Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
Post one high MP shot that has great eye detail ? The shot needn't be great artistically, just great detail.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Yes the PL100-400 is good
- Thread starter Trevor Carpenter
- Start date
Trevor Carpenter
Forum Pro
I tend to process for what looks good on a screen. This doesn't always give the best results zooming in for extreme close ups. I'll try when I'm out to get some shots where the intention is to show eye detail. This Pied Wagtail looks good at screen size to me
--
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
Old Timer63
Veteran Member
Looks good to me TrevorI tend to process for what looks good on a screen. This doesn't always give the best results zooming in for extreme close ups. I'll try when I'm out to get some shots where the intention is to show eye detail. This Pied Wagtail looks good at screen size to me
Dave
--
I feel so much better now that I've given up Hope
AV`s https://www.youtube.com/user/OldTimerEbikes/videos?view_as=subscriber
Stills http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers/latest_images
windmillgolfer
Forum Pro
Excellent set Trevor, 3 and 4 are my favourites. The 100-400mm is very good indeed and the recent offers, at circa £900 for a Panasonic UK model, look very attractive. But I don’t need two 
WhiteBeard
Senior Member
Sadly, tiny µ4/3 sensors can only render up to 8"x10",,, right? ;-)...the photo below quite a bit:
It's the kind of photo that really needs to be displayed at a [very] large size to really appreciate.
Starlings
WhiteBeard
Senior Member
As I am interested in the 100-300 II myself, I was wondering if it was nevertheless a fair compromise or if, having tried the 100-400, the 100-300 II is now in the recycling bin?Those are some nice photos. And I expected as much seeing that you were the one posting
Photo number 3 is my favorite from this set.
As for the lens, I had a chance to use it for a few days and it's definitely an upgrade from the 100-300 II I own. However, I suspect you could use a coke bottle as a lens and still get nice photos
BTW, I agree with your Coke bottle statement....
Brian Wadie
Forum Pro
optically I agree Trevor and I appreciated the weather sealing (which got tested a lot) and both my copies were excellent in this but for me, that was where the positives stopped.Lots of discussion on the PL100-400 and it's some time since I posted any birds so a few recent shots which I think show the G9/PL100-400 combination well
Grey Heron
Black-tailed Godwit
Starlings
Grey Plover
Dunlin
Robin
Sanderling
Turnstone
Nuthatch
Blue Tit and Coal Tit
The ergonomics and haptics on both my now departed G9 and the EM-1 mk2 were not for me, zoom operation on both copies was dreadful and Panasonic customer service poor
It was great shame because I really liked the output I could get
But - that's just my experience and I did get some excellent shots from it (as you continue to do
) --
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
They can render that big now? ;-)Sadly, tiny µ4/3 sensors can only render up to 8"x10",,, right? ;-)...the photo below quite a bit:
It's the kind of photo that really needs to be displayed at a [very] large size to really appreciate.
Starlings
larsbc
Forum Pro
I'm not Trevor, nor do I play him on TV, but here's a cropped shot of a Sandhill Crane I happened to take last weekend with my 100-400 which happens to have some eye detail.
paul cool
Senior Member
Nice shots trevor the turnstones in particular the 100-400mm is a good lens for some for me it struggles being 6.3 at the long end and on a crop sensor where for the most part you shooting 1600 iso plus for moving flight bird shots unless a bright sunny day ,oh and that zoom is suspect with a badly designed lens hood ,but where it shines is little birds close up ,and a good zoom range ,that will only be bettered by the release of the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 which will have a much better subject separation as well .I still own mine and use it rarely now days the thing is images are much more scrutinised now and the levels get raised each year.Lots of discussion on the PL100-400 and it's some time since I posted any birds so a few recent shots which I think show the G9/PL100-400 combination well
Grey Heron
Black-tailed Godwit
Starlings
Grey Plover
Dunlin
Robin
Sanderling
Turnstone
Nuthatch
Blue Tit and Coal Tit
--
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
Thanks, Trevor. That is quite good. I am in the process of deciding whether the 75-300 is good enough (I am sure I have a good copy) or whether I want to pick up the 100-400. Focus with the EM-1 II is much, much better for small birds in shrubs even with the 75-300 than with the EM-1 I. It is lightning quick and apparently very accurate in focus. From what I have learned, the 100-400 seems to have consistently good IQ, but it is best bought with the copy in hand. I think I will see if Glazer's Seattle will let me rent for a day and then apply that to purchase. That way I can directly compare an image from each lens on the EM-1 II. I will use a tripod with identical settings. I should be able to find a stationary GBH.I tend to process for what looks good on a screen. This doesn't always give the best results zooming in for extreme close ups. I'll try when I'm out to get some shots where the intention is to show eye detail. This Pied Wagtail looks good at screen size to me
I guess, with the EM-1 II, another question would be about the amount of stabilization I might gain in handholding. I feel the EM-1 II is already better in that regard, probably by one stop. With the 100-400 I would gain another stop or so at the long end. With an Olympus body, am I better off using body or lens stabilization? The body has about five stops.
Last edited:
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
Thanks, Lars. I am sure my 75-300 could not match that level of detail. How cropped is that image?I'm not Trevor, nor do I play him on TV, but here's a cropped shot of a Sandhill Crane I happened to take last weekend with my 100-400 which happens to have some eye detail.
Jon555
Veteran Member
(As I have some very hi-res Robin shots.)
Is this the centre part of the image cropped at the pixel level, they whole image down-sized or something in-between?
Thanks.
Is this the centre part of the image cropped at the pixel level, they whole image down-sized or something in-between?
Thanks.
Trevor Carpenter
Forum Pro
cropped not greatly just for composition and neatness. I downsize to 1600 * whatever before posting and normally reduce to around 500K. This one is 1600 * 1200 but only 272K
Jon555
Veteran Member
Thanks, it just makes it harder to work out where the lens is performance-wise. I decided to get the Canon 100-400 II as I can use it on my Canon and Panasonic cameras, but I gave serious thought to the Panny (I nearly bought one at last year's photography show, just reports of repair issues put me off).
Also my £49 adapted Canon FD 200mm f/4 lens from 1979 (although new to me as of last month) does Robins well too...
The AF function seems iffy tho...
SooC f/4
Last edited:
Astrotripper
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,676
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12,107
Nah, I'm not ditching my 100-300 for the 100-400. I'm not using it as much to justify that. I'm more interested in the upcoming Olympus 100-400, as I would really like to have the ProCapture L ability with a lens like that, and that is only available with Olympus lenses. (and I'm hoping it will be cheaper than 100-400)As I am interested in the 100-300 II myself, I was wondering if it was nevertheless a fair compromise or if, having tried the 100-400, the 100-300 II is now in the recycling bin?As for the lens, I had a chance to use it for a few days and it's definitely an upgrade from the 100-300 II I own. However, I suspect you could use a coke bottle as a lens and still get nice photos
And yes, the 100-300 II is a fair compromise. It's a solid performer at its price. I'm happy with mine.
larsbc
Forum Pro
Here's the full image + crop:Thanks, Lars. I am sure my 75-300 could not match that level of detail. How cropped is that image?I'm not Trevor, nor do I play him on TV, but here's a cropped shot of a Sandhill Crane I happened to take last weekend with my 100-400 which happens to have some eye detail.
larsbc
Forum Pro
Here are two more 100-400 photos with some eye detail along with their associated crop illustrations:
James Stirling
Forum Pro
That is an amazing result from a 40yr old £49 lens .Thanks, it just makes it harder to work out where the lens is performance-wise. I decided to get the Canon 100-400 II as I can use it on my Canon and Panasonic cameras, but I gave serious thought to the Panny (I nearly bought one at last year's photography show, just reports of repair issues put me off).
Also my £49 adapted Canon FD 200mm f/4 lens from 1979 (although new to me as of last month) does Robins well too...
The AF function seems iffy tho...
SooC f/4
--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum