EM1ii hazy at long focal lengths

Well, the 40-150 Pro is brand new, which is why I'm thinking it's either me or the camera body. But yes, I will do some more controlled testing as soon as I can.

I am not sure what is going on with the first image and the Green Heron is much too far away and the image is very underexposed.

I quickly used LR and added a little clarity and increased the exposure on the other three and they really don't look that bad.  The Canada goose is too far away and looks a little front focused, the antelope may have moved its head (but focus appears to be on the rear), and the table looks okay in the last image and in focus, the individuals face may be a little out of the DOF, but it is in shadow.

Thanks Yuri, I appreciate your close look. These pics were certainly nothing special, just meant to illustrate how bad the problem can me. Teleconverters usually impact the image quality, but I certainly wouldn't expect this much degradation. I am taking some more controlled tests with better exposure as soon as I can, and hope you'll take another look!

Thanks for taking the time to do some processing on the images. I agree that they can be made to not look "that bad," but then again I would hope for more than that from this gear. And there's always user error but I'd like to give myself a little more credit!

My issue is that that even in-focus areas have mushy detail. Take the fisherman, for example. I'm not looking to count his nose-hairs, but I would expect a lot more definition in the face. On the atelope, focus was missed on the head, but even the body has some areas that look decent and others that are mushy, and it's all on the same plane of focus.

And take this example that I took earlier today of my son. This was well-lit and he was standing still, focus was on the back of his head. While it's possible to improve this in post, there really isn't any part of him I would call sharp. Something just seems off.

But I will be taking some more controlled test shots with the Zuiko lens and various IBIS setting to try and get to the bottom of it.

ChrisRay wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to do some processing on the images. I agree that they can be made to not look "that bad," but then again I would hope for more than that from this gear. And there's always user error but I'd like to give myself a little more credit!

My issue is that that even in-focus areas have mushy detail. Take the fisherman, for example. I'm not looking to count his nose-hairs, but I would expect a lot more definition in the face.

I would not expect much more resolution on the face, it is in shadow and his face is only 12.6 KP.

On the atelope, focus was missed on the head, but even the body has some areas that look decent and others that are mushy, and it's all on the same plane of focus.

And take this example that I took earlier today of my son. This was well-lit and he was standing still, focus was on the back of his head. While it's possible to improve this in post, there really isn't any part of him I would call sharp. Something just seems off.

The above image is not bad, but I agree as I would expect to see more detail in your son's hair at that distance.  It appears to be in focus.  I don't have the 100-400, so I don't know if that is typical of the lens at that focal length and distance.

Your other images are at a much greater distance where atmospheric distortion is often more important than the lens used, so I was not particularly surprised at their resolution.

I would be surprised if it was a stabilization issue at your shutter speeds, but you could just put the camera on a tripod or a solid surface and compare handheld to tripod images to see if that was the problem.

But I will be taking some more controlled test shots with the Zuiko lens and various IBIS setting to try and get to the bottom of it.

The "haze" part immediately made me think of atmospheric haze which is typically the primary cause of hazy pictures when shooting with long telephotos.

Another culprit not mentioned is shutter shock (which may also interact with IBIS/OIS). You can shoot with electronic shutter to eliminate this. I believe the E-M1 II allows you to also pick between IBIS and OIS, so you can see if this has an effect also.

Also, it could do with the processing you are using (what settings if using OOC Jpeg and what if processing a RAW).

Just another thought. Make sure IBIS is turned OFF when shooting on a tripod & you need to be using either your in camera timer or some sort of electronic cable release, to ensure a steady camera.

focus distance is 327 metres? If that is correct then its a detail killer especially over water.

Also Noise Filter setting is on Standard which I have always found is too high on Olympus cameras. I always have this setting Off and do any noise correction in post.

Also if this shot was taken on a tripod you still had IS on (S-IS1).

These factors have all contributed to the issue with this shot.

It's not your camera or lens, it's atmospheric effects that you compress by using a long FL.

Here is a recent example, posting in full glory so you can click on original and see the (missing) detail. Look at the buildings... this is without filters, be it mechanical or post-processing. Almost looks like a watercolor painting!

No, 327 meters is not correct, it must be recorded in feet (I'm in the US). This one wasn't on a tripod but I was bracing my body against a tree. So that should be fine.

I will adjust the noise filter setting for future test shots. I didn't even think to check that as I usually shoot RAW, have only been in JPEG to rule out any processing factors during this test.

Yep, I'm always careful to check that IBIS is off when on a tripod!

Yes, glad you see what I mean! I’m really only having the issue with longer focal lengths, so it might be a little tough to compare with the 12-40. And I do have an EM1 Mark I but no battery! I can always pick one up easily enough if it comes to it.

As for the anti shock, I have it set to zero and prettt sure I have since day 1 (it was a best practice on the Mark I as well). Although the menu seems to suggest that it only matters at 1/320 or faster, so I will experiment with that shutter speed threshold and see one way or another.

ChrisRay wrote:

Yes, glad you see what I mean! I’m really only having the issue with longer focal lengths, so it might be a little tough to compare with the 12-40. And I do have an EM1 Mark I but no battery! I can always pick one up easily enough if it comes to it.

As for the anti shock, I have it set to zero and prettt sure I have since day 1 (it was a best practice on the Mark I as well). Although the menu seems to suggest that it only matters at 1/320 or faster, so I will experiment with that shutter speed threshold and see one way or another.

I remember reading anti-shock does not always eliminate shutter shock in all Olympus bodies due to variations on how it's implemented. A safer test to eliminate that as a variable is to use electronic shutter.

Are the lenses really clean?

ChrisRay wrote:

No, 327 meters is not correct, it must be recorded in feet (I'm in the US). This one wasn't on a tripod but I was bracing my body against a tree. So that should be fine.

I will adjust the noise filter setting for future test shots. I didn't even think to check that as I usually shoot RAW, have only been in JPEG to rule out any processing factors during this test.

Assuming the man is about 5'10'', the distance to him is about 590 feet.

Ha, well there you go, math always works. I measured on Google Earth and that's about right. So not 327 meters OR feet, but I won't lose any sleep over it. Testing more tomorrow and hoping it's just me.

Memory is cheap, I always take multiples! This image quality is unfortunately the norm, no the exception.