Best (situational) example of Hand-Held High Resolution in E-M1 Mark III

[RAH]

...ahem...who on earth uses JPGs for hi-rez stufff? ?

If you read this article:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/m43/em1.2-hires-2.html

You'll see that the 80MP raw image is not any better than the jpg. Plus, there must be a reason Olympus decided to make the jpgs 50MP instead of 80. What I mean is, are you sure you are able to do whatever the camera does in-camera when it converts the 80MP to 50? Perhaps the Olympus software can do it, but otherwise you are probably not getting any better results from the raw than the jpg is already giving you, and I actually think you might be getting worwse results from the raw. If you produce an 80MP jpg from the raw (as you no doubt would) what have you gained that Olympus couldn't deliver when the camera does the same operation. Again, why did Oly downsize to 50?

I am NOT arguing that generally speaking for regular images, jpg is as good as raw. Raw files are obviously better and worth working with for the best results. But these high-res images are entirely different animals. I mention again that there must be a reason why Olympus gives you a 50mp image from an 80MP raw. According to the article I mention above, it is because there is nothing to be gained from the 80MP raw.

EDIT: I am talking here about tripod-hi-res, not HHHR. It is very easy to get the two confused. Perhaps with HHHR, the raw file is better than the jpg, but it does again seem odd that Oly would downsize to 50 even with HHHR.

 

[L0n3Gr3yW0lf]

This raises another issue I've noticed - lower keeper rate using PL 200mm on E-M1ii with Lens IS priority switched on. I see motion blur very similar to what I see when leaving FPS Priority on and IS priority off. I wonder if Panasonic lenses don't communicate when the stabilising lens element is in motion to an Olympus camera - which would account for loss of resolution using HHHR with OIS lenses.

I have seen some blurry results with a subject in motion at the 200mm range of the lens but where I find myself disappointed is the AF-C doesn't seem to be all that fast with even with well light subjects, fast or slow subjects, which might obscure potential IS issues. As IS keeps getting more and more advanced, aka highly accurate and precise in its movement, the more difficult it would be for 2 different IS systems, given that Panasonic and Olympus do not share any (as we know so far and as much as one company is willing to admit then the other) IS technology information and are being developed independently, that they could start having issues with each other (HHHR or normal modes).

I would love to test the Olympus 40-150mm f 2.8 Pro against the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4 in both normal conditions and HHHR, as such information would sway me to give up on my beloved Panny Leica if it is at a disadvantage when I use it on Olympus body.

This reminds me I still have my very old Sigma 60mm f 2.8 little gem (haven't used it in over 3 years now) which is very sharp for its size, price and pure durability, though it would be a bit unfair to compare it to the Panny Leica because of its performance nature (and 1.250 £ price disparity as well ... LOOOOOOOOOOL ... I think the little bastard might put the big guy to shame).

 

[L0n3Gr3yW0lf]

If you read this article:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/m43/em1.2-hires-2.html

You'll see that the 80MP raw image is not any better than the jpg. Plus, there must be a reason Olympus decided to make the jpgs 50MP instead of 80. What I mean is, are you sure you are able to do whatever the camera does in-camera when it converts the 80MP to 50? Perhaps the Olympus software can do it, but otherwise you are probably not getting any better results from the raw than the jpg is already giving you, and I actually think you might be getting worwse results from the raw. If you produce an 80MP jpg from the raw (as you no doubt would) what have you gained that Olympus couldn't deliver when the camera does the same operation. Again, why did Oly downsize to 50?

I am NOT arguing that generally speaking for regular images, jpg is as good as raw. Raw files are obviously better and worth working with for the best results. But these high-res images are entirely different animals. I mention again that there must be a reason why Olympus gives you a 50mp image from an 80MP raw. According to the article I mention above, it is because there is nothing to be gained from the 80MP raw.

EDIT: I am talking here about tripod-hi-res, not HHHR. It is very easy to get the two confused. Perhaps with HHHR, the raw file is better than the jpg, but it does again seem odd that Oly would downsize to 50 even with HHHR.

There may be a multitude of reasons: downsize the output to something that most people would find it easier to deal with, in terms of storage per SD card and long term solutions; for a more comfortable wiggle room when you have stitching errors like artefacting, subject movement; possibly processing limitation or reserves of the original version of the technology (which was introduced in the 16 MP CDAF only E-M5 Mark II) and they kept that option even though the processing power has improved; or it may be as you said not enough IQ to be achieved (maybe from the limitation of the technology itself or maybe JPEG format is reaching it's usefulness as the Megapickle races out of the jars once more ) any significant improvement, so lower means less wasted space pointlessly; or something else.
We won't know for sure unless someone talks to the engineers who design this thing this way ... someone call Imaging Resource to do an interview

 

[WaltP]

I would like to see some.

But ya gotta beg...

 

[Growltiger]

I did some tests some time ago with the E-M1 II, comparing detail in the Hires RAW 80 MP versus the 50MP JPG, under identical conditions. There was no difference whatever in the detail obtained, both exactly the same. I think this is the reason they decided to provide 50MP JPG.

(The other finding from my tests was the need for absolute stability, with best results obtained when resting the camera on solid rock. Obviously this is not relevant to HHHR.)

 

[jeffreybehr]

At the moment this is pure conjecture on my part but I am starting to notice that HHHR does not work very well with Panasonic O.I.S.

...

And in the same area, I don't think Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4 is really sharp enough to handle 50 Megapickles images, I want to try the 80 MP HR to see if it's the same or worse. I find the Olympus 12-40mm f 2.8 (at the telephoto end) handles HHHR a lot better.

FINALLY someone else who believes the Leica 50-200 is (I'm paraphrasing here) not as sharp as it could be.. I bought my EM1-3 in March and immediately bought three Leica F2.8-4 lenses--the 8-18, 12-60, and 50-200--for it. I chose them for personal prior experience (with the 8-18) and focal-length ranges as the latter two were exactly what I wanted.. I was THRILLED!

But that thrill didn't last long with the two 'longer' lenses, as both didn't prove to be as resolving as I thought they should be. Bought some Oly Pros 2.8s, the 12-40 and 40-150, compared the pairs carefully and found that my suspicion was correct. They're now for sale and I'm carrying, along with the Leica 8-18, Oly Pro F2.8s in 12-45/4 and 40-150.. A pic from them has NEVER looked not as well resolved as I thought it should look; all three are worthy of both hi-rez modes.

 

[jeffreybehr]

I would like to see some.

...HHHR images, that is.. Here are a few.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[L0n3Gr3yW0lf]

FINALLY someone else who believes the Leica 50-200 is (I'm paraphrasing here) not as sharp as it could be.. I bought my EM1-3 in March and immediately bought three Leica F2.8-4 lenses--the 8-18, 12-60, and 50-200--for it. I chose them for personal prior experience (with the 8-18) and focal-length ranges as the latter two were exactly what I wanted.. I was THRILLED!

But that thrill didn't last long with the two 'longer' lenses, as both didn't prove to be as resolving as I thought they should be. Bought some Oly Pros 2.8s, the 12-40 and 40-150, compared the pairs carefully and found that my suspicion was correct. They're now for sale and I'm carrying, along with the Leica 8-18, Oly Pro F2.8s in 12-45/4 and 40-150.. A pic from them has NEVER looked not as well resolved as I thought it should look; all three are worthy of both hi-rez modes.

If I could compare the 50-200mm on G9 and E-M1 Mark III I would be more sure about the statement. Because I don't know if it's an AF problem, an IS a problem, or just the lens itself is not the best I could (and should at the asking price) be. I am noticing the E-M1 Mark III wobbles a lot in AF-C and I seem to get more sharp images doing 15 FPS then 7 FPS (even thought at 7 it should AF every single frame) because at lower FPS the AF is not hitting it right and I tend to use AF-C most of the time with this lens for wildlife.
I was so tempted to go with Panasonic lenses only because I love the size of 8-18mm and 12-35mm a lot more but I went with Olympus instead. I am quite happy at the moment with Oly.

What really kills me is that I don't have much time right now to go out, set a tripod and shoot away test after test for hours, been doing 200-250 hours every month since January now and even when I have 2 or 3 days off one of them I crash and sleep most of it, the 2nd I try to get away from work and just relax and the last day I end up doing all the chores that I can.

 

[kbouk]

This raises another issue I've noticed - lower keeper rate using PL 200mm on E-M1ii with Lens IS priority switched on. I see motion blur very similar to what I see when leaving FPS Priority on and IS priority off. I wonder if Panasonic lenses don't communicate when the stabilising lens element is in motion to an Olympus camera - which would account for loss of resolution using HHHR with OIS lenses.

I have that combo (EM1.2 and LEICA 200/2.8) also,

Unfortunately Lens IS priority setting (on C2 Olympus menu) makes no difference with Lumix lenses which have OIS button. If the Lens button is on position ON lens OIS is engage, when the button is on position OFF camera IBIS works whatever setting you set on menu (ΙS1,2,3,off)

image stabilization setting (also on C2 Olympus menu ) is another crucial setting if you want to hit the maximum burst rate of the camera, FPS priority or IS priority only aplies to camera ΙBIS setting , you can hit the Max frame rate with Fps priority on which puts camera IBIS to off on continuous shooting modes.

but if you already have the Lumix lens OIS Button to ON and also Fps priority ON the Lens stabilization also works in parallel (as I said on 1st paragraph) and there is a possibility to conflict each other when you move the camera. With stationary target maybe there is no conflict an no blur occurs, but when the target is moving - for the time being - I want the camera to behave as with olympus lenses, so I keep Lens OIS button to off. I will do some more tests also to find out the best setting.

 

[jeffreybehr]

On the 'Leica 50-200 v. Oly Pro 40-150' issue, do understand that my opinion is based on only the samples I have tested, which is one each of those I own.. BUT...my opinion of the Leica 12-60 2.8-4 v. either of the Oly Pro 12-4ns is the same, that being that based on my samples, either of the Olys (which I own) are more resolving than the Leica 12-60 2.8-4.

 

[RAH]

I don't find that surprising. I think that the P12-35 f2.8 tests as somewhat less sharp than the Oly 12-40, and the PL 12-60 is very similar to the 12-35. (I have both). For me, the size and weight saving with the P offerings make them more desirable than the Oly 12-40. The new Oly 12-45 looks very interesting, but since I'm all filled up at that focal length, I'm staying put...

 

[jeffreybehr]

More samples shot with HHHR for Zairski.

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

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

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

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

 

[jeffreybehr]

And more HHHRs.

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

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

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

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