50-200 - testing.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Thanks for your thoughts, Nigel. I will switch off the IS when using camera supports and high speed shutter and see if that resolves the problem.

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Nice to see a photo of you, Mark!

I've uploaded the test images to Zenfolio, that I took with both the lens that was working and my own faulty lens.

F 3.5 1/3200 sec, ISO 400. So trying to do pretty much what you did, Mark, freeze movement . Note the sharpness of the lens that's working correctly, and the loss of focus towards the edges in mine!

Taken with the lens I borrowed that was working.


Taken with my lens that needed correction :


For those of you who want to have a look in detail (the RAW image was just converted to JPEG, no extra sharpening or other changes):

The link to the original with a good lens is here:
http://csspikkerud.zenfolio.com/img/...p520237767.jpg

and the same image taken with my lens that needed correction is here
http://csspikkerud.zenfolio.com/img/.../p73500080.jpg

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

And here's my lens after repairs



Downloadable for those who want a closer look.

http://csspikkerud.zenfolio.com/img/...1051302097.jpg

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Might be worth doing some tests, tripod mounted with remote release and mirror lock up? Can be a pain but it would confirm for sure whether focus calibration is required.

I think it would be worth coming back to Huw's suggestion doing the above with IS off to see if it is really a lens issue or IS. I suspect it is more IS happening with the vertical overcompensating.

I was recently at a Highland Gathering where I took my E520 with 42-150 lens (for something light) & forgot to turn ON IS. Now I have slightly blurry images. We can't win sometimes.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Nice to see a photo of you, Mark!

I've uploaded the test images to Zenfolio, that I took with both the lens that was working and my own faulty lens.

F 3.5 1/3200 sec, ISO 400. So trying to do pretty much what you did, Mark, freeze movement . Note the sharpness of the lens that's working correctly, and the loss of focus towards the edges in mine!

Taken with the lens I borrowed that was working.

Taken with my lens that needed correction :

For those of you who want to have a look in detail (the RAW image was just converted to JPEG, no extra sharpening or other changes):

The link to the original with a good lens is here: and the same image taken with my lens that needed correction is here
And here's my lens after repairs Downloadable for those who want a closer look.

Thanks for showing those examples, Cathrine.
I'm hoping that my problem is no more than user error. I will know for sure after the Adelaide trip at the end of next week.

I think it would be worth coming back to Huw's suggestion doing the above with IS off to see if it is really a lens issue or IS. I suspect it is more IS happening with the vertical overcompensating.
(

Thanks Ross - I have taken those tips on board and will apply them on the trip next week.

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I cross my fingers that there's nothing wrong with it. However, if there is, it's better to find out before the guarantee period is over.

[iMac]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark for whats it's worth I also have used the car window part way down or the door and a couple of things to consider here. 1 shut the engine off, you will get vibration otherwise. 2 Is to turn the IS off, I found I get the best result with the E-30 if using any type of support. I have also started making sure my shutter speed was up at least 1.5 times the focal length, I have found that I get alot more sharper images if I remember to do the above. The 50-200 is a wonderful lens.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I cross my fingers that there's nothing wrong with it. However, if there is, it's better to find out before the guarantee period is over.

Yes, I drew the same conclusion.

Mark for whats it's worth I also have used the car window part way down or the door and a couple of things to consider here. 1 shut the engine off, you will get vibration otherwise. 2 Is to turn the IS off, I found I get the best result with the E-30 if using any type of support. I have also started making sure my shutter speed was up at least 1.5 times the focal length, I have found that I get alot more sharper images if I remember to do the above. The 50-200 is a wonderful lens.

Thanks for those useful tips.

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark,

Here's an image from the lake where kids are feeding the birds, so I needed something less close than the 300mm. This is what I got with the 50-200mm



It is as sharp and detailed as I could ask for! I've only cropped away some uninteresting /unbalancing section of water in the lower left corner. No additional sharpening other than what is included when you open a RAW image through Adobe RAW.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark,

Here's an image from the lake where kids are feeding the birds, so I needed something less close than the 300mm. This is what I got with the 50-200mm

It is as sharp and detailed as I could ask for! I've only cropped away some uninteresting /unbalancing section of water in the lower left corner. No additional sharpening other than what is included when you open a RAW image through Adobe RAW.

Good morning, Cathrine - thanks for posting your pin sharp 200mm shot. To be fair to the lens I have yet to put it to such a test.

OK, so now let me in on your technique. Presumably handheld for flexibility but was IS on or OFF? What shutter speed, f/stop, ISO, EV settings were used?

I am yet to be convinced of any benefit in shooting Olympus RAW although as a former Nikon shooter shooting NEF was absolutely necessary for optimum results.

My experience with ORF is that I have spent lots of processing time producing results often inferior to the Olympus's JPG processing engine, which keeps the best image quality, detail, and properly balanced colors.

IMO s/f JPG files can be adequately processed with Adobe CS3/4 tools (I run both versions). JPG files can also be processed in Adobe RAW via Adobe Bridge (maybe not the same for the purists).

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Good morning, Cathrine - thanks for posting your pin sharp 200mm shot. To be fair to the lens I have yet to put it to such a test.

OK, so now let me in on your technique. Presumably handheld for flexibility but was IS on or OFF? What shutter speed, f/stop, ISO, EV settings were used?

I am yet to be convinced of any benefit in shooting Olympus RAW although as a former Nikon shooter shooting NEF was absolutely necessary for optimum results.

My experience with ORF is that I have spent lots of processing time producing results often inferior to the Olympus's JPG processing engine, which keeps the best image quality, detail, and properly balanced colors.

IMO s/f JPG files can be adequately processed with Adobe CS3/4 tools (I run both versions). JPG files can also be processed in Adobe RAW via Adobe Bridge (maybe not the same for the purists).

And here am I just using Olympus Viewer 2 to edit my RAW's (only when I need to) to change the WB & other selectable options. One day I will get Elements to do the other possibilities with layers.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

And here am I just using Olympus Viewer 2 to edit my RAW's (only when I need to) to change the WB & other selectable options. One day I will get Elements to do the other possibilities with layers.

Ross - Adobe CS-applications can do pretty much anything you like with high quality JPG/TIFF images. I've never used Elements so am not familiar with the program or its limitations.

As said above, I don't shoot RAW and to be perfectly frank I suspect that there is a certain degree of intellectual snobbery associated with the use that format.

[Ian]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Ross - Adobe CS-applications can do pretty much anything you like with high quality JPG/TIFF images. I've never used Elements so am not familiar with the program or its limitations.

As said above, I don't shoot RAW and to be perfectly frank I suspect that there is a certain degree of intellectual snobbery associated with the use that format.

I think that's a little unfair on the RAW format

Remember, when the camera produces a JPEG it's based on the RAW data. The only difference between using RAW yourself and using an in-camera JPEG is that the camera has done it for you. But the camera has limited 'intelligence' so it will process the image to a fairly limited set of parameters compared to a skilled photographer working on a RAW file. It's true that Olympus in-camera JPEGs are highly regarded, but there is no doubt that in most cases a skilled photographer will be able to produced a better result from a RAW file than the camera can produce a JPEG. This is especially so if exposure and white balance need to be adjusted, and there is more latitude with sharpening and noise management. I tend to shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time because if I'm in a hurry and I don't have my RAW processing tools to hand and I need to use an image, especially for the Web, then the JPEG comes into its own. But normally my pictures are all processed from RAW.

Ian

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I think that's a little unfair on the RAW format

Remember, when the camera produces a JPEG it's based on the RAW data. The only difference between using RAW yourself and using an in-camera JPEG is that the camera has done it for you. But the camera has limited 'intelligence' so it will process the image to a fairly limited set of parameters compared to a skilled photographer working on a RAW file. It's true that Olympus in-camera JPEGs are highly regarded, but there is no doubt that in most cases a skilled photographer will be able to produced a better result from a RAW file than the camera can produce a JPEG. This is especially so if exposure and white balance need to be adjusted, and there is more latitude with sharpening and noise management. I tend to shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time because if I'm in a hurry and I don't have my RAW processing tools to hand and I need to use an image, especially for the Web, then the JPEG comes into its own. But normally my pictures are all processed from RAW.

Ian

I'm not taking sides here, but I also prefer to take both JPEG & RAW 'cause I like using the Art Filters sometimes (since the E30 was the first Oly DSLR with it & Oly Viewer allows me to select them afterwards) like this:
Normal JPEG

Soft Focus Art Filter

Pin Hole (like toy camera)

Pop Art

Grainy Film

[Wreckdiver]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

If this isn't as sharp as you would expect on the E3, it might be one of those occasions that you be could wishing for the fine AF adjustments on the E30 & E5 to recallibrate the camera for that lens. I believe there was that sort of issue with the 14-35 & 35-100 on the E3 in some instances.

Sorry to deviate slightly from the topic but does anyone have any further info on the above? I use the 14-35mm and 35-100mm f2 lenses with my E-3 and E-30 and would be interested in more info on E-30 calibration and also what the issues were with these lenses and the E-3.

Thanks,

Steve