Even using aperture prefire you are still subject to vibration between 1/4s
to 1/30s, I will never use shutter speed slower than 1/125s for macro and
most of my macro were made with flash. Manual focus is not easy, it is
challenging and need lots of training but I like it. Here is a moving ant
shot with Zuiko 80/4+170mm macro adapter, I doubt you can do it with AF.
http://www.accura.com.hk/ant.jpg (1.7MB)
If you can get better result with wide angle and film then you should be
able to do with others, if not, found out the problem and correct it.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne S" <om4t@xxxxxxxx>
> Yes, I pulled your shots into PS and compared them at identical size
> features. Clearly the film is much better in the shots you show. 10-12
> megapixels might equal that film shot.
>
> The shots I was comparing were macro shots taken with the 90/2 on the
> OM-4t. I used aperture prefire, tripod, and the exposures were in the
> 1/4-1/8 range. They were just not as sharp as I thought they should be.
> I'm sure it was pilot error on my part. But I do think there are
> situations where it is more than film or sensor resolution that
> determines what you can get. Getting that potential resolution requires
> extra care in a lot of situations. The E-1 has a lot lower inherent
> vibration compared to the OM-4t. The ability to do precise focusing is
> another. With wide angle infinity shots, focus is not much of an issue,
> but telephoto work, macro work, limited DOF, it is much more critical.
> For instance, this shot is not something I could have done as well with
> the OM-4t:
>
> http://www.zuik.net/E1/Tubing2_8013695.jpg
>
> The shot was handheld in a moving boat, lens at 200mm (400mm
> equivalent). I doubt I could have focused any better with a manual
> lens, especially when everything was bouncing around; if I had the
> subject somewhat centered in the frame I was doing good. In this
> particular shot, the tube was at a fixed distance from the boat, so
> yes, I probably could have pre-focused with a manual focus lens. But if
> it was a passing subject.... who knows?
>
> If we could, I'm sure we would all mount our cameras on a concrete
> tripod or shoot at 1/1000 with large DOF, but that is usually not an
> option. There just seems to be some limits coming from the camera as a
> system in certain cases, especially in the 1/4-1/15 speed range with
> the OM's. And just how accurate can you really focus an OM? I often
> stop down just to cover the slop in my focusing, but if I really had to
> depend on my ability to focus to get the potential resolution, I doubt
> it would exceed 5mp. The film may have lot's of resolution, but me and
> my 2-13 screen don't.
>
> It is good to know that film can give some pretty decent resolution,
> but what I'm saying is that what you can actually get in the field may
> depend more on other factors than absolute sensor/film resolution.
>
> So in my opinion, it is possible for a 5mp camera to get better
> resolution than 100 iso film in several different situations (if we are
> talking Olympus cameras that is). And clearly 5mp is not better than
> 100 iso film in the landscape wide angle situation. I would like to see
> some other comparisons besides the infinity wide angle shots.
>
> OK, so this pilot is going back into the field for some more
> comparisons. I need to figure out what is the reason for my poor macro
> shots and why I seem to do much better with the E-1. First test is my
> scanner though.
>
> Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
