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

Knorp

Well-known member
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?
K-H, it's in-camara (IBIS) stabilisation and small focus patch.

Kind regards.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
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?
Hi there Ian, I'm using C1P9 and focus is perhaps, if at all, just slightly off.
Viewing the image at 100% shows the lack of detail.

All the best.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Stunning Bart.:thumbs: I am assuming that this was still taken using the Panaleica 100-400?

I am wondering if one of your earlier comments about the wide end producing better results on the E-M1 has something to do with IBIS not being effective at longer focal lengths? My understanding is that the dual IBIS and lens stabiliser which the 100-400 has, does not work with the E-M1, but it does with the Panasonic GX8? Similarly, the Oly 300F4 using a similar dual stabilisation works on the E-M1 but not on the Panasonic GX8!

I have changed my pre-order back to a Panaleica 100-400 having viewed and handled both lenses at a local Pro camera show. I would be prepared to trade one of my E-M1 bodies for a new Panasonic body to permit the lens to have full functionality if this is indeed the case.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Stunning Bart.:thumbs: I am assuming that this was still taken using the Panaleica 100-400?

I am wondering if one of your earlier comments about the wide end producing better results on the E-M1 has something to do with IBIS not being effective at longer focal lengths? My understanding is that the dual IBIS and lens stabiliser which the 100-400 has, does not work with the E-M1, but it does with the Panasonic GX8? Similarly, the Oly 300F4 using a similar dual stabilisation works on the E-M1 but not on the Panasonic GX8!

I have changed my pre-order back to a Panaleica 100-400 having viewed and handled both lenses at a local Pro camera show. I would be prepared to trade one of my E-M1 bodies for a new Panasonic body to permit the lens to have full functionality if this is indeed the case.
Thanks, Dave. Yes, this is shot with the 100-400.
As for the weaker long end, the jury is still out, but there's definitely a pattern emerging ... :lecture:
But I'm not regretting my decision, after all a 100-400 zoom is a powerful tool and this PL really is a fine lens.

As for stabilisation effectiveness, difficult to tell if the results would be substantially better with the GX8 without proper testing.
But honestly I doubt it very much. Still, if time permits I'll run some tests on a tripod with all stabilisation switched off.
Promised ... :rolleyes:

Kind regards.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Stunning Bart.:thumbs: I am assuming that this was still taken using the Panaleica 100-400?

I am wondering if one of your earlier comments about the wide end producing better results on the E-M1 has something to do with IBIS not being effective at longer focal lengths? My understanding is that the dual IBIS and lens stabiliser which the 100-400 has, does not work with the E-M1, but it does with the Panasonic GX8? Similarly, the Oly 300F4 using a similar dual stabilisation works on the E-M1 but not on the Panasonic GX8!

I have changed my pre-order back to a Panaleica 100-400 having viewed and handled both lenses at a local Pro camera show. I would be prepared to trade one of my E-M1 bodies for a new Panasonic body to permit the lens to have full functionality if this is indeed the case.
This is actually one of the most restricting issues I do have with m43, that full functionality is not guaranteed nor given when you combine equipment of different vendors. Actually this was one of the main goals of 43 and if I remember right also of m43. But we are not only far away from that, the gap is even going to increase more over time.

I cannot understand why I am forced to buy a Pana GX8 in order to get full image stabilization with a lens like the 100-400 or similar need a Oly body for optimal IS with the 4/300. This is a nightmare and definitely sucks!

Sucks so much that I am even considering leaving this platform .... one of the reasons I have so far not bought any of these lenses and have kept quiet so far.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
This is actually one of the most restricting issues I do have with m43, that full functionality is not guaranteed nor given when you combine equipment of different vendors. Actually this was one of the main goals of 43 and if I remember right also of m43. But we are not only far away from that, the gap is even going to increase more over time.

I cannot understand why I am forced to buy a Pana GX8 in order to get full image stabilization with a lens like the 100-400 or similar need a Oly body for optimal IS with the 4/300. This is a nightmare and definitely sucks!

Sucks so much that I am even considering leaving this platform .... one of the reasons I have so far not bought any of these lenses and have kept quiet so far.
Hola Peter, I hear you loud and clear ... :shocked:
But do stay aboard will you !

Kind regards.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I cannot understand why I am forced to buy a Pana GX8 in order to get full image stabilization with a lens like the 100-400 or similar need a Oly body for optimal IS with the 4/300. This is a nightmare and definitely sucks!
I hear you... but there are worse things in life than owning a GX8 :cool:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I hear you... but there are worse things in life than owning a GX8 :cool:
I fully agree and I am not against the GX8.

But my issue is that the highly praised compatibility of 43/m43 is really sucking. Why can't Olympus and Panasonic coordinate and codevelop the m43 rang, this would help the system much, MUCH more!
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I took Friday afternoon off and went for a spring time drive up towards Hatcher Pass. Mostly went out to shoot a little film (LF & MF), but took my GX-8 and 12-35/2.8 along, just so I would have some images to look at and play with while waiting for film to come back from the lab. I'll admit that it was liberating to simply scramble over the rocks with the GX-8, unencumbered by a heavy tripod and take a few handheld "snapshots".

Here is one of the images I liked best from the GX-8, in both the original color and converted to B&W with SilverEfex Pro versions. This is the Little Susitna River. I made prints of these yesterday and will probably use them for the June color and B&W print exchanges. Looking at the JPGs posted here now, they could perhaps use a bit more sharpening, but the prints look just right.

In any case, it was a wonderful day for a drive and to get out of the city. Spring is in full swing here now. :)

Gary





 
Last edited:
Top