Panny 100-300 and Oly 750-300 at full length.

No text

Chi Pham wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

It took me a while to learn the vagaries of my Panny 100-300. For instance...when I shot it with my GX7 I needed to back it off to 286 to minimize a reduced IQ, also 7.1 was the sweet spot and I needed to keep the speed up above 1/600.

Now I use it on my Olympus E-M5 II and it's sharp right out to 300mm, 6.3 works fine and I can shoot it a little slower.

but why would the lens be bad with the GX7 at 300mm compared to the E-M5 MKII assuming shutter speed was fast enough?

I can't say for sure, but subjectively, I think the focusing algorithm of the E-M5II just resolves the information from the lens faster and more accurately. I'm sure those who know more about this will no doubt prove me wrong, but I know the E-M5II gives me sharp images,end to end with both my Panasonic 45-150 and my P100-300, both using the lens OIS.; something I could not get with my GX7.

If you recall, DXO results from the GX7 is worse than other m43. This they mentioned is due to the Stack Sensor AKA AA filter glass.

as this is the first I heard there was a problem with the GX7 sensor wise...hmm

Trevor Carpenter wrote:
I thought I might persuade you all to post some 300 mm shots that defy the unusable tag.

These were all at 300mm with GX7 electronic shutter.  Camera supported on a fence post. Taken last winter near Okeechobee, Florida.  All cropped, I was over 100 ft away.

Clayton

Caracara

Turkey Vulture Landing Near The Caracara

Wood Stork

Thanks for the chipmunk, eagle, and tiger photos. I have an online class with my 10 year-old Beijing student in about two hours and they will be useful. She goes to California for school in about a week. Yeah, no tigers in California, but hopefully some chipmunks and squirrels...they are not to be found in Beijing...

Very satisfied and happy with the performance of this lens on my E-M1 and E-M5 II.

Wow. Some beautiful wildlife photos. Thanks to all for posting. Enjoyed them all.

Regards.

Jonantony.

And like you, Trevor, and a number of other posters, I can see my limitations in my work with the 100-300.

am I glad I started this thread.  I shall bookmark and next time someone comes out with unusable at the high end, point them here

My crow is a bit underwhelming in the face of all the brilliant pictures so I'll post one more

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

am I glad I started this thread. I shall bookmark and next time someone comes out with unusable at the high end, point them here

My crow is a bit underwhelming in the face of all the brilliant pictures so I'll post one more

Awwwww

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

am I glad I started this thread. I shall bookmark and next time someone comes out with unusable at the high end, point them here

My crow is a bit underwhelming in the face of all the brilliant pictures so I'll post one more

Beautiful capture!

If only I had a sharp lens:

Gratuitous shot at full full length + digital teleconverter:

Lots of great shots in this thread from both lenses. Haven't regretted buying 100-300mm for an instant as I sought advice here first and got the dope on how to get the best from it.

Here's my humble offering:

I remember seeing these images before -- it's a pleasure to see them again. I love the first shot especially -- excellent job, and a perfect example.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has come on and said here's a really bad shot which proves these lenses are unusable at 300mm 

No doubt...