On 6/17/2022 3:04 PM, DZDub wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:08 AM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ming Thien's review mentioned exceptional flare resistance. Some examples
in a DPReview forum, with things like bare
tree limbs in the corners, etc. showed them to be very similar - until
the sun is in the corner at widest FL, then
contrast and detail fall dramatically on the 14-150. The 14-150 II
probably fixes that, with Nano coatings.
So, I took a chance on a clean used one
from B&H; I can return it if it doesn't do the job. I haven't done that
much
with it so far. But it sure looks like 200 mm is fine, at least after
processing, which is what matters to me.
<
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_6110102croofm.jpg
I feel that I would not be able to make any judgment from your examples
because the lens characteristics are sort of overwhelmed by Moose Mojo.
Well, the close ups are stacks, so in one way not representative of single shots. And - it's possible, if part of the
reported corner unsharpness is curved focal plane, that the very process would correct it.
I didn't do anything heroic to those shots; NR, LCE and Curves. The only way to get an "objective" reading is to shoot
flat targets - but I almost never am shooting flat things, so DoF gets mixed up with inherent sharpness.
Certainly that's an interesting lens, especially if you just can't carry
more than one lens.
The situation is those times when I want a "real" camera, but not to carry a GX9 with 12-60 and OM-1 with 100-400. The
other solution to that is the Panny Z200, 1" sensor, 12-360 eq. lens. It's a pretty darn good camera, and almost
infinitely smaller than the OM-1. 😉 I think about a shoot-off.
If you like it, that's good enough for me. I can't be
trusting my lying eyes about lens qualities in your photos, but I do trust
you.
Uh-oh!
I know that you have the tools and skills to make good photographs
from inferior lenses if it were to come to that. The better angel on your
shoulder should be telling you that as well.
Some truth to that, although the Silk purse is beyond me.
I am intrigued by the yellow lily photo above. I haven't been able to
capture the yellow of daffodils and irises in our yard except very rarely
until the EM-1iii. I find the yellow color usually wants to block up and I
want the suggestion at least of some translucence.
You've likely put your finger on it - blocked red channel. Try shooting with much more negative EV, then pull up the
rest. In tests, I found that yellow flowers in sun may need as much as -2 EV for best results. Exposure bracketing is
not evil. 😁
The other thing you might try is HR Mode. It's not clear just what they are doing in the Hand Held version. In the
tripod version, each pixel is exposed through each of the color filters, so no demosaicing, no color interpolation. The
same effect as Foveon sensors, accomplished differently.
At least in earlier bodies with HR, color is more accurate. Again, earlier body, but handling of edge of gamut
highlights was much better, too.
I cannot fake that
delicate balance in PP. Either I catch it at the shutter or I don't. Your
lily, if that's what it is, is not really the kind of yellow I'm referring
to, but it reminded me of it,
It's actually quite a bright, saturated yellow, but shot in shade.
and the whole feeling of light in your photo is very lovely.
Thanks!
Mojo admission. The background was treated to lower brightness and contrast and Gaussian blurred. It just makes the
subject stand out. So, some of the light you admire is creative.
The pitcher plants I also just posted had the same treatment, but with a gradient mask, so blurring varies with depth,
giving a natural DoF look.
Red Channel Moose
--
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/
|
