It'll just make you want something better...

mdocod wrote:

shinndigg wrote:

mdocod wrote:

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

I don't feel obligated to defend my purchasing decisions with raving reviews on everything I buy. The reality is everything I have ever purchased, and everything I ever will purchase, has flaws in my own critical eye, and I'm not afraid to point them out.

And yet here you are defending your position.

What? Your argument here doesn't even make any sense.

It makes perfect sense.... unless one is defending an unrealistic pov.

One thing I am noticing here on DPREVIEW, is that a simple mostly positive sounding review, gets no attention, because it is the positive reinforcement people are looking for to rationalize their purchase decision. A critical review that covers all the flaws of a product, gets tons of attention, from people very concerned with defending their perception of the qualities and rationalization of their purchase decision.

-Eric

There is merit to your pov on user reviews. Conversely, some choose to post reviews simply to bash, as they are not satisfied no matter what. Thus the reason to rely on generally unbiased professional reviews, such as in this case, Imaging Resource.

I stand by my assessment of your review. The 75-300 and 75mm prime are simply two different animals.

-- hide signature --

shinndigg
www.pbase.com/shinndigg

Yes, they are indeed very different animals. That's the whole point. Despite being very different animals, there is an area of overlap in functionality that most will overlook.

Many folks may not even consider the 75 prime as even being on the radar when looking for a telephoto zoom lens. Yet, it has merit as an alternative to the zoom, that can produce superior results in many conditions.

Ok, so, what about from 76mm through 300mm? Even if one crops half an image, sharp as it may be, you reach a comparable 150mm.

Bottom line is, by their nature, zooms, be they standard or super zoom, of which the 75-300 is closer related to, are a series of compromises. Give a little , get a little. In this case, you get a lot of reach. The complexities of their design leave no other choice.

OTOH, prime are more simple in their basic design and as such, require fewer, if any, compromises.

Perhaps you should have been more realistic in your expectations?

In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock.  Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens?  Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

Light Bender wrote:

In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock. Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens? Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

I don't see shutter shocked images coming from my metal bodied lenses mounted to the EM5 II. Only the plastic ones.

Yes, the "longer" lenses suffer more.

I brought my lenses to a local camera shop and played with them on an em1 II to compare shutter shock.

Still only shows up on the plastic bodied lenses, and worst on the 75-300.

On the other hand... The GM5 never ever has shutter shock on any lens.

I'm sure the shock originates with the body, but the lens seems to play a role.

jalywol wrote:

mdocod wrote:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

I will say that neither of you hold the camera in a way that gives optimum support:

I think you should get the same a-ha experience as I did when I read what Rich Z wrote in another thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5893965) some months ago:

"Here's a great trick taught me by an ancient photographer, fifty years ago.

Firmly grip right upper arm with left hand. Extend left elbow out in front of your face. Rest the lens in the crook of the elbow. Hold the camera very firmly against the bone above your eye (might have to remove certain eyepiece shades) while gently but firmly and constantly twisting the camera down to push the lens into the crook of the elbow. Now, your head and both arms are locked into one structure. Feet apart, set well and firm, and do not move them. Pan from the waist ( fight the urge to pan with the neck when using this technique, or you will need surgery). Be mindful to breathe regularly and shoot on slow exhalation. All of the pix I posted were shot this way. Out among photographers using tripods, I am scoffed at while using this technique. That is, until they see the pix."

I had for about thirty years followed the usual instructions to carry the lens in my left palm and tucking my left elbow into the left side of the body or supporting on a knee and whatever. However, applying the posture described by Rich (in particular when shooting with my 50-200) I experience a wholly different reduction in camera shake. (I have after this also begun, under the circumstances, to lean the 50-200 on my left shoulder while looking into the viewfinder with my left eye.)

After now having bought the 75-300 and used it a lot on my EM-1 mk i, I see the same improvements in image sharpness following this posture with the 75-300 also. With the availability of the improved IBIS, I'm really impressed with the sharpness thay may be obtained with the 75-300 even in low light.

Time for new positions - try It! You won't be disappointed.

(Much of what I say here above is a quote from what I said in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60141804, where the topic was discussed somewhat further in the thread.)

I wouldn't consider myself a jittery photographer. I routinely get sharp images, handheld, shooting base iso with 1/8-1/2 second exposures on my collection of primes.

Yes, but this is a LONG lens, AND it's very lightweight, which increases the tendency to inadvertently move it during shots, and that combination is going to behave very differently than your shorter primes. Trust me on this.

Totally agree - shorter primes and sreally long teles are two different planets in this respect. This cannot be stressed enough.

I also need to give the latest firmware a chance on the body with this lens... I noticed a big change in the way anti-shock is handled compared to previous firmware. (didn't have an automatic anti-shock option before). I wonder if any other changes to the anti-shock algorithm are in play here. I had previously noticed best results shooting electronic shutter only.

Yes, for sure.

Good luck...

-J

jalywol wrote:

EspE1 wrote:

jalywol wrote:

mdocod wrote:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

I will say that neither of you hold the camera in a way that gives optimum support:

I think you should get the same a-ha experience as I did when I read what Rich Z wrote in another thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5893965) some months ago:

"Here's a great trick taught me by an ancient photographer, fifty years ago.

Firmly grip right upper arm with left hand. Extend left elbow out in front of your face. Rest the lens in the crook of the elbow. Hold the camera very firmly against the bone above your eye (might have to remove certain eyepiece shades) while gently but firmly and constantly twisting the camera down to push the lens into the crook of the elbow. Now, your head and both arms are locked into one structure. Feet apart, set well and firm, and do not move them. Pan from the waist ( fight the urge to pan with the neck when using this technique, or you will need surgery). Be mindful to breathe regularly and shoot on slow exhalation. All of the pix I posted were shot this way. Out among photographers using tripods, I am scoffed at while using this technique. That is, until they see the pix."

I had for about thirty years followed the usual instructions to carry the lens in my left palm and tucking my left elbow into the left side of the body or supporting on a knee and whatever. However, applying the posture described by Rich (in particular when shooting with my 50-200) I experience a wholly different reduction in camera shake. (I have after this also begun, under the circumstances, to lean the 50-200 on my left shoulder while looking into the viewfinder with my left eye.)

After now having bought the 75-300 and used it a lot on my EM-1 mk i, I see the same improvements in image sharpness following this posture with the 75-300 also. With the availability of the improved IBIS, I'm really impressed with the sharpness thay may be obtained with the 75-300 even in low light.

Interesting. Tried this, but my left upper arm gets a little fatigued after a bit. I actually rest my left upper arm and elbow on my chest so my lower left arm is quite stable but still can move up or down a bit (using elbow as a fulcrum), and then rest the lens in the palm of my left hand. Right upper arm is also braced against chest, with camera body being held in right hand and camera also braced above eye. This accomplishes about the same level of stability, with less fatigue to upper left arm muscles, since you are bearing the downward weight of the camera and lens on the bones in your lower arm rather than the muscles in your upper arm.
I think the take-home message of both of these techniques is that body bracing using both arms, torso, and head, are necessary and effective for long lens stabilization without external support.

-J

When I follow the method conveyed by Rich Z, I put emphasis on grabbing around the right upper arm on the outside with the four fingers, while the tumb is more passiv in the grip, (as opposed to create a countergrip with the tumb on the inner side of the arm also). By initially overdoing the grabbing around the upper right arm -- by first stretching my left arm as far around the right arm as I'm able - I feel then that things fall into a more relaxed position when flex in clothing and body tissue gives way, and the left arm gets 'spanned down' ready for finalizing the postion. I find that for me this reduces strain in the left arm. Also the left arm may get (dependent on the length of the lens) a certain support from the lower right arm 'on its way up to' holding the camera.

But bodies are different. You must find what works best for you. (I have also tried - with fairly good success - to rather grab over my right shoulder with my left arm. Perhaps this also something you shiuld try?)

The shocking thing for me, though, was that it was fairly by coincidence I came over Rich's posting so as to learn that what I have read in photo mags and books for decades about shooting postures really was not very good -- at least for long tele photos were camera shake comes into play for a wholly different dimension and hence where stabilizing the camera/lens is of paramount importace, particularly in low light. I know that there are lots of pictures I've taken in low light that would not have been ruined had I learnt/realized this when I started with photography.

maltmoose wrote:

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position about the 75 vs 75-300 but your original post has some fairly bold claims about the 75 vs 75-300.

Why not provide some evidence that the 75 bests the 75-300 at 150 and 300.

Would be interesting info for everyon.

For comparisons sake, consider the following situation calculated for a shutter speed that seems to be more in-line with what people are suggesting is required to get good results out of this lens:

A: 75-300 @ 300, F8, 1/640, ISO 3200

B: 75 @ 75, f2, 1/640, ISO 200

Both of these configurations will have roughly the same "exposure."

"A" has 16X as much sensor coverage for the intended subject.

"A" gets all 16MP of a typical 4/3 camera. While "B" gets only 1MP to work with after cropping to the same subject.

"B" has a significant lens sharpness advantage here, on the order of 1/2-1/3 the "blur units, as well as ~1/3 the chromatic aberration.

"B" also has 3 "dxo" stops of dynamic range advantage, has 2 "dxo" bits of tonal range advantage, and 12 "dxo" dB S/N advantage over "A."

Do a little 2x2=4, carry the fuz, and I figure in this comparison, "A" will have up-to a ~1.8X resolving power (~35% larger diagonal print size) advantage for an intended subject over "B" in situations where the loss of dynamic range doesn't matter.

In any situation where the limited dynamic range of "A" ruins the photo, B wins.

mdocod wrote:

maltmoose wrote:

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position about the 75 vs 75-300 but your original post has some fairly bold claims about the 75 vs 75-300.

Why not provide some evidence that the 75 bests the 75-300 at 150 and 300.

Would be interesting info for everyon.

For comparisons sake, consider the following situation calculated for a shutter speed that seems to be more in-line with what people are suggesting is required to get good results out of this lens:

A: 75-300 @ 300, F8, 1/640, ISO 3200

B: 75 @ 75, f2, 1/640, ISO 200

Both of these configurations will have roughly the same "exposure."

"A" has 16X as much sensor coverage for the intended subject.

"A" gets all 16MP of a typical 4/3 camera. While "B" gets only 1MP to work with after cropping to the same subject.

"B" has a significant lens sharpness advantage here, on the order of 1/2-1/3 the "blur units, as well as ~1/3 the chromatic aberration.

"B" also has 3 "dxo" stops of dynamic range advantage, has 2 "dxo" bits of tonal range advantage, and 12 "dxo" dB S/N advantage over "A."

Do a little 2x2=4, carry the fuz, and I figure in this comparison, "A" will have up-to a ~1.8X resolving power (~35% larger diagonal print size) advantage for an intended subject over "B" in situations where the loss of dynamic range doesn't matter.

In any situation where the limited dynamic range of "A" ruins the photo, B wins.

Instead of all this waffle, why not take a couple of pictures of the same subject, to show us the similarity or difference between all of the frame at 300mm and a tiny crop of the 75mm.

Peter Del

shinndigg wrote:

Perhaps you should have been more realistic in your expectations?

I bought the 75-300 when I bought my camera system. Same day. Was part of my "first lenses" kit for getting into this hobby.

The 75-300 fell into the mix as the telephoto solution.

I didn't buy the 75mm till about a year later, which is when I had the revelation through experience, that it can do a lot of the same "work" in real world conditions with difficult lighting, while also providing a better performance on the shorter end anyway.

My review is not based on "expectations." I didn't know what to expect going into this lens. But I have owned it for nearly 2 years, and have taken hundreds of pictures with it, and taken pictures with plenty of other lenses on the same camera as well. My experience, is that it can be challenging to get good photos out of the 75-300mm, and it has left me wanting of a better telephoto lens. I have shared my opinion formed from experience in the form of a review. There was never a problem here with "expectation."

So maybe the problem is you haven't a clue as to how to use it, based on other responses

As someone else pointed out, considering your issues seemingly across the board with "shutter shock" and "pixel blur", the issues you're having are unlikely to be the lenses. The issues likely reside elsewhere, be it a body issue or technique

shinndigg wrote:

As someone else pointed out, considering your issues seemingly across the board with "shutter shock" and "pixel blur", the issues you're having are unlikely to be the lenses. The issues likely reside elsewhere, be it a body issue or technique

I just set up to do some side-by-side samples to try to illustrate what I am seeing. Do a little in-house lab work... This of course, led me to really diving into some of my issues a lot deeper with lots of side-by side comparisons.

Shutter shock may be an even larger issue across the board for me than I had previous realized. You guys are on to something here. I think it may not show up as the obvious "ghost" on some of the heavier glass, or when anti-shock is enabled (reduces it), or on wider glass (7-14), but on careful side-by-side chimping inspection of images taken with anti-shock, and electronic shutter, I can get sharp results at 1/15 shutter speed, hand held, at 300mm. Turn on the shutter, even in anti-shock mode with various delays configured, and the blurred/ghosted/offset comes back at many speeds. Need to do more experimentation but it would seem that 1/320 or faster is where things need to eliminate it.

Additional experimentation has revealed that the EM5 II misses auto-focus about 25% of the time, adding to the confusion about where my bad shots were originating.

I owe the 75-300 an apology for the poor review. I'm using the camera wrong for this lens. Need to either shoot electric shutter or 1/320 or faster ALL THE TIME. I feel like the EM5.2 is more to blame on this now, and that has me working up the nerve to write a pretty harsh review on that piece of equipment...

Furthermore, I just transitioned from Darktable to DXO Photolab for post processing, I now have to admit that with the proper post processing for chroma noise (something I never figured out how to accomplish in darktable without throwing away fine detail), high iso is not as much of a problem as I previous thought for overcoming the small aperture this lens. I just bought photolab today, (been tinkering with the demo for about a week).

When developing in darktable, I made a point never to shoot over ~iso 400-800. I'd be better off under-exposing to get the shutter speeds, then lifting the exposure with exposure fusion to keep the noise out of it. Now that I have seen how photolab can work noise (even the standard fastHQ noise reduction), my perspective on what sort of sharpness can be retained at high ISO is totally shifting.

Thanks guys!