lens.
Click to expand...
Certainly not wide open, not with my lens in my city and without any post-processing besides contrast. As I wrote, I'm very happy with my 100-300 which took around 25000 pictures in my hand, and that can be very sharp indeed, like this that I took two weeks ago of one of our tiniest birds:

tororo_PNSB-161230-A_27657-rawa.jpg


You wrote:

"Your first 300/f4 image with the increased contrast is quite good, but I think you could do some further processing to increase local contrast in the centre of the moon."

Sorry, maybe I was not clear enough. I didn't try to post the best way of processing a moon shot, but precisely the opposite: to show comparison shots with MINIMAL and IDENTICAL processing of these two lenses. In particular, neither has selective processing of anything.

In addition, as I wrote, I don't like the first one that you liked because it has too much contrast, including the center. Too obviously enhanced.

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
Speaking of evolution, I recall discussing the lack of weather sealed gear and a good 300mm lens with you several years ago. I'm happy to see that MFT finally delivered the goods for the rain forest birder! When you're ready, please give us a look at some of your birds through that lens.
 
Amazing how these 2 moon shots look the same with almost a 3 years time difference .
 
453C said:
Speaking of evolution, I recall discussing the lack of weather sealed gear and a good 300mm lens with you several years ago. I'm happy to see that MFT finally delivered the goods for the rain forest birder! When you're ready, please give us a look at some of your birds through that lens.
Click to expand...
Ok, I will. Maybe with some comparison shots if I can.

Best,

L.
 
Boss of Sony said:
I think it's a slightly unfair comparison as your 100-300 moon shot is not sharp at all, and it should be possible to get a sharp shot with that lens.
Click to expand...
That looks pretty typically of the results I get at 300mm at 5.6. The 100-300 works best if you stop it down a little at 300mm.

The difference in contrast really stands out. A year after the 100-400 and 300mm f4 lenses came out I am still debating whether they are worth buying in my case. The 100-300 is not bad and with long telephotos you often have to pay a lot more to get a little better optical quality. But looking at samples like this there is no doubt you get what you pay for.
 
Dave Lively said:
Boss of Sony said:
I think it's a slightly unfair comparison as your 100-300 moon shot is not sharp at all, and it should be possible to get a sharp shot with that lens.
Click to expand...
That looks pretty typically of the results I get at 300mm at 5.6. The 100-300 works best if you stop it down a little at 300mm.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Unfortunately, I am shooting at ISO1000+ most of the time in my rainforests, so I cannot afford to stop down a slow lens. The moon is an exception, where you can indeed shoot at F7.1, though. Observe that the 300F4 was stopped down to F5.6 in my pics, but the 300F4 does not gain much by stopping it down.
Dave Lively said:
The difference in contrast really stands out.
Click to expand...
Not only contrast, but plain sharpness.
Dave Lively said:
A year after the 100-400 and 300mm f4 lenses came out I am still debating whether they are worth buying in my case. The 100-300 is not bad and with long telephotos you often have to pay a lot more to get a little better optical quality. But looking at samples like this there is no doubt you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
I was in the same dilemma for a long time. After seeing many samples, I arrived to the conclusion that, for my uses, I would not get much benefit from the 100-400 with respect to the 100-300. I mean, I would end up having "a good zoom and a very good much heavier zoom", and the second lens would render useless the first one. I preferred a more radical path: "a good zoom and an outstanding much heavier prime", and both lenses may still have their uses. But it was a delicate choice.

L.
 
Now that is really nice!

/Bill
 
WGHalvorsen said:
Now that is really nice!
Click to expand...
And this is what you can do with a cheap (about $300) telescope. Without any stacking, tracking or other advanced technology.



4d1125dcaeba4354902f98c878a633bb.jpg
 
Funny, the EXIF data says Focal Length: 7.5mm. I guess it must have been a little longer than that?

What telescope did you use for that very nice shot?

/Bill
 
WGHalvorsen said:
Funny, the EXIF data says Focal Length: 7.5mm. I guess it must have been a little longer than that?

What telescope did you use for that very nice shot?
Click to expand...
It's actually 1500mm. SkyWatcher MC 127. I got it used for 300 Euros.



BKM127GoTo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
I would like your professional and non professional opinion for my new 300 f4 and OM1 ii
2
Replies
32
Views
82
HicHic
HicHic
frankliooxygen
OM System 75-300 II vs 40-150 F4 PRO Sharpness Comparison (OM-5 Body)
2
Replies
35
Views
524
plantdoc
P
T
Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark 2 - hardware failure?
Replies
13
Views
442
Skeeterbytes
S
Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
Hmm1000
H
MJ_Photo38
Olympus E-M1 mark II : I'm shocked
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
1K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top