vcxz
Leading Member
I have a trip to Barcelona and wanted to do a test run on architecture. I then realized I lived in one of the better cities for architecture photography! Here are some of my findings. I'm new to M43 so any advice on what I'm missing would be appreciated.
My main questions were if I needed the 8mm fisheye when I had the 8-25--I think the answer is yes. They're just completely different lenses. Second, how good are the computational features both in the OM-1 and in noise reduction? Results were mixed.
High res: On high res mode on an OM-1, I always got some motion blur doing handheld. Do people only use this on a tripod? Similarly, I tried focus stacking at low apertures in the interiors and didn't get great results.
8-25mm: Beautiful lens. Perfect for landscape and city travel.
Olympus 8mm de-fished: Not a big fan. The full de-fishing is JPG only. Would not use this as a substitute for a rectilinear lens. Resolution much worse than the 8-25mm.
Olympus 8mm: Main uses seem to be creating unique leading lines and making interiors feel immersive, not a rectilinear replacement. Looking forward to see how this lens works with Gaudy's architecture with lots of organic lines!
Olympus 75-300: Reports are it's fine at <200mm. Seemed perfectly serviceable for occasional telephoto at this range. I am jealous of the Panasonic 50-200, but I think if I use the Olympus at <200mm, I should have comparable results. I'm hesitant to mix brands for a number of reasons, but mostly the zoom ring directions.
Noise reduction: Mixed results for Lightroom's AI noise reduction. In the first set (Chicago Cultural Center), I don't see a big difference. But in the second (Palmer House), it's night and day when you look at the painted faces. AI noise reduction helps, but you still want to minimze ISO the best you can. With the Olympus 8mm, I don't see a huge difference between 1.8 and 5.6, so I think the strategy is to shoot at 1.8 in low light. I didn't try the 8-25 in low light interiors, but I think I'd shoot at F4 and use really low shutter speeds to keep the ISO down.
Live ND: Love the idea of it, but definitely need the additional stops from the OM-1 Mark II for outdoors to get under F20. I think my kit will be the Mark II with the 8-25, then the Mark I will have the 8mm or a telephoto (75-300 or 40-150 F4).
The Bean: Still under construction, it's got to be close to a year now. There are peepholes between the fences. Would have some interesting photos with the 8mm.
--
My main questions were if I needed the 8mm fisheye when I had the 8-25--I think the answer is yes. They're just completely different lenses. Second, how good are the computational features both in the OM-1 and in noise reduction? Results were mixed.
High res: On high res mode on an OM-1, I always got some motion blur doing handheld. Do people only use this on a tripod? Similarly, I tried focus stacking at low apertures in the interiors and didn't get great results.
8-25mm: Beautiful lens. Perfect for landscape and city travel.
Olympus 8mm de-fished: Not a big fan. The full de-fishing is JPG only. Would not use this as a substitute for a rectilinear lens. Resolution much worse than the 8-25mm.
Olympus 8mm: Main uses seem to be creating unique leading lines and making interiors feel immersive, not a rectilinear replacement. Looking forward to see how this lens works with Gaudy's architecture with lots of organic lines!
Olympus 75-300: Reports are it's fine at <200mm. Seemed perfectly serviceable for occasional telephoto at this range. I am jealous of the Panasonic 50-200, but I think if I use the Olympus at <200mm, I should have comparable results. I'm hesitant to mix brands for a number of reasons, but mostly the zoom ring directions.
Noise reduction: Mixed results for Lightroom's AI noise reduction. In the first set (Chicago Cultural Center), I don't see a big difference. But in the second (Palmer House), it's night and day when you look at the painted faces. AI noise reduction helps, but you still want to minimze ISO the best you can. With the Olympus 8mm, I don't see a huge difference between 1.8 and 5.6, so I think the strategy is to shoot at 1.8 in low light. I didn't try the 8-25 in low light interiors, but I think I'd shoot at F4 and use really low shutter speeds to keep the ISO down.
Live ND: Love the idea of it, but definitely need the additional stops from the OM-1 Mark II for outdoors to get under F20. I think my kit will be the Mark II with the 8-25, then the Mark I will have the 8mm or a telephoto (75-300 or 40-150 F4).
The Bean: Still under construction, it's got to be close to a year now. There are peepholes between the fences. Would have some interesting photos with the 8mm.
--
vcxz
vcxz.myportfolio.com
