At 5/6/2021 09:53 PM, Moose wrote:
>On 4/30/2021 2:15 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
>>Glad you had a great day at Point Reyes. That ProcaptureL is looking
>>attractive and not available on the PL 100-400.
>
>The whole business is complicated. A while back Ctein was curious whether a PL
>100-400 would do what he needed for a project. I lent him mine for a couple of
>days. Here's what he had to say about it:
>
>"Hard to say how good the lens is by any objective measure. It's insanely hard
>to critically test an optic like that. Stuff that's far enough away that
>depth of field isn't a problem, there are atmospheric ripples and distortions
>to deal with at the 400 mm lens. Stuff that's close enough that that's not a
>problem, I have to compare multiple frames made with the same aperture where I
>shift to the camera to move the point of focus to different parts of the field
>of view. It's a pain and not terribly precise."
>
>I would add that DoF IS a problem, not with testing, but in use. He did rent
>one and was pleased with the results.
>
>You will probably recall this comparison of several 300 mm lenses.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/300mmLenses/300mm.htm>
>
>I don't recall if I posted this little video, that shows why that test was
>seriously flawed, at that time. <https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/279563550>
>
>That's at only ~40 m, on a mild day, @ 300 mm. Longer FLs, longer focal
>distances and more air movement makes it more problematic.
>
>At real distance, over salt marsh, optical quality of the lens becomes moot.
><https://photos.app.goo.gl/mBHxbXnC34CGKdUb6>
>
>In the desert, only 125 yds is enough.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Carrizo_Plain&image=_A004347cr.jpg>
>
>All of which is to point out that finding out both how good and how useful
>ProCapL is isn't all that easy.
>
>The Egret photos I posted are not pleasingly sharp out of camera. I took quite
>a lot of shots before it flew. They are pretty much all equally unsharp,
>including the many when it was standing stock still, hunting. I know this lens
>combo is capable of sharp results. It was early afternoon on a warm day, and I
>was shooting through air close to the sun warmed ground, so I expect that is
>the main culprit.
>
>The most effective mode in Sharpen AI is Stabilize, which could be read to
>mean the problem is movement. But I suspect it works at a small enough scale
>that the movement being corrected is neither camera nor subject, but effects
>of air shimmer.
>
>I was shooting @ 560 mm eq. at first. When the bird came closer, I zoomed to
>370 mm eq. Yes, at that point I should have taken the TC off. But it was just
>as I was reaching to do so when it took off.
>
>I have as yet not tried the lens alone @ 300-400 mm for things like
>Flutterbys. Should be better, with the shorter focal distances.
>
>In any case, don't expect to try the Oly 100-400 with ProCapL and magically
>get perfect shots. ð??? It's a powerful tool, but with limitations and a
>learning curve.
>
>Heading Up Moose
Interesting Moose. I remember the testing at 300mm.
The vimeo link did not work for me.
I have not spent much time with GX9 and PL 100-400, but I certainly live where
heat can be a problem. I was wondering if the DFD (depth from defocus) has
issues with the wavering heat distortion? Although I have to say, your examples
have an interesting painterly abstract quality.
I find early morning before the sun has heated up the landscape minimizes heat
distortion. I hear the worms are better in the early morning also.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
