On 11/18/2019 7:26 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
At 11/18/2019 01:37 AM, Piers wrote:
I am hesitant to add to anything Moose writes on macro (for which I am as
always very grateful!) but there is one aspect of the m.Zuiko 60/2.8 which is
worth adding. It provides for focus stacking in-camera on OM-D EM-1 (X, i and
ii) and EM-5 (ii and I assume also iii). No need for PS.
Yes, thanks Moose. Comparing to FF this is helpful. As to in camera focus
stacking, that is not something I would likely use, but having the ability to
do focus bracketing would be.
I am curious how well the E-M5 iii does focus stacking.
I have not had great success with focus stacking using PS when taking photos
with a lot of cactus needles. For instance a shot like this (using Helicon
Focus and 6 images)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vkDVwpHqXpfiS9n16
Nice! But, like me, all too often, you have missed the closest focus, leaving soft points nearest the camera. Panny has
another mode available, starting with current focus position, it alternates closer and further focal planes.
PS would not get the smooth transitions on all the needles, often creating
little out of focus blobs on the tips requiring a lot of post mask editing to
fix. Helicon seems to handle it with ease, but best if the stack is not random
focus.
I do want to try other stackers, but what with being on the road for seven
weeks recently, haven't found the time.
Perhaps I don't need a true macro, but a lens with decent close focus.
One of the things I was trying gently to suggest. ;-) Out in nature, I seldom
actually get to closest focus with the 12-60.
I know buried in many threads are lens recommendations. I vaguely recall some
discussion of pany lenses on olympus and visa versa, issues?
The compatibility problem is with Panny WA lenses on Oly bodies where one can get purple halos around small, bright
subjects.
Beyond that, their approaches to combining IBIS and OIS for more effective IS differ and are not compatible. Thus, a
12-100 on Oly body has enhanced, apparently spookily good, IS, and a 12-60 on an Oly body may use its OIS or the body's
IBIS, but not both, and so on.
Oly is open about how their Sync IS works, with a nice illustrative video. Panny is close mouthed (as about so many
things) about how their Dual IS works. Some have speculated that it uses OIS for X-Y and IBIS for the other three axes.
this would suggest that Oly's might be better.
OTOH, There are only two Oly OIS lenses that do Sync IS, with another premium one on the way. All Panny zooms but the
super WAs and a few primes all will use Dual IS.
OTTH, most all of this is speculation. The E-M5 has 5-axis IBIS; the GX7 has 3-axis. Most things one would read back
then said the Oly was superior. I used the two side by side around my neck, sometimes swapping lenses. I could find no
superiority to IS in either one over the other, even @ 300 mm, 600 mm eq.
I thought once I had an example, but close observation @ 100% revealed that their AF systems had chosen very slightly
different focal planes in a complex, 3D subject, neither more correct than the other.
So, who knows which combination IS system is actually best?
So looking for what others tend to use on their u43s? Especially to go with an
E-M5 iii.
I have, and have had, a wide range of lenses from both. My primary choices are based not on brand, but on capabilities
and characteristics.
I used an Oly 75-300 as my long lens for years. It left in favor of the Panny 100-400, both longer and optically better.
I still have both 12-60 and 12-100, I've swapped between them. I want to like the Oly better, if only to fill the 60-100
mm FL gap, but I just can't do it. Next KEH local visit and the Oly is gone. The difference in close focus abilities is
the deal breaker for the Oly.
I have the Panny 7-14 mostly because it's smaller and lighter for a lens that will often be on a clip on my belt. And f4
is fine for me for a SWA.
Because I like the IBIS-less little GM5 for compact kit, I swapped a couple of Oly lenses for Panny's with OIS, 14-150
to 14-140 and 45/1.8 for 42.5/1.7. According to Ctein, the Panny 42.5/1.7 is slightly better in the corners at wide
apertures. I know the Oly 14-150 is soft at wide apertures and close focus. I've not tested the Panny 14-140.
As all my current primarily used lenses are Pannys, I'm pleased to be using GX9 bodies these days, for Dual IS. At the
moment, based on previews, I can't see any compelling reason to go back to Oly with the E-M5 III.
Out of Breath 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/
|