Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 27, 2009, 9:37 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Shot with the E520. This lens is amazingly well corrected. After converting the RAW file, I ran the JPEG through PTLens and there was very little correction going on.

The zoom mechanism is buttery smooth and the barrel barely moves when zooming through the range. It has the look of the kit lenses, but in use the "feel" is one of at least one level higher and it weighs nothing.

Conference room at the office..












Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 28, 2009, 5:28 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Greg,

Congrats on getting the 9-18mm.

The shot of the conference room is impressive, in that, it doesn'texhibit any distortion that my eyes can see at all. I'd be curious to see how the same shot taken with the 12-60mm would compare.

Enjoy your new lens!

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2009, 8:43 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Love your new toys.

The new lens looks like it is a goodie. I'm also impressed with the conference room. The thing that impresses is the detail that remains instead of being totally blown out. How would the 510 done there?

Keep on posting. I'm betting bummed as we are still all brown here, but I can look on the bright side, It will be white tomorrow morning with 6" of heavy snow on the way:sad: I feel like a stuck record.

Greg, the northern one
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2009, 12:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
Love your new toys.

The new lens looks like it is a goodie. I'm also impressed with the conference room. The thing that impresses is the detail that remains instead of being totally blown out. How would the 510 done there?
Quote:
It did not hurt that skies were overcast. Had the sunight been bright, the shot would have been much more difficult. The E520 probably could have handled it. Using auto gradation, as long as you expose the highlights correctly, the processor will adjust the exposure in the shadows. The higher the contract, noise would no doubt have been more elevated in the shadows.
Quote:
I have no doubt an E510 would have worked fine too. I would have just had to be more careful in metering, possibly shooting it 2-3 times to get a more precise exposure.

Keep on posting. I'm betting bummed as we are still all brown here, but I can look on the bright side, It will be white tomorrow morning with 6" of heavy snow on the way:sad: I feel like a stuck record.
Quote:
A front blew through here yesterday. It was cold and the wind blowing quite hard as I shot those outside images. Tonight I'm taking my E520 to a Dallas Stars NHL game. Will do all the game action with the 40-150 as usual, but I'm carrying the 9-18 in via my coat pocket and shoot some full areana shots with it.

Greg, the northern one
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2009, 12:13 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
Hi Greg,

Congrats on getting the 9-18mm.

The shot of the conference room is impressive, in that, it doesn'texhibit any distortion that my eyes can see at all. I'd be curious to see how the same shot taken with the 12-60mm would compare.

Enjoy your new lens!

Zig

Hi Zig.

The 12-60 would have done OK...it just would have required a higher amount of correction due to that funky-shaped distortion you get at 12mm, especially towards the closer end.

Counting the weeks down to the first chance to take the 50-200 to a major league baseball game. Until then, I've kinda gone minimalist. I'm developing an appreciation of how sharp the kittle 14-42 kit lens that came with my E510 is. With the 9-18 around for wider stuff, the 14-42 is quite a shrp little lens, with plenty of punch in the colors, and it's darn light compared to the 12-60. The 9-18, 14-42 and 40-150 combination is almost like not carrying anything at all. If you're wearing a coat, you don't even need a bag.

14-42 images.



This is what a 21 pound cat looks like..







Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 3:19 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

A few more 9-18 Zuikoshots, from today..

This is the office complex I work at, shot at the 18mm end of the zoom.



This is The W hotel and complex, shot against the light at 16mm..



Here, I am standing in front of the American Airlines Center, getting ready to go in to see a Dallas Stars NHL game..



Then after the game, I came back out to shoot the same image, but at night..



One last night image as I walked back to my car..


Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 3:34 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Hi Greg

I was meanign to reply at the first batch of pics but I'm glad I didn;t as the follow up pics are even better! How do you think the lens compares to the 7-14, esp in terms of IQ - we know the 9-18 is a fine lens but it would be really cool to hear what you think.

Cheers

Harj

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 5:26 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Greg,

As much as I've enjoyed seeing your shots using the 9-18mm lens, the one characteristic that continues to be reinforced in your images is the ability of the E-520 to resolve detail in those shots where you have high contrast and significant shadows. The American Airlines Center photo is definitely one that my E-510 would have a bit of trouble reproducing.

I realize the ability of the photographer has a lot to do with the final outcome. But the camera being used is clearly an improvementover the earlier model.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 11:45 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Hi Greg

I was meanign to reply at the first batch of pics but I'm glad I didn;t as the follow up pics are even better! How do you think the lens compares to the 7-14, esp in terms of IQ - we know the 9-18 is a fine lens but it would be really cool to hear what you think.

Cheers

Harj

:O :?
Other than I know the 7-14 would be wider in a 9mm vs. 7mm comparison, the main difference I see in processing images from the two is, when I would run a file from the 7-14 through PTLens, the change would be almost un-noticeable. With the 9-18 at 9mm, it's still very, veryminor, but there is just a little more overalladjustment going on across the frame.

I also think the 7-14 has a little more crispness in the overall image, but it better have something more going for itat $1,700 vs. the $549+$25 for PTLensI paid for the performance you getwiththis lens!

Just to show the differemce in using PTLens vs. not using it at 9mm, here's the night shot of AT&T Plaza after using PTLens:



And here it is without using PTLens. Not a whole lot of difference, but more than you'd see after running a 7-14 file through PTLens. Without a direct comparison, I would have been perfectly happy with this image as-is.


If you go to the two images on my webpage and clickback & forth between thema few timesyou can easily see the adjustment PTLens makes:

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/galler...00887726_zSCJT
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2009, 11:59 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
Hi Greg,

As much as I've enjoyed seeing your shots using the 9-18mm lens, the one characteristic that continues to be reinforced in your images is the ability of the E-520 to resolve detail in those shots where you have high contrast and significant shadows. The American Airlines Center photo is definitely one that my E-510 would have a bit of trouble reproducing.

I realize the ability of the photographer has a lot to do with the final outcome. But the camera being used is clearly an improvementover the earlier model.
The metering system of the E520 has been the biggest difference I have seen, thinking about how it works compared to the E510. I used to have to resort to center-weighted and even spot metering many times to shoot trickier-lit scenes with the E510, but inevery one of these I just left theE520 set to multi-segment metering and, in this series,did not even have to resort tousing exposure compensation.

The few files where there was some slight clipping in areas other than the obvious lights where no adjustment is going to help much, there is a "new" slider for me in Adobe Camera RAW of CS4 compared to ACR in CS2 called "Recovery" that does an outstanding job of getting the detail back if there is anything there to get. I used it a few times and it worked wonderfully. That is an area where Olympus Studio just does not do very well. It tends to just turn clipped areas grey vs. actually recovering detail.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:14 PM.