Hi, Moose! Nice to chat with you the other day. I hope you're drying
out nicely back home.
Thanks for the tips re. Micro 4/3 "shutter shock." This is the first
I've heard of the it, and I thought I'd read everything about the E-M5
before I bought it. My wife certainly did. One day she said to me,
"Stop reading all those reviews, and just buy the camera already!"
I'll pop that 1/8 second delay into my presets today, and see if it
makes a difference. Now that I think about it, there have been a number
of shots, even outdoors, where I thought they ought to have been
sharper. I had been chalking it up to IS or autofocus quirks or me
doing something wrong. Now the light dawns. There's a fellow on another
list who often deliberately misspells "shutter" as "shudder." I guess
he was right. :-)
Would you kindly share what you did to sharpen this picture up?
Inquiring minds want to know...
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Klein/PC240053-w.htm>
--Peter
> First, let me say that all the sample images are perfectly fine. They
nicely
> convey the setting and mood of the gatherings.
>
> On 12/30/2012 11:15 AM, Peter Klein wrote:
>
> C.H.: I think you may have missed that my pictures were taken at ISO
> 3200. There is a sharpness penalty at that ISO, whether due to noise or
> noise reduction, or reduced microcontrast. And there may be slight
> motion blur at slow shutter speed. I have to experiment with the IS
> off, I've only had it on so far.
>
> Here's a picture of me that a friend took with my camera (at my
> birthday). This is at ISO 800, wide open at f/1.7. Sharp enough?
>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/Thanksgiving12/PB220029+2.jpg.html>
>
> I'm going to try ISO 1600 for my next indoor session. That may be the
> "sweet spot" of IQ vs. noise and noise-related degradation.
>
>
>
> There are so many factors interacting on the issues of noise and
sharpness here that I can't see how any clear > conclusions may be
reached. I will leave WB aside for others.
>
>
> 1. You are comparing a high grade Leica lens with a consumer grade
Zuiko. There is almost certainly a > significant difference in lens IQ.
OTOH, for this size web image, there shouldn't be much visible difference.
>
>
> 2. The shutter speeds for your sample E-M5 images are at 1/100 to
1/200 sec. Unfortunately, Oly seems to be > unable to shake a tendency
toward body induced shake, and this happens to be right in the
troublesome speed range. > He's a good summary of the issue. <>
http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/micro-43-shutter-shock-revisited-omd-em.html>
>
>
> So, had you used 1600 ISO, you might have seen better sharpness,
probably attributed it to the lower ISO, > whereas most of the
difference would likely be due to another cause. At 800, shutter speeds
would drop out of the > troublesome range.
>
>
> Unlike the aperture stop down induced vibration of the OM bodies,
this time Oly has provided a solution. I have > been using the 1/8 sec.
AutoShock setting since reading this, and it has largely resolved some
confusing results > I'd been experiencing. I've noticed no practical
difference in use, but others may notice the tiny lag.
>
>
> It's quick and easy to switch AutoShock on and off. Once it's turned
on in the Menu, the number of settings in > Drive are doubled, and the
AS ones have a diamond by them. Using the Quick Control Panel, it's four
or five clicks > for me to change, from my default highlighted choices,
ISO or WB.
>
>
> The shot of you on your second birthday ;-) is shot at 1/40 and ISO
800, which eliminate the two primary > unsharpness causes. As above, the
17/2.8 is just fine for this size image. Only pixel peepers or those
making big > prints or crops are likely to see the reported flaws.
>
>
> 3. You are correct that higher ISOs create a sharpness penalty. And
it does seem a bit unfair to compare cameras > set at 2 1/3 stops
different ISOs. Still, for this kind of shot, intended for the web, I
find 3200 to be the > sweet spot. It allows me to use smaller apertures
for greater DOF, the IS (which is certainly not part of your > problems)
allows slowish shutter speeds, and my post processing handles noise,
micro-contrast and sharpness > consequences of the ISO setting.
>
>
> 4. Although you say lighting hasn't changed, the actual exposures
vary a lot from year to year. In the first > pair, the exposures are
identical. In the second, the Oly shot is exposed 1 1/3 stops more than
the M8, according > to the EXIF. 3rd pair, Oly 1/3 stop more than Leica,
4th. pair, 2 stops! With exposures not comparable, > comparisons of
noise aren't, either.
>
>
> 5. As mentioned above, the sweet spot may depend on not only display
size, but on post processing. Even working > with the small image,
perhaps flawed by camera vibration, noise and sharpness are fairly easy
to control. <>
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Klein/PC240053-w.htm>
>
>
> Working with the Raw file, they are quite easy to control. Here, I
used 3200 to get lots of DOF at f8 to get > both niece and her brother
in focus as they check out their Christmas presents. <>
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/Seattle/Christmas_2012&image=>
_C253502rotcroofm.jpg>
>
> Christmas Moose
>
> --
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
