E-M5 + 40-150 = banding + ghosting

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by benvigil, May 7, 2013.

  1. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    While testing out my new 40-150 I noticed some really odd ghosting. Granted these are pretty high-iso but problematic nonetheless. These three were taken in different locations to try to eliminate location-specific EMI sources, at various shutter speeds, and ISOs. The full ORFs are linked at the bottom. The lens is going back...

    Ghosting. Oddly, this appeared much worse in the camera JPG but not so bad in RAW. I shifted the colors a little bit so you can clearly see the ghosting in the green channel...

    [​IMG]

    This popped up when I was trying to reproduce the ghosting in the image above in a different location. This looks as bad as the Panny 20mm...

    [​IMG]

    And this is just whack...

    [​IMG]

    Full ORFs:
    http://www.benvigil.com/media/images/posts/olympus40-150-banding-001.ORF
    http://www.benvigil.com/media/images/posts/olympus40-150-banding-002.ORF
    http://www.benvigil.com/media/images/posts/olympus40-150-banding-003.ORF
     
  2. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    ISO 8000 is not to be trifled with ...
     
  3. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Agreed. But given that the camera will do 25k, I'd expect 8000 to be usable for certain types of photography.

    I certainly have no illusions about the overall image quality at that extreme and I expect a ton of noise. I can deal with noise. But this is not noise, this is EMI-type interference patterns that make the image unusable.
     
  4. mpg01

    mpg01 Mu-43 Regular

    154
    Oct 21, 2012
    I have had a similar issue and, after doing some research and seeing this issue come up before (both with the panny 20 and others), I decided to contact Olympus with some samples and inquire if it might be a bad sensor. They reviewed the samples and basically said that they were simply improperly exposed. Although one they said was affected by florescent lighting which I thought was a stretch. The answer seemed unreasonable but i figured if they saw anything seriously egregious they would say as much. It also got me working at exposing my photos better.

    I can get the OM-D to band with just about every lens I have but I can also make adjustments to avoid them as we'll. and that works for me so far.

    The 40-150 is one of my favorite lens. It's so versatile and I've gotten some great shots with it.

    I will say that I have never gotten the ghosting and that may be something to inquire about.
     
  5. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    The Wells Fargo logo looks like an IBIS problem.
     
  6. Geoff3DMN

    Geoff3DMN Mu-43 Veteran

    I've seen results that look like that with my 40-150 at certain focal lengths and certain shutter speeds. Some people said it looked like 'shutter shock' so I read up about it.

    Camera Ergonomics: Micro 4/3 Shutter Shock Revisited [OMD-EM-5]
     
  7. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Well the image is definitely blurry, but I don't really care about that. It's the interference banding patterns that are troubling.
     
  8. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    That's really depressing. Even more sad is that shots before and after those above were perfectly fine so it only happens maybe 1 out of 50 shots. But I can say with 100% certainty that after 300,000+ actuations none of my Nikon D3's have ever exhibited this kind of banding at any ISO with any lens. Ever.

    Honestly it looks like EM interference of some kind to me. It's just depressing that at any point I could loose a great shot (that people are PAYING me to capture) because the camera isn't shielded sufficiently or correctly.

    Ben
     
  9. Printfolio

    Printfolio Mu-43 Regular

    65
    May 6, 2012
    Kortrijk, Belgium
    Steven
    Are you a troll? Four posts and all you've talked about is the banding issue which only occurs with one or two lenses in particular circumstances. Pardon me for asking...
     
  10. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  11. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    Funny, you expect paid photography-worthy photos at unreasonably low light levels (that you can apparently hit 98% of the time anyway), but don't care about a photo being completely unusable from camera shake (which by the way would be even worse out of a nikon since they have no built-in shake reduction, assuming you're not using a VR lens)?

    I think Printfolio has a valid question at this point, please address - how about a test of similar focal length and camera settings (same shutter speed, Aperture, ISO - regardless of whether you have a VR lens as well) side by side with your Nikon?

    edit: is benvigil.com your website? If yes, nice work. I noticed a few pages talking just about lenses sharpness, 100% crops, etc, etc, so I can see you like getting into the technical side of things. At the same time I have to ask, why are you even bothering with a $120 kit lens? I would think something like the 75mm 1.8 or panasonic 35-100 would be up your alley.
     
  12. woody112704

    woody112704 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    526
    Dec 13, 2012
    Iowa
    Jared
    ^ I was going to say something along those lines. If you are getting paid for your pictures are you really going to be shooting at such a high ISO? Especially with the OMD which handheld you can get away with a lot lower ISO compared to the Nikon with its 5axis IBIS. Just my thoughts and from what I've read from other people here.
     
  13. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    No, I'm not trolling. I originally bought the E-M5 for video and am exploring the possibility of using it (and m43 in general) as an alternative to my Nikon rig for certain events.

    i.e. m4/3 is new to me.

    i.e. I'm new to this forum.

    As part of that testing I'm seeing how each lens performs in a variety of circumstances. One of those circumstances is high ISO shooting. As I said before... I understand the tradeoffs and compromises of shooting high ISO in a variety of settings. Nasty noise is one of them and I want to understand at what point the sensor gives out. However, I don't expect "giving out" to mean that the sensor starts banding in stupid and unpredictable ways. Noise and banding are different things.

    Ben
     
  14. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Because people pay me to capture images, not "shoot at ISO 100". Mostly, my clients don't care about the technicalities, they care about the images. I need to know how the sensor performs and what its limits are so I don't get caught with my pants down in a situation it's not capable of handling. That's all.

    This E-M5 is light years beyond the Canon 10D and 20D I started with. It's perfectly capable of producing pro images. The noise is almost as good as my D3... but if you're telling me that the type of banding in the images I posted is just part of the package and that I'm expecting too much from Olympus's $1200 flagship camera, well I don't really know what else I can say at that point.

    Not if the subject is moving.
     
  15. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    That was a VERY interesting article. That said, the last image definitely just blur. The irregular banding in the left part of the image is the part that I was concerned about.

    Ben
     
  16. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
  17. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Yup, that's me. And thanks for the kind words.

    If my D3, apparently at random, exhibited these artifacts I'd dump it. It doesn't. It performs the same way, every time. If I shoot it at ISO 25k, I will have a completely UNusable image. Every. time. I don't shoot it at ISO 25k for that reason.

    However, if I light my scene well enough I know that ISO 4000 will give me a great image. Every. Time. If the D3 gave me banding and ghosting (like the images above) 20% of the time, I'd have a problem with it because with most of what I do, you don't get a second chance at an image.

    I suppose that's the real problem... not that ghosting and noise are a known limit of this sensor at ISO nnnn, because it doesn't happen all the time. It's that it only happens some of the time, and that's where the problem lies. You never know when you're gonna get fu&^#d.

    The 75mm is on my list for sure. But once I start crossing into the larger (and MUCH more expensive) lenses like the 12-35 and 35-100, much of the allure of m4/3 is gone. I like m4/3 for the tiny, lightweight kit. I love the Rokinon 7mm fish. Love the 14mm. LOVE the 45mm 1.8.

    I'm over carrying 20lbs of gear for 12 hours. :)
     
  18. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Maybe I should start a few "E-M5 is amazing (images)" threads so people don't think I'm trying to rain on anyone's parade. ;)
     
  19. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    We need people like you that push the envelope to see the limits. Some people don't like having their limits revealed. I, for one, say carry on.

    Of course you are not the only one interested in this stuff. Being newish to the forum and not having presented a clear statement of your methods, abilities and purpose it would not be unexpected that some may ask pointed questions.

    Either way this is a nice site with an eclectic bunch from rank noobs to folks with 20+ years experience with building digital imaging systems to pro photographers with even more experience than that! A wide range of responses is to be expected.
     
  20. benvigil

    benvigil Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 7, 2013
    Cumming, GA
    Thanks for the reset Rob.