OM 100-400 + teleconverter

Photography Online (UK Youtube channel) have just done an interesting piece on teleconverters in their latest episode. The teleconverter section starts at 16:58. The OM !00-400 mkii is featured at 27:15, but worth watching from the start for context. It's a good piece on teleconverters and an interesting conclusion for those considering buying a converter for their 100-400. These guys are serious photographers not 'Youtubers'.

If my old eyes aren't deceiving me, the Olympus lens shown are 100-400 Mark I and not the latest Mark II by OMS.

On a lens like 100-400mm, you get better results by upsizing the picture with a software like Gigapixel.

The TCs can work fine, but only on good lenses (like 300mm F/4.).

Seasider said:

Photography Online (UK Youtube channel) have just done an interesting piece on teleconverters in their latest episode. The teleconverter section starts at 16:58. The OM !00-400 mkii is featured at 27:15, but worth watching from the start for context. It's a good piece on teleconverters and an interesting conclusion for those considering buying a converter for their 100-400. These guys are serious photographers not 'Youtubers'.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the video if anyone is wondering...

Toni Genes said:

On a lens like 100-400mm, you get better results by upsizing the picture with a software like Gigapixel.

The TCs can work fine, but only on good lenses (like 300mm F/4.).

Click to expand...

I use the 1.4x tele and don’t see much-if-any image degradation. The 2.0x tele my eyes can see image softness, image quality is impacted.

Toni Genes said:

On a lens like 100-400mm, you get better results by upsizing the picture with a software like Gigapixel.

The TCs can work fine, but only on good lenses (like 300mm F/4.).

Click to expand...

In my experience, Gigipixel often introduces unnatural artifacts and image noise patterns.

TheRealYeats said:

Toni Genes said:

On a lens like 100-400mm, you get better results by upsizing the picture with a software like Gigapixel.

The TCs can work fine, but only on good lenses (like 300mm F/4.).

Click to expand...

In my experience, Gigipixel often introduces unnatural artifacts and image noise patterns.

Click to expand...

I agree, I feel the latest iteration of Adobe camera raw's Super Resolution does a better job. Though of course they don't give the same results of a high res file

An example from the OM-1 II sample gallery

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-gal...system-om-1-mark-ii-sample-gallery/1684315608

Gigapixel vs Adobe camera RAW 100% crops from 10,338 X 7754 upsize, I used the latest version of both software. Also included is a 100% crop from the original file. You could tweak each result to squeeze out a bit better results. From side by side comparisons I feel the Adobe option is a bit better at avoiding artifacts



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

gossamer88 said:

Seasider said:

Photography Online (UK Youtube channel) have just done an interesting piece on teleconverters in their latest episode. The teleconverter section starts at 16:58. The OM !00-400 mkii is featured at 27:15, but worth watching from the start for context. It's a good piece on teleconverters and an interesting conclusion for those considering buying a converter for their 100-400. These guys are serious photographers not 'Youtubers'.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the video if anyone is wondering...

Click to expand...

They have the correct concept of comparing image detail with TCs vs the bare lens for the same target at the same distance. This is the way TCs are used.

Unfortunately, they use a poor research design. They have no control of possible changes in the variables that can affect resolution. A major problem is the possible effects of atmospheric distortion and light/shadow changes which can occur quickly in an uncontrolled environment with dependent variable images of little fine detail.

Repeat this type of test in doors, with a completely controlled very detailed target using multiple exposures and picking the best of each and you would have more definitive results. I used my computer monitor as the targets and subpixels for very fine detail from 41 feet when I compared the 300mm f4 vs the two TCs.

I do think they are correct that TC work best with very sharp lenses that potentially out resolve the specific sensor. Both TCs result in better images with the 300mm f4 on the 20MP EM1 and OM1 sensors. I will be interested in seeing if the same is true with the 50-200 f2.8.

If a DPR user has the 100-400 and either TC, they could do their own test to see if the TC improved the image detail.

drj3 said:

gossamer88 said:

Seasider said:

Photography Online (UK Youtube channel) have just done an interesting piece on teleconverters in their latest episode. The teleconverter section starts at 16:58. The OM !00-400 mkii is featured at 27:15, but worth watching from the start for context. It's a good piece on teleconverters and an interesting conclusion for those considering buying a converter for their 100-400. These guys are serious photographers not 'Youtubers'.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the video if anyone is wondering...

Click to expand...

They have the correct concept of comparing image detail with TCs vs the bare lens for the same target at the same distance. This is the way TCs are used.

Unfortunately, they use a poor research design. They have no control of possible changes in the variables that can affect resolution. A major problem is the possible effects of atmospheric distortion and light/shadow changes which can occur quickly in an uncontrolled environment with dependent variable images of little fine detail.

Repeat this type of test in doors, with a completely controlled very detailed target using multiple exposures and picking the best of each and you would have more definitive results. I used my computer monitor as the targets and subpixels for very fine detail from 41 feet when I compared the 300mm f4 vs the two TCs.

I do think they are correct that TC work best with very sharp lenses that potentially out resolve the specific sensor. Both TCs result in better images with the 300mm f4 on the 20MP EM1 and OM1 sensors. I will be interested in seeing if the same is true with the 50-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing your test results. (I assume you have one ordered?)

drj3 said:

If a DPR user has the 100-400 and either TC, they could do their own test to see if the TC improved the image detail.

Click to expand...

S Jones said:

drj3 said:

gossamer88 said:

Seasider said:

Photography Online (UK Youtube channel) have just done an interesting piece on teleconverters in their latest episode. The teleconverter section starts at 16:58. The OM !00-400 mkii is featured at 27:15, but worth watching from the start for context. It's a good piece on teleconverters and an interesting conclusion for those considering buying a converter for their 100-400. These guys are serious photographers not 'Youtubers'.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the video if anyone is wondering...

Click to expand...

They have the correct concept of comparing image detail with TCs vs the bare lens for the same target at the same distance. This is the way TCs are used.

Unfortunately, they use a poor research design. They have no control of possible changes in the variables that can affect resolution. A major problem is the possible effects of atmospheric distortion and light/shadow changes which can occur quickly in an uncontrolled environment with dependent variable images of little fine detail.

Repeat this type of test in doors, with a completely controlled very detailed target using multiple exposures and picking the best of each and you would have more definitive results. I used my computer monitor as the targets and subpixels for very fine detail from 41 feet when I compared the 300mm f4 vs the two TCs.

I do think they are correct that TC work best with very sharp lenses that potentially out resolve the specific sensor. Both TCs result in better images with the 300mm f4 on the 20MP EM1 and OM1 sensors. I will be interested in seeing if the same is true with the 50-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing your test results. (I assume you have one ordered?)

Click to expand...

Yes, and I will do tests with the TCs, but they probably will not be the first things I do with the lens. Checking for decentering, speed and accuracy of focus and how good the lens without TCs works will take priority.

S Jones said:

S Jones said:

If a DPR user has the 100-400 and either TC, they could do their own test to see if the TC improved the image detail.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

drj3 said:

drj3 wrote:
I will be interested in seeing if the same is true with the 50-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

Some initial "reviewers" (ambasadors) already mentioned that MC-20 on 50-200mm F/2.8 makes the images soft. One of them mentioned that 100-400mm is actually better than 50-200mm+MC-20.

MC-14 works fine on 50-200mm.

Read this review by Petr Bambousek :
https://www.sulasula.com/en/om-system-50-200mm-2-8-is-review/

"In terms of sharpness, this lens is stunning—on par with Gandalf. It pairs beautifully with the 1.4× TC. With the 2× TC it still works, but here the results are less convincing. Compared side by side with the native OM 100–400mm f/4.0–6.3 II IS, the dedicated telephoto is sharper at 400 mm. So if you buy the 50–200 f/2.8 IS expecting a 2-in-1 with the 2× TC as a “shortcut,” you’ll be disappointed. On paper the specs look similar, but optically the 100–400 still wins at the long end. The real strength of the 50–200 lies in its native performance. Use it to its fullest there, and reserve TCs—ideally the 1.4×—for occasional needs."

Toni Genes said:

Toni Genes said:

drj3 wrote:
I will be interested in seeing if the same is true with the 50-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

Some initial "reviewers" (ambasadors) already mentioned that MC-20 on 50-200mm F/2.8 makes the images soft. One of them mentioned that 100-400mm is actually better than 50-200mm+MC-20.

MC-14 works fine on 50-200mm.

Read this review by Petr Bambousek :
https://www.sulasula.com/en/om-system-50-200mm-2-8-is-review/

"In terms of sharpness, this lens is stunning—on par with Gandalf. It pairs beautifully with the 1.4× TC. With the 2× TC it still works, but here the results are less convincing. Compared side by side with the native OM 100–400mm f/4.0–6.3 II IS, the dedicated telephoto is sharper at 400 mm. So if you buy the 50–200 f/2.8 IS expecting a 2-in-1 with the 2× TC as a “shortcut,” you’ll be disappointed. On paper the specs look similar, but optically the 100–400 still wins at the long end. The real strength of the 50–200 lies in its native performance. Use it to its fullest there, and reserve TCs—ideally the 1.4×—for occasional needs."

Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if that is correct or even that cropping is always better than TCs, However, sayings it is soft on a distant target is not necessarily, saying that it would be better without the TC. My plan is to use the lens almost all the time without TCs, since much of what I want is 150-200mm at f2,8 and the lens would definitely be less sharp at those focal lengths and f4 or f5.6 with the TCs. However, I will test it with controlled conditions since subjective reports are not always correct.

James Stirling said:

TheRealYeats said:

Toni Genes said:

On a lens like 100-400mm, you get better results by upsizing the picture with a software like Gigapixel.

The TCs can work fine, but only on good lenses (like 300mm F/4.).

Click to expand...

In my experience, Gigipixel often introduces unnatural artifacts and image noise patterns.

Click to expand...

I agree, I feel the latest iteration of Adobe camera raw's Super Resolution does a better job. Though of course they don't give the same results of a high res file

An example from the OM-1 II sample gallery

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-gal...system-om-1-mark-ii-sample-gallery/1684315608

Gigapixel vs Adobe camera RAW 100% crops from 10,338 X 7754 upsize, I used the latest version of both software. Also included is a 100% crop from the original file. You could tweak each result to squeeze out a bit better results. From side by side comparisons I feel the Adobe option is a bit better at avoiding artifacts

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Both samples have noticeable flaws, but I agree the Adobe version looks better.