Showing posts with label olympus E-M5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olympus E-M5. Show all posts

9.30.2015

First shots with the old Minolta 100mm F3.5 macro plus Olympus E-M1

Tuesday was a good day to play hooky from work and spend the morning at our local botanic garden with my "new" old Minolta 100mm macro. I have had it a few weeks, but this was the first time we'd gone outside to play.



I was hoping for more flowers at the garden, but it is late in the season.  Many of the flowers looked a bit well-worn.  On the other hand, we've had little rain this summer so expectations should be kept realistic.



The Minolta is a heavy lens weighing in at 22 ounces. That's a whopping 25.5 ounces with adapter!  But I lugged it around on the E-M1 for 2 1/2 hours and didn't feel that it weighed too much.  In fact, I had the Olympus 36R flash in the hot shoe the entire time too; although I used the flash perhaps only 1/3 of the time.



I used a small "kiss" of flash with these four:






All my shots were hand held at 1/250 sec or more.  This lens has an effective focal length of 200mm.  All the formulas suggest that for this focal length a shutter speed of 1/250sec should be fast enough to remove camera shake.

I left in-body-image-stabilization on.  Some might argue that I should have turned it off because it was unnecessary at that shutter speed.



I switched back and forth between F4 and F8.  Both F stops seemed sharp. I believe the lens is sharper on the E-M1 than my two other manual lenses of similar focal length, the Nikkor 105mm AI-S F2.8 and the Tamron 90mm F2.8. I was pleased also to see no CA, a problem that I find on both the Nikkor and Tamron.



Focusing was a challenge, even with the focus aids in the E-M1.  These focus aids work almost the opposite of those on the Sony a6000, so I am looking forward to trying my hand at that combination in a few days.



Here were my two focusing challenges:

1) Focus peaking.

a) I find that the Olympus focus peaking is not selective enough to be accurate for macro work.  For example, if shooting down at a 45 degree angle onto the horizontal surface of a flower, I might see a speckled band of white (the focus peaking is set for white) 1/4" wide across the flower, supposedly highlighting that which is in focus.  Yet the actual depth of field, where sharpness is adequate, might only be expected to be 1/16" or 1/8". One would surmise that the middle of the 1/4" band would be the sweet spot; however, I often found that the sharpest "plane" of focus was slightly behind where I intended it be.  Perhaps with more experience and practice I will make some mental adjustments and get the focus on target more frequently.

b) As soon as you half press the shutter the peaking disappears.  Perhaps not a problem with a landscape, but I find with macro work that there is too much operator time-lag between focusing and full release of the shutter.

2) Magnification

The magnification works great.  I like the fact that the magnification is maintained even when the shutter button is half pressed or fully pressed. The bad news is that while in magnification mode, you loose sight of your frame.



__________

Next up: I'll try the same lens on the Sony a6000.

11.05.2013

Sony E 16-70 F4: Part 3: Not as sharp as Olympus 14-54ii

See also:
Part 1
Part 2

Using the 'ol brick wall technique, in this post (Part 3) I am comparing the sharpness of the Sony E 16-70 on a NEX6 and the Olympus 14-54ii on the E-M5. Due to the crop factor differences (1.5x for Sony and 2x of Olympus) the effective field of view of these two lenses is actually very similar:  24-105 for the Sony and 28-108 for the Olympus.

I shot a brick wall at five different focal lengths using F4, F5.6, F8, F11, and F16 at each focal length. That's five f-stops and five focal lengths. That's a total of 25 tests with each lens, and a overall total of 50 images.  All of these can be viewed larger and downloaded in full size here.

I used a single center focus point and aimed at the same spot in all images. They were all hand held, but all shutter speeds were "safe" speeds of at least 1/ focal length.  Image stabilization was "on".

Below is what the brick wall scene looked like at five focal lengths.  The ones shown here are the Olympus version, as is obvious by the 4:3 aspect ratio.  The Sony images are a bit wider and less tall due to the 3:2 aspect ratio. Remember, the field of view is defined by the diagonal dimension.


28mm equivalent

35mm equivalent

50mm equivalent

70-75mm equivalent

105-108mm equivalent


All images were shot in RAW and processed at default Adobe settings in Lightroom 5.  I viewed all the images in Lightroom using the X:Y comparison tool, and at 200% (2:1) on my 24" HD monitor. I compared center sharpness and then corner sharpness.

What I found:

Center Sharpness:

Both lenses were similar in the center, and I believe sharp enough for any situation.  In 23 tests I found the two lens to be identical.  In two tests, I thought the Sony was slightly better.  But remember, this is while examining at 200% and even then the center sharpness difference in those two instances was barely noticeable.

Edge Sharpness:

The Olympus is clearly sharper.  In 21 tests the Olympus was sharper, having at least three corners sharper than the Sony corners.  In one test the Sony corners were sharper. In three tests the two lenses were equal.

Example:

Here's a sample comparison with both combinations  taken at 50mm-equiv, F5.6, aperture priority, base ISO.

Below are 1:1 crops from the center. Both lenses are sharp in the center.

Olympus.  100% center crop. Very sharp.

Sony. 100%  center crop.  Very sharp.


Below are 1:1 crops from the upper right corner.  (1:1 crops are a lot kinder to the Sony than the 2:1 crops I viewed on my monitor.) Though both cameras are 16mp cameras, the compositions are a bit different due to the different aspect ratios.  At 4:3, the Olympus gets a bit taller image; at 3:2 the Sony gets a bit wider image.  

The Olympus is quite obviously sharper.  

Olympus.  100% crop from upper right corner.  Sharp.
(But more distortion than Sony... easily fixed in Lightroom)

Sony.  100% crop from upper right.  Not sharp. 

Other considerations:

I was testing for sharpness.  The Olympus was superior.  On the other hand, the Olympus has some old technology in it.  It focuses slowly on micro 43 bodies and is noisy.  It also suffers from more chromatic aberration and distortion than does the Sony.  The 14-54ii weighs nearly 16 ounces (17.5 ounces with the necessary adapter), while the Sony is smaller and weighs under 11 ounces.

It is also important not to forget about the 24mm-equiv. wide angle of the Sony. My own experience in the field is that with a lens like this one, 25%-33% of my shots would be at 24mm-equiv.

Perhaps the biggest consideration is price.  The Sony costs $1,000 while the Olympus 14-54ii can be bought on eBay for under $300.

The Sony is a "good enough" lens.  Even though it is softer in the corners than the Olympus, the corners are nevertheless sharper than what I am getting on the Sony 16-50 kit lens and on my Panasonic LX5, both of which are sufficiently sharp for 95% of my needs. I also think that you are getting a lot of lens from its 11 ounce body.  Its ergonomics on the NEX 6 body is wonderful in my opinion. And again, don't forget about that 24mm wide angle.

However, for myself, I am seriously considering returning the lens.  Yes, it is "good enough".  I love the feel of the NEX body and this is my only option for a mid-range zoom with beyond-kit quality.  The question for me is if it is worth $1,000... in light of what I already own in Olympus gear.



11.04.2013

Sony E 16-70 F4: Part 2: Compared to Olympus 14-54ii

Also see:
Part 1
Part 3

With the new Sony E 16-70 attached to my NEX 6 (see prior post), I walked out the door with two camera-lens combinations to test against each other. The other combination was an Olympus E-M5 with my oldest digital lens, the well-respected 14-54ii designed for 4/3 cameras.  I used it with the Olympus adapter to fit the 4/3 lens onto the m4/3 mount.

The Olympus is on the left.  With the 4/3-to-m4/3 adapter the Olympus 14-54ii zoom
 weighs 17.7 ounces and is larger than the Sony lens.
The Sony lens weighs 11 ounces.


The 14-54ii has been my favorite zoom for many years, having been with me previously on an Olympus E-520 and E-620, and a Panasonic G2 and GH2.  With an effective focal length of 28-108mm it's been (almost) perfect for me for travel, landscapes and people pictures. However, the Sony is equivalent to 24-105mm, and it is the 24mm-equiv. wide angle that attracts me to it. Also, it focuses much faster and far quieter than does the Olympus combination. I didn't test either one for video.

For me to keep this lens it must be at least as sharp as the 14-54ii, both in the center and in the corners. (Otherwise, it is going back.)

Tonight I will evaluate the results of my little "shoot-out" and publish my thoughts in a follow up post (hopefully, tomorrow).

9.23.2013

Car Photography: My new interest - Part 2

In my Part 1 post, I reflected on how I used a standard zoom lens (Sony 16-50mm on a NEX-6) to introduce myself to car photography at my first Larz Anderson lawn event in Brookline, MA.  As I walked past all the beautiful cars during that first show I quickly began wondering what I might do with a shallow depth of field lens like my Olympus 75mm F1.8.  On an Olympus camera with its 2x crop factor, this lens give a field of view equivalent to a 150mm lens.

So, to the second weekend event I brought not only the Sony but also an Olympus E-M5 with its ugly but awesomely sharp silver 75mm lens.  I really like the creamy background I was able to get with these shots.  Out of focus areas can really make the subject of the image "pop".
















9.02.2013

Sony NEX-6 and Olympus E-M5 return from a Maine vacation

In a post I wrote before our week-long vacation on the coast of Maine, I remarked how my NEX-6 (with Jim Buchanan accessory grip) just feels more comfortable and fun to use than does my Olympus E-M5.  This preference for the NEX is in spite of the  higher spec (IMO) of the Olympus.

With this preference in the back of my mind, I selected the NEX with kit 16-50 to be my go-to setup for the vacation.  I completely dismissed the thrashing this lens has received on the Internet.

I took the Olympus E-M5, too, and snapped on the reg43 70-300 for long shots. You will see in boat, yacht, and schooner images below why a reach of 300mm (600mm equivalent when mounted on an Olympus) is beneficial.  The Olympus reg43 70-300 is a very useful lens, as it not only has a long reach but excellent close-up capabilities.

These pictures demonstrate the 70-300's flexibility.  (I don't know if the same is true for the Olympus m43 75-300.)  That being said, it is very slow and noisy to focus on the E-M5.

Olympus E-M5 with reg43 70-300

Coneflower shot at 149mm (298mm equiv.)

Focus was on the eyes. Shot at 202mm (404mm equiv.)


Crab spider stalking prey.  149mm (248mm equiv.)


Shot at 158mm focal length (316mm equiv.)

Shot at 300mm (600mm equiv.)

Shot at 239mm (478mm equiv.)

Shot at 239mm (478 equiv.)

 Sony NEX-6 with kit 16-50mm

As I wrote at the top of the post, the NEX-6 and kit lens was my go-to combo.  Other than the few shots above with the Olympus, the NEX was used for all the usual travel and landscape stuff.  I am very happy with the much maligned 16-50 E-mount zoom, though admittedly all but one or two will never be printed.  To me, if just viewing on a HD TV or computer screen is all you are looking for, just about any lens made today will be sufficient.

The 16-50 turned out to be a perfect range 3x zoom for my travel needs.  25% of my images were taken fully zoomed in at 16mm (24mm-equiv) and 25% were taken fully zoomed out at 50mm (75mm-equiv).  Everything else was spread out pretty equally throughout the range.

[If I could design a 5x zoom it would be a 16-80.  Others might prefer a wider angle instead of more telephoto capabilities, but I think a little bit of extra reach (60-80mm range) would be good for all the candid portraits I like to do of my grandchildren.  I am actually very excited about the newly announced (expensive) Zeiss 16-70 F4.]

Below are samples of the kind of compositions you get at 16mm (24mm equiv) and 50mm (75mm equivalent). Note that I tend to compose "loosely", which requires a bit of more exacting cropping in post-processing.

16mm (24mm equiv.)


Bass Harbor Lighthouse

Castine, Maine Post Office

Near Surrey, Maine

50mm (75mm equiv.)



The 16-50 performs nicely for closeups at 50mm.
Do you see the caterpillar camouflaged against
the lichen on the rock?