I remember seeing this picture before. Lots of things going on in there. I
like it. /jmac
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Walt Wayman
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:51 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 images on the net
Sorry about the bounced e-mails, Brian. I don't even have a "safe list" and
so
intentionally exclude no one, and I have the spam to prove it. I don't know
why
that is happening.
In any event, I regret that I'm not going to be of much help regarding
far-distant shots with the 500/8, or just about any long lens, for that
matter.
I hadn't really thought about it until your recent experiences, but most of
my
tele shots are at fairly close range, anywhere from 15 feet to maybe one or
two
hundred yards. With either of the E-things, I haven't shot anything more
than
50 feet away with the 500/8. In fact, the furthest I've aimed it and fired
off
a shot that I can locate right now is this one, made on Provia 100F with an
OM-4T a couple of years ago at a range of about 150 yards:
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1109.jpg
I suspect your biggest problem is atmospheric. Try a few shots of nearby
stuff
with the 500 and expect it to be a little flatter and slightly less sharp
than
with the "real" lenses. If the flatter and less sharp are more than a
little
and slightly, you may have a lens with a problem. However, looking at the
long-range photo you posted, that's pretty much what I'd expect shooting
through
that much air, even yours, and anything close to that would be impossible
through the stuff that passes for air here most days.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi all,
>
> For what it's worth, I had two of the "Torlesse" images printed up at
about 8
x
> 12, as near as you can with a 4/3 image from the E-1.
>
> The Zuiko 500mm image is rather ho-hum; not sharp, unsaturated colours
> despite me adding saturation, and so on. Quite muddy colours. I have to do
> more with this lens before I decide if it is a keeper. May even have it
cleaned,
> but I suspect operational procedures need thorough testing first.
>
> However, the print from the $15 Tokina 135/2.8 lens is a cracker, sharp
from
> corner to corner. Probably it is a keeper of a lens!! The print is.
>
> This morning the conditions were also reasonably good, and over the course
> of about an hour I took 24 shots with the 500, 300, 200 and the Tok 135,
> varying on-camera contrast, saturation etc plus UV filter. I'm not at all
> satisfied yet.
>
> I found it very difficult to maintain the horizon at the correct angle; on
the
> Manfrotto head there always seemed to be creep. Also with the Zuiko 300
> collar. I did manage to hold exposure value and recompose; but I'm not
sure
> that this helped camera/lens stability. I have to work on stability with
the
> 500.
>
> BTW, I tried e-mailing Walt directly, and his attentive ISP bounced every
> sent message. So, Walt, please advise if you have used your 500 on an E-
> thing for a more distant shot than those sharp blue bird shots, and if so,
what
> do you think of the results?
>
> Cheers, Brian
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
