Hi Moose,
That shot was made at 8 ft., near the minimum focusing distance, but
shot though a single pane of window glass. My rant about the
enlargement stemmed from the insistence of one of my LUG viewers, and I
have since reduced it.
The problem with live birds is that I never know exactly where they will
be, and for how long, so I have to pre-select everything, with little
opportunity to make adjustments. I also think I stopped down too far,
seeking DoF, and that drove the ISO up too high.
I started out with simple camera settings, and there are a lot more to
explore. With plenty of storage, I may try burst mode and give the
critter a chance to find a better position.
Thanks for your always helpful comments.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 3/1/2017 10:19 PM, Moose wrote:
On 2/28/2017 1:48 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Here is my only visitor today, following a downpour of rain this
morning. At normal size, it looks fine. I went to a larger size for
the enlargement, after all of the "size matters" discussion on the
LUG, but I think the extra enlargement does an injustice to a lens
from the 1980s.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20170228-DSCF0255.JPG.html
You may be unfairly maligning the lens. There's a lot of noise from
ISO 3200 which obscures detail. The other thing that happens as
resolution gets higher and you crop further is that DoF gets
shallower. The X-T2 has 22% greater nominal resolution, so when you
magnify it a lot, magnification is higher than you ever used on the
X-T1. If you look at DoF charts/calculators, you will see that the two
factors driving it are human visual acuity and magnification. Magnify
more and DoF gets shallower.
It looks to me as though the head is slightly OoF, while feather
detail suggests the plane of focus is on the front of the body.
Noodling around a bit in PS; with more light, ISO of 400 or less,
focused maybe 3/4" further forward, and I'll bet you wouldn't be
faulting the lens. Yeah, yeah, I know; it's essentially impossible to
nail focus that closely with living birds - but it's not the fault of
the optics. :-)
Big old lenses aren't necessarily lesser quality. When I tested the
early Nikkor-Q 200/4 from the early 60s that I inherited from my dad
against the later, more compact, Zuiko 200/4 and 200/5, the Nikkor
handily whupped them both, center and edge, in resolution @ 100%.
There is a price to pay in this case in size and weight. The 200/5 was
one of my favorite walking around lenses, and is WAY smaller and
lighter than the "Q", but not as good optically.
Causes & Effects 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/
|
