Am i wrong for wanting more resoloution? OM1 75-300mm

Hi,

First time posting. I have been shooting with this setup for about 6 months. I am basically brand new to photography. I'm really enjoying wildlife.

Sadly, I have fallen prey to pixel peeping. I really enjoy zooming in and seeing the fine details of feathers and features of animals. When i do it in light room to 100% its pixelated and that frustrates me.

I'm starting to think it's the 20mp that is holding me back. Its probably my technique or the 75-300mm lens. I know its soft at 300mm, Its nice pulled back a bit.

Basically, I want to be convinced out of going to the xt-5 or Sony a7rV. I know I know I'm rushing things when I've only been at it for 6 months.

I guess the other option. Is the 300 f4 that much more amazing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have attached some of my best pics so far.

Is it a case I need to print these to appreciate them?

Thanks!

I have an OM-1 and tried the 100-400 first. I was disappointed with most of the photos due to low quality issues of the lens. Then I switched to the 300mm F4 and I liked it much better! You can see some shots of mine on @wildlife.with.mark on Instagram

However, I find myself now looking at cameras with more megapixels to have the ability to crop more since most of the subjects are far away. Specifically the full frame cameras as the Sony A1 / possibly the A75, Canon R5 and the Nikon Z8

Ceilingfan said:

Hi,

First time posting. I have been shooting with this setup for about 6 months. I am basically brand new to photography. I'm really enjoying wildlife.

Sadly, I have fallen prey to pixel peeping. I really enjoy zooming in and seeing the fine details of feathers and features of animals. When i do it in light room to 100% its pixelated and that frustrates me.

I'm starting to think it's the 20mp that is holding me back. Its probably my technique or the 75-300mm lens. I know its soft at 300mm, Its nice pulled back a bit.

Basically, I want to be convinced out of going to the xt-5 or Sony a7rV. I know I know I'm rushing things when I've only been at it for 6 months.

I guess the other option. Is the 300 f4 that much more amazing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have attached some of my best pics so far.

Is it a case I need to print these to appreciate them?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I looked at these two. The fox is sharp but noisy. Noise can make you think the image is soft - what do you use to develop your raws? (You do do that, right?) Try the free demo of DxO Photolab and choose their advanced noise reduction on a raw file.

The kingfisher does seem soft, but it does not seem to be a missed focus. It's not bird motion because even the branch seems soft. Nose reduction might help.

You seem to use excessively high ISO.

I have that lens, and it seems a decent performer:



You'll have to accept the fact that 300mm is short for most birding. Work on your fieldcraft to get closer.

David

No casual viewer is going to be viewing your photos at 100%, so I wouldn't worry about that.

If you want more pixels on the subject, you either have to get a higher MP body or a longer lens. That is part of the reason I upgraded from an 18mp body to a 42mp one.

That is why the newer high end FF mirrorless cameras have 50+mp - it allows for way more cropping so you don't have to fill the frame. This will also emphasize any haze or heat waves in the air, though.

II like your photos even considering only 6 months experience and a smaller mp sensor. I like pixel peeping and as you expressed seeing the details and being able to crop. So i love the results i get with my A7RV. Whatever path you choose enjoy it!

I will respond based on your posted images.

I see nothing wrong with the fox image. More pixels would give more detail, but I doubt you would notice unless it was a very large print.

Images 1 and 4 have reduced contrast due to the bright background. I am not sure more pixels would help that much, but a larger sensor with more pixels when used with a lens of equivalent focal length (Fuji 450mm, FF 600mm) would increase detail, if you could improve the contrast. You could use LR to add some Clarity or Dehaze. I do like the first image at your chosen focal length.

Images 2 and 5 are simply too far away for a good image, you need a longer focal length lens. A larger sensor with more pixels will give more detail when used with lenses of an equivalent focal length.

However, I did a quick estimate of pixels on the bird in images 2 & 5 to be slightly less than one megapixel. Even with a lens with an equivalent field of view with 2 to 3 times the number of pixels, you still will not have enough pixels on the bird for a very good image.

You do have more cropping ability on a larger, higher pixel sensor, but remember you are just creating an image like that shot with a smaller sensor with more noise/less dynamic range than an image shot with the appropriate focal length for the sensor.

I would have though <5000 iso should be workable but I could aim for under 1000 more often. Would probably help.

I've started shooting more burst with lower shutter speeds to maximize a lower iso. So i should start seeing better results.

All these images have been put through LRC and de noised by like 45 in the program.

Any idea what sort of difference the 300 f4 would have? I assume it would just help with lower iso with more stops of light. Is it natively just sharper too?

Thanks for your input

These are great points.

Along with earlier tips about lowering my iso further, i think i need to concentrate on filling the frame with my subject more on times i'd like to see more detail. Get more of those MP working on the thing i actually want to look at.

I do however like to get a bit of the environment in with the subject, but i guess these are the push and pulls of different systems and lenses.

Maybe i should consider the new 100-400mm lens coming out for the extra reach. I cant afford the big white monster lens haha.

My favorite is the first image also surprisingly when i zoom in on the features off that bird its all pretty good and sharp. It is after all a bigger bird.

umptydymptynator said:

I have an OM-1 and tried the 100-400 first. I was disappointed with most of the photos due to low quality issues of the lens. Then I switched to the 300mm F4 and I liked it much better! You can see some shots of mine on @wildlife.with.mark on Instagram

However, I find myself now looking at cameras with more megapixels to have the ability to crop more since most of the subjects are far away. Specifically the full frame cameras as the Sony A1 / possibly the A75, Canon R5 and the Nikon Z8

Click to expand...

Hey Mark,

Thanks for replying, are most of the shots on ur insta taken with the 300 f4. I really like them.

The only issue with going FF is the size of the lens. The Sony 200-600mm is massive.

Its either that lens and the A7r5.

or

I was thinking the xt5 with the 100-400mm. Granted this will be the same as my current setup just with 40mp and slightly better light gathering capability.

Thanks for sharing.

Ceilingfan said:

I would have though <5000 iso should be workable but I could aim for under 1000 more often. Would probably help.

I've started shooting more burst with lower shutter speeds to maximize a lower iso. So i should start seeing better results.

All these images have been put through LRC and de noised by like 45 in the program.

Any idea what sort of difference the 300 f4 would have? I assume it would just help with lower iso with more stops of light. Is it natively just sharper too?

Thanks for your input

Click to expand...

I don't have the f/4 so can't comment.

I looked at your 1st picture (shot at less than 300mm) and it is very sharp. Maybe your lens is defective?

I shot this image of a bluebird last year, (I was sitting on the porch and it flew onto this branch about 25 feet away.)

Full image:



Cropped to better show the bird:



Now, I developed in DxO Photolab 8, using the most aggressive NR option, and then sharpened in Topaz, so all that helped.

David

DavidWright2010 said:

Ceilingfan said:

I would have though <5000 iso should be workable but I could aim for under 1000 more often. Would probably help.

I've started shooting more burst with lower shutter speeds to maximize a lower iso. So i should start seeing better results.

All these images have been put through LRC and de noised by like 45 in the program.

Any idea what sort of difference the 300 f4 would have? I assume it would just help with lower iso with more stops of light. Is it natively just sharper too?

Thanks for your input

Click to expand...

I don't have the f/4 so can't comment.

I looked at your 1st picture (shot at less than 300mm) and it is very sharp. Maybe your lens is defective?

I shot this image of a bluebird last year, (I was sitting on the porch and it flew onto this branch about 25 feet away.)

Full image:



Cropped to better show the bird:



Now, I developed in DxO Photolab 8, using the most aggressive NR option, and then sharpened in Topaz, so all that helped.

David

Click to expand...

Could be, although i feel as though defective lenses can't be the cause all that often. Id rather side with it being something else. However, I did get this lens second hand.

Maybe I should try some other programs. I kind of like to do everything in light room makes the editing more straight forward and easy to understand.

Your bird sure is sharp for 1.7mp.

Thanks!

Ceilingfan said:

Hi,

First time posting. I have been shooting with this setup for about 6 months. I am basically brand new to photography. I'm really enjoying wildlife.

Sadly, I have fallen prey to pixel peeping. I really enjoy zooming in and seeing the fine details of feathers and features of animals. When i do it in light room to 100% its pixelated and that frustrates me.

I'm starting to think it's the 20mp that is holding me back. Its probably my technique or the 75-300mm lens. I know its soft at 300mm, Its nice pulled back a bit.

Basically, I want to be convinced out of going to the xt-5 or Sony a7rV. I know I know I'm rushing things when I've only been at it for 6 months.

I guess the other option. Is the 300 f4 that much more amazing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have attached some of my best pics so far.

Is it a case I need to print these to appreciate them?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yours shots are on par with other's 75-300 shots.

Most of your shots could do with some raised contrast and dehaze if your pp software has it and also some saturation and sharpening.

The 2nd is over exposed. Learn to use exposure correction EC. King fishers feathers often seem to blend together - it's not easy - some people nail it. The fox is passable.

The darter is quite reasonable and about what you would expect from that lens - but again needs some pp.

Below is an Australian darter with Panasonic G9 (also 20MP) and a good copy of the Panasonic 100-400mm probably shot in more forgiving conditions but still given some pp.

FF wont get you any better unless you learn technique and get quality lenses. 20MP is fine with good lenses - 300 f4 or 100-400mm. The 300f4 is the sharpest. I would possibly pick the Pana Leica over the Oly 100-400 but not much in it although the PL is smaller and lighter.



--
Also on DPRevived

Ceilingfan said:

umptydymptynator said:

I have an OM-1 and tried the 100-400 first. I was disappointed with most of the photos due to low quality issues of the lens. Then I switched to the 300mm F4 and I liked it much better! You can see some shots of mine on @wildlife.with.mark on Instagram

However, I find myself now looking at cameras with more megapixels to have the ability to crop more since most of the subjects are far away. Specifically the full frame cameras as the Sony A1 / possibly the A75, Canon R5 and the Nikon Z8

Click to expand...

Hey Mark,

Thanks for replying, are most of the shots on ur insta taken with the 300 f4. I really like them.

The only issue with going FF is the size of the lens. The Sony 200-600mm is massive.

Its either that lens and the A7r5.

or

I was thinking the xt5 with the 100-400mm. Granted this will be the same as my current setup just with 40mp and slightly better light gathering capability.

Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

Hi Nicholas,

yes, except for the insects (60mm macro) and the photos from Sri Lanka (Sony A6400 and the 70-350mm). I noticed the Nikon 600mm prime lens at 5.6 or 6.3 which looked a little smaller than the Sony lens also the 100-500 is smaller, but also more expensive. I’m curious if Sony will create a 400-800mm lens, which is rumored.

Hi,

I guess you took those images shooting Jpeg profile. If this is so, try shooting in Raw first. Then, convert them and process using either OMs software or reach further for, say, DxO and you will see much more detail/crispness than you can expect.

I wouldn't take any switching decision prior to seeing "what is the best I can get out of this combo." Take your time, optimize the settings and your PP development, and you will be rewarded.

Just my 2cents.

Ceilingfan said:

Could be, although i feel as though defective lenses can't be the cause all that often. Id rather side with it being something else. However, I did get this lens second hand.

Maybe I should try some other programs. I kind of like to do everything in light room makes the editing more straight forward and easy to understand.

Your bird sure is sharp for 1.7mp.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

You could always test your lens. A brick wall is the simplest. But a better test is not that much more work. Tape some resolution targets on a piece of foam board. (The green cards are from a different test I did previously.)



Position the cam so that the board fills the FOV (at the longest FL available, and lowest f#). Then reduce the FL, and decrease the cam-test board distance so that it again fills the frame. Repeat for each FL.



(This is the center.) Focal lengths are:

300 252

215 150

You should repeat the test multiple times, and choose the best result at each FL.

On the one-time test, 300mm and 150mm are slightly worse than the other two.

Here's the upper right. 300mm is still the worse, but now 150mm looks very good:



David

Hi Bigmafan,

Thanks for your input, I only shoot raw but yeah guess I can work on my pp.

Thanks David, I didn't realise you could do this. I might give it a go.

If what you want is resolution then a larger format camera is better than a smaller format camera. Even the best m43 camera with the best Pro lens won't match the resolving power of a mediocre FF lens on a 24 MP body and there is no comparison with say a Canon R5 equipped with L glass nor an A1II, A9III or Z8 with similar level glass. Moreover for similar light gathering ability at similar focal lengths the weight difference is minimal. But to say that is not taking advantage of either formats strengths. If you want small, slightly less expensive, greater DOF and you like the features of either the Panasonic or OMD cameras over the Canikony groups then perhaps stay with m43. If on the other hand you like the greater dynamic range, the ff lens selection, features, AF ability, resolution and overall selection of technology and FF's rapid development relative to m43 AND you don't mind the cost or weight (assuming you are going to want the mid or best level of lens) then FF would be a better choice. At this point I don't think APSC would give you much more than where you are and large format (Fuji GX) would likely not have the AF performance or long lenses you seek.

My advice would be to list the things you value in a camera system and the things you don't like; rank them, assign them a weight and add up the resulting values. You'll get your answer.

My best suggestion is to get the best lens you can get and learn how to get close to your subject and don’t worry so much about megapixels.

Thanks I think I'm somewhere between saying screw it and going full frame.

or

getting the 300 f4 and just working on my technique and pp skills. I mean at the end of the day their are pros getting great results with m43 gear. Who am I to complain.

Might just do some weight and cost comparisons.