I need to quit posting just before going to sleep. Your guess of 75-300 was
what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.
http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com/2012/05/panasonic-100-300-vs-olympus-75-300.html
http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com/2012/05/micro-four-thirds-shutter-shake.html
After seeing this review I was concerned about the 75-300 but given its
size I was very ready to live with a few quirks. My own limited experience
is that careful hand holding doesn't seem to have shutter-shake problems. I
have seen the problem with it mounted on a very sturdy tripod(giant 5
series Gitzo). It is hard to imagine anything moving but lens elements.
"Handheld" but not a noteworthy picture: http://jkeller.com/P8280019.jpg (I
was kneeling down and braced against a concrete barrier.) I don't think I
achieved anything this sharp with the Zuiko 500/8 handheld on an OM. Your
perception of better IS at short focal lengths is interesting. The IS at
the long end definitely helps me.
The four thirds 50-200 was one of the first lenses I noticed being a little
loose. I don't think I saw it affect any of the few pictures I've used it
for, probably primarily because of shutter speed.
The very heavy fast long telephotos from film days probably get a good
amount of their reputation for great image quality from their mass and
rigidity.
I don't know if you will see it with either your Sigma or Meade but putting
a 500+ mm lens on a four thirds camera with 10x live view quickly shows
weaknesses. I have a fairly heavy Sigma 500 catadioptric which has a small
tripod foot. Apparently the tripod foot is a little loose (even though I
can't feel it). The view moves.
jeff keller
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 12:08 AM, List, OM wrote:
> > Some of the tests I saw for the 75-150 M.Zuiko showed pretty severe
> shake.
> > I suspect the optics in the relatively loose, long telescoping AF zooms
> can
> > move.
>
> Hmmm ... I hadn't thought that my 75-300 M.Zuiko felt loose in use. I just
> pulled my lenses out. The 40-150, although
> light, has no play at full zoom. The 75-300 does have a small amount, when
> worked with my hands, but no more than a
> couple of longish, heavy, all metal zooms from the old, MF days, that I
> grabbed off the shelf.
>
> I certainly can't see where it would have anything to do with motion blur.
>
> My personal experience so far suggests that it is in no small part an
> issue of technique. In the old, 35 mm film days,
> my 150-500 mm zoom was a huge, heavy thing I only ever used on a tripod.
> The Sigma 600/8 is much smaller and lighter,
> but still, I'm not sure I ever hand held it. Even on digital FF and APS-C,
> I only used it on a tripod.
>
> Now, the 75-300 is slimmer, only a small amount longer and noticeably
> lighter than the 28-300 I'm used to using hand
> held most of the time on Canon bodies. So I started to use it much the
> same way. And you know, 600 eq. just isn't the same.
>
> You'd think I'd have learned by now, 'cause when I started using the Tammy
> lens on the 60D (480 mm eq.) I started to
> question whether something had started to go wrong with it. A little
> testing showed that it was at least as sharp as the
> non IS 28-300 that I first used on much lower resolution APS-C. The
> difference was that it has IS, so I wasn't as
> careful, counting on the IS to cover me. Sure, 16 MPs is tougher than 6,
> but looking back at some shots on the 300D,
> they were all it could resolve, and without motion blur, 'cause I really
> paid attention to shutter speed.
>
> There are factors that are just more troublesome at really long focal
> lengths. DOF is really shallow, so placing focal
> plane accurately is important. Subject movement one might not think of
> becomes significant. Small details, like leaves,
> become big enough that blurring from wind may show up.
>
> Years ago, I was shooting Red Tail hawks in a nest across the street. With
> the 1000/11 Meade 'scope, I could get
> visually close. But the nest was up quite high in a tree, and even a
> modest breeze moved it noticeably through the
> viewfinder. With modest (compared to contemporary digital) film speed and
> slow lens, getting a shot that didn't have
> obvious motion blur was a matter of timing, waiting for minimal movement,
> or shooting at one end of the movement.
>
> And maybe IS just doesn't give quite the edge at really long focal
> lengths. Hard to tell, what with all the other
> factors, but I'm starting to think it really only offers 1-2 stops of
> improvement, not the 3-4 with shorter focal lengths.
>
> That's only with Canon and the Tammy VC version of IS and the E-M5 IBIS.
> Can't speak to other systems.
>
> Moose In Motion
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
