100-300: is the OIS this bad??

[Anders W]

Yes, they made a 300/2.8, but that is a SHG lens, not HG. That means it weights a ton and costs a lot. You need tripod for such a lens, so why don't get a 7D+400 F2.8 then? No advantage, so what's the point? Now a 300F4 could indeed be much cheaper ($1500?) and lighter (1.2kg?) making a unique combo with the E5. That's the word I think: Oly had the opportunity to make something unique , and let it go. Instead, they made a dozen overlapping wide zooms, where the system has no advantage!

Yes I suspected that would be your answer. I looked at the 300/2.8, and no, I wouldn't want to carry that thing around either. A 300/4 is quite a different story, I know. My partner in the photo business I was running for a brief period in my youth had a Hexanon 300/4.5 for his Konica and it was quite manageable, more so than my Vivitar 400/5.6.

One question with regard to your prospects of finding what you want: If you were to switch from 43 to m43, could you think of using a 300 without AF? If so there should be quite a bit to choose from out there, at very reasonable prices too I would guess. But I realize as I write that you probably couldn't get one with lens-based IS (or get the IS system to work), so you would be stuck with IBIS, and thus back to Oly again.

You need to handle a FZ30 or FZ50 if you haven't done so. Even today, they are great cameras. Of course after so many years you'll find they don't fill your needs, and it is not a DSLR. Still, they are extremely well made taking into account that they are P&S. I shoot 23000 pictures with my FZ50, let it fall from 1.70mts to the floor and got rain several times in rainforests. It still works as new. I still prefer its EVF, with all its flaws, over the """pro""" OVF of the E5.

Yes, I realize from the many comments I have seen on this forum that these cameras are certainly not to be looked down upon.

Yet, I have had 7 serious problems with my Oly """pro""" gear:

http://luis.impa.br/foto/myexperiencewitholy.html

Uuuh. It certainly looks like you've had your share of problems with Oly gear. I can understand if you have less than perfect confidence in their QC at this stage. Again, my impression is that Panasonic is quite good in this regard too, and I recently saw some statistics pointing supporting that conclusion (least number of repairs/returns among camera producers on the US market I believe). I think their warranties are a bit stingy, but hopefully I won't need them. ;-)

 

[weesam]

Q) "I only want to know if the 100-300 OIS is good enough to handhold at 300mm and 1/160s, shooting a building if you wish."

A) frankly, NO.

learn to hold the lens steady. The image stabilisation will help to a degree, but if you cannot hold the lens steady, then you are not going to get any help from image stabilisation (just slightly less blurred photos).

Image stabilisation is not a panacea to bad technique.

Use the old rules - if shooting at 300mm then you need a shutter speed of at least 1/300th second. If you are good at holding steady; then you might get away with 1/150th. IF you are good.

If you are normal, then you might want to go to 1/500th at least.

300mm is a looong lens. Expecting rock steady shots without a rock steady technique is ridiculous. Get a monopod; cranck up the ISO.

 

[luisflorit]

One question with regard to your prospects of finding what you want: If you were to switch from 43 to m43, could you think of using a 300 without AF?

No. And this is not negotiable.

If so there should be quite a bit to choose from out there, at very reasonable prices too I would guess.

Yes, I would like to use a Nikon 300mm F4. Observe that this lens does not have IS either, and was never updated.

I think I would go Nikon if they make a 80-400 MkII (for better AF) or to Canon if they make a 100-400 MkII (for better OIS).

But I realize as I write that you probably couldn't get one with lens-based IS (or get the IS system to work), so you would be stuck with IBIS, and thus back to Oly again.

You can use a tripod if the lens has no IS. However, lack of AF would be terrible, even with the EVF of the GH2. It would be like digiscoping!

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

Q) "I only want to know if the 100-300 OIS is good enough to handhold at 300mm and 1/160s, shooting a building if you wish."

A) frankly, NO.

Do you have any experience with the particular lens of interest in this thread, the Panasonic 100-300 OIS? If so, have you systematically tested its OIS capability? If yes, how many stops lower can you go with OIS than without? I think that's the only question of real interest here.

learn to hold the lens steady. The image stabilisation will help to a degree, but if you cannot hold the lens steady, then you are not going to get any help from image stabilisation (just slightly less blurred photos).

Image stabilisation is not a panacea to bad technique.

I think most of us already know that, and certainly the OP does.

Use the old rules - if shooting at 300mm then you need a shutter speed of at least 1/300th second. If you are good at holding steady; then you might get away with 1/150th. IF you are good.

If you are normal, then you might want to go to 1/500th at least.

Note that the rule refers to effective rather than nominal focal length. On m43 the EFL of a 300 mm lens is 600 mm. So the rule says 1/600, not 1/300.

300mm is a looong lens. Expecting rock steady shots without a rock steady technique is ridiculous. Get a monopod; cranck up the ISO.

I have decent odds of getting it right handheld at about 1/125 at 300 mm with the in-body IS of my current Pentax K100D. That's about two stops below what the standard rule says. With a better IS system than the one I have, three stops or more is perfectly realistic.

 

[Anders W]

You can use a tripod if the lens has no IS. However, lack of AF would be terrible, even with the EVF of the GH2. It would be like digiscoping!

Yes, I can see that AF is an important asset in some situations, including those you are likely to face. But, as we agree ... it had better be accurate AF. In that regard, I thought you might be interested in taking a look at optycne.pl's review of the D7000, which, as I mentioned, had not yet appeared ... but did so yesterday. Here's the diagram on AF accuracy:

http://translate.google.se/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Foptyczne.pl%2F150.3-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D7000_U%C5%BCytkowanie_i_ergonomia.html&sl=pl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

This was the camera I was about to buy before I had fully discovered what was going on in the world of m43. When I see the report of optycne.pl (which is not entirely out of line with some of the reports I encountered while hanging around on the relevant Nikon forum here on DPR), I am glad I didn't. It doesn't look like I would have been happy with AF accuracy. ;-)

 

[weesam]

"I have decent odds of getting it right handheld at about 1/125 at 300 mm with the in-body IS of my current Pentax K100D"

what do you want? a medal?

The poster is obvioulsy not as good as you undoubtedly are. He may be like the professional sports photographers that use monopods because their odds of nailing a biting sharp shot handheld are not as good as yours.

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

see this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=38090673

Lens looks pretty good to me. Amazingly lens handheld by the poster @ 600 mm. .

Good luck, and hope the lens works out well for you.

Hi folks,

I am a wildlife shooter seriously considering switching from Oly 43rds to Pany m43rds. As such, the GH2+100-300 is my absolute first combo of choice. I am interested in handholdable lenses only, since I walk hours in rainforests and tripods are not practical.

However, I've seen many times people complaining about the 100-300 OIS, saying that even at 1/500s you get blurry shots (when handholding of course). For example, in this review:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_g_vario_100_300mm_f4_56_mega_ois_review/conclusion/

This sounds pretty strange to me. The rule of thumb says that, at 600mm EFL, you should get sharp results at 1/600s without any stabilization. I use(d) my old Pany FZ50+TCON17 (714mm EFL) at 1/250s without any problem. I use E5 + 50-200 + EC14 at 560mm EFL @1/250s, although less reliably than the FZ50, still Ok. Yes, I found the FZ50 stabilization way more reliable than the Oly """"""pro"""""" setup, even at longer focal lengths (!!!?).

Then, how can the 100-300 OIS be so much worse than an old P&S of the same brand?

And there is another issue. As you read above, I wrote several times 1/250s. This number is important, since it is the fastest flash sync of all my cameas. In rainforests, with a non FF camera, flash is a must. But the GH2 has flash sync of 1/160s ($%%#@$#^!!!!), so I should have to shoot at 600mm EFL and 1/160s, with flash...

So, I want your opinion on the OIS of the 100-300. As you can see, it would be a killer for me if not really good (2 stops at least).

Thanks!

Cheers,
L.

-
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

--
Like others here, I suffer from GAS.
Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
a few hundred nautical miles SW : 17º 52S, 149º 56W

 

[Anders W]

"I have decent odds of getting it right handheld at about 1/125 at 300 mm with the in-body IS of my current Pentax K100D"

what do you want? a medal?

No but some recognition that you know what we are talking about plus some relevant information, such as the one I specifically asked about, if you have any.

The poster is obvioulsy not as good as you undoubtedly are. He may be like the professional sports photographers that use monopods because their odds of nailing a biting sharp shot handheld are not as good as yours.

On the contrary, I have reasons to think that his ability to handle telephoto lenses is in most respects superior to mine.

 

[luisflorit]

I thought you might be interested in taking a look at optycne.pl's review of the D7000, which, as I mentioned, had not yet appeared ... but did so yesterday. Here's the diagram on AF accuracy:

http://translate.google.se/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Foptyczne.pl%2F150.3-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D7000_U%C5%BCytkowanie_i_ergonomia.html&sl=pl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Wooooowww... That's horrible! A new Nikon??? MMmmm... Do you believe those numbers?

This was the camera I was about to buy before I had fully discovered what was going on in the world of m43. When I see the report of optycne.pl (which is not entirely out of line with some of the reports I encountered while hanging around on the relevant Nikon forum here on DPR), I am glad I didn't. It doesn't look like I would have been happy with AF accuracy. ;-)

Who would??

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

see this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=38090673

Lens looks pretty good to me. Amazingly lens handheld by the poster @ 600 mm. .

Yes, but look at the EXIF data: he shoot at 1/1000. What I am asking here is how good the OIS is. At 1/1000, it is not really a good test for the OIS. Nevertheless, the image is indeed quite good.

Good luck, and hope the lens works out well for you.

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250