EM1ii hazy at long focal lengths

cba_melbourne wrote:

You are not, by any chance, using a filter on those lenses, are you?

It sure doesn't seem to be focus error, and the lenses are not that soft, nor does is it motion blur, camera shake, or diffraction. A filter (or filters) seem like a likely culprit. Another possibility, I suppose, is wicked strong noise filtering being applied to all the photos, but that doesn't appear to be the case, either.

I'm going with a filter.

ChrisRay wrote:

My EM1ii seems to be producing strangely hazy pictures using both the Lumix 100-400 and Oly 40-150 Pro. At first I was convinced it was the 100-400 lens, which I've had for a couple of years, so I picked up the Oly plus the 2x teleconverter to test it out as an alternative. Unfortunately, I get the same results. No matter what IBIS settings, auto vs. manual focus, tripod vs. handheld, etc, I just can't get consistently decent sharpness. Since I typically shoot on a tripod and have done plenty of testing, I don't think that camera shake is the issue. There are certainly a lot of variables to consider, but I'm having trouble narrowing it down since nothing seems to help. Olympus customer support is being extremely unhelpful, as well, always asking for different test shots but never giving me any feedback.

To me, the problem isn't camera shake, motion blur, or missed focus, but rather it's muddy details and strange patterns. Almost like someone went crazy with a noise reduction slider. Does anybody have advice on a solid way to test my setup so I can rule things out, or am I really just that bad (not ruling it out!)? The following images aren't art, just meant to illustrate what I'm seeing.

focus was on the distant trees

focus was on the goose

focus was on the antelope's face

focus was on the heron

focus was on the fisherman's head

Have a read below:

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

I always have had protective filters fitted until I got an ultra Tele lens... sharpness problems drove me crazy... now, even though I have the ultimate quality B&W nano coated filters, they are off if the lens is over 100mm (200mm equiv.) focal length. With top quality filters, I find it is not the filter quality, but AF errors that are the problem. If you have a bad quality filter (usually cheap, but Tiffen are generally horrendous and not usually cheap), you get awful IQ no matter what with ultra Tele.

It seems to me that main problem is long distance and atmospheric effects, which reduce details. Early morning with cold and stable air is friend here. My bird shots in spring or summer start usually after sunrise and by 10 or 11 I pack gear and go home.

Some other suggestions:

don't use filter, good lens shade is good enough protection for tele lenses. Only place where filter could be applicable is when you shoot in sandstorm IMO.

use electronic shutter for static subjects, in some shutter speeds mechanical shutter effects are quite visible

check your focus and try to take several shots, focusing each time again: sometimes camera focuses outside of focus box and with small subjects it's hard to assess whether it's in focus or not. E.g. on second image focus seems to be in front of goose. Though I don't think that correct focus would helped much anyway over such long distance (110 meters, if I read exif correctly). I have configured lens button for magnification to evaluate whether I have correct focus or not, though using it means contrast detected and slow autofocus, so it's not feature I use often for photography, more often it's used as digital spotting scope.

With 40-150 and TC I'd close aperture bit, as wide open it's not sharpest. With 1.4 TC optimal aperture is 5.6, I haven't shot much with 2.0 so have no recommendations, but I guess that closing even half stop can improve sharpness.

HTH

I'd blame the sun  and the weather for most. The long distance etc just digs the effect out very strongly.

It can also disturb the AF - all those heat waves circulating between you and the bird (or whatever). Try those shots in early morning or around sunset - or on a cloudy day. Sometimes wind helps, sometimes not.

I don't think there is anything wrong with your camera or lenses - or even with a filter, if you happen to use one now and then. Filters of course do have some effect, some more than others, but if they keep the front element safe and are easier to clean - they have their place.

Getting closer usually gives better IQ, with any lens. Less air between... And with wider lenses you can't see the details far away anyway, so that don't bother you so much.

Cheers!

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

My bet is on a faulty IBIS mechanism. I had something very similar with my EM5 mk1. It's random on my camera but when it happen if I remove the lens I can see that the sensor is not properly aligned.  Hope that make sense. You might need to send it to Olympus.

Here are pictures showing what air can do: they are made from almost same place, at almost same time. Only difference is that one is shot indoors through open door, second outside on balcony. It's done in January so outside temperature was probably near or below freezing and there was quite active air movement through open door. Distance is 36 meters (40 yards) according to exif. I wanted to test some setup and after viewing first image I thought that maybe my lens is damaged and some elements are out of position...

ChrisRay wrote:

Sorry, I should have noted at the beginning that there was no filter used, either!

I mean, you could just be incredibly unlucky to have multiple out-of-spec lenses, but, aside from that, I really don't know.  And it sure doesn't appear to be atmospheric conditions as some others have mentioned.

Have your lenses been knocked around a bit, or knocked hard even once?  For example, you opened the rear hatch of your car and it all came tumbling out?  I mean, the photos are definitely soft, and don't appear to be so due to missed focus or motion blur, diffraction is not nearly enough of an issue, and you weren't using a filter.

Do you ever get sharp photos with those lenses, or are they all like that?

ChrisRay wrote:

I can see atmospheric effects explaining some of the samples I provided, but in all honesty I have so many other examples where that just doesn't seem plausible. I can find them, but suffice to say I was closer to the subject (very important) and conditions weren't really conducive to that type of effect. I guess my question is could this type of poor quality be related to the IBIS mechanism? I have no problem getting the camera serviced because I love it, but don't want to waste the time and money if I don't have to.

I don't like to jump to conclusions "by feel," but it just doesn't seem like it could be entirely up to the air between my lens and the subject 100% of the time.

I'm sure some kind of IBIS failure is possible, but it would surely have a much more systematic look to it, like rolling shutter, not this swirly stuff.

I think the only real solution is to do some deliberate testing. Find a contrasty detailed subject on a cool clear morning, preferably before the sun hits the ground, and shoot that with and without stabilization.

I'll ask for your indulgence on my forwardness - so here are my thoughts.

Pic1  - overall mushy - I've never had much good results from any Tele Extender I've used. I would suspect the Tele-extender for this issue - same with Fisherman pic. Plus there seems to be no distinct clear subject for the AF to lock on. Might be the AF was still hunting for focus when shutter released. I think it could be the additional issue of adding the 2x extender.
Test the body and Lens without the extender, at all FL, in decent lighting and clear subjects - good chance you'll find body and 40-150 is not the problem...

Pic2 - goose w/ PanyLeica 100-400? - never had the chance to use this lens, can't really say what I'd expect for this image/conditions/light. Also, I suspect some thing funky based on the relatively dark image - ISO 400, F 6.3, , 1/3200. Water shows and prolly had much higher degree of specular hilights than the image shows, add in the '-1' EV compensation and the goose and all other objects are gonna be real dark. Maybe what you intended?

Pic3 - pronghorn - definite motion/camera shake - you can easily see everything around has double image of shake - not wind related, because even the low grasses and heavy branches show same amount of motion/image doubling.

Pic4 - very low light - hard to get a good lock for AF...  the image lighting compared to the very high shutter speed, 400 iso and open f-stop seems to indicate some anomally.  Were you in manual mode? What would cause the quite dark image lighting balance if you were using with camera metering the settings?

Pic5 - as above, my guess is the combo of your 40-150 + 2x Extender is not really working out at far end of Tele range. 
And given that bringing in subjects which are quite distant, especially with atmospheric effects, never seem to have the sharpness as compared to subjects which are 'close' and are magnified by any Tele...

just my thoughts...
Thx
Yuri