The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

m43rds dilemma

biglouis

Well-known member
This has been a very useful thread. I am more inclined to get myself a gimbal head - or at least go back to using a monopod which I was using regularly at one point - and also look into a s/h 300fd with an adaptor.

My one concern remains the ability for the GH-2 at iso800 and definitely iso1600 to turn the resolution to mush. Tesselator is correct that with judicious use of LR and CS3 (and in my case Nik Sharpener) it is possible to recover a lot of detail but you can never get to super detail at iso1600 unless you are almost on top of your subject in my experience.

Another possibility is to bet on the next generation of m43rds cameras from Panasonic having even more improved high iso capabilities. I expect there will be new models pretty rapidly now given the hype surrounding the OM-D.

Anyway, once again, many thanks from all the contributors

LouisB
 

pikme

New member
Louis,

First, I enjoy your bird shots quite a bit.

How is the image stabilization on that lens? Can you use it to avoid such high iso shooting?

I have the Oly 75-300. Common wisdom and certainly forum wisdom says to turn off stabilization and use high shutter speeds, which means high isos because it is a very slow lens. However, I have found to my surprise that stabilization works extremely well at very slow shutter speeds - as slow as 1/30 at 300mm for very sharp and even 1/10 or 1/8 for 'sharp enough for web' shots. I would have never guessed that to be true, so I wonder if you have tried it with your lens. Those speeds are with my technique at its best, usually I need a bit higher - 1/60 or 1/80 for better success as I tend to be a sloppy shooter. But much less than what I would have thought is possible.

The key seems to be keeping the shutter speed below 1/200 or perhaps even lower - 1/180 or 1/160. Not sure exactly when stabilization kicks in.

'Native' shutter speeds here are frequently from 1/200 to 1/500, so my instinct would have been to raise iso in order to raise shutter speeds to 1/1000 or more. Now I do the opposite and look for ways to lower the shutter speed, if possible.

Of course, it doesn't help with birds that are moving or when I use tripod, but thought you might try to see if you can use lower iso than you think necessary by using stabilization.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Roberto

Thanks for the comment about my bird pictures. You do get lucky and I suppose one advantage of the 100-300 is that it is fast to pick up, light and easy to deploy hand-held.

I find that as soon as the shutter speed drops below 1/160th (If I recall correctly) I get the red anti-shake warning telling me that I need stabilisation. At least I believe that is what it is telling me. However, I have never really got decently sharp pictures at 300mm below 1/125. Maybe one or two lucky ones. Again, it could be my technique needs working on.

LouisB
 

Tesselator

New member
The FD 300/4 L is certainly a sweet lens! It's focusing mechanism (throw and dampening) is just about perfect for BIFs IMO. The 300/2.8 L is a tad better in that regard but either will do nicely!

Here are some poorly processed 100% crops with it on the GH1:












Unfortunately the 4.0 aperture means that far too many shots come out like this:






300mm is a pretty good length on µ4/3 for larger birds... Ducks, geese, swan, etc. but for me all the fun is with little birds. They're colorful, more interesting to watch, and much more fun to shoot! Smaller bird shooting is a real sport! And to that, 300mm - even a really sharp 300mm, just isn't enough IMO. Here's the 300/4L from only about 15 to 18 meters away (same as the 100% crops above):




And here I am about 6 or 7 meters away:


So the 100% or near 100% cropping is really needed (which of course requires a great lens!):



About 500 or 600mm is about right on µ4/3...! But it's not that expensive really. I recently picked up a Sigma AF APO 500/4.5 IF for $900 (which I'm now also selling for the same) that's pretty awesome! I don't have any good BIFs with it yet but here's the FD 300/2.8 L with a 2x TC on it - again on µ4/3:








The trouble with a TC is that it quite noticeably degrades the IQ so that scales are only slightly better than 75% - 100% crops from the same lens without the TC. :( Even the really good ones take a lot out of a lens. IMO a TC is best used when cropping isn't needed anyway. For example without the TC you're getting the bird full-body (so no need to crop) but maybe you want just a head shot or something - really up close and personal.
 
Last edited:

pellicle

New member
Hi

some pretty darn good shots in there {MeijiJingu?} Hope you don't mind me using your post to discuss this further ... was running short lastnight wanted to just get in a few quick comments.

The FD 300/4 L is certainly a sweet lens! It's focusing mechanism (throw and dampening) is just about perfect for BIFs IMO. The 300/2.8 L is a tad better in that regard but either will do nicely!
I would totally agree with this, and suggest that I often find myself wanting more than 300mm ... I fully agree with the suggestions later by Tesselator that this is a better route than any TC.

Personally I don't much go for AF on birds as I find it just as much miss as hit even with good fast AF systems such as an EF300f4. I know that its a bit of effort learning to work with the AF system but then for less effort (for me, I found it just as easy to learn to MF by hand.

The point Tesselator makes about the focus feel on the FD is certainly true and very important to effective MF. Its the reason I bought the FD's to start with.

I did have an OM300f4 but sold it for exactly that reason (even though it was an optically sweet lens).

A blog post on both lenses here.

Unfortunately the 4.0 aperture means that far too many shots come out like this:
this is sort of why I ended up buying the FD200 f2.8 I was at first stunned about how much bigger it was and end up using it less as the extra stop seldom makes so much difference.

I mainly use it for when I'm walking in rainforest and you seldom get to shoot far in there.

this guy was within a few meters ...

noisy pitta by obakesan, on Flickr

I did wish for the extra stop then (which prompted me to buy it)

Bottom line is go hold the 300f2.8 and see if its too big for you to carry it. No point in having a great lens left at home.

About 500 or 600mm is about right on µ4/3...! But it's not that expensive really. I recently picked up a Sigma AF APO 500/4.5 IF for $900 (which I'm now also selling for the same) that's pretty awesome!

so yep ... that's my thoughts

The trouble with a TC is that it quite noticeably degrades the IQ so that scales are only slightly better than 75% - 100% crops from the same lens without the TC. :
and that too
Anyway Lou good luck with the testing. I can say having the high quality EVF certainly is a bonus for birding compared to the optical display on the APS cameras. I can quickly check exposure with some quick snaps and also check for "is my shutter fast enough"

I'm a follower of the view that faster shutter beats OIS as you can't stabilize the bird even if you can the frame.

I think the gimbal is a good idea, and the monopod a more or less must. I've put a ball head on my mono (Manfrotto) to allow me to get different angles easier.
:)

and once more nice shots Tesselator!
 

Tesselator

New member
Sure NP.

I wanna reiterate the points about MFing and lenses that are conducive thereto once again. I dunno if I'm correct or not but I sense a reluctance here to even try it. All I can say is to take the leap! Even if it ends up not being better it will be an added experience and that's the fun in life, love, and photography! :)
 
To Tesselator:

Your point is well-taken, at least in my case. I alternate between using a D700 with Nikkor 500mm f4 AIS (manual focus), a Nikkor 300mm f4 AF-IF, and a Lumix G3 with 100-300.

The 500mm f4 is a special optic, and yields some of the best results I've ever gotten. That said, it's very hard, even with my gimbal, to shoot birds in flight (BIF) with it. It works, but the hit rate is very low. I do have a nice egret, caught in mid-flight with this outfit, on my wall at 24"x36". There were a LOT of near misses from that same day.

Here's what it looks like on the screen:


Great Egret (Ardea Alba) by reed_flickr (www.creativeobjective.com), on Flickr

My very best BIF image ever was shot last weekend, a pair of ospreys "interacting" in flight, shot with the 300mm f4. I shot that image using autofocus. I wish I had my osprey pic on this computer, as I know it's not impressive to hear about an image, rather than see it. Maybe I can add it to this post later.

That said, I am quite pleased with the Lumix and 100-300, particularly for shooting from a monopod inside my kayak. I have to focus on filling the frame more with the G3 than the FF D700, but that's not so hard with the 600mm equivalent field of view of the 100-300, and the OIS helps, too. And the portability is just unbeatable.

Here's an example with the G1 and 100-300, before I upgraded to the G3:


P1110891-2.jpg by reed_flickr (www.creativeobjective.com), on Flickr

Anyway, I want to affirm for you that some of us do still use manual focus and the best (affordable to me) sensors and optics, with at least some level of success.



Reed
My Lumix Blog: DMC-365.blogspot.com
 

biglouis

Well-known member
All

There are such good birding shots appearing in this thread, maybe we should start a birding with m43rds thread?

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. The weather in the UK is awful at present and since posting I've maybe taken half a dozen photographs!

Louis
 
Top