On 12/15/2019 8:51 PM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
Here's another example from our walk this evening. Just not very sharp.What do you think? I'm thinking that it will go
back to Oly.
M
<http://www.interisland.net/watershed/mike/WalkDogs/Dec19/SBeach_C150008.JPG>
There are a few reviews now. None are particularly impressed with sharpness @ 100%, esp. at the edges. These seem as
though they may be more unsharp than that, and at FLs that should be good. So it's possible you have a bad one.
OTOH, I just browsed through some photos at similar FLs with the 14-150 and 14-140, and unsharpened, they are nothing to
get excited about @ 100%.
OYAH, did you sharpen after downsampling to show them to us? If not, some of
the softness may not be the fault of the lens.
OYAH, They both sharpen up quite nicely, with moderate levels of processing, even as downsampled JPEGs. So one question
is whether size, weight, zoom range and weatherproofing are enough to justify needing to do a bit of sharpening or
deconvolution in post.
If it were me, I'd also be asking whether this lens on a 4/3 sensor is noticeably better than a 24-360 mm eq. lens on a
1" sensor, for my purposes. <https://photos.app.goo.gl/xjdsgFgZdbrZk9yL6>
Questionable 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/
|
