OM-1 + M.Zuiko 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 ---- Is My Lens Copy Soft?

Hello!

Just purchased an OM-1 and M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS this month mainly for the purpose of bird photography.  This is my only lens.  Even after spending lots of time working with the various AF settings, I've found that a number of my bird photos lack some sharpness, especially at the long end.  Part of that is likely due to lower shutter speeds usually needed here in the cloudy northwest winter, but keeper rate remains low under all circumstances.  I use back-button C-AF (no tracking) almost exclusively.

Here's an example:

Looks OK from far but cropping or pixel peeping disappoints me

Today we had some rare sun, so I decided to do a quick experiment with controlled conditions to get a baseline on this kit.  I set up a poor man's lens calibration kit with a Siemens star target and yardstick ruler at 45 degrees.  The star was printed on a laser printer, albeit a bit low on toner.  There is too much DOF with this lens to tell if it's front or back focused using the ruler, but the Siemens star did give a nice target to check contrast/sharpness.  I've uploaded 4 OOC photos at different focal lengths.  All were taken with S-AF small size target at 10 yards with the camera on a tripod, all IS off, and a 12s timer.  The camera was placed at the same height as the target.

So I'm looking for comments on whether this is the expected performance for this camera/lens combination.

I'm considering renting another 100-400mm from LensRentals as a comparison but would rather not spend any more money if necessary...

100mm (200mm eq)

200mm (400mm eq)

300mm (600mm eq)

400mm (800mm eq)

I agree with ProDude that these may actually look pretty good once you apply some sharpening.

The sharpest samples from an m.Zuiko 100-400mm lens that I've seen here are these bird images that forumer Mait posted last September:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66499326

Maybe you could ask him what those images looked like out-of-camera, or what he thinks of your test images.

p.s. btw, kudos for doing a proper baseline test!
p.s./2: did you conduct the test without a protective filter on the lens?

Danielvr wrote:

I agree with ProDude that these may actually look pretty good once you apply some sharpening.

The sharpest samples from an m.Zuiko 100-400mm lens that I've seen here are these bird images that forumer Mait posted last September:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66499326

Maybe you could ask him what those images looked like out-of-camera, or what he thinks of your test images.

p.s. btw, kudos for doing a proper baseline test!
p.s./2: did you conduct the test without a protective filter on the lens?

Thank you ProDude and Danielvr for your comments!  And I'll try to follow up with Mait.

I included Photolab 6 (Black Friday deal) in my original budget knowing that I would need some noise reduction for high iso shots.  It does a good job removing that noise and is decent for sharpening as well.  BUT, I didn't plan on having to do this to all photos from this camera. I find it quite difficult to cull loads of photos when you're not sure how they will cleanup.  Here's what PL6 did for the earlier bird photo after applying corrections and DeepPRIME XD noise reduction.  This process takes 4-5 minutes for one photo on my machine!

DxO PL6 corrected and DeepPRIME XD noise reduction

Maybe my expectations are higher than they should be since we're all spoiled with processed versions of photos?  The $1400 expenditure for this lens was a big one and I just want to make sure it's the best it can be right out of the box.

p.s. Thanks for recognizing the baseline test.  If anyone is aware of other good tests to perform, I'm all ears.

p.p.s. No filters were used on the lens for the testing.

Hi tammons.  Thank you for weighing in.  What do you do when you have a soft copy of a lens?  Do you exchange it at the same place your originally ordered from?  What happens if the 2nd copy is worse?  I'm new to this world of interchangeable lenses, so don't really know what is considered normal process and what is frowned upon.

Hi Dan.  Thanks for weighing in!!  Agreed that technique is super important, especially for these long zoom, distant subject situations.

JoiseyM43 wrote:

Hi. I shoot with the same set up and found that my results have improved over time with practice and by learning from folks on this site.

It might not be the lens. Paying attention to settings might help.

Absolutely. I've studied the available settings thoroughly. I also spent a lot of time reading through preferred settings of others such as Mathieu over at Mirrorless Comparisons: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/guide/om1-settings-birds

I believe I've tried most combinations.

Have you updated to FW 1.3? I took some bird shots the day I updated and got some fantastic shots, better than I had achieved in the past.

Yes! Upgraded to v1.3 right away, especially since OM seems to still be tweaking C-AF which I use mostly.

Do you have release priority turned on or off? Try turning it off.

I do have this set to OFF

What IS settings are you using?

In normal shooting, lens IS on and IBIS set to S-IS (auto) or S-IS1 (all direction). I have tried all other combinations with little change, but not under controlled conditions.

Are you stabilizing yourself when you set up for the shot.

Try breathing slowly and deliberately and consciously pressing the shutter release without jerking the camera.

I normally shoot from a monopod and have worked on breathing techniques for the past few years.  When handheld, I try to use my environment to my advantage (like resting against the side of a tree).

Try electronic shutter or other shutter settings that help deal with shutter shock.

I only shoot with electronic shutter.  That was one of the selling points for me on OM-1 -  sensor readout time that was fast enough to avoid rolling shutter effects.

Try raising the shutter speed.

Understood.  With M43 it's always a bit of a battle with available light and high iso.  The bird example I posted was shot at 1/800 which could possibly have been higher, but the entire burst series of 30 shots ranged from soft to very soft, even when the subject wasn't moving.

Keep practicing and I think things will get better.

I will strive to do so!

Yes, post processing can save a shot that didn’t come out well, but i would prefer to get good results right out of the camera. The only way to gain comfort that you dont have a bad copy of the lens is to actually prove it. PP software doesn’t do that.

The controlled condition experiment on a tripod was my attempt to prove the copy was soft or not.  Can you recommend additional testing that I can do?

Having said all that, this lens performs best in good light and when the shot is taken as close to the subject as possible. I would focus your next round of tests in as bright light as possible and on subjects closer than that bird was. Subjects can be anything.

Good Luck!

Much appreciated!!

Dan

Alltough not having your gear I had similar experience with my Panasonic G9 + PL 100-400.

Looking at your info, for me at 400 mm (800 FF) a shutterspeed of 1/800 is to slow. My own movement, a branch that maybe moves a little by the wind etc. can already give some motion blur.

Try the combo with a higher shutterspeed and for test sake forget/ignore a higher iso/noise. For me this was a game changer.

Looking at the allignement photos they look fine to me, looking at the ruler at 400mm

Maybe my expectations are higher than they should be since we're all spoiled with processed versions of photos?

Well, that's certainly possible, hence my recommendation that you contact Mait. I do not have an m.Zuiko 100-400mm myself, so I can't tell you what a good unprocessed shot looks like either.

There's maybe one more thing that you could try, and that would be to repeat your test using manual focus (with the camera's magnifier function enabled for accuracy).

Schoonderwoerd wrote:

Alltough not having your gear I had similar experience with my Panasonic G9 + PL 100-400.

Looking at your info, for me at 400 mm (800 FF) a shutterspeed of 1/800 is to slow. My own movement, a branch that maybe moves a little by the wind etc. can already give some motion blur.

Try the combo with a higher shutterspeed and for test sake forget/ignore a higher iso/noise. For me this was a game changer.

Wonderful shots you've got there!

Oh, I do agree that higher shutter speed will net sharper images in the case of moving birds. That said, when I rattle off 50+ shot bursts of a perched bird at 1/800, I'd expect to get a few sharp ones in the lot, but I'm seeing none.  And I have a slew of tripod shots of stationary objects that look soft as well.  Just not sure where my expectations should be tempered. Your shots here leave me wanting more!

Danielvr wrote:

Maybe my expectations are higher than they should be since we're all spoiled with processed versions of photos?

Well, that's certainly possible, hence my recommendation that you contact Mait. I do not have an m.Zuiko 100-400mm myself, so I can't tell you what a good unprocessed shot looks like either.

There's maybe one more thing that you could try, and that would be to repeat your test using manual focus (with the camera's magnifier function enabled for accuracy).

Agreed about turning on the magnifier.  I turned that off and forgot to put it back on. I am not a pro using MF yet, but I can certainly do this with stationary targets.  That's a good thought.  I did also try the Lens Adjustment feature in the OM-1 to see if I could "correct" the focus, but it didn't make a very noticeable difference in my test scenario.

Alexk3954 wrote:

Co172 wrote:

Hello!

Just purchased an OM-1 and M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS this month mainly for the purpose of bird photography. This is my only lens.

Are you new to bird photography in general, or just new to this camera/lens combination? Are you familiar with thermal or heat distortion?

I have been photographing for years, but I just started doing a bit of bird photography this year with the OM-1 and 100-400. Just like you, I was disappointed with a lot of slightly less than sharp images in the beginning and thought maybe I got a bad copy. I did some tests indoors and the lens seemed sharp. I finally figured out that my slightly soft images looked the way they did due to thermal distortion. The effects are very pronounced when you are using such a long focal length. To counter it you need to get closer to whatever you are shooting, and shoot in proper conditions. It will be a lot easier to get sharp shots on a cool morning rather than the middle of a hot, sunny day.

Not sure if this is what is affecting you, but its something to think about. Hope that helps!

Always appreciate this type of input. I've got a number of years of bird photography under my belt, but mostly with the Panny FZ-80. This is a 1200mm eq (about 210mm actual) super zoom bridge camera, so this new lens' zoom is longer.

That said, heat distortion is definitely not a problem for me in Seattle in December These pictures were shot on partly sunny days with a high of about 40degF (about 4.5 degC). The wren I posted was approximately 10 yards away, so a bit up there, but not across a lake or anything.

Here are a few other examples I had posted in the gallery. Y'all are welcome to comment on these if you wish.

This is one of the best shots of a Junco from a long burst series. Just not crisp like I'd hope to see. I do understand that busy backgrounds can be tougher for some AF routines which is why I didn't post this as my primary example.

Junco @ ~5 yds

Cattail, also one of a burst series. There was no wind so all my captured images looked the same.

Cattail @ ~5 yds, spot focus

Sign with text.

Sign with text. Wood fence is of interest as well since it's in the same plane as the sign.

Co172 wrote:

Hello!

Just purchased an OM-1 and M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS this month mainly for the purpose of bird photography. This is my only lens. Even after spending lots of time working with the various AF settings, I've found that a number of my bird photos lack some sharpness, especially at the long end. Part of that is likely due to lower shutter speeds usually needed here in the cloudy northwest winter, but keeper rate remains low under all circumstances. I use back-button C-AF (no tracking) almost exclusively.

Here's an example:

Looks OK from far but cropping or pixel peeping disappoints me

Today we had some rare sun, so I decided to do a quick experiment with controlled conditions to get a baseline on this kit. I set up a poor man's lens calibration kit with a Siemens star target and yardstick ruler at 45 degrees. The star was printed on a laser printer, albeit a bit low on toner. There is too much DOF with this lens to tell if it's front or back focused using the ruler, but the Siemens star did give a nice target to check contrast/sharpness. I've uploaded 4 OOC photos at different focal lengths. All were taken with S-AF small size target at 10 yards with the camera on a tripod, all IS off, and a 12s timer. The camera was placed at the same height as the target.

So I'm looking for comments on whether this is the expected performance for this camera/lens combination.

I'm considering renting another 100-400mm from LensRentals as a comparison but would rather not spend any more money if necessary...

100mm (200mm eq)

200mm (400mm eq)

300mm (600mm eq)

400mm (800mm eq)

Hi, i got your message.

I would say it is not too bad at all. I needed to get used to this lens few months before i was getting better results. I find that the biggest problem is slight misfocusing with my setup (i use em5 iii). OM 1 should maybe do better but who knows.

I always take bursts with this combo and i find that 1 of 6-7 photos is actually crisp and others are all a bit soft. I would say it is not easy to get sharp photos with it but if you practice more it will become better. I would buy 300 pro for sure if it was not so expensive.

Most of the time i sharpen my raw-s with topaz denoise or use dxo deep prime. If the iso is low and shot is pretty sharp then i skip dxo.

I have found out i get best results with ibis only, my lens stabilization is always OFF.

I have one recent example which i did not use dxo or topaz, i am not sure it is very sharp but not very bad too, iso was high also:

Your bird seems pretty far away, in that situation it is harder to get crisp image.

One example where the bird was only about 5 meters away (i believe i used dxo and topaz to get it more sharp):

Found few raws where the bird is further away, those are not sharpened or denoised :

And one raw with iso 320. Here is the sample with photoshop default settings:

And same photo processed also with topaz clear settings:

But to get those pretty sharp samples i had to burst a lot

Hope this post helps you a bit.