• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Olympus OM-D EM-5 Advice - Blurry pics (1 Viewer)

Just thought i would post a couple of edits to show how over cropping can ruin an image.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_6795.JPG
    DSC_6795.JPG
    320.4 KB · Views: 127
  • DSC_6795c.jpg
    DSC_6795c.jpg
    347.6 KB · Views: 144
I would be interested to see the full image as you say cropped,do you mean cropped or just re sized,i took the liberty of downloading one of the Canada's,the file is too small to do much with and the light looks poor but i would love to have the full file to look at.I just wonder if your over cropping as the file looks very noisy and is breaking up,i could get the same results from my Nikon D7200 in poor light and over cropping.
Mike, I load my photos into MAC OSX Photos app, then crop to the subject, then export. Full sensor resolution of this camera is 4608 x 3456 (15,925,248 pix). This 1/250s image was cropped to 1178x884, though your re-upload shows 1000x750. I'm not sure why that is, when I download this image from my post, it shows 1178x884. Anyhow, typical full image size is 4-8MB, depending on the JPG mode I have the camera set (Normal, Fine, or Super-Fine).

FWIW, when viewing on the camera, zooming into the bird, I see similar blurriness, though it's certainly possible the Photos app is doing some sort of additional compression when exporting the cropped photos. I'll have to try the Olympus Viewer, with the same amount of cropping, and compare.

I'd be glad to send you full res copies, is there a way I can upload full res photos here?
 
I stated in my first post my previous camera was a Stylus 1, with the TCON-17x adapter. This has a small 1/1.7" sensor, and at max zoom with the TCON, this gave me about 500 mm equivalent focal length (35mm), at f2.8. So, last night, I took a look at a bunch of birding pictures, and even at high crop, most of them were significantly sharper than what I've been able to achieve with the OM-D, at 300mm (600mm equivalent). It rarely needed high ISO values, due to f2.8, even at max zoom. Many images were in the range of 1/125s to 1/250s, and were quite sharp, I never needed to use speed priority for sitting birds.

The Stylus 1 has optical image stabilization. I'm beginning to wonder if the IBIS isn't able to handle longer focal lengths as well as optical stabilization? Unfortunately, I can't do direct side-by-side comparisons.

I'm far from giving up, though, and appreciate all your help.
 
For comparison: with my panasonic GH2 which has a similar size sensor, I most often crop to about 1800 pixels or more on the long side and then reduce size of the image to around 1000 pixels on the long side. Because of that reduction, I usually use a little extra sharpening at the end. If you insist on jpg output, I would set at ultra fine and let it stay there.

My insistence that you use a faster shutter speed now during testing was to allow you to take out the possibility of movement causing the blurriness. If you cannot get a sharp image with fast shutter speed, then you never will. Ibis is almost irrelevant at the really fast shutter speeds, so any blurriness is almost certainly due to the quality of the lens or to the quality of your focus. Once you become convinced those two are good, then you can start using slower shutter speed to figure out how far your ibis will take you.

Niels
 
There is a user in birdforum: http://www.birdforum.net/member.php?u=71763

If I recall correctly, she used to not like the oly 75-300 lens and liked the pana 100-300 better. Maybe because she had a poor copy of the oly lens? In any case, your problems might be related to something similar? To read more, make a search for posts from her in the oly section or here in the m43 section.

Niels
 
I am running out of ideas but I see you are using S-IS AUTO for the IBIS setting. You could try S-IS1, which is the setting I use on my E-M1. S-IS1 stabilizes in all directions, whereas S-IS AUTO detects the panning direction and applies the appropriate image stabilization. It might be worth a try.

Ron
 
The Stylus 1 has optical image stabilization. I'm beginning to wonder if the IBIS isn't able to handle longer focal lengths as well as optical stabilization? Unfortunately, I can't do direct side-by-side comparisons.

How are you holding your setup? You do know that with a long lens one hand should be supporting the lens and the other should be on the shutter button?
 
How are you holding your setup? You do know that with a long lens one hand should be supporting the lens and the other should be on the shutter button?
A pertinent question Jim. I have my left hand holding the lens, supporting the lens from underneath, with left elbow held against my body, right hand holding right side of camera, index finger to press shutter button. The very first day I had the camera, taking pics of the Common Redpolls, I probably wasn't doing this, but since then, with all comparison pics, I've been paying close attention to my stance and camera holding.
 
I am running out of ideas but I see you are using S-IS AUTO for the IBIS setting. You could try S-IS1, which is the setting I use on my E-M1. S-IS1 stabilizes in all directions, whereas S-IS AUTO detects the panning direction and applies the appropriate image stabilization. It might be worth a try.

Ron
Ron, I agree S-IS 1 is probably more appropriate. This last set of 4 pictures used S-IS Auto, as Graham had asked for some shots using factory default settings. Previous posted photos, starting with post #24, all were taken with S-IS 1.

Going forward, I'll be using S-IS 1. This weekend, I hope to do some controlled testing over a range of shutter speeds, with/without IBIS, and with/without Anti-Shock. I'm beginning to suspect that the IBIS either isn't working as well as it should, or IBIS isn't sufficient for my use, as the majority of my use will be at the max 300mm focal length. Neither seems likely, but more controlled testing will at least help me narrow things down.

I wonder if the effort of getting good photographs from any camera is proportional to how much it cost? ;)
 
For comparison: with my panasonic GH2 which has a similar size sensor, I most often crop to about 1800 pixels or more on the long side and then reduce size of the image to around 1000 pixels on the long side. Because of that reduction, I usually use a little extra sharpening at the end. If you insist on jpg output, I would set at ultra fine and let it stay there.

My insistence that you use a faster shutter speed now during testing was to allow you to take out the possibility of movement causing the blurriness. If you cannot get a sharp image with fast shutter speed, then you never will. Ibis is almost irrelevant at the really fast shutter speeds, so any blurriness is almost certainly due to the quality of the lens or to the quality of your focus. Once you become convinced those two are good, then you can start using slower shutter speed to figure out how far your ibis will take you.

Niels
Thanks Niels, those are good suggestions. I've been cropping to about 1200x900, since I thought that was the maximum size I could upload to the forum. If there's a way to upload larger images, I'd be glad to do that. I'll be doing some controlled shutter speed testing on static subjects this weekend. These last 4 shots used LN (Normal) JPG output, as part of the "Factory Default" testing. Going forward, I'll set it to LSF (Super-Fine). I suppose eventually I'll get into raw shooting, but I suspect my current problems are much, much, larger than the difference between Super-Fine and Raw.
 
OK, four more test photos, not everything that was asked for, but all I had time for today. These were all taken after a complete factory settings reset, shot at full 300mm zoom, full camera auto-focus, using a central point. Images cropped to roughly 1200x900. Auto-IBIS on, as it is by default, single drive mode, no anti-shock.

Pic #1 was a full iAuto hand-held, of a hydrant out my car window while waiting for a train. 1/250, f6.7, ISO640. Train was done before I had a chance to try more. :( Quite Blurry.

Pic #2 was a full iAuto hand-held, of a Goose about 30' away, moving very slowly. 1/250, f6.7, ISO400. Quite Blurry.

Pic #3 was speed priority, hand-held, of a Goose, again moving very slowly. 1/1000, f7.1, ISO1600. Better than #2.

Pic #4 was a full iAuto tripod shot, indoors, of one of my kids toy birds, using remote shutter from O.I. Share on my phone. 1/13, f6.7, ISO1600. I did take a hand-held shot, but due to the very low speed, it was obviously very blurry, so didn't attach it here.

So, Pic #1 is similar to my first iAuto shots with this camera, quite blurry. Increasing the speed to 1/1000 made a much more clear shot, so it would appear the blur is hand shake related. At 300mm, 1/250s, I would have expected IBIS to handle this for a more crisp shot. Have I simply run up against the limits of IBIS?

I need to do tripod testing during the day, when I can get shutter speeds up to typical outdoor shots.

Sorry to hear about all the frustrations you've experienced with this camera/lens setup. I think these test shots (particularly the lack of blur in pic no. 3), and my own experience suggest you're coming up against the limits of IBIS, which is great for shorter focal lengths, but simply not that effective at telephoto lengths.

I used to have a similar equipment setup, the Olympus E-P5 with an add-on EVF, and the same 75-300 lens, and found that while the IBIS did help stabilize the EVF image, the slowest it could reliably get sharp shots was about 1/500s - basically, just shy of the 1/focal length rule one uses for non-stabilized lenses. If I had other means of support, such as shooting from a monopod or bracing against a window frame, I could get blur-free shots at slower shutter speeds. For example, I braced against a window frame to get the following shot at 1/200s. But note that this shutter speed wasn't enough to freeze the moving parts of the wren:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/10839916883/in/album-72157626637667333/

So I'd recommend shooting at above 1/500s at all times with this lens and body combo, as well as stopping down to f/8, as the lens does get a bit sharper when stopped down. The following photo at 1/800s is about as sharp and blur-free as I saw this lens achieve. It's okay, but the lens I had simply didn't seem capable of resolving a lot of detail:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/10710138576/in/album-72157648961354456/

That said, my recommendation would actually be to sell the 75-300, and switch over to the Panasonic 100-300, or if funds allow, the new 100-400. The 100-300 has lens-based IS, which works much better than IBIS at long focal lengths, and is only slightly bulkier. There is a fair bit of sample variation for the 100-300, but if you get a good copy, it can get some very good results. Good copies of the 100-300 are sharper than the 75-300 in my opinion. The IBIS works well enough such that I can use relatively slow shutter speeds handheld with the small MFT body that I use now, the Panasonic DMC-GM1. Here's a GM1/100-300 shot at 1/320s:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/15403187874/in/dateposted-public/
 
I know some people do not like the Olympus 75-300 but I think it does a good job, although it is at its best in good light. Here are three shots taken with the E-M1 at 300mm, all handheld.

Red-backed Shrike 1/500 sec at ISO 200.
Desert Wheatear 1/800 sec at ISO 200.
Water Rail 1/320 sec at ISO 2000.

Ron
 

Attachments

  • RB Shrike 9a small.jpg
    RB Shrike 9a small.jpg
    341.4 KB · Views: 204
  • Desert Wheatear 3 small.jpg
    Desert Wheatear 3 small.jpg
    251.2 KB · Views: 209
  • Close Water Rail 1 small.jpg
    Close Water Rail 1 small.jpg
    314.7 KB · Views: 194
Last edited:
I have read both kinds of statements regarding the Oly lens, and I feel there might be as much if not more sample variation in that lens as in the pana 100-300. Disclaimer: I have a pana lens so no personal experience with the oly lens.

On the other hand, ibis limitations? Check out this thread and especially follow the link in the first post to a guy who is happy with a non-IS 400 mm lens on the em1: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313708

Niels
 
I have read both kinds of statements regarding the Oly lens, and I feel there might be as much if not more sample variation in that lens as in the pana 100-300. Disclaimer: I have a pana lens so no personal experience with the oly lens.

On the other hand, ibis limitations? Check out this thread and especially follow the link in the first post to a guy who is happy with a non-IS 400 mm lens on the em1: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313708

Niels
That's an interesting thread, using the 400 lens with metabones. He has some very sharp photos through a window, far better than what I've been able to achieve. He notes that the large mass of this lens really helps hand-held steadiness, as compared to the 75-300. I also wonder how much difference there is between the M5 autofocus and the M1 auto-focus. Even with static subjects, and a single central AF point, my M5 sometimes won't focus on the central object, and I'm forced to either refocus, or MF.

I've taken a bunch of static photos, haven't had a chance to consolidate my notes, and crop for posting comparisons. In many cases, I was able to get hand-held shots as clear as tripod shots, even at speeds down to 1/60. Once in a while, I'd get a really blurry hand-held shot - This may be due to "Halfway Rls with IS", which I've read can reduce the effectiveness of IBIS, if the sensor is near a limit just as the shutter is pressed. So, for now, I'm keeping that off, when at max telephoto (300mm). [For the upcoming 300/f4 lens, Olympus claims 6 stops of IS, only when "Halfway Rls with IS" is OFF.]

Anyhow, I'll keep plugging away. I'd like to rent a Panasonic 100-300 for comparison, to satisfy my curiosity. I shot this photo of an Eastern Meadowlark yesterday, probably 10m away, so cropped from 4608x3456 to 688x516. Used low speed anti-shock burst, with burst IBIS on, auto-focus with no MF adjustment, 300mm. Took a few separate bursts of 3 shots each, this was the sharpest. Perhaps with that amount of cropping, I can't expect any sharper.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1914.JPG
    IMG_1914.JPG
    115 KB · Views: 161
So,

I was finally able to get some bird shots in good sunlight. It's been rather dreary here of late.

This is a Long-Tailed Duck, migrating through, which I was fortunate to see close to shore, 5-10m away. All photos are 100% crop, from the camera's L-SF jpeg files, keeping them below the 1600x1200 forum limit. Hand-held, focal length 300mm, quiet burst mode, starting with S-AF, and checking focus with focus peaking. "Halfway Rls with IS" was off, burst IS was on. The S-AF was pretty good for most of these shots, requiring only very minor MF tweak, though occasionally AF would be way off.

Photo 1 - 1/320, f11, ISO200
Photo 2 - 1/250, f13, ISO200
Photo 3 - 1/400, f8, ISO200

The big difference between these and previous bird photos is good sunlight, allowing much lower ISO, and higher f-stops. I also used quiet burst, instead of anti-shock burst, so don't know how much of a difference that makes. I'll need to test that independently.
 

Attachments

  • P3085348.jpg
    P3085348.jpg
    402.3 KB · Views: 183
  • P3085452.jpg
    P3085452.jpg
    328.1 KB · Views: 182
  • P3085590.jpg
    P3085590.jpg
    180.9 KB · Views: 184
These are as good as I would expect for 100% crops with a cheaper lens. They may be slightly better than what I get with 100% crops on my Pana. Difference is that I usually use fully open aperture, rarely have the light to push the F-number up.

Obviously the last image have the AF on the rear of the bird. That might be a difference from a superzoom we have not talked about: the depth of field is less, and as such you would not expect the entire bird to be in focus in a shot like this.

Niels
 
Definitely much better shots there. They look about as sharp as what I saw from that lens. You might consider slightly higher shutter speeds (e.g., 1/500s or faster) to further reduce the risk of image shake. Don't be afraid to push the ISO beyond 200, as the 16MP sensor is pretty decent up to ISO 1600.

I do also find it unusual that focusing needed MF tweaking; contrast-detection AF is usually very accurate. If it isn't focusing on the right area for you, consider reducing the size of the focus point.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top