On 2/17/2013 7:11 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Ken wrote
>> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=2440
>>
>> Olympus E-1, Zuiko 100/2
> Sorry to say, but I don't fully agree.
>
> What is most lacking in that shot is auto-focus. The zone of most-sharp
> focus is on the handles of the mugs, well away from, and this side of, the
> zone of most interest..
> Manual focus, small mirror, no split-image focus aid ...
I pick on AG's images and verbiage all the time. Here's a chance to defend him.
:-)
Seems clear to me that it is carefully focused on the left spigot (teat?).
Because it is shot at an angle, the flow from
there quickly moves out of the DOF, while the DOF catches the right mug handle.
The oddly placed plane of focus is a
result of the camera not being level with and at a right angle to the subject.
Pretty much unavoidable in this case,
I'll bet.
Greater DOF would put the left stream of mud sharper, but also bring in more of
the cups. Whether it would be a more
attractive image with more DOF, I don't know. It is, in any case, a pretty nice
image in the super shallow DOF style.
> I remember well on getting the E-1 how much sharper its (hand-held)
> images were compared with hand-held OM film shots, and I put it down to
> these factors.
>
> 1) Since the lens is already stopped down on the E-1, the exposure process
> can not be plagued by the stop-down vibration that the work in 2000-2002 by
> Gary Reese showed is inherent in the OM system due to the design of the
> mechanical aspects of Zuiko lenses. And which, apparently Maitani was not
> aware of.
> 2) Compared with the OM cameras, the mirror is amazingly lighter ( and the
> body comparatively heavier) to the extent that mirror-shutter vibration is
> practically undetectable to my hands.
Yes, the weight and bulk of the single digit 4/3 bodies is useful for that.
The Pens and E-M5 have no mirrors, but all suffer from shutter vibration in a
certain speed range. The E-M5 apparently
less than the Pens, and with a way to tame it. What is not clear is whether
hand holding damps the vibration, as it
tends to do on the OMs. The tests I've seen use tripods, and so could be
subject to the same limitations as Gary's
tests. The problems he found with the modest telephotos don't show up hand
held, at least not to near the same extent.
Where is IBIS in this list? A major contributor, I think. Hand holding damps
most aperture/mirror/shutter vibration on
OMs, so IS is almost certainly part of the improvement you noticed.
> The same can not be said of the E-3,
> in my opinion, and for which image quality can suffer even when on a tripod,
> if IS is turned off. I discovered this on close examination of the many
> exposures I took of the line of autumn poplars ( Chard Farm vineyard). To
> my surprise my hand-held shots ( IS on) were sharper than my tripod shots
> with the same gear, (but with IS off, as per Olympus recommendations).
Live a little on the wild side - try tripod with IS on. Many people have found
this to work well, especially with less
than completely solid tripods. Oly has the same advice for the E-M5. My casual
tests say it makes little or no
difference. Where I thought I could see some difference, it was in favor of
keeping IS on.
> 3) Image quality with the E-1 is improved in my opinion, if the old standard
> tripod procedure of auto-delayed exposure is used.
I would expect that to be true of pretty much any camera. The question is
whether all that time and effort avail
anything more than using the IS, hand-held or on tripod. MIGHT help with Pens,
depending on how the tripod interacts
with the shutter vibration.
Nickel (Inflation) Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|