Olympus ed 70-300 (1 Viewer)

RAH · Jun 25, 2008

Jon, your pictures are interesting. They answer one of my original questions - would the 70-300 plus 1.4 converter bring me back to superzoom-like results? Judging from your images, I'd say the answer is yes. The images are very similar to what I get with my Canon S5 - not bad, but not super-sharp like I've seen from DSLRs. Of course, having the 1.4 converter gives you that extra reach in a small package you can carry with you if needed.

Jon Taverner · Jun 25, 2008

Can't disagree with what you've said Rah. In regard to sharpness, perhaps if I had some photoshop skills, the results would be better. The images had very basic post processing done to them using Olympus Master 2. Apart from cropping, I think I used +2 for sharpening with no other alterations. It would be fascinating to see what an expert could do with it. I really do not know how much 'super sharpness' comes from the original and how much is achieved through the skill of post processing. Before using Olympus, I had a Nikon D40x with their 'budget' 70-300VR lens and my ability to get extra sharp shots was very similar. Although my shooting technique could be improved, I am happy with a number of my A4 prints. Whether the 50-200 lens with 1x4 would produce noticeable sharper out of the camera shots, I don't know.

theMusicMan · Jun 28, 2008

paulthomas said:
The 70-300 is great value for money but it doesn't have sufficient resolving power to perform well with a teleconverter. Remember that when you add a teleconverter you're magnifying the image by 40% so you need a lens which can resolve more detail than the sensor can otherwise you won't actually capture any more detail - you'll be no better off than cropping heavily. Maybe one day Olympus will build a 300mm big brother to the 50-200 or Sigma will produce their excellent 100-300/f4 in a 4/3rds mount. Until then, if you need more than 300mm, IMO the Sigma 50-500 is the best option (assuming you can't afford the Olympus 90-250/f2.8 or 300/f2.8).

Hi Paul

Sorry, I have to disagree with you only on your first point though here. Perhaps take a look at my Puffin shots, all taken with the Olympus E-3, 70-300mm and 1.4x attached...

http://www.reflectingme.com/p28339871/

These work well I feel.

I do agree with you re wanting one day for Olympus to release a lower cost version of their 300mm...

For all those who have the Oly 70-300mm, can I suggest that you persevere with your lens, I can assure you it is capable of producing some stunning images. You need to get to know it...

NoSpringChicken · Jun 28, 2008

theMusicMan said:
Hi Paul

Sorry, I have to disagree with you only on your first point though here. Perhaps take a look at my Puffin shots, all taken with the Olympus E-3, 70-300mm and 1.4x attached...

http://www.reflectingme.com/p28339871/

These work well I feel.

I do agree with you re wanting one day for Olympus to release a lower cost version of their 300mm...

For all those who have the Oly 70-300mm, can I suggest that you persevere with your lens, I can assure you it is capable of producing some stunning images. You need to get to know it...

That's a very fine set of images in your gallery. I'm especially pleasantly surprised by the landscapes with the flowers in the foreground. Were they with the 70-300 as well?

I think this if the real beauty of the E-510 + 70-300 combination. It is really light and easy to carry round and at the end of the day you can produce a beautiful set of images with it. They may or may not have the ultimate resolution but they are very pleasing images and that's what it's all about. I think a lot of the time people are obsessed with ultimate image quality and spend all their time pixel peeping to find flaws instead of appreciating the images for their own merits.

I have been holding back on the 1.4x converter as it is sufficiently expensive to make me think twice about taking a punt on it. Your images have convinced me that it may well be my next purchase. It will always come in useful later anyway if I upgrade to a better, faster lens.

Ron

theMusicMan · Jun 28, 2008

Oooh, very sorry if I misled you there Ron... all the Puffin shots were with the 70-300mm plus 1.4x, but the ones you ask about were taken with the excellent 11-22mm plus ND4 Grad (and maybe a circular polariser too, can't remember sorry). Apologies if I led you to believe the 70-300mm is capable of that angle. My bad... I have to say that the 11-22mm is an awesome lens - pin sharp across the entire range.

As for your punt on the Oly 1.4x, I'd say this has had a much better rep than the Oly 2.0x. I have used it on many lenses and each time it works perfectly. Oh, and by the way, the AF works 100% with the 1.4x and the 2.0x attached - even when on the Sigma 50-500mm.

Hope this helps.

NoSpringChicken · Jun 28, 2008

theMusicMan said:
Oooh, very sorry if I misled you there Ron... all the Puffin shots were with the 70-300mm plus 1.4x, but the ones you ask about were taken with the excellent 11-22mm plus ND4 Grad (and maybe a circular polariser too, can't remember sorry). Apologies if I led you to believe the 70-300mm is capable of that angle. My bad... I have to say that the 11-22mm is an awesome lens - pin sharp across the entire range.

As for your punt on the Oly 1.4x, I'd say this has had a much better rep than the Oly 2.0x. I have used it on many lenses and each time it works perfectly. Oh, and by the way, the AF works 100% with the 1.4x and the 2.0x attached - even when on the Sigma 50-500mm.

Hope this helps.

Thanks. I suppose I should have guessed that was not the 70-300.

It seems the 1.4x is a more versatile converter than the 2.0x, especially since you only lose one stop rather than two. It seems strange that is is normally more expensive than the 2.0x, with the latter being the new model. I read somewhere that the 1.4x is actually the higher Pro spec but imagine that is just internet gossip.

Ron

Jon Taverner · Jun 28, 2008

I am very impressed ,TheMusicMan, with your Puffin images. Gives me something to aim for. It is pleasing to know that the combination can produce superb results. I would be grateful to know what post processing you do and how you normally do it. Could I get such results straight out of the camera or do I need to learn how to use photoshop or equivalent rather than use basic Master 2 software? Thanks.

barontan2418 · Jul 3, 2008

Olympus 70-300 zoom

For anybody thinking of getting this lens I just picked one up for £198, its a bargain at this price and well worth a web search.

Mick.

theMusicMan · Jul 3, 2008

Jon Taverner said:
I am very impressed ,TheMusicMan, with your Puffin images. Gives me something to aim for. It is pleasing to know that the combination can produce superb results. I would be grateful to know what post processing you do and how you normally do it. Could I get such results straight out of the camera or do I need to learn how to use photoshop or equivalent rather than use basic Master 2 software? Thanks.

Hi Jon

Apologies for the delayed response...

Thanks for the comments re my Puffin images, very much appreciated. As for post processing, I use Lightroom for 99% of my PP, and for my bird images I tend not to delve into the amendments and PP adjustments that can be obtained from Photoshop. Lightroom allows one to process images in batches and so what I would normally do - given that probably most of the images I am to process at a given time, would have been taken under similar conditions - I would work through the following workflow.

I'd first, of course, check for deletes, then keepers, leaving me with some middle graded images that I may at some point return to.

I then ensure the correct MetaData is applied to the images I wish to publish, and I then work on one of them; checking for white balance, exposure, clipping etc, then would sharpen for web. I'd then save that setting as a preset, and apply it to all the 'keepers', then upload to my Zenfolio Gallery directly from Lightroom using a superb plug-in that's available to accomplish this.

Seems a lot, but takes only minutes really once you have mastered the way you work in Lightroom.

The only time I really use Photoshop is when I need to do adjustments to portrait work, or when I need a border around any images - though once again there's a superb plug-in for Lightroom that allows one to watermark images and add borders to them - all from within Lightroom.

Hope this helps Jon.

Jon Taverner · Jul 6, 2008

Thanks myMusicMan for your in depth reply. It appears from your answer and from reading threads in other forums that the vast majority of bird photographers use Lightroom, Photoshop and/or other specialist software to get their superb sharpness etc. rather than rely on the camera's bundled software. Do you feel that you could have got similiar results by using Master 2 only or is Lightroom or its equivalents a must?

theMusicMan · Jul 6, 2008

Hi Jon

You're very welcome, no problem at all. I am new to birding, and know very little about birdwatching - so if I can help just a little with my photography and PP knowledge then at least I feel comfortable that I am adding something back to this wonderful community.

re Oly Master 2: I have read many good things about Olympus Master2, but wouldn't dare comment on it personally as I haven't used it anywhere near enough myself to form an opinion to be honest Jon. You might like to ask a similar question on http://e-group.uk.net/ which is a specific Oly forum - there are experts there who use that software.

The only other thing I would say is regarding your comments on 'sharpen for web': ALL images that are to be uploaded to the web should need some element of sharpening... even if they are spot on in the camera Jon. Monitors can only usually display images @72dpi, which is a significant reduction from that which can be obtained from print resolution (circa 300dpi) - and so when an image is to be displayed on the web, it should always be sharpened to compensate for this significant loss of image definition.

Hope that helps Jon.

Jon Taverner · Jul 7, 2008

Many thanks, theMusicMan. There is obviously a lot I have to learn. When I get the time, I will have to sit down and really get to know how to use software properly. I will probably take your advice about asking on another group's forum. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

RAH · Jul 7, 2008

theMusicMan said:
so when an image is to be displayed on the web, it should always be sharpened to compensate for this significant loss of image definition.

To elaborate somewhat on this, I think the real issue here is that to ready a camera image for display on the web, you have to downsize it (resize with resample) - i.e. images from cameras are say 3000 x 2000 pixels, much too large for display (but good for printing). So, you downsize to say 800 x 600. The downsizing operation - which THROWS AWAY pixels throughout your image - is what causes the lack of sharpness. So, after a downsizing, you need to do a sharpening to restore what you lost.

This is in contrast to an image you CROPPED down to 800 x 600 (no resizing). The result would NOT require sharpening. (an image that is cropped but not resized is often referred to as a "100% crop," meaning that it is cropped but is still at its original size from the camera).

Also, Jon, you don't have to spend an arm and a leg to get software. PaintShop Pro or Photoshop Elements, both about $70 or $80, are MORE than enough. Gimp is free and also sufficient although not as slick and professional as the first two.

theMusicMan · Jul 7, 2008

Good point RAH... thanks.

Also Jon, if you're on a PC, you might like to take a look at IrfanView - another free and excellent image utility.

RAH · Jul 7, 2008

I agree on IrfanView. I use it all the time, mostly as a viewer, although, yes, it can be used for cropping, sharpening, etc. It would certainly be enough for simple tweaks of camera images. It is also really good for creating web "albums" of images.

Another really good freeware program is XNView:
http://www.xnview.com/

A lot of folks also like Faststone, but XNView is better, IMHO, because it has a much better print dialogue.

Zenzero · Jul 7, 2008

Great thread this. Lots of really helpful stuff, thanks. I just gave it some stars.

For those who mentioned tripods, there is the monopod option. I used to use one with my 35mm setup, and found it very handy.

Jon Taverner · Jul 7, 2008

Again, many thanks everyone for your explanations and advice. Since my last post and logging on here tonight, I downloaded Paint.Net which was recommended on MajorGeeks and free. I will spend some time playing about with it - the sharpening and noise reduction tools appear fairly straightforward to use. Things like 'layers' and how to use them is something I'll have to find out about. Generally speaking even my sharpest 'out of the camera' shots with the 70-300 with or without the 1x4 converter tend to be a little soft. Even though my holding technique could be better, images taken at over 1/1000 second at F8 should be very sharp and yet unless the subject is pretty close they are somewhat disappointing. The enclosed Wigeon is one of my best although I might have taken it with the Bigma. However, thanks for all your help - the other free imaging software will be looked at once I've had time to experiment with Paint.Net

Jon Taverner · Jul 17, 2008

Olympus 70-300 plus 1x4 converter

Having seen some superbly sharp shots with the 70-300 plus 1x4 converter - I still love those penguin images - I had just about convinced myself that unless I learned how to use photoshop/lightroom etc., my attempts would always be just 'alright'. The cormorant picture taken during the week has printed on A4 really well and, in my opinion, probably the sharpest I have taken so I am making progress. The combination can produce some lovely shots and it is no real hardship carrying it around. Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to the thread - your help and experiences have been greatly appreciated.

barontan2418 · Jul 17, 2008

Jon Taverner said:
Having seen some superbly sharp shots with the 70-300 plus 1x4 converter - I still love those penguin images - I had just about convinced myself that unless I learned how to use photoshop/lightroom etc., my attempts would always be just 'alright'. The cormorant picture taken during the week has printed on A4 really well and, in my opinion, probably the sharpest I have taken so I am making progress. The combination can produce some lovely shots and it is no real hardship carrying it around. Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to the thread - your help and experiences have been greatly appreciated.

Very nice photo Jon, I have the same combination of camera and lens (no converter) might I ask what form of metering you are using. I'm just starting out with DSLR kit and would appriciate any tips. many thanks.

Mick

Jon Taverner · Jul 18, 2008

Thanks Mick - Hopefully I'll be able to get similar sharp shots in the future. I'm very much like you - a learner - and that is why advice given in threads like this are so helpful. My settings are fairly straightforward. I have the E3 and shoot raw, using Master 2 software. I use single AF with centre small metering and focusing. I always use 400 ISO although I am going to try 640. I must have extremely 'shakey hands' because even with image stabiliser on, anything less than a 1/1000 of a second often gives me soft images. With the cormorant, apart from +1 sharpening in Master and some cropping, the only other thing I did was to run it through a free noiseware program on default. Not sure whether it made any difference however. Like most of my other more successful shots, it was taken around 8am on a superbly sunny morning.
Hope this is of some help
Jon

Olympus ed 70-300 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Attachments

Active member

Attachments

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread