Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Panasonic L1 detail shot

Subject: Re: [OM] Panasonic L1 detail shot
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:32:46 -0500
>
> Nice shot.  A 4/3 sensor of 7.5MP is diffraction limited at about f/8
> but your f/10 shot is plenty sharp enough and who knows where the lens
> actually performs best?  I could use of of them "voice-actuated
> self-propelled light-stands" but I'm sure it would cost a whole lot more
> than a week's allowance and an ice cream cone. :-)
>


Thanks, Chuck.

What I'm seeing with this lens is an almost stark, surgical sharpness at
F4-4.5, but the diffraction blurring starts to kick in as a loss of contrast
on the pixel-level details. Around F11 this loss of local contrast has
sufficiently taken enough edge off the details as to finally start actually
showing up as a loss of resolution itself. But even so, when shooting
in-camera JPEGs, the loss doesn't really show up to about F16--if that gives
you an idea of just how much effect it has.

It has been said that the AA filter on the L1 is different (weaker) than the
one on the E-330. Although, I cannot confirm or deny that at this time, the
L1 has a similar edge-contrast look which would be typically associated with
the original Canon 5D.

My light-stand cost me $25 plus the ice-cream cone. We negotiated it down to
$20, but the shoot lasted longer than expected so I spotted her a $5 bill as
a bonus. She worked without complaining and that T45 ain't the lightest
light around.

In several areas, this Leica lens just whups up on the DZ 14-54 it replaced,
but the one thing I will say about the DZ lens is that the contrasting is
less clinical and the overall image more organic. I never thought I'd ever
suggest that a lens could be too good, but the Leica is flirting with that
point and closer than I've ever seen on the Four-Thirds cameras--including
the 12-60. I prefer the old OMZ lenses for many artistic reasons, but in
some areas they are pretty gut-wrench. This lens is less artistic, but yet
possesses a certain snap and subject isolation which betrays the lens
design. Just like the GT lens on the Minolta A1, there isn't one "best"
aperture, it's more a matter of only having a couple "not the best"
apertures.

The L1 with 14-50 is a strange beast. It isn't a small or lightweight
package, but it handles like it is. The E-1 isn't being replaced, but it is
getting some serious competition in the usage department. As I sold the DZ
lens, my developing working configuration for the digital cameras is the
14-50 on the L1 and OMZ lenses on the E-1. This way I have manual controls
for both cameras.

This particular senior photo shoot was discounted (friends and family
pricing and my lightstand costs cut into the margin too) so I didn't use any
film, but l did use the L1 and OM-3Ti along side each other at the event
shoot and the handling balance of the cameras was similar enough to
reduce/eliminate the orientation required when switching between cameras.
Except, of course, for the backwards aperture ring...

We won't talk about the induced hurling when having to switch between
viewfinders...

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz