New EM5 and 12-40 PRO user: Is my 12-40 soft???

[shg2]

If your body is recording focus point EXIF data, some image processing software will read that data and display it. LR needs a plugin - "Metadata Viewer", and Aperture will do it directly. I strongly suspect based on what I have seen the outcome for moving targets is umm not always accurate but stationary targets seems to match up pretty well.

Downloaded this http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-viewer but won't show the focus point in CC LR5.4

 

[ca22]

It seems highly unlikely that the focus ring was accidentally pulled back, as it is very close to being in focus and other nearby parts of the bird appear more in focus. The legs in the last photo below (as well as my original photo on page 1 of this post) look better in focus, as well as the tail feathers in the first few. Is it possible that the pattern near the head of the bird is such that the AF struggled to be completely accurate? I feel pretty confident that manual focus would have been perfectly sharp, which would seem to make this more of an AF issue than general lens softness. Here are jpegs exported from the orf files in LR. I believe focus point was always small box on the head/eye. Let me know if I should attach them in a different format!

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)

 

[50orsohours]

Maybe the bird moved slightly. Test a "dead" subject and see if the result is better. I don't think it is the lens.

 

[ca22]

Thank you for your response. Static subjects have been good for the most part, although some very small flowers or parts of flowers that are smaller than the focus box have been problematic. These are usually fine when manual focusing. I don't usually shoot wildlife -- at what shutter speed would I have been 'safe' from subject movement? I believe all of the above shots were 1/300 or 1/500.

 

[Growltiger]

Try 1/1000 as a starting point.
I was doing some tests today on a woodpecker at 1/250 and it was impossible to get it really sharp. The feeder it was on, and the leaves in front and behind it were perfectly sharp.

 

[ca22]

Was it pecking?

 

[Growltiger]

Was it pecking?

Intermittently as it grabbed at the food. When it stops it still keeps moving around a little, it is never completely still.

 

[gugarci]

If your body is recording focus point EXIF data, some image processing software will read that data and display it. LR needs a plugin - "Metadata Viewer", and Aperture will do it directly. I strongly suspect based on what I have seen the outcome for moving targets is umm not always accurate but stationary targets seems to match up pretty well.

Thanks for that tip.
Will have to look into that plug in for LR.

 

[dhazeghi]

Downloaded this http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-viewer but won't show the focus point in CC LR5.4

I keep Olympus Viewer around for stuff like this (it can display the focal point). Of course, if you do focus-recompose, it's not going to tell you much though.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

- but it seems that no part of the head or beak is sharp.

Head is moving.
Body is sharper.
Nonexistant problem. What a long thread!

 

[ca22]

haha thanks everyone!