I know that IS is a popular thing, and I love it for regular photography, but with long-lens wildlife photgraphy, I usually use a tripod. It is just very difficult to get precise aim when handholding. I mean, for example, it makes a difference if you focus on a bird's eye or its chest. Usually you don't get the bird full enough in the frame to easily pick one or the other. So you need to kind of shift the aim around, firing away meanwhile and hoping one of them nails it. I cannot imagine doing this handheld. It's hard enough with a tripod.
I suppose if you go to Yellowstone and photograph bison, then you can handhold a long lens, becuase they are BIG, but otherwise, I prefer a tripod (even though they are a big PITA).
Handholding any long lens takes as lot of practice, even years. But with enough time in the field one can develop a technique that works. Me, I handhold everything, excepting long exposure fireworks, my tripods could be used as plant stands. I use the OIS in my PL100-400 instead of the IBIS in my E-M1 II so that I get a steady view even before half press for focus......… the reason is that I also use magnification and peaking to zero in on the critters eye and at 400mm plus 5-7X magnification the image in the viewfinder is just to jumpy if not tamed by the OIS. S-AF +MF usually nails it, unless the damn critter moves.
That's an interesting use of lens IS instead of the IBIS, Gary. I never thought about that aspect (stabilization before half-press) and it sounds very useful (I can picture it in my head). When/if I get a 100-400, I will try it.
Today was the public opening of our new Sarasota Art Museum. After a 16 year labor of love (and money) the old asbestos ridden,1926 Sarasota Senior High School, with the help of the Ringling College of Art & Design, has been transformed into a wonderful center for the visual arts for our city.
Photography is encouraged for private use and my wife and I visited today. I took the E-M5 III with the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 Pro Fisheye and set the 5.3 for in camera lens correction giving me about a 5mm rectilinear view. Shot in Aperture value, Auto ISO with lower limit at 1/15sec. The new IBIS system in the E-M5 III seems to work at least as well as the IBIS in my E-M1 II, so I may drop my Low Auto ISO shutter limit to 1/8 or 1/4sec
Everything worked wonderfully.....I think I'm beginning to like this little guy.
The new exhibit space is really nice...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
And, the original 1926 main entrance to the school is retained as the entrance to the museum...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Nice images! Does the E-M5III's defish work with any FE lens, or just with the Oly 8mm? For example, the Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye. I have some good defishing software (Anglerfish: http://www.anglerfish.ajotte.com/index.php), but having it in-camera would be nice.
Nice images! Does the E-M5III's defish work with any FE lens, or just with the Oly 8mm? For example, the Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye. I have some good defishing software (Anglerfish: http://www.anglerfish.ajotte.com/index.php), but having it in-camera would be nice.
I think it only works with the Olympus 8mm, but others may know differently. I have it on my E-M1 II also, and it was one of the deciding factors leading me to the E-M5 III.
My regional Olympus rep was even tighter lipped. He did mention that the size if the 150-400/4.5 is basically the same as the 300/4.0 with the hood extended. I am assuming he is only talking about length of the lenses and not diameter. He also mention that a prime lens is coming next year.
The 300mm f4 requires a min 75mm front element. The 150-400mm f4.5 requires a min 88mm front element so it will be fatter.
That is interesting about a prime coming next year. Based on the roadmap that would range between 12mm and 50mm. I hope the aperture is less aggressive than f1.2.
Back in the day, when Oly made 4/3 DSLRs (I had an E-520), the 70-300 standard grade lens was always rumored to be made by Sigma. I don't know if this was ever proved.
Been playing with my new E-M5 III. I just noticed a dead pixel (became very obvious since it's highlighted by focus-peaking in manual focus mode). Should I just try remapping the pixel, or better to exchange the camera for a new one?
Actually, looks like it might have been a hot pixel. Remapping seemed to make it go away. But, I'm still unsure whether it's acceptable to have a few hot pixels in a brand-new camera. I haven't experienced this before.
Another day out with the E-M5 III for some more tests. While trying to catch some Mullet (that's a fish) jumping out of the water, which was not very successful, I decided to try a new slant on using this camera for action. Instead of setting my usual Low Burst, 10fps, C-AF, 1/2500 sec for action. I opted to try using electronic shutter High Burst giving me 30fps, but locked on the first focus acquisition.
First, 30fps is a lot of images. The good news is that I was not abler to keep the focus point (small single point) on the bird for more than about 1/2 second so most all my burst ended up being between 15 and 20 shots. But I was pleasantly surprised that my keeper rate was almost 100% , much better than using C-AF and low burst at 10fps.
Here's 5 shots from a burst of 18. I recall these are frames 4, 5, 7, 11 and 13, but all the rest were good eye shots as well not a single one was OOF. BTW this was with the 14-150, so nothing exotic about the lens.
There is not a lot of wing action as it was windy and the gulls were more swooping and sailing than actually flying, and the entire 18 shots only took a smidge more than 1/2 sec.
So, I'm pleased with the results on these slower flying birds, not sure how it will act on some smaller, more erratic BiFs
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Nice shots! Apparently the buffer is pretty robust on the E-M5III. I took some action shots a few weeks ago with a Canon SL2 (small DSLR), instead of using the 80D to save the weight, and it drove me crazy waiting for the buffer to refresh, leaving me repeatedly holding the shutter button down and nothing happening. I was not used to this happening and found it pretty surprising. Can you confirm that the new E-M5 is good in this respect?
Nice shots! Apparently the buffer is pretty robust on the E-M5III. I took some action shots a few weeks ago with a Canon SL2 (small DSLR), instead of using the 80D to save the weight, and it drove me crazy waiting for the buffer to refresh, leaving me repeatedly holding the shutter button down and nothing happening. I was not used to this happening and found it pretty surprising. Can you confirm that the new E-M5 is good in this respect?
Hmmmm...
You raise an interesting point. I assumed that the reason all of my bursts had stopped at about 20 images was because of something I had initiated. However, now that you mention the buffer, it might be that I simply let up on the shutter release because the frame rate slowed due to a full buffer. I was shooting Raw + LSF JPEGS and I know that my E-M1 II will fill the buffer at about the 60 shot point when shooting silent low burst at 18 FPS. Maybe with Raw + LSF JPEG, the 5.3 at 30fps, tops the buffer at about 20 shots.
This possibility, along with some other “ camera response feelings” I have noticed and addressed to my regional Olympus rep, leads me to believe what he said about the E-M5 III....that, while having similar features to the E-M1 II, it has a less powerful processor.
Still, the High Burst setting seems to work quite well in my brief experience, so far, but more testing is needed, it seems.
I shoot RAW + jpg also. I have read that shooting RAW + jpg does NOT affect the buffering (i.e. you can't get better results shooting just plain jpg or just plain RAW). This seems counter-intuitive, but that is what I read, I think. Anyway, 20 images isn't bad. The SL2 I was using seemed to slow or stop after less than 10. Of course, it is a much lower-end camera than the E-M5III (but they both weight about the same, so the SL2 achieves what it is trying to be - a small APS-C 24MP DSLR).
Oh, damn! I haven't been doing my homework - I thought the new 100-400 was going to be a pro-level lens. This is bad news for me, seeing as how it will be standard level. Not that there's anything wrong with standard level (e.g. I LOVE the 9-18 - perfect ultra-wide travel lens!), but it seems that it probably will not even reach the abilities of the PL 100-400 (that's why I thought the Oly would be pro-level, since people are doing hypothetical comparisons).
I think it hasn't got a Pro designation because it has a variable aperture and all the Pro zooms are fixed. I'll bet it will be as good or better optically than the Panasonic and certainly it'll be better built.
I think it hasn't got a Pro designation because it has a variable aperture and all the Pro zooms are fixed. I'll bet it will be as good or better optically than the Panasonic and certainly it'll be better built.
We will have to see if it can be better than the PanLeica 100-400. My PL100-400 is sharper than my Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, if I have to add either the 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverters to it to match the reach of the Panny.
I do suspect it will be sharper than the either the 75-100 Oly or the 100-300 Panny non-pro flavors.
I think it hasn't got a Pro designation because it has a variable aperture and all the Pro zooms are fixed. I'll bet it will be as good or better optically than the Panasonic and certainly it'll be better built.
Perhaps, but I think I'd expect it to be very similar in most respects to the 75-300 and P100-300 (mediocre). It may be sharper because it will be more modern, but I think the build quality will be similar (not nearly as good as the PL 100-400). We can hope...
It needs to compete with the PL 100-400. I've got a very sharp copy of it, but I would not praise its build quality. Just look at the tripod foot that is attached with small screws compared with the normal mounting ring used by Olympus and most other manufacturers. The zoom mechanism is stiff and there have been various other complaints recorded.
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
