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!

Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread

biglouis

Well-known member
GX8-Oly7-14/2.8: 5 bracketed exposures blended into HDR in LR.
Christ Church, Spitalfields - Nicholas Hawksmoor, Opened 1759.

 
Last edited:

teeraash

New member
Bart, you've made me wanting to buy that damn lens even I don't do birds! Great shots of birds, moth and toad or whatever.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Bart, you've made me wanting to buy that damn lens even I don't do birds! Great shots of birds, moth and toad or whatever.
Well, honestly I'm mighty pleased so far with my copy and its output.
As said before, and mentioned first by anGy, the shorter end seems to be its strongest asset.
However, I do realise holding and taming 300-400mm of super telelens is no small feat and even aided by my EM1's IBIS I found it requires some serious concentration.
Not to mention the fatigue that starts to set in after a while.
Anyway, perhaps I should drink even less coffee and start polishing my technique or simple use a tripod ... :facesmack:

Kind regards.
 

scho

Well-known member
The wildflowers are just starting to make an appearance along Fall Creek in the Mundy Wildflower Garden, just east of the Cornell campus. Shots using E-M5II and 12-40 Pro.

Trillium

Trout Lily and Skunk Cabbage

Blood Root

Fall Creek

Erratic boulder with nice patina
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Not tack sharp, but I like the green shine here ...


grrr, the 300 - 400mm range is really so-so, could it be the af not being precise ? or ibis?
 

mediumcool

Active member
Not tack sharp … [note perfectly-formed ellipsis] ;)
grrr, the 300–400mm range is really so-so, could it be the af not being precise? Or ibis?
Most telephoto zooms seem to be superior at shorter focal lengths; I think the focal range was probably chosen (and designed for) because the nomenclature is neat and tidy (4x) and for where it fits into the range of lenses offered, but a 100–250 or 100–300 may have not compromised quality so much at the long end—if indeed that is the case. And it may also have been a bit smaller, lighter, and brighter.

Focus appears to be right on to me. BTW, what software do you process RAW files with?
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Not tack sharp, but I like the green shine here ...


grrr, the 300 - 400mm range is really so-so, could it be the af not being precise ? or ibis?
Thanks Bart, I like the image.
For my eyes the green has a psychedelic touch to it.
BTW, which stabilization are you using?
Also, how large is your focus patch?
 
Top