Micro Four-Thirds (1 Viewer)

DanC.Licks · Nov 29, 2015

I don't think the "problem" is with Metabones. Better to write Olympus.
Are the originals orfs ore jpbs? Haven't had time to update the firmware yet.
I thought stacking was back to front and bracketing was around the chosen focus point.

JGobeil · Nov 29, 2015

DanC.Licks said:
I don't think the "problem" is with Metabones. Better to write Olympus.
Are the originals orfs ore jpbs? Haven't had time to update the firmware yet.
I thought stacking was back to front and bracketing was around the chosen focus point.

This is from the V.4 manual:

Focus Bracketing: Focus moves successively farther from the initial focus position.
Focus Stacking: Eight frames are shot by automatically changing the focus point slightly for each frame and merged to create an image that is focused on broad range from near to far field.

A quick test created 8 ORF and 1 JPG file. BTW, electronic shutter was selected automatically.

Neither Olympus nor Metabones are faulty. Olympus limits it to M43 lenses and the 400mm/MB is not M43. However, Metabones can probably trick this in the firmware just like they tricked the f/4 requirement for TCs.

Tord · Nov 29, 2015

I did some last tests with the 400/5.6 I have had on loan. To satisfy my curiousity I connected it to my E-M5 before returning the lens to its owner. Just some test shots through windows since the ugly weather, today with storm and pouring rain the day before that has been preventing from any meaningful outdoor shooting.

The result? It works. The few shots I took indicate the AF is accurate. The performance is not as fast AF as with the E-M1, but acceptable. And much faster than using the 50-200 SWD and 12-60 SWD on the E-M5.

Good to know that there is some flexibility in the system and that I would not have to be dependent on my E-M1 to use that lens (assuming I buy it, which is tempting).

JGobeil · Nov 29, 2015

Tord said:
I did some last tests with the 400/5.6 I have had on loan. To satisfy my curiousity I connected it to my E-M5 before returning the lens to its owner. Just some test shots through windows since the ugly weather, today with storm and pouring rain the day before that has been preventing from any meaningful outdoor shooting.

The result? It works. The few shots I took indicate the AF is accurate. The performance is not as fast AF as with the E-M1, but acceptable. And much faster than using the 50-200 SWD and 12-60 SWD on the E-M5.

Good to know that there is some flexibility in the system and that I would not have to be dependent on my E-M1 to use that lens (assuming I buy it, which is tempting).

I'm glad it works well for you. I went to the usual nearby pond today and shot more Mallards at 20-30m. Focus was so-so on most of them like the one I posted a few days ago.

I also went back to previous photos taken with the SW80ED and realized I have not been able to do as well for long range photography using the 400mm/MB with the 1.4X TC. See here, the last post of this thread #564:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=182146&page=23

DanC.Licks · Nov 30, 2015

The 400/MB + 1.4x TC, even if it is a III, is never going to beat a 600mm scope, doublet or triplet, in terms of pure resolution. Too much glass and a much smaller front element! Best not to even compare, though we naturally do. I don't think of it as a substitute for the scope, but as an addition to it, and as an alternative when it is not possible to use the scope.
The only real alternative would be either a 500/4 or a 600/5.6. There, the larger front elements result in higher resolution, which are a boon with our tiny pixels. Small front element= more DoF, but lower resolution. Large front element stopped down to the same f/stop (8 in this case)= same DoF, but higher resolution.

JGobeil · Nov 30, 2015

DanC.Licks said:
The 400/MB + 1.4x TC, even if it is a III, is never going to beat a 600mm scope, doublet or triplet, in terms of pure resolution. Too much glass and a much smaller front element! Best not to even compare, though we naturally do. I don't think of it as a substitute for the scope, but as an addition to it, and as an alternative when it is not possible to use the scope.
The only real alternative would be either a 500/4 or a 600/5.6. There, the larger front elements result in higher resolution, which are a boon with our tiny pixels. Small front element= more DoF, but lower resolution. Large front element stopped down to the same f/stop (8 in this case)= same DoF, but higher resolution.

Yea... I guess you are right. "Best not to even compare, though we naturally do." :C

Tord · Dec 1, 2015

DanC.Licks said:
The 400/MB + 1.4x TC, even if it is a III, is never going to beat a 600mm scope, doublet or triplet, in terms of pure resolution. Too much glass and a much smaller front element! Best not to even compare, though we naturally do. I don't think of it as a substitute for the scope, but as an addition to it, and as an alternative when it is not possible to use the scope.
The only real alternative would be either a 500/4 or a 600/5.6. There, the larger front elements result in higher resolution, which are a boon with our tiny pixels. Small front element= more DoF, but lower resolution. Large front element stopped down to the same f/stop (8 in this case)= same DoF, but higher resolution.

Maybe one option could be the Canon 500/4.5? Non-IS, far less expensive, though still quite a lot of money. Not sure it works with the current metabones adapter FW. But at 3kg longer photo sessions will call for support.

Tord · Dec 1, 2015

JGobeil said:
I'm glad it works well for you.

Jules,
This post was mainly intended to raise attention on that the metabones adapter works with the E-M5 that has contrast detect AF only. Hybrid (Contrast and Phase) detect AF was introduced in the E-M1.

JGobeil · Dec 1, 2015

Tord said:
Maybe one option could be the Canon 500/4.5? Non-IS, far less expensive, though still quite a lot of money. Not sure it works with the current metabones adapter FW. But at 3kg longer photo sessions will call for support.

At 3kg, it is a heavy beast. In reviews, users seem to say it is very sharp, which is to be expected. One user says it doesn't work well with the 1.4X TC using the tape hack. Prices on eBay are not exactly cheap at around 2500-3000$.

The 400mm weights 1250g, less than half the weight. This is just about my limit for an all day carry around lens, considering I also need the 100-300mm which weights 500g. This gives me a limit of about 2kg, lenses, adapter and TC.

What I haven't figured out yet is the practical limit of the 400mm... The 100-300mm is ok for about 20 m. Can the 400mm with a 1.4X TC give me 100mm under ideal conditions ? Not sure but I doubt it !

Even then, the 400mm can extend my range substantially. I am quite sure it can take care of 75% of my birding needs which is not that bad :t:. Not considering outings where I am specifically hunting for water birds that will be at a distance, it probably covers more than 80% of my needs.

My dream of carrying a single lens will probably remain just a dream o

. Or will it ? considering the rapid deterioration of my skeleton...:C

Tord · Dec 1, 2015

I view the 400/5.6 not as a replacement for the scope, but as a complement. A lightweight, carry-around alternative to the 300/2.8 (which to be honest calls for the E5 for accurate AF). I would say the angle of view is useful from 4-5 meters up to some 15 meters distance after which it starts to fall short on smaller subjects.

DanC.Licks · Dec 2, 2015

I know that the older Canon non IS 300/2.8 does not work with the MB. I guess the Olympus and older Canon focus algorithms are just too different. I doubt that MB will want to invest a lot of time and effort in cracking that nut, if it can even be cracked.

Tord · Dec 2, 2015

With the 300/2.8 I referred to the Zuiko 4/3 lens.

JGobeil · Dec 2, 2015

Tord said:
I view the 400/5.6 not as a replacement for the scope, but as a complement. A lightweight, carry-around alternative to the 300/2.8 (which to be honest calls for the E5 for accurate AF). I would say the angle of view is useful from 4-5 meters up to some 15 meters distance after which it starts to fall short on smaller subjects.

15 meters ?

Tord · Dec 2, 2015

JGobeil said:
15 meters ?

I try to take pictures close enough of the subject for it to fill 1/4 of the frame or better which allows for good detail rendering and flexibility of cropping options.

With a 400mm lens on 4/3 sensor it means a small bird, sized ~15 cm, should be at no more that ~10-11 meters. At 15 meters you have to be be content with the subject covering 1/6 of the frame. That's about as far as I would go to get good results.

But if the background/setting/composition make a highly interesting picture the range is definitely beyond 15 meters. Like a flock of birds in a nice formation, a nicely perched bird against a beautiful sky etc...

DanC.Licks · Dec 2, 2015

A quick point and shoot out the window a couple of days ago:

400/MB. Distance abut 50 meters. These guys haven't been around much lately, which is too bad as they make good BIF practice. They are fast!

Binoseeker · Dec 4, 2015

Anyone tried the newer sigma/tamron 150-600mm with the MB & E-M1?

DanC.Licks · Dec 4, 2015

I asked Metabones and they said they have not testen any of the 150-600s, nor the Big White Monsters.

Binoseeker · Dec 4, 2015

Ok,

Thanks

Anders

Tord · Dec 7, 2015

DanC.Licks said:
I asked Metabones and they said they have not testen any of the 150-600s, nor the Big White Monsters.

It would be interesting to visit a well stocked retail shop and bring the EM-1/metabones and test comptability and performance on these lenses.

JGobeil · Dec 7, 2015

Tord said:
It would be interesting to visit a well stocked retail shop and bring the EM-1/metabones and test comptability and performance on these lenses.

Testing compatibility is easy once you get hold of a lens but testing performance is another story. IMO, it would be easy to test autofocus and IS but it would be difficult to test image quality. I spent a lot of time with the 400mm and I still don't have a clear idea of what its capabilities are. I have no doubt that it is possible to do better than I did but I don't think it can be done inside a store.

Micro Four-Thirds (1 Viewer)

AKA Daniel Bradley

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

AKA Daniel Bradley

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

AKA Daniel Bradley

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

AKA Daniel Bradley

Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.

AKA Daniel Bradley

Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread