Testing out my new Oly 45 1.8... I'm Astounded!

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

And I'm not sure if yours would have cut it with my OCD behavior ;p.

Here is a shot of the last 45mm 1.8 I had with my E-PM2. I'm a believer in shutter shock (i.e. not blind to the facts) and this is shot in shutter shock territory, but if you know about it you can attempt to brace the camera a little better to minimize it. Regardless I ditched the E-PM2 because I wanted a shutter shock free body which many of the newer Oly's now are.

I don't believe in shutter shock because I never saw any evidence with any of my mirror less cameras, and your cute photo here, is another prove to it, because there is nothing wrong with it.

So how did you test it? Like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827

Or like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3591884

Neither. I just look at the photo and judge the sharpness. If it is sharp, that is good enough for me. Up to now, I didn't have any deviation from my target sharpness that could suggest the effect of SS on my Oly cameras.

OK. So what you tested, at best, is whether the shutter shock is strong enough to be a problem given your personal target sharpness. A negative answer to that question obviously does not imply a negative answer to the question of whether shutter shock exists or not. That it does has already been established by better evidence, for example that to which I linked.

Well, you certainly have a point here. I guess that it may exist one way or another in some cases otherwise so many people wouldn't have complained.

OTOH, if the level of sharpness in my photos is within the tolerance I am requesting, even if the SS effect does exists but the result of it is invisible to my naked eye, I would consider it as non existant.

Personally, I have never encountered any case of SS on any of my cameras in any situation and that is all I can say. Having said that, I have seen some cases where people show blurry photos and complained about SS, where it is clear that the problem is different. The photo I have commented about earlier, is an example.

Sure. The magnitude of the problem can vary from close to non-existent to very manifest. And there are lots of variables that decide how bad it gets: the body, the lens, the individual copy of each (sample variation exists in this realm too), holding technique etc. In some cases, it is certainly a major rather than minor problem, even if you have optimized your holding technique from an SS perspective (which is not quite the same as optimizing it from an ordinary hand-shake point of view).

For example, it was no use for me trying my 100-300 with anything slower than 1/250 with the E-M5 and I would get some blur (though more subtle) unless I went up to 1/250 with the 75 too. With the 0-second anti-shock (electronic first curtain shutter) of my E-M1, it is worth trying 1/60, perhaps even slower with the 75 or towards the shorter end with the 100-300. With my shorter lens, I have had much less problems, although if I look carefully, I can see the evidence there too.

Hen3ry wrote:

…knock out shots, please!

They make the rest of us feel inadequate! LOL.

Lovely pix and they make your point wonderfully.

Thanks Geoff! Appreciated.

Moti wrote:

Nice photos and they make the point. I esp like the first one. I think that the Samyang is an amazing lens.

Thanks. And yes, the Samyang is amazing. Back in the film days, I always hesitead about fisheyes. Wouldn't I get tired with it? Would I really want to carry it? Would it really be worth the money? So I never got one. Nowadays, it's just exclamation marks. No I won't tire and you can defish as you see fit. Yes, I carry it all the time. And yes, it's absolutely worth the money.

Moti wrote:

Ollie 2 wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

Ollie 2 wrote:

Agreed. However, this thread is about sharpness.

Maybe I am more tolerant of this than I perhaps should be because I do it myself.

Hey baby, I'm lucky if I get one in ten...perhaps worse.

Oh, I thought the thread was going to be about astounding images. Or something astounding.

I don't see anything especially sharp, but maybe they are out of focus, the one taken at 1/100 sec probably has camera shake or shutter shock. If you left IBIS turned on, possibly all of them have the IBIS blurring, which the E-PM2 does.

Some of the images just have too much depth to look good with such a shallow DOF.

There's probably nothing wrong with the lens.

I doubt that there’s anything wrong with the lens per se. I’ve seen some pretty good results from it and I’m certain that the OP will get a lot of satisfaction from his/hers as time goes on.

It’s the least favoured Olympus lens that I own or have owned. Perhaps 90mm is not my focal length, but I simply never warmed to it like so many others clearly have.

Those who think that the lens is not sharp enough don't know what they are talking about.

Who said anything of the sort? Certainly not me.

It is my favourite lens for product photography where sharpness is paramount and it does an excellent job.

Sometimes in some hands. Demonstrably not in others.

The thing is that some people in this forum start taking "test shots" for their new glass, which has already been tested plenty of times by experts. Most of them don't even know how to test a lens but then comes the crowd, attracted by the words "test shots" and starts to comment and to judge the lens based on faults they see in the images, which are more photographer faults than anything else, but somehow are not taken into consideration.

I couldn't agree more. I'm curious as to why this is a response to my posts.

Moti

-- hide signature --

http://www.pixpix.net
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

That's a very nice pic, no evidence that something's amiss, you have conveyed the little girl's 'look' well IMO.. It's probably as much to do with body lightness (easier to disturb) as I never see S/S.

That might be because I'm steady, and the grip/extra battery offer more inertia? ... how do you cope with mirror shock in other bodies?

photohounds wrote:

That's a very nice pic, no evidence that something's amiss, you have conveyed the little girl's 'look' well IMO.. It's probably as much to do with body lightness (easier to disturb) as I never see S/S.

That might be because I'm steady, and the grip/extra battery offer more inertia? ... how do you cope with mirror shock in other bodies?

I don't need to cope with mirror shock because that effects slower exposures at say 1/30th, etc. For whatever reasons the mirror flop presents an issue in a different shutter speed range than first curtain shutters. Someone has done some mirror flop vs EFC vs MUP comparisons and have shown rather decent results.

Regardless there is nothing to cope with in regards to mirror flop. What I must cope with is with a DSLR I would have never taken that shot because that shot was just a random shot of my daughter in some restaurant, and I would have never brought a larger DSLR to a restaurant of no real occasion where as with a MFT camera I'd bring it anyways.

Right now I even think about my newest 6 month old daughter and how she plays on my tummy and I'm not in any position to take pictures with a DSLR yet again, but if I had a nice tilty mirrorless camera, who knows?

There are just more moments to use smaller cameras or smartphones, etc which is really what is hurting the enthusiast market perhaps.

I left MFT for a bit but it looks really good to come back in. I am also looking at NEX as well. Whatever the case the way the market is going, looks like I'm eventually going to buy what I want for a good price.

Also on a DSLR I have to cope with PDAF margin of error depending on differing light sources.

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Moti wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

And I'm not sure if yours would have cut it with my OCD behavior ;p.

Here is a shot of the last 45mm 1.8 I had with my E-PM2. I'm a believer in shutter shock (i.e. not blind to the facts) and this is shot in shutter shock territory, but if you know about it you can attempt to brace the camera a little better to minimize it. Regardless I ditched the E-PM2 because I wanted a shutter shock free body which many of the newer Oly's now are.

I don't believe in shutter shock because I never saw any evidence with any of my mirror less cameras, and your cute photo here, is another prove to it, because there is nothing wrong with it.

So how did you test it? Like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827

Or like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3591884

Neither. I just look at the photo and judge the sharpness. If it is sharp, that is good enough for me. Up to now, I didn't have any deviation from my target sharpness that could suggest the effect of SS on my Oly cameras.

OK. So what you tested, at best, is whether the shutter shock is strong enough to be a problem given your personal target sharpness. A negative answer to that question obviously does not imply a negative answer to the question of whether shutter shock exists or not. That it does has already been established by better evidence, for example that to which I linked.

Well, you certainly have a point here. I guess that it may exist one way or another in some cases otherwise so many people wouldn't have complained.

OTOH, if the level of sharpness in my photos is within the tolerance I am requesting, even if the SS effect does exists but the result of it is invisible to my naked eye, I would consider it as non existant.

Two arguments that do not wash:

• I have not seen it therefore it does not exist
• I have faith that it does not exist because someone wrote it somewhere

Consider quitting while you are behind. Repeating your "reasons" over and over does nothing to convince the rest of us that you have some kind of valid position here.

A valid position:

• I have not seen it and therefore I do not care that it exists

You can try that one and see how it flies.

Personally, I have never encountered any case of SS on any of my cameras in any situation and that is all I can say.

Yet that is not what you said. You said "I do not believe that it exists" ... that's a very different assertion.

Having said that, I have seen some cases where people show blurry photos and complained about SS, where it is clear that the problem is different. The photo I have commented about earlier, is an example.

And again, not an argument against the existence of shutter shock.

grimescene wrote:

Hello folks,

Just got a super cheap Oly E-PM2 and 45 1.8 combo. (God bless eBay!) I have to say that I love it... so small, light - and image quality out of this world. Still haven't clicked any people with this lens yet... but I can imagine the results will be awesome. I really wonder if any other m4/3 lens can match this kind of IQ...75 1.8 I am assuming; but that thing is a monster in every way.

Hope you liked the pics...please do leave a comment...and share your experiences with the 45 1.8!

Sincerely

Abhishek

If by IQ you mean bookeh then 40-150 at long end will be close. Also PL45 will be similar, it's just one stop.

If by IQ you mean sharpness then  there us plenty of sharp lens like PL25, PL45, 12-40, 12-25, 20, 7-14 - pleanty of u4/3 give you very good sharpness. Actually 45mm 1.8 is only moderately sharp wide open.

arbuz wrote:

grimescene wrote:

Hello folks,

Just got a super cheap Oly E-PM2 and 45 1.8 combo. (God bless eBay!) I have to say that I love it... so small, light - and image quality out of this world. Still haven't clicked any people with this lens yet... but I can imagine the results will be awesome. I really wonder if any other m4/3 lens can match this kind of IQ...75 1.8 I am assuming; but that thing is a monster in every way.

Hope you liked the pics...please do leave a comment...and share your experiences with the 45 1.8!

Sincerely

Abhishek

If by IQ you mean bookeh then 40-150 at long end will be close. Also PL45 will be similar, it's just one stop.

The 150 at the long end will not really be close with regard to "bokeh" (I guess you mean background blur) and will require three times the subject distance. See here:

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-45mm-f1.8-and-2x-150mm-f5.6-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

The PL 45/2.8 has no advantages, only disadvantages, relative to the 45/1.8 unless you want macro capability and/or OIS.

If by IQ you mean sharpness then there us plenty of sharp lens like PL25, PL45, 12-40, 12-25, 20, 7-14 - pleanty of u4/3 give you very good sharpness. Actually 45mm 1.8 is only moderately sharp wide open.

Which other MFT lens(es) is/are sharper than the 45/1.8 at 45 mm (or thereabout) and f/1.8? Or f/2.8 for that matter?

Moti wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A valid position:

• I have not seen it and therefore I do not care that it exists
  You can try that one and see how it flies.

fair enough, totally accepted if that can help you to better understand what I actually meant to say. Apology for hurting your feelings.

Having said that, I have seen some cases where people show blurry photos and complained about SS, where it is clear that the problem is different. The photo I have commented about earlier, is an example.

And again, not an argument against the existence of shutter shock.

Just take it on face value without trying to built up a whole philosophy mish mash on it. That wasn't meant to be an argument against the existence of SS, because I said "some cases"
It was simply an observation of how sometimes, a wrong interpretation can lead to the wrong conclusions, and that applies also to people who see SS which is not always there.

Everything you have written on SS has been dismissive in tone. First, you tried to dismiss SS with "I don't believe". Now, you dismiss my logic with the intentionally insulting "sorry to hurt your feelings." Even your "there might be some cases" is just a dismissive "throwing a bone but still don't really believe it" sort of argument. One term for that is "back-handed" in the form of a complement that is meant as the opposite.

It's all indicative of a defensive attempt to retain a shred of credibility on this topic. It won't work and the attempt should be abandoned quietly

By the way ... I do understand that SS is not always understood. People see blur and say SS automatically. But the fact is that SS is very real. It is entirely possible that you just do not understand how to frame an argument without weaving in your opinions. If so, then I apologize for hurting your feelings