Am I expecting too much ?

[John King]

Close enough that the images have no crop

Definitely bears repeating ... and repeating ... and ...

No matter the format.

 

[doxa750]

These images are amazing...... !

Just out of curiousity, what was the distance to the subject..... ?

My experience so far is that I will never achieve that level of sharpness at the distances I'm shooting moving subjects. If you're capturing these birds in flight at similar range, then I'm either doing something very wrong or I have a technical flaw (although I doubt it)...

The in-coming eagle images distance was about 30-40meters. I cropped it from 20MB to about 5MB. The fly across from the same sequence I took at 1/5000 was about 20-25 meters. I cropped to about 12MB and 8MB.

The bottom two took at roughly about 20-25 meters as well and they both slightly cropped to about 15MB.

I think you can. The example image below was taken at roughly 40-50meters at 1/400 SS. I cropped it to about 7MB in size. It was taken at around 7:37AM just about sun rise time. So light was still challenging. But the outcome satisfies me, but your mile may very.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

EM130103_DxO by Narin, on Flickr

If you are use to using prime lens with your APC-S, I think you need to compare with prime lens for MFT at a respectable reach (close enough not like almost 200mm apart). The tele-converter plus less reach, IMHO are significant factor affecting your experience. My 0.02 cents..

 

[doxa750]

Close enough that the images have no crop

Yep, close enough 100% correct...

I know you didn't have time or may not have Flickr, but these are cropped some are more than the others. I have learned enough now to judge the distance that will work out for me knowing how much I can crop based on the FL I am using or I won't bother pressing the shutter .

 

[Brownie]

Definitely bears repeating ... and repeating ... and ...

No matter the format.

Agreed. The highest level shooters are patient and persistent. They scout and know the best place to set up. We all get lucky from time to time, but the really exemplary shots involve effort.

 

[roelwillems]

Agreed, although it does depend on your photography genre.

Shooting landscapes has the benefit of time. The subject is (mostly) not moving and the camera often on a sturdy tripod. So you can use high mp cameras. Combine both and you can get away with quite a bit of cropping... although this photography genre often needs it the least. The opposite is true for sports, kids and most of all wildlife

 

[John King]

Agreed, although it does depend on your photography genre.

Shooting landscapes has the benefit of time. The subject is (mostly) not moving and the camera often on a sturdy tripod. So you can use high mp cameras. Combine both and you can get away with quite a bit of cropping... although this photography genre often needs it the least. The opposite is true for sports, kids and most of all wildlife

Roel, it is the fundamental reason why ILCs were developed.

However, no long FL lens can replace field craft. Even before the extremes are reached, heat haze, moisture, pollution and (e.g. eucalyptus oils) in the air will damage any attempt at severe cropping.

For example, the following shot shows the image damage from eucalyptus oils in the atmosphere. VERY obvious in the RAW file.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[RAH]

Close enough that the images have no crop

I agree that it's much better if you are close enough that you don't have to crop. But are you saying that the images he is referring to (from @doxa750 - the eagles) are not cropped? From the info I can gather as a non-Flickr user, it looks like they are cropped (just looking at the numbers where it says is "original size" on the download). Every image is smaller in pixels than a non-cropped m43 image, I think. It would be helpful to know whether these images are or are not cropped, at least for me.

 

[Brownie]

Agreed, although it does depend on your photography genre.

Shooting landscapes has the benefit of time. The subject is (mostly) not moving and the camera often on a sturdy tripod. So you can use high mp cameras. Combine both and you can get away with quite a bit of cropping... although this photography genre often needs it the least. The opposite is true for sports, kids and most of all wildlife

Just like a hunter looking for game, if you're prepared you'll know where the trails are, where the birds group, where they get water. Sports are all about position, and many take place on marked fields. So are air shows, racing, etc. Monopods and tripods are used extensively.

Remember, the main reason for a zoom is not to "get you closer", it's so you can re-frame and adjust without moving. The biggest lens in the world isn't going to overcome atmosphere and its effect on light if you're too far away to begin with.

That's not to say we all don't use them as such. I am guilty as charged. My excuse is I'm lazy!

 

[doxa750]

I agree that it's much better if you are close enough that you don't have to crop. But are you saying that the images he is referring to (from @doxa750 - the eagles) are not cropped? From the info I can gather as a non-Flickr user, it looks like they are cropped (just looking at the numbers where it says is "original size" on the download). Every image is smaller in pixels than a non-cropped m43 image, I think. It would be helpful to know whether these images are or are not cropped, at least for me.

Rich,

They are cropped some more than the others. I responded to the OP on the distance and provided the information. I also answered to Ronnie. You just have to be patience and read through .

Cheers

 

[Brownie]

From the info I can gather as a non-Flickr user, it looks like they are cropped (just looking at the numbers where it says is "original size" on the download).

That doesn't really mean anything. The vast majority of images I upload are size to 2000 pixels on the long side. It saves upload time and is plenty for viewing online. Older uploads are smaller than that.

 

[RAH]

Rich,

They are cropped some more than the others. I responded to the OP on the distance and provided the information. I also answered to Ronnie. You just have to be patience and read through .

Cheers

Thanks, Narin. What I really was asking was if there was some way to tell in Flickr that an image has been cropped. Since I am not a Flickr user, I thought perhaps a registered user got more permission and capability. @Phocal 's post was made before you added your crop info, so it sounded like he could somehow tell from looking at the Flickr images that they were not cropped and I wanted to know if this was the case. I guess not. Plus, if a user does what @Brownie said and just downsizes whether the images are cropped or not, all bets are off anyway.

I think there is a value in letting people know this info in a THREAD LIKE THIS, where we are talking about evaluating equipment, etc. In Flickr, where folks are just sharing great images they took, it isn't an issue and doesn't even need to be mentioned, IMHO. Your pictures are excellent, regardless!

 

[doxa750]

Thanks, Narin. What I really was asking was if there was some way to tell in Flickr that an image has been cropped. Since I am not a Flickr user, I thought perhaps a registered user got more permission and capability. @Phocal 's post was made before you added your crop info, so it sounded like he could somehow tell from looking at the Flickr images that they were not cropped and I wanted to know if this was the case. I guess not. Plus, if a user does what @Brownie said and just downsizes whether the images are cropped or not, all bets are off anyway.

I think there is a value in letting people know this info in a THREAD LIKE THIS, where we are talking about evaluating equipment, etc. In Flickr, where folks are just sharing great images they took, it isn't an issue and doesn't even need to be mentioned, IMHO. Your pictures are excellent, regardless!

Rich, yes, I agree and will be conscious about this. I thought that by turn privacy of my images on Flickr from Private to Public, people have access to EXIF data. Now I know and thanks for that.

Thanks for the kind words about the images. This great forum made it possible as I had no clue what I was doing. There are tons of great information posted by many others that I got my education from. So I would like to give back if and when I can...

Cheers

 

[Brownie]

Here's an example. I posted this is a thread discussing the viability of a PL 50-200 over a 300mm. All three are the same photo. The original, a 33% crop, and a 50% crop. If you look at them on Flickr and check the 'original size', they're all shown as 2000 pixels on the long side.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Full by telecast, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

33% by telecast, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

50% by telecast, on Flickr

 

[Phocal]

Thanks, Narin. What I really was asking was if there was some way to tell in Flickr that an image has been cropped. Since I am not a Flickr user, I thought perhaps a registered user got more permission and capability. @Phocal 's post was made before you added your crop info, so it sounded like he could somehow tell from looking at the Flickr images that they were not cropped and I wanted to know if this was the case. I guess not. Plus, if a user does what @Brownie said and just downsizes whether the images are cropped or not, all bets are off anyway.

I think there is a value in letting people know this info in a THREAD LIKE THIS, where we are talking about evaluating equipment, etc. In Flickr, where folks are just sharing great images they took, it isn't an issue and doesn't even need to be mentioned, IMHO. Your pictures are excellent, regardless!

To start with I have no idea what the differences are between a Flickr user, a Pro Flickr user and a non-user with respects to what information one can see. What I did was look at what the max size of an image it would let me share. It will give you several options with one of them saying "Original (xxxx-xxxx)" and when I looked at a number of @doxa750 photos it gave the size for original of 5184x3737. So I knew that photo was not cropped because that matched the full size of a file from an EM1X. When someone does as @Brownie and uploads all images at set pixel size you can't really tell except by looking at the IQ (which isn't that hard a lot of times, especially if you are familiar with the camera and lens used).

This is also why I always ask for non-cropped images when helping to evaluate an issue like this. It doesn't matter what system you are using, distance to subject is always going to effect image quality.

Personally I think the problem @yegnal is having is distance to subject. No offense but the images he linked to with his D7100 are to me throwaways. Because they are such extreme crops they contain no detail and the whites are seriously blown (a big pet peeve of mine). A number of them are also just soft, especially the ones where the eagle fill the frame with his wings clipped off. So if the images he is referring to from his m4/3 gear (which he still hasn't posted for us to see and why I am pretty much done with this thread) are taken from the same distance but with 200mm less reach they are not going to contain any detail. I also question proper technique for BiF photography since the only BiF photos on his Flicker are from almost 7 years ago. BiF photography is not easy, probably the most demanding on gear and technique and requires continued practice and dedication.

my two copper pieces,

Phocal

 

[nstelemark]

requires continued practice and dedication

This can be easily applied to any telephoto shooting. The skills you have in the past degrade. Shooting long glass with moving subjects takes practice.

 

[RichardC]

These longer focal lengths take a great deal of patience and practise.

The only time I've used a 300mm Olympus lens/1.4x converter was on a weekend rental. My pictures were nowhere near as sharp as @Phocal 's even though my subjects move in a much more predictable way - and it definitely wasn't the camera or lens which was the issue. I ended up with about half a dozen pictures which I felt were worth sharing - out of around 1500. That's how it goes with longer f/l. I hope to obtain the 100-400 when it's in stock (or threatened as imminent) - I'm fully prepared to be very unhappy with the initial results. It takes work.

 

[doxa750]

These longer focal lengths take a great deal of patience and practise.

The only time I've used a 300mm Olympus lens/1.4x converter was on a weekend rental. My pictures were nowhere near as sharp as @Phocal 's even though my subjects move in a much more predictable way - and it definitely wasn't the camera or lens which was the issue. I ended up with about half a dozen pictures which I felt were worth sharing - out of around 1500. That's how it goes with longer f/l. I hope to obtain the 100-400 when it's in stock (or threatened as imminent) - I'm fully prepared to be very unhappy with the initial results. It takes work.

Yes, I took close to thousand of images to keep between 150-200. My standards at the moment are not high so I keep more than I perhaps should. But I do keep some for my own educational purposes and to practice my PP skills that I still don't think I know what I am doing.

Totally agree with Richard that patience, practices, and really learning about your subject are critical to help you anticipate as well as to narrow the distance from your subject of interest.

Cheers

 

[Brownie]

Personally I think the problem @yegnal is having is distance to subject. No offense but the images he linked to with his D7100 are to me throwaways. Because they are such extreme crops they contain no detail and the whites are seriously blown (a big pet peeve of mine). A number of them are also just soft, especially the ones where the eagle fill the frame with his wings clipped off.
Phocal

I kind of thought the same, just didn't want to say it. To me, the first three images in the set are very soft. Now, I am no where near your level and don't profess to be. I'd be thrilled to get any shot of an eagle from some reasonable distance, but there's no way I'd use those images as a barometer to determine or compare a camera's resolution.

 

[yegnal]

I can't get that level of sharpness if I shoot in a controlled setting 75 yards from the camera much less ~175 yards.

I did a little test on a stable tripod, 2 sec timer, 4 sec delay, & electronic shutter on a calm day @ 75 yards.

G9 with Leica 200mm + 1.4 TC f5.0 500th iso200 & 1000th iso400.

I used the jpg generated by the camera

 

[RAH]

I can't get that level of sharpness if I shoot in a controlled setting 75 yards from the camera much less ~175 yards.

I did a little test on a stable tripod, 2 sec timer, 4 sec delay, & electronic shutter on a calm day @ 75 yards.

G9 with Leica 200mm + 1.4 TC f5.0 500th iso200 & 1000th iso400.

I used the jpg generated by the camera

Sounds like you did a valid test (although at 75 yards I think you can still get atmospheric interference). I would suggest trying to find a better subject - I mean there isn't much detail to look at with those windows.

But regardless, I agree that they look pretty soft. Seems like it might be a problem with the lens or the TC. You'd need to try with and without to narrow it down further. But try something with more detail, IMHO.