1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Image Stabilisation - 300mm and 600mm

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by OzRay, Feb 15, 2014.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I wanted to see how good the new image stabilisation is with the E-M1 and the results are nothing short of staggering. I first tried handheld shooting with my Nikon 300mm f4 and then my Vivitar Series 1 Solid Catadioptric 600mm f8 (minor post adjustments made to both).

    First, the 300mm showing full shot and then 100% crop; second, the 600mm showing full shot and then 100% crop. The 600mm shots have movement blur, but that said, if that lens was on your camera and a UFO appeared in the distance, you'd have a pretty good chance of getting usable shots, where other systems would fail.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.
      1.jpg
      File size:
      46.7 KB
      Views:
      448
    • 2.
      2.jpg
      File size:
      79.8 KB
      Views:
      515
    • 5.
      5.jpg
      File size:
      67.8 KB
      Views:
      456
    • a.
      a.jpg
      File size:
      57.9 KB
      Views:
      501
    • b.
      b.jpg
      File size:
      52.5 KB
      Views:
      1,566
    • 6.
      6.jpg
      File size:
      113.8 KB
      Views:
      426
    • Like Like x 1
  2. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    No go with the UFO theory - they use special technology that prevents pictures from turning out right. I should know - look where I live!

    No seriously! Thanks the 300mm looks great and the 600mm is usable. What was the shutter speed for the shots?
     
  3. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    The shutter speeds were 1/320 and 1/100 respectively; I didn't check when shooting, as I was fighting to keep things steady. I should have upped the ISO and used a much higher shutter speed with the 600mm. May try it again and see if I can improve on the results. The lenses having a bit of heft, which helps to stabilise things when handholding, but the short length of the mirror somewhat negates the weight.

    The Nikon 300mm lens is simply excellent, a much underrated lens when it comes to older lenses, where many seem to prefer the later lens. Some time after I got it, I saw a review of the lens by Thom Hogan and that confirmed my feelings about the quality of the lens. His only complaints were of the weight and the filter sizes; from an optical point of view, he considered it as good as the 300mm f2.8. I'm guessing that this lens is probably about the same size as the upcoming m4/3 300mm f4, but the latter will be a lot lighter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    673
    Sep 27, 2013
    FR
    I saw the exact same sharpnening artifacts on a EP5 RAW in the process contest. I Wonder what is it, I never saw that with any of my previous cameras...
    Notice the digital little squares?
    attachment.php?attachmentid=29102&stc=1&d=1392522976.
     
  5. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I'm not sure what squares you're referring to. BTW, I used LightZone to make these quick and dirty images, and then finished them in Photoshop.
     
  6. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    673
    Sep 27, 2013
    FR
    Here is the RAW file from the Oly EP5 in the photo processing contest of this week. It looks like a bug in the engine applying its own sharpening prior to RAW file. For me it looks like the same digital sharpening artefacts that in the crop of your first shot :
    <iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/8795830@N03/12574781263/player/c0fcf495ac" height="374" width="500" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  7. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, then they aren't artifacts, they are parts of the plant and possibly distorted a tad by my processing. I wasn't trying for the best results, just a quick and dirty to illustrate the IS capability. I had a look at a highly magnified view of the RAW image and can't see anything out of place.
     
  8. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    673
    Sep 27, 2013
    FR
    Do you see the black square? They are surrounding all over you plant close up. Am I seeing things here? Those black pixel are also polluting the branches of the EP5/17mm oly RAW file I posted. I know those are sharpening artefacts because I couldn't even remove them in RAW as they were applied in body (thanks to OLY).

    When I was processing for this week processing contest, I thought the camera used was a digital compact... Then I thought it was high iso because there were lots of noise!

    Then when I looked at cleaning the cables, I saw strange "stairs" effect, reducing and playing with sharpening couldn't remove the artefact... I didn't understood then how a RAW file could have been so dirty. Then I noticed those black pixel in the tree branch I posted above. Trust me, I couldn't remove them. Those are artefacts.

    It is pixel peeping at it's apogee, still it tells me Olympus engine is bad. My humble opinion.

    Here is the full photo processed, the crop of the trees is at bottom right. You can't tell it's dirty from afar. Notice the "stairs" effect in the cable on the building. I couldn't clean that up.

    Is the EP5 without bayer filter? I don't think so!

    <iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/8795830@N03/12566019353/player/758f1fb501" height="576" width="1024" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  9. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Don't see it in the flower shots posted by the OP, only in the extreme close-up of the branches posted. If you're seeing 'jaggies' (aliasing), that doesn't necessarily imply over-sharpening, but the lens may be 'outresolving' the sensor, particularly visible on hard, high-contrast areas that are off the vertical or horizontal. I do find the E-M1 quite bitingly sharp (no anti-aliasing filter), though usually not to the point of aliasing. The out of camera RAW files are almost too sharp, or rather, the lenses are significantly better than the sensors. Which is a good thing in my book, really.
     
  10. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    673
    Sep 27, 2013
    FR
    Hmmm, pretty strange statement that the lens outresolve the sensor, because it is definately not the case with the 17mm used for the RAW I processed. The corner were mushy, as you can see in the branches. Same for the plant.

    I only heard of the outresolving issue with sensor WITHOUT aliasing filter, not the contrary because there is the blurrying filter in the first place that is sharpened afterwards!

    Anyway I don't really care that much. Olympus has great engine and the 17mm outresolves the sensor. Great ^^
     
  11. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I did some more test shots today with the 600mm to see if I could improve on the outcomes. I did a little better, but this is not a lens for handholding unless absolutely necessary. I upped the shutter speed to 1/2000 sec and ISO 25600, so noise was definitely there to reduce detail. Nonetheless, as a not too large image, the results can be quite acceptable. I used Imagenomic for noise reduction and a small amount of sharpening in Photoshop, but I didn't try to make this perfect, so it's not optimum, but surprisingly, there is detail that I wasn't expecting. I've enclosed a 1200px image and a 100% crop to give an idea of how came out.
     

    Attached Files: