Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

Handheld in-camera focus stacking can be a bit hit-and-miss and macro always presents further challenges. But the little Oly TG-6 delivers well when everything goes to plan and it is an invaluable extra tool to have in your pocket (or hanging from a belt clip). My main criticisms of the TG-6 are that images can be too noisey at anything above ISO 640 and stacking emphasises it - Topaz DeNoise can only do so much and it's important not to sharpen until after running any noise reduction.

Personally I prefer to include at least a hint of habitat rather than count the hairs on an insect's legs < That's for micro work. I have only got as far as macro so far.

BEES LIVES MATTER!!! .... by Robin Procter, on Flickr
 
jakeblu said:
Long Tailed Tit, I think. I'm guessing its a juvenile because it really doesn't resemble the images I've seen of this bird. It also seems to have something above its eye

Long Tailed Tit by Steve Vickers, on Flickr
Click to expand...
yepa fledgling I think ,the orange patch above the eye is normal
 
Massive crop this one (nearly 100%), had just been resetting my new dot sight on the EM1-X, when I heard the familiar cries of a buzzard soaring in the thermals high above me. Used the dot-slight to line him up and just shot a burst. Luckily the dot sight was perfectly aligned and all the burst had him nailed in the AF zone pattern. Like I say, just a record shot (as it’s so heavily cropped), but worthwhile nonetheless.



 
Last edited:
This maybe will be a longer tale but for now:-

We were privileged to have a Robins nest visible from the front room in our past it best date conifer hedge.................yesterday the 3 nestlings decided to become fledglings. I missed the first two making their pre-flight preps to escape but this last little fellow stood on the exit to his(?) great adventure for a while and then actually went back inside the nest. We could only surmise that he left sometime early this morning. NB approx 35ft to the hedge!

Em1 mk2 & 300mm f4 and it is a crop of approx 1/4 of the total frame. 1/100th, f4, ISO2500 ~ a bit rough and ready PP in DxO PL3 and finalised in PS


4552_DxO_diffPSsmts.jpg
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
This maybe will be a longer tale but for now:-

We were privileged to have a Robins nest visible from the front room in our past it best date conifer hedge.................yesterday the 3 nestlings decided to become fledglings. I missed the first two making their pre-flight preps to escape but this last little fellow stood on the exit to his(?) great adventure for a while and then actually went back inside the nest. We could only surmise that he left sometime early this morning. NB approx 35ft to the hedge!

Em1 mk2 & 300mm f4 and it is a crop of approx 1/4 of the total frame. 1/100th, f4, ISO2500 ~ a bit rough and ready PP in DxO PL3 and finalised in PS


View attachment 282904
Click to expand...

.... It's a lovely shot - I love all the textures.

It's not unusual for a fledgling not to fledge at exactly the same time as its siblings - It will do so when it feels ready.
 
i finally have an e-m10 mk2 + O17 f1.8 - ordered a screen protector and will order a wrist strap

That should do me ... looking forward to taking some shots. Shame i don't have a cat..
 
I posted a landscape yesterday (double rainbow) and thought I'd examine the file carefully to see if I was getting the smudgy, plastic look that I posted about last week. And the answer was yes. I could not see how to resolve this using a camera with such a small sensor. I have barely known a RAW file that didn't benefit from a modicum of sharpening, and with the Olympus - even at 200 ASA - sharpening --> noise. The more the sharpening, the more the noise.

So I exported the file from LR with no sharpening or NR, put it through Topaz AI and compared the two. See crops below.

_6140026-2.jpg
Lightroom sharpen and NR.

_6140026-Edit.jpg
Topaz AI

I'm not sure how obvious the difference is once reduced in size for the web and converted to a jpg. But Topaz does do a good job even on an image like this. The trouble is on my ancient PC it is incredibly slow! In the end I went to bed and let it get on with it.

It looks to me as if a really good sharpening set-up is necessary to get good results from a m4/3rds bodies like Olympus. Either that or don't view at 100%.
 
jerry12953 said:
I posted a landscape yesterday (double rainbow) and thought I'd examine the file carefully to see if I was getting the smudgy, plastic look that I posted about last week. And the answer was yes. I could not see how to resolve this using a camera with such a small sensor. I have barely known a RAW file that didn't benefit from a modicum of sharpening, and with the Olympus - even at 200 ASA - sharpening --> noise. The more the sharpening, the more the noise.

So I exported the file from LR with no sharpening or NR, put it through Topaz AI and compared the two. See crops below.

View attachment 283061
Lightroom sharpen and NR.

View attachment 283063
Topaz AI

I'm not sure how obvious the difference is once reduced in size for the web and converted to a jpg. But Topaz does do a good job even on an image like this. The trouble is on my ancient PC it is incredibly slow! In the end I went to bed and let it get on with it.

It looks to me as if a really good sharpening set-up is necessary to get good results from a m4/3rds bodies like Olympus. Either that or don't view at 100%.
Click to expand...
Its difficult to say much about the images you posted as they're far too small, but the exif info shows you are at f14, which could be a factor. I'm not sure what's going on with your landscape images but its not something I've experienced and I have no problems viewing at 100%.
 
jakeblu said:
Its difficult to say much about the images you posted as they're far too small, but the exif info shows you are at f14, which could be a factor. I'm not sure what's going on with your landscape images but its not something I've experienced and I have no problems viewing at 100%.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to try to eliminate some other factors. Maybe f14 was a problem. I used it to make sure I got a good depth of field, which was something i wanted to rule out.
 
Yes at F14 on Micro Four Thirds, you are well into diffraction territory, and therefore it would need a fair amount of sharpening to recover the details. I've rarely ever found I need to go beyond F8 to maximise DOF on M4/3.
 
jerry12953 said:
Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to try to eliminate some other factors. Maybe f14 was a problem. I used it to make sure I got a good depth of field, which was something i wanted to rule out.
Click to expand...
On the 12-40 at 12mm set the lens to MF and 5 feet on the focus scale and f8 for max dof.
 
Last edited:
grey wagtail from today , for anyone else that uses photoshop CC they have kindly updated there software today ,and have ADDED a tone curves adjustment that does it by colour ,just a small alteration but it means you can actually tone down olympus raw file garish greens without effecting anything else .,must be a couple of other bits in there to .. coupled with topaz -de-noise Ai its now superb . . these shots are massive crops to
game changer by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

i&#x27;ll post that by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
Sootchucker said:
Yes at F14 on Micro Four Thirds, you are well into diffraction territory, and therefore it would need a fair amount of sharpening to recover the details. I've rarely ever found I need to go beyond F8 to maximise DOF on M4/3.
Click to expand...

alfbranch said:
On the 12-40 at 12mm set the lens to MF and 1 m on the focus scale and f8 for max dof.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions. I've got a whole range of things to try to see if it solves the problem eg, the aperture, the polarising filter, the stepping up ring, the lens, the camera...... trouble is I hate "testing" equipment. I just want it to work. Still I've got a 12 - 45 f4 zoom arriving any day now which should help to rule out the lens.
 
the black fox said:
grey wagtail from today , for anyone else that uses photoshop CC they have kindly updated there software today ,and have ADDED a tone curves adjustment that does it by colour ,just a small alteration but it means you can actually tone down olympus raw file garish greens without effecting anything else .,must be a couple of other bits in there to .. coupled with topaz -de-noise Ai its now superb . . these shots are massive crops to
game changer by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

i&#x27;ll post that by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely bird and a cracking image, Geoff. I'm guessing you had to get off your sofa for this one :)
 
the black fox said:
grey wagtail from today , for anyone else that uses photoshop CC they have kindly updated there software today ,and have ADDED a tone curves adjustment that does it by colour ,just a small alteration but it means you can actually tone down olympus raw file garish greens without effecting anything else .,must be a couple of other bits in there to .. coupled with topaz -de-noise Ai its now superb . . these shots are massive crops to
game changer by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

i&#x27;ll post that by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I am still on the email list of "The Lightroom Queen" and got her email recently mentioning the HSL tool......................it rang bells...............

DxO introduced their Colourwheel some months back, I have yet to fully get to grips with it but its use is covered in this video covering the HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance) Tool ~ nice to see Adobe catching up with one of the other (smaller?) players ;)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKSnGoCV-c&t=1055s
 
Last edited:
I spent a fascinating couple of hours last Sunday morning watching the Great Crested Grebes and their chicks.
Their were endless journeys by the male back and forth with a variety of small fish - although some were not so small, and it was amazing that the youngsters were able to swallow them.
All shots are with the E M1 ii and 300mm Pro with 1.4t/c

Hearty lunch.jpg

Eyes bigger than stomach?.jpg

A mouthful.jpg
 
Looking in to this refraction question, it's something i've never thought about before. With my FF kit it just wasn't something I worried about. I can see that with m4/3 it is something to take a lot more seriously.

I read somewhere that using a m4/3 lens at f14, as I did the other day, is the equivalent of using a FF lens at f28, something I would never have considered doing! Could someone confirm that this is true for me, please?

I also read that the sweet spot of these m4/3 lenses is around f4 / f5.6 - the equivalent of f8 / f11 on FF. Again this is something I certainly wasn't aware of and I wonder how many other users are aware of it. If it is true that many of these lenses give increasingly poor results at narrower than f8, you've got to wonder why it's possible to use them at f22, to use the 12 - 100 f4 zoom as an example.

I'm not great on the technical side of photography so any thoughts on this would be welcome.
 
jerry12953 said:
Looking in to this refraction question, it's something i've never thought about before. With my FF kit it just wasn't something I worried about. I can see that with m4/3 it is something to take a lot more seriously.

I read somewhere that using a m4/3 lens at f14, as I did the other day, is the equivalent of using a FF lens at f28, something I would never have considered doing! Could someone confirm that this is true for me, please?

I also read that the sweet spot of these m4/3 lenses is around f4 / f5.6 - the equivalent of f8 / f11 on FF. Again this is something I certainly wasn't aware of and I wonder how many other users are aware of it. If it is true that many of these lenses give increasingly poor results at narrower than f8, you've got to wonder why it's possible to use them at f22, to use the 12 - 100 f4 zoom as an example.

I'm not great on the technical side of photography so any thoughts on this would be welcome.
Click to expand...

I never go more than f/8... well unless I slip up [emoji23]

yes I was aware the diffraction problem kicks in sooner on m43
 
jerry12953 said:
I read somewhere that using a m4/3 lens at f14, as I did the other day, is the equivalent of using a FF lens at f28, something I would never have considered doing! Could someone confirm that this is true for me, please?
Click to expand...

There is approximately a two stop difference when comparing M43 to FF so f14 in M43 is equivalent to f29 in FF. This also applies to Depth of Field. Its about a 1 stop difference for APS to M43

It's certainly takes time to get your head around f2.8 in M43 being equivalent to F5.6 in FF.

Although related to Capture One, there is a useful intro to diffraction here https://learn.captureone.com/blog-posts/compensate-lost-sharpness-small-apertures/
 
jerry12953 said:
Looking in to this refraction question, it's something i've never thought about before. With my FF kit it just wasn't something I worried about. I can see that with m4/3 it is something to take a lot more seriously.

I read somewhere that using a m4/3 lens at f14, as I did the other day, is the equivalent of using a FF lens at f28, something I would never have considered doing! Could someone confirm that this is true for me, please?

I also read that the sweet spot of these m4/3 lenses is around f4 / f5.6 - the equivalent of f8 / f11 on FF. Again this is something I certainly wasn't aware of and I wonder how many other users are aware of it. If it is true that many of these lenses give increasingly poor results at narrower than f8, you've got to wonder why it's possible to use them at f22, to use the 12 - 100 f4 zoom as an example.

I'm not great on the technical side of photography so any thoughts on this would be welcome.
Click to expand...

Jerry
There are times when you may want to use f22 to get a slow shutter speed but the loss of sharpness may not be too bad if you get the effect you want

shallow dof is harder to get that front to back sharpness but shallow dor is possible the opposite being true if you moved to medium format

Look here so 1.5 focus and f8 at 12mm is a good for 0.5 to infinity
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
 
Last edited:
Or for the ultimate in quality, focus bracket at say F5.6 then stack in software.
 
jerry12953 said:
Looking in to this refraction question, it's something i've never thought about before. With my FF kit it just wasn't something I worried about. I can see that with m4/3 it is something to take a lot more seriously.

I read somewhere that using a m4/3 lens at f14, as I did the other day, is the equivalent of using a FF lens at f28, something I would never have considered doing! Could someone confirm that this is true for me, please?

I also read that the sweet spot of these m4/3 lenses is around f4 / f5.6 - the equivalent of f8 / f11 on FF. Again this is something I certainly wasn't aware of and I wonder how many other users are aware of it. If it is true that many of these lenses give increasingly poor results at narrower than f8, you've got to wonder why it's possible to use them at f22, to use the 12 - 100 f4 zoom as an example.

I'm not great on the technical side of photography so any thoughts on this would be welcome.
Click to expand...
As a rule of thumb and please note I’m not a landscape photographer , I usually just stop down a couple of stops on any lens which should be it’s sweet spot . But MFT tends to write its own anologies best bet is trial and error to ensure you get right when needed
 
myotis said:
There is approximately a two stop difference when comparing M43 to FF so f14 in M43 is equivalent to f29 in FF. This also applies to Depth of Field. Its about a 1 stop difference for APS to M43

It's certainly takes time to get your head around f2.8 in M43 being equivalent to F5.6 in FF.

Although related to Capture One, there is a useful intro to diffraction here https://learn.captureone.com/blog-posts/compensate-lost-sharpness-small-apertures/
Click to expand...


I can get my head around it now I know about it! I was aware that depth of field was deeper with m4/3 but didn't realise there were other implications as well.

Thinking aloud now, if I stick to f5.6 with my 12 - 100 zoom I could have problems with depth of field at the long end; although presumably there would be some compensation through the DoF being the equivalent of f11 on full frame.

Thanks for posting the link, Graham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top