Micro Four-Thirds (6 Viewers)

[DanC.Licks]

Jules,
This is to be expected.
The only really relevant test would be to take the pictures from the SAME position, first without TC, then with the 1.4x, then with the 2x. Then resize in PS to the same size as the 2x shot, and then compare. Backing off from the target only proves that closer is always better! :king:

The fact that it auto focuses is GOOD news. The outdoor shots don't look all that bad considering. Think I will have to give one a try.

Off tomorrow morning to Switzerland for two weeks, and then super busy when I get back, so don't think I have gone into hiding until the end of the month. Work to do.... B

Sunny day today, though. Just might have to get out a bit....

 

[JGobeil]

Jules,
This is to be expected.
The only really relevant test would be to take the pictures from the SAME position, first without TC, then with the 1.4x, then with the 2x. Then resize in PS to the same size as the 2x shot, and then compare. Backing off from the target only proves that closer is always better! :king:

The fact that it auto focuses is GOOD news. The outdoor shots don't look all that bad considering. Think I will have to give one a try.

Off tomorrow morning to Switzerland for two weeks, and then super busy when I get back, so don't think I have gone into hiding until the end of the month. Work to do.... B

Sunny day today, though. Just might have to get out a bit....

Thanks for your encouraging words Dan. To be honest, I was a bit dishartened last evening when working on the images of the toy. Those images are grossly blurred. The good news is that the bird photos are not too bad considering the horrible light. With such light, I wouldn't even considering getting out with the scope.

Rain today and the WX won't be nice before Monday. I will have received the 1.4X II by then and I can borrow the 2X III anytime. I'll test as you suggest: lens alone, +1.4X, + 2X, SW80ED and SW80ED + 1.5X TN. 10, 30 and 50m. Tripod and 2 sec. delay.

 

[DanC.Licks]

I would not update the firmware unless you have that specific Tamron 70-200/2.8 lens.

 

[Binoseeker]

I was out yesterday taking some photos with the E-M1 & Canon 400mm + metabonesadapter, the photos were not that sharp I hoped them to be.

To check the lens, I have sent it in for a check-up, just to know if it is ok or not. It is a used lens I bought...

Is it possible to use AF focus adjustments in the "k" section of the meny (manual page 110) to make adjustments using the canon lens with the metabones ?

Anders

 

[JGobeil]

I was out yesterday taking some photos with the E-M1 & Canon 400mm + metabonesadapter, the photos were not that sharp I hoped them to be.

To check the lens, I have sent it in for a check-up, just to know if it is ok or not. It is a used lens I bought...

Is it possible to use AF focus adjustments in the "k" section of the meny (manual page 110) to make adjustments using the canon lens with the metabones ?

Anders

Try focusing on a ruler set at a 45 degree angle with the lens wide open. Focus carefully with a tripod and 2 sec. delay at the mid point of the ruler and see if the camera/lens focuses front or back of the mid point. Repeat the test many times. If you see that you always get the same error, then you may consider doing an AF Focus Adjustment for that lens.

I have never tried it so I cannot comment on its effectiveness. IMO, it won't do any harm to try it. Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[Binoseeker]

Jules,

I will do that when I get my Canon-lens back.

Thanks,

Anders

 

[DanC.Licks]

Best to have a clear focus target right next to the ruler set perpendicular to the camera. Google it. There are many pictures of AF testing aids. No need to buy anything, just have a look. I checked mine and the AF is right on the money. Not a hint of front or back focus. The micro adjustment really comes into play on DSLRs.
There are MANY things that can affect the sharpness of pictures taken with long lenses. I would doubt there is anything wrong with the lens. It has a very simple and reliable design. Keep us posted...

 

[Tord]

Here is a link to focus test chart: https://www.google.se/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPOKm5zzmckCFQWFLAodWOgJSg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpreview.com%2Fforums%2Fpost%2F29748698&psig=AFQjCNFAvfpD380ODyAGxcr_nLj7pzelOQ&ust=1447933604180158

And an article describing the method.
http://www.efoto.lt/files/focus21.pdf

 

[Binoseeker]

thanks,

I saw on another site that calculated test distance should be minimum 10m max 20m för a m43 with a 400mm lens. Maybe that test distance is valid for all types of AF test charts/gears ?

Anders

 

[JGobeil]

400mm tests

======================================================

There was an error in this post. I will post new results tomorrow. Sorry !

======================================================


I did a more serious test of the 400mm/Metabones lens with the E-M1. The test was made under sunny conditions at 10, 30 and 50 meters using a tripod and a 2 second shutter delay.

I compared these lenses:

1. Olympus 100-300mm f/5.6 lens
2. Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens with Metabones BT2 Smart Adapter (firmware 1.82)
3. Same as #2 with Canon 1.4X Extender II
4. Same as #2 with Canon 2.0X Extender III
5. Sky-Watcher SW80ED f/7.5 Refractor Doublet

Settings were:

1. 100-300m: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/1250 s.
2. 400mm: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/2500 s.
3. 400mm + 1.4X: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/1250 s.
4. 400mm + 2X: ISO 800 f/8 - 1/800 s. (not enough light for ISO 200 - it would have performed somewhat better in this test at ISO 200)
5. SW80ED: ISO 200 - 1/2500 s.

ISO 200 was chosen to minimise noise. f/8 was chosen to optimize sharpness.

I took 5 shots and selected the best one for each test situation, except for the SW80ED where I took 15 because of manual focus. The images have not been modified in PS or LR except for cropping and resizing - one exception: I have converted them to Grayscale to get rid of color artifacts introduced by PhotoShop.

I cropped all photos to the same portion of the target image and resized them to the same size as the SW80ED 10 m. image (2255 pixels wide) - this is a bit unfair for the 400mm + 2X but not as bad as resizing everything to 800mm/10m eq. EDIT: This is where the error is. I resized too much.

 

[JGobeil]

400mm at 10 meters

There was an error in this post. I will post new results tomorrow. Sorry !

 

[JGobeil]

400mm at 30 meters

There was an error in this post. I will post new results tomorrow. Sorry !

 

[JGobeil]

400mm at 50 meters

There was an error in this post. I will post new results tomorrow. Sorry !

 

[Paul - Herts]

Hi Jules, I am presuming that as you have given the section of the target at the same size for each set-up that you have cropped each shot, meaning that e.g. the bare 400 image has half the pixels of the 400 plus 2x image. Likewise the 1.4x shot has 1.4x the pixels compared to the naked lens.

 

[JGobeil]

Hi Jules, I am presuming that as you have given the section of the target at the same size for each set-up that you have cropped each shot, meaning that e.g. the bare 400 image has half the pixels of the 400 plus 2x image. Likewise the 1.4x shot has 1.4x the pixels compared to the naked lens.

Hi Paul,

Woops... Thanks for the question. I checked my calculations and I made an error... I will have to post corrected images. I should be able to do that tomorrow. Sorry guys ! :C

 

[JGobeil]

Canon 400mm + Metabones Adapter test

EDIT NOTE: There was an error in the first test. Here are the new results. The main change is in bold below.

I did a more serious test of the 400mm/Metabones lens with the E-M1. The test was made under sunny conditions at 10, 30 and 50 meters using a tripod and a 2 second shutter delay.

I compared these lenses:

1. Olympus 100-300mm f/5.6 lens
2. Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens with Metabones BT2 Smart Adapter (firmware 1.82)
3. Same as #2 with Canon 1.4X Extender II
4. Same as #2 with Canon 2.0X Extender III
5. Sky-Watcher SW80ED f/7.5 Refractor Doublet

Settings were:

1. 100-300m: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/1250 s.
2. 400mm: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/2500 s.
3. 400mm + 1.4X: ISO 200 - f/8 - 1/1250 s.
4. 400mm + 2X: ISO 800 f/8 - 1/800 s. (not enough light for ISO 200 - it would have performed somewhat better in this test at ISO 200)
5. SW80ED: ISO 200 - 1/2500 s.

ISO 200 was chosen to minimise noise. f/8 was chosen to optimize sharpness.

I took 5 shots and selected the best one for each test situation, except for the SW80ED where I took 15 because of manual focus. The images have not been modified in PS or LR except for cropping and resizing - one exception: I have converted them to Grayscale to get rid of color artifacts introduced by PhotoShop.

I cropped all photos to the same portion of the target image and resized them to the same size as the 400mm+2.0X TC 10 m. image (2956 pixels wide). The resulting 2956 pixels wide images had to be resized again to 1600 pixels in order to be inside the BirdForum limits.

The target allows evaluation of the resolution of the images on a scale of 1 to 10. The relolution evaluations for each lens/distance are shown in photo #4 below.

They are all able to resolve the maximum 10 scale at 10 meters but there are differences. These are the results at 10 meters, from best to worse:

1. SW80ED
2. 400mm
3. 400mm + 1.4X
4. 400mm + 2.0X
5. 300mm

Photo #1 shows the complete target; I used the center concentric circles to focus. Photos #2 and #3 show the best (SW80ED at 10m.) and worse (100-300mm at 50m.) performance after resizing. The sheet of paper used for the target is 22x28cm; the 1 to 10 line scale is 14 cm wide.

The next 3 posts below show the photos for each lens at 10, 30 and 50 meters.

Here are my findings:

• As I expected, the 100-300 performs quite well at close range. At 20 meters, sharpness has already degraded a lot.
• I was expecting more from the 400mm... IMHO, being a pro lens, it should be able to resolve more detail.
• The 400mm performs much better with the 1.4X TC at 30m. and 50m. than it does without the TC.
• The SW80ED outperforms the other lenses when focused correctly. However, it is somewhat misleading because only a few of the 15 shots taken for each situation attain the sharpness shown. In real life, manual focus would make it perform less on average - your results may differ; it depends on how good you are at focusing.
• The 400mm with the 2.0X TC works well with autofocus but does not resolve more detail than the 1.4X at all ranges. Is it worth it to invest in this TC ? I will try to test both on water birds at greater distances on the next sunny day.
• Autofocus performance is quite consistant (manual focus is not, even with peaking and magnifying).
• IS works extremely well with the 400mm alone and with either TC - no vibration, no noise.
• All photos taken with the 400mm show some CA, with and without the 1.4X and 2.0X Extender. The 2X III has less than the 1.4X II. The 100-300mm and SW80ED don't have any. It doesn't show on the attached photos because they were converted to grayscale. Photo #5 is an example of the CA found on those photos - clicking on "Remove Chromatic Aberration" in LR removes it completely.
• Autofocus works very well. I estimate that autofocus takes about 1/2 second more with the 400mm compared to the 100-300mm. The 1.4X and 2.0X Extender don't seem to add any additional delay on top of the 1/2 second.

 

[JGobeil]

400mm test at 10 meters

EDITED RESULTS

Photos taken at 10 meters
#1: 100-300mm
#2: 400mm
#3: 400mm + 1.4X II
#4: SW80ED
#5: 400mm + 2.0X III

 

[JGobeil]

400mm tests at 30 meters

EDITED RESULTS

Photos taken at 30 meters
#1: 100-300mm
#2: 400mm
#3: 400mm + 1.4X II
#4: SW80ED
#5: 400mm + 2.0X III

 

[JGobeil]

400mm teests at 50 meters

EDITED RESULTS

Photos taken at 50 meters
#1: 100-300mm
#2: 400mm
#3: 400mm + 1.4X II
#4: SW80ED
#5: 400mm + 2.0X III

 

[Paul - Herts]

No worries Jules. My main interest is how the bare 400 comes out softer than the 400 plus 1.4x. If that is right getting e.g. a Panasonic gx8 and metabones for video with my 400 would be a waste - I might just as well go for the native 100-300 and not bother with the metabones.

Tis fascinating stuff too - though I'm definitely not tempted by an astroscope, far too big to cart around :t: