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

jerry12953 said:
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.
Click to expand...

For me "it just feels wrong" using an aperture of f4 for a landscape, even if I know I'm getting roughly the same depth of field as I would be getting at f8 in full frame.

Very roughly the 12 -100 on m43 is similar to using a 24 - 200 on FF, so while getting used to M43, you can just think about what you would do in FF with that focal range, and open up two stops when using M43. As you get used to it, you can forget about the FF equivalence as you will know how M43 works.

Interestingly, as I am still mainly using my Nikons, I am finding I get less depth of Field than expected on M43 and more than expected, in comparison with M43, from FF. But Depth of Field is a fickle beast, given its all in our head anyway.
 
We went to Slimbridge yesterday to try and get a bit of normal back in our lives. It was very well done and the hides were set up very cleverly to enable a limited number [clearly marked]. It was unusual going in the summer; I visit a lot when the Bewick's are over. Booking on line was very straightforward. More prams to avoid as wellybootland closed but no dramas at all really.Slimbridge BCC post.JPG
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
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
Click to expand...


It was easy to set the hyperfocal distance with prime lenses which had a depth of field scale marked on them. I had a very good rule of thumb which I have carried over mentally into the zoom lens era. m4/3 obviously needs a new way of looking at things.

Thanks for posting the link to the calculator, Alf. You have some very fine images on your flickr.
 
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...
Yep, diffraction becomes more apparent earlier on with m4/3. I don't think that the lenses diffract more, it's just that you're 'zooming' in to the image more when you enlarge it to view and so it accentuates it.

Edit- It seems lenses do diffract more due to needed a shorter focal length to give the same FOV, see below.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
It was easy to set the hyperfocal distance with prime lenses which had a depth of field scale marked on them. I had a very good rule of thumb which I have carried over mentally into the zoom lens era. m4/3 obviously needs a new way of looking at things.

Thanks for posting the link to the calculator, Alf. You have some very fine images on your flickr.
Click to expand...
You can get dof apps to help
 
alfbranch said:
At 12mm f5.6 will you .89m to infinity when focused at 2m
Click to expand...
I find focus stacking landscapes a pain tbh, you need a really still day and then there’s the faff in processing. That being said you do get more detail.
alfbranch said:
You can get dof apps to help
Click to expand...
I must admit I prefer the old lenses with the scale, using your phone can be a faff especially if its cold and you’re wearing gloves. That being said the apps are very useful.

I‘ve created my own chart with half a dozen of my most used focal lengths and apertures ranging from f2.8 to f11 as I just find it easier to refer to that (y)
 
My understanding re diffraction is....

Diffraction occurs when the aperture becomes so small that the wave like properties of light come into play - as the light bends around the edges of the hole.

The f number is the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. This is irrespective of sensor size, so....

for a 12mm lens at f/8
Diameter = 12/8 = 1.5

for a 24mm lens at f/8
Diameter = 24/8 = 3

To get the same field of view, you'd use a 12mm on a m43 and a 24mm on a FF, so it would therefore appear that diffraction is worse on m43.... for the same field of view because the diameter of the 'hole' is smaller.
 
Bebop said:
My understanding re diffraction is....

Diffraction occurs when the aperture becomes so small that the wave like properties of light come into play - as the light bends around the edges of the hole.

The f number is the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. This is irrespective of sensor size, so....

for a 12mm lens at f/8
Diameter = 12/8 = 1.5

for a 24mm lens at f/8
Diameter = 24/8 = 3

To get the same field of view, you'd use a 12mm on a m43 and a 24mm on a FF, so it would therefore appear that diffraction is worse on m43.... for the same field of view because the diameter of the 'hole' is smaller.
Click to expand...
That makes sense (y)
 
jerry12953 said:
And talking of black and whites ......these two were taken about 6 am this morning from the field outside our house. I was careful to keep the aperture as wide as I could but for these it sneaked up to f8.

View attachment 283345View attachment 283346
Click to expand...

Jerry are you feeling happier with those?

Here is a 100% crop from one of the following hi res shots from my mono above it was framed the same but I didnt like the clouds

That is 1259 X 669 out of 10368 X 7776

100% crop hi res by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Thanks Alby, this bird ID lark is not easy.
Click to expand...

.... It gets easier due to the more birds you see. I regularly have Blackbirds nesting in my garden and so they have shown me their different looks.
 
Sootchucker said:
Or for the ultimate in quality, focus bracket at say F5.6 then stack in software.
Click to expand...

.... But pay very careful attention to ISO/noise when you focus stack because noise can be very undesirably increased in the resulting stacked image. < @jerry12953

One of my few criticisms of my Olympus TG-6 is that even at ISO 640 it can be noisy even before any stacking. The M1X is far less noisy.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit puzzled by that one, Alf. It looks a bit soft to me.

I've examined my files very carefully and yes, they do look sharper. I can't see much of those smeary irregular patterns I showed earlier. I would have preferred to keep the aperture down to f5.6 and the ISO at 200 but it was still quite dark and visibility rather soft. So f8 and 400 ISO it was, focal length 35 and 41mm.. In crisp sunshine I'm sure they would have been sharper.
 
RedRobin said:
.... But pay very careful attention to ISO/noise when you focus stack because noise can be very undesirably increased in the resulting stacked image. < @jerry12953

One of my few criticisms of my Olympus TG-6 is that even at ISO 640 it can be noisy even before any stacking. The M1X is far less noisy.
Click to expand...
Yeah noise can be an issue. I've always struggled with motion of grass and leaves etc.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm a bit puzzled by that one, Alf. It looks a bit soft to me.

I've examined my files very carefully and yes, they do look sharper. I can't see much of those smeary irregular patterns I showed earlier. I would have preferred to keep the aperture down to f5.6 and the ISO at 200 but it was still quite dark and visibility rather soft. So f8 and 400 ISO it was, focal length 35 and 41mm.. In crisp sunshine I'm sure they would have been sharper.
Click to expand...

Here is that shot just converted to jpeg no other processing it is full size on flickr shot ISO 64 f7.1 10 stop filter at 8 seconds in hi res you will need to go to flickr to see it closer

Hi res 8 sec by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
That really is a nice shot Alby.

Rob.
 
I,ll second that alby simply superb
 
Ajophotog said:
Nicely done Rob, do you use c-af +tr for your in flight shots?
Click to expand...

C-AF never tracking I tend to use 9 points most or 25 for bif focus priority, tracking sensitivity 0 as a rule or -1 as it just holds the focus that little bit longer before it will change. around 1/4000 sec as a rule with the 300f4
Rob.
 
Now I am firmly in the M43 camp can I just ask what post processing software you using. I read on one blog that Lightroom was not the answer. This tends to be my go to software with DXO second.
 
alfbranch said:
Here is that shot just converted to jpeg no other processing it is full size on flickr shot ISO 64 f7.1 10 stop filter at 8 seconds in hi res you will need to go to flickr to see it closer

Hi res 8 sec by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Looks good on Flickr. I didn't realise it was such a large crop!
 
trevjm said:
Now I am firmly in the M43 camp can I just ask what post processing software you using. I read on one blog that Lightroom was not the answer. This tends to be my go to software with DXO second.
Click to expand...
I had no issue using LR, I’ve never heard that LR struggles with M4/3. LR used to struggle with Fuji but even that’s sorted for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top