When Oly falls short on DOF, ISO, and Bohka

[corey brown]

I am always seeing so many people complain about the DOF and not being able to get good Bokha or how ever you say that. Have been using an Olympus system now for 9 months and I am not sure I see the same point of view as they do. Here are a couple of snap shots from my daughter and I's walk the other day some shots are Iso 400 and 500 all hand held with shutter speeds as low as a 1/40 s all shot with the 50-200 swd. Like I said they are mainly snap shots but every week my snap shots seem to be getting better.









Thanks for looking any CC is welcome
Corey
--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[Mahesh]

Beautiful images, Corey! I especially like the frog shot...awesome light.

--
Shoot in RAW because memory is cheap, but memories are priceless.

Mahesh

http://www.StarvingPhotographer.com

 

[John King]

Gidday Corey

I just love the frog (toad?). Beautiful shot.

I have just acquired an E-1 (along with my E-510). I like these cameras very much, and the lenses.

Keep them coming, mate ... thanks for sharing.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[corey brown]

Thank You Mahesh,

I really like the frog shot as well, the 50- 200 just really shined in the back waters for catching those peek through lights.
Corey

Beautiful images, Corey! I especially like the frog shot...awesome
light.

--
Shoot in RAW because memory is cheap, but memories are priceless.

Mahesh

http://www.StarvingPhotographer.com

--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[pgabor]

While I like Your images I have to say that I really hate these threads. I used to use an Oly system for 2.5 years not only 9 months and I have to say that You are wrong. We (who complain) are not all stupid. I personally hardly ever see anyone complaining about the bokeh. However, the complaints about the not so shallow DOF and less than stellar high ISO performance are all valid in my opinion. First, the fact that in some situation You can get decent DOF does not prove that it is not a problem. I hope You realize that in all of Your pics the subject is really close and the background is quite far. Therefore, You will get a decent depth of field no matter what lens or system You use. You also mention that You used ISO 400 and 500. That is not high ISO. The standard lighting for a gym at the Olympic games for example is 1/500th of a second with a 2.8 lens. Now, that is hardly enough to capture motion blur free shots of gymnasts. Thus, You either pop up the ISO to 1600, or use one of the f2 lenses from Oly. This way You get 1/1000th of a sec, which is usually satisfactory. The problem is that You have a one stop advantage with a full frame system in terms of high ISO performance over Oly and this hardly justifies the high price tag of the SHG lenses. I have to say that if You do not shot in these kind of conditions than the 4/3 system is an option that everyone should consider but when people complain they do not mean the entry level cameras.

G.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

 

[John King]

Gidday PG

You are starting to sound like a stuck record, mate. The man is merely asking what do we think of his pics.

No real need to give him a lecture as to why you decided that something else suited you better. He is happy with his camera.

AND if you seriously think that Olympus is going to drop the price of their SHG lenses, you are living in fantasy land. They are already cheaper than the nearest competitor's SHG lenses; and lighter; and no bigger; for a full stop faster.

PLEASE just enjoy YOUR choice of gear; take some photos; post them on your home forum; and hope that no one treats you the way you are treating Corey.

Thanks.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[corey brown]

Ok I will bite so for an Olympic gymnastic game the Olympus system my fall short. well here is a shot ISO 1600 in a gym but they were only using 1/4 of the lights not all of them in a elementary school. It was a benefit concert and it is not 2.8 I stood in the back to stay out of everyones way just because I could so it is at a 3.5 50-200 swd hand held 200 mm.



Maybe I need to find some gymnastics to see how bad it is but in every situation I put the system in I have been able to get the shot. Maybe I am just staying below it limits still but when I find them I will let you know.
Thanks for your input and knowledge it is appreciated.
Corey

While I like Your images I have to say that I really hate these
threads. I used to use an Oly system for 2.5 years not only 9 months
and I have to say that You are wrong. We (who complain) are not all
stupid. I personally hardly ever see anyone complaining about the
bokeh. However, the complaints about the not so shallow DOF and less
than stellar high ISO performance are all valid in my opinion. First,
the fact that in some situation You can get decent DOF does not prove
that it is not a problem. I hope You realize that in all of Your pics
the subject is really close and the background is quite far.
Therefore, You will get a decent depth of field no matter what lens
or system You use. You also mention that You used ISO 400 and 500.
That is not high ISO. The standard lighting for a gym at the Olympic
games for example is 1/500th of a second with a 2.8 lens. Now, that
is hardly enough to capture motion blur free shots of gymnasts. Thus,
You either pop up the ISO to 1600, or use one of the f2 lenses from
Oly. This way You get 1/1000th of a sec, which is usually
satisfactory. The problem is that You have a one stop advantage with
a full frame system in terms of high ISO performance over Oly and
this hardly justifies the high price tag of the SHG lenses. I have to
say that if You do not shot in these kind of conditions than the 4/3
system is an option that everyone should consider but when people
complain they do not mean the entry level cameras.

G.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[corey brown]

Hi John thank you for taking the time I respect your opinion.

Sorry I did not respond sooner I was taking a small tour of Melbourne VIA your web site I really like how you have put your city scape together very nice.

I am glad I was able to capture the light the way I did with the frog photo it did turn out better then I expected.
Thanks
Corey

Gidday Corey

I just love the frog (toad?). Beautiful shot.

I have just acquired an E-1 (along with my E-510). I like these
cameras very much, and the lenses.

Keep them coming, mate ... thanks for sharing.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[Rens]

Good picture, and hand-held at 1/40th with a 50-200 is impressive.

It's pointless pgabor complaining about what the four thirds system doesn't do well. If its good points don't suit your photography, buy into a different system.

I do landscapes and portraits and wildlife, my E3 does fine.

If I'd needed higher ISOs (as opposed to finding them useful occasionally), I'd have looked at the Nikon D300 and put up with no articulating LV, no body IS, poorer skin tones and the Nikon colour JPGs I've never liked.

Then I could have complained about these on the Nikon forum.

Rens

 

[John King]

G'day again Corey

Hi John thank you for taking the time I respect your opinion.

Thank you, I am much honoured.

Sorry I did not respond sooner I was taking a small tour of Melbourne
VIA your web site I really like how you have put your city scape
together very nice.

Thank you for your kind comments. It is very much work in progress ... A mate and I are going to look at doing a joint project on urban stuff.

I am glad I was able to capture the light the way I did with the frog
photo it did turn out better then I expected.

I don't care how you got it, Corey - it is a smashing pic! I bet it has printed up beautifully.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[camerahawk]

Hello Corey Brown,

As far as I know I believe that the complanes about DOF and Bokeh concerned the Kit-lenses and not the pro or semi-pro lenses.

Nice pic's btw.

kind regards,
Lodi

 

[pgabor]

Good picture, and hand-held at 1/40th with a 50-200 is impressive.

It's pointless pgabor complaining about what the four thirds system
doesn't do well. If its good points don't suit your photography, buy
into a different system.

This is exactly what I did, I bought another system. However, I still use Oly occasionally.

I am not complaining about what 4/3 cannot do. All I am saying is that it would be nice if people did not try to prove 4/3 is good with high ISO or DOF. The 4/3 system is a great system but not for these things.

I do landscapes and portraits and wildlife, my E3 does fine.

I agree. If You do those kind of shots You definitely have to consider the E3.

If I'd needed higher ISOs (as opposed to finding them useful
occasionally), I'd have looked at the Nikon D300 and put up with no
articulating LV, no body IS, poorer skin tones and the Nikon colour
JPGs I've never liked.

Well, the articulating screen is an advantage of the E3. However, if You use Your camera in studio You can attach the D300 to a laptop which is even better. It does not have built in body IS but funnily the lenses with built in IS cost less. One of the things why the D300 is probably the most customizable semi pro body these days is because You can upload several different kind of curves. If skin tones are not the best than it is probably up to You and not the camera.

Then I could have complained about these on the Nikon forum.

I do not think You have to own a system in order to be eligible to complain. I think You have to have experience with it. That's what counts.

Rens

Thanks for Your thoughts,
G.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

 

[pgabor]

Hi Corey,

I appreciate Your feedback. Unfortunately, I could not find the Exif in Your picture and therefore I have no idea what shutter speed You used. Moreover, I have to say that while the picture is not terribly noisy, it is not very clean either. In other words, if You wanted a decently sized print the noise would be already too visible.

Anyway, I did not want to be offensive in any way. All I tried to say is that if You are happy with Your system that is great. I think that is the most important thing because this way You will enjoy taking pictures. However, I think if You used it for sports photography, low light photography or portraits You would find it insufficient too.

G.

Ok I will bite so for an Olympic gymnastic game the Olympus system my
fall short. well here is a shot ISO 1600 in a gym but they were only
using 1/4 of the lights not all of them in a elementary school. It
was a benefit concert and it is not 2.8 I stood in the back to stay
out of everyones way just because I could so it is at a 3.5 50-200
swd hand held 200 mm.

Maybe I need to find some gymnastics to see how bad it is but in
every situation I put the system in I have been able to get the shot.
Maybe I am just staying below it limits still but when I find them I
will let you know.
Thanks for your input and knowledge it is appreciated.
Corey

--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check
says 'I got
nothing
for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive
me Jesus did.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

 

[pgabor]

Gidday PG

You are starting to sound like a stuck record, mate. The man is
merely asking what do we think of his pics.

No real need to give him a lecture as to why you decided that
something else suited you better. He is happy with his camera.

I do not need a lecture from You either. Especially because Your knowledge is extremely limited.

AND if you seriously think that Olympus is going to drop the price of
their SHG lenses, you are living in fantasy land. They are already
cheaper than the nearest competitor's SHG lenses; and lighter; and no
bigger; for a full stop faster.

I thought we already discussed this. I have to ask You one thing. Do You have any experience or knowledge about other systems?

The Oly 35-100mm is equivalent to the Nikon 70-200mm for example. It is $550 more expensive and 10% heavier. Do I really need to list all the other counter examples as well? Please, do a research before You state something. Thank You.

PLEASE just enjoy YOUR choice of gear; take some photos; post them
on your home forum; and hope that no one treats you the way you are
treating Corey.

As I shoot Oly as well this is my home forum too. In other words I run multiple systems. I hope You can understand at least one of these sentences.

Thanks.

You are more than welcome.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.

G.

-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

 

[knoblock]

The dragonfly in the grass and the frog are really excellent. The mood of the frog photo is sublime with the green reflection and the patterns on the water.

I think what rankles some people is trying to use shallow dof achieved on 4/3 by a long lens or close subject to camera distance as an example, which does not represent the difficulties when trying to achieve the preferred dof for portraits. Sometimes I have too much dof even with the doubled dof from 4/3 because I tend to shoot close to flowers or other ordinary objects.

But on the other hand, sometimes it is not narrow enough to isolate the subject from a busy background and I have to resort to a faster lens. For flower photography, shooting with an f/1.4 lens can create good isolation, but even on 4/3 it can be too shallow and I must stop down to get the whole bloom in focus. Sometimes I am thankful for the extra apparent dof 4/3 provides and sometimes am frustrated by it.

--
Steve

http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/
http://picasaweb.google.com/steve.knoblock

Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau

 

[thebard37]

. . more than just aperture.

Yes, other systems have better ISO and can get lower DOF, but in practice these shots don't need much more than some solid photgraphic technique to make them better.

These images are OK, expecially if you are just starting like you say. Kudos. But they are far from perfect, and have multiple distracting portions.

My advice to address both the technical and artisitc aspects of this post it this:

First, get closer. Second get closer.

The dragon fly takes up between 5-10% of the frame, and the other insect takes up slightly less. Yes, the background on the first dragonfly is too distracting. It is a clear case of too much DOF.

A larger format would blur that more pleasingly. But if you approach closer ( maybe an extensions tube, which is relatively cheap) using a clsoer focusing lens you would a.) blur out the background more, and b.) fill the frame with the subject.

Less DOF would help with a.) but it would do nothing to fix b.) -- the fact that the main subject is taking up too little space. And in practice, fixing the second problem will fix the first problem on just about any close up.

By ridding the picture of the distracting thatch at the bottom, and the somewhat less distracting tree at the top, gettig closer would help with the forg image as well. It would give a larger rendering of the frog in the water, which is what I want to see! Although in fairness, those are quick little guys, and very cagy, so I understand that it might have been a touch spur of the moment.

I know that lens combo can do all of that (and very well) so I wouldn't worry about putting these images in any sort of a "could camera X and lens lens X have done better" type of context.

I wasn't there, and haven't used the 50-200, so I don't know if it can focus closer (I suspect it can) but I know it can with the extension tube because I have seen results from that combo that are astounding! So if you are close focus limited . . . that is one option.

Third . . . and this has nothing to do with DOF . . .but both of these bugs have a blade of grass in front of them. It really detracts having something blocking the main subject. DOF of any sort won't fix that either. Although I think the second bug closer cropped might not look so bad even with the grass there.

Sorry for carrying on, but you asked for an honest opinion of the images and in my opinion (others may differ) those are the problems these photographs have, and Olympus palys no part in that. I sincerely HTH.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

 

[corey brown]

Thank you Lodi,

Well yes and no I have seen some folks display images of the 50-200 were the Bokeh was not very creamy at all and some what chunky. However I am not able to reproduce this same look, not that I want to but I would like to know ware to prevent it.
Thanks Corey

Hello Corey Brown,

As far as I know I believe that the complanes about DOF and Bokeh
concerned the Kit-lenses and not the pro or semi-pro lenses.

Nice pic's btw.

kind regards,
Lodi

--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[corey brown]

Thanks Rens,
Which Instrument?

Good picture, and hand-held at 1/40th with a 50-200 is impressive.

I seem to be holding it all the time, I even shot a 3 day event with it 3 day conference after I got it. So I guess I am just getting used to it and the IS does work well in the E3.

Rens

Thanks
Corey
--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[corey brown]

Hi Steve,

The dragonfly in the grass and the frog are really excellent. The
mood of the frog photo is sublime with the green reflection and the
patterns on the water.

Thank you very much.

I think what rankles some people is trying to use shallow dof
achieved on 4/3 by a long lens or close subject to camera distance as
an example, which does not represent the difficulties when trying to
achieve the preferred dof for portraits. Sometimes I have too much
dof even with the doubled dof from 4/3 because I tend to shoot close
to flowers or other ordinary objects.

But on the other hand, sometimes it is not narrow enough to isolate
the subject from a busy background and I have to resort to a faster
lens. For flower photography, shooting with an f/1.4 lens can create
good isolation, but even on 4/3 it can be too shallow and I must stop
down to get the whole bloom in focus. Sometimes I am thankful for the
extra apparent dof 4/3 provides and sometimes am frustrated by it.

Thank you for your input it is highly appreciated. Why is it every time I turn around some one mentions that 1.4 lens (sorry lens lust) either that or the 50 f2

--
Steve

http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/
http://picasaweb.google.com/steve.knoblock
Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as
pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau

Thanks
Corey
--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[Larry Lynch]

I no longer use the term "Bokeh" (thats one way Ive seen it spelled)..

I use SOFA (soft out of focus area). and I find that my Oly shots have plenty of it, and depending on the lens used, it can be quite attractive.

Is your 50 - 200 one of the newer ones, or one of the "old" bunch. The complaint about the 50 200 was mostly that the4 SOFA could be harsh or crisp but I think that depended on content more than anything. (bright OOF highlites do look a little "crispy" to me when shot with that lens.

The only time I have a problem with DOF with my Olys is when shooting portraits, and I cure the problem by using longer lenses, wide open, and I move around 'till I have what I want.

Picking the right focal length, fstop, and distance becomes a matter of "habit" with me after a few shots with a given lens, and I usually get the results I want..

--
Larry

Don't confuse fame with success. Paris Hilton is one; Helen Keller is the other