Cant wait for my (almost) new camera (EM10MK2) and lens (75-300)!

Henry Richardson wrote:

I have several m4/3 bodies (Olympus and Panasonic) and I have the E-M10II also. One of my favorite cameras. I also have the 75-300mm II.

Sometimes just for grins I use it with the 2x digital teleconverter for fun jpegs. What it does is take the central 25% of the image (4mp in the case of the 16mp E-M10II) and then interpolate it up to full size. The EVF shows the image you will get. At 300mm it would be equivalent to a 600mm field of view. Of course, the quality is not close to a real 600mm, but I have found that if I then downsize the 16mp photo to 8-10mp on my computer it usually looks pretty darn good. For some images even the full 16mp will look good. Just a few years ago 8-10mp was living large. Big enough for most uses still. It is free to play with so give it a try. Might not work for you, but you won't know if sometimes it will work unless you play around with it awhile on lots of images. Note, that if you shoot raw instead of jpeg you can still see the pseudo 600mm view in the EVF, but then you would have to crop the raw on your computer to the central 25% and then upsize. Remember, 600mm on m4/3 is like 1200mm on FF. Pretty awesome.

Remember that you have to have excellent support to shoot at the pseudo 1200mm. I have shot in good light handheld though and by holding very steady (elbows on a support) and the IBIS I have managed some pretty good results sometimes.

Thanks I will try it!  It sounds like "intelligent digital zoom" on my Fuji superzooms where it selectively sharpens the image to make it look better when enlarged.  I did try it on my EPL6 but the image seemed blurry....of course I was shooting handheld and the EPL6 doesn't have a good IS so that could have been the reason why- and that was with the 40-150 lens.

glassoholic wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

I have protective filters on all my lenses except super teles. For me, even if using B&W brand, AF is unpredictable.

I hear what you're saying, even on my superzoom cameras like the Fuji HS50 I find that using a filter (and I use either Hoya or B+W) can affect AF. Some of my moon shots look slightly out of focus even when AF was supposedly locked in and crater detail is a little fuzzier than it should be.....

Indeed... the moon is a great test of sharpness. If I have a filter on a 300mm lens and take 10 shots SAF and 10 CAF, the amount of slightly missed focus shots is is about half or more. Without a filter, maybe 2 shots miss focus. I am talking viewing critically at 100% view... or practically, the difference between great bird feather detail or not.

The best sharpness shot in the above test with a filter, looks exactly the same as the best without a filter. So, whilst a quality filter does not detract from sharpness, it often throws AF out a bit. I find CAF, which is PDAF, especially sensitive to filters compared to SAF (CDAF), in terms of unpredictable results.

Yes this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for....how to get the most details out of shots, whether it's crater definition on the moon or feather detail in small birds. In all the specs we get bombarded with the amount of megapixels or the focal length or effective focal length, getting the most pixels on the target, etc., what I dont see anywhere in the specs is the actual resolution of a lens at full tele, be it a superzoom camera lens or the lens of an ILC. Both with and without a filter to see if the filter affects AF. I want to get the maximum detail out of my shots so I view them at 100% (even if I have to scroll around to see everything.)

Here is something interesting I've found and I'm glad you brought up C-AF vs S-AF. When looking in the LCD preview I've found my shots look tack sharp (granted it's a small screen.) But after the shot is taken, they dont look as sharp as they looked in the LCD preview (whether it's on the little screen on the back of the camera or on a larger monitor.) This makes me wonder if it's the filter that's affecting the AF. I can see details (inside craters!) in the LCD preview that have blended into mush in the final result. This actually happens with both S-AF and C-AF for me, but somewhat less in S-AF. But not one of my images taken at full tele are quite as sharp as they looked in the LCD preview. I think I've posted shots that show examples of this. The commonality they all share is that this most often happens at full tele and infinity focus. At shorter focal lengths or for closer subjects the "slightly" off AF problem is less common.