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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 11, 2010, 12:53 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default Checked out the Trinity River Audubon Center

Looks like a birders paradise. Went there this morning, bought a membership and took a short walk as I have somewhere else I have to be this afternoon or I could have stayed there all day.

http://www.trinityriveraudubon.org/s....pdf?docID=142

I didn't have time but to walk a short way on one of the trails and a couple of subjects presented themselves to be shot with my E30 and 50-200+EC20. I'm looking forward to going out there for an extended trip next weekend.



Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 12, 2010, 5:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Hi Greg,

With all due respect to the Belgian fellow whose dragonfly image is today's photo of the day choice, I believe this image of the dragonfly taken with the 50-200mm + EC20 is superior IMHO. Showing greater depth of field and clarity, it really is a good example of the quality you can get out of that combo.

I never think of using the EC20 in tandem with the 50-200mm for closeup work.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 9:52 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

Hi, Zig.

I was actually a little disappointed I didn't stop the darn lens down some more and get some better depth of field in the wings, but I was pleased that I at least captured most of the body in the field of focus.

The EC20 does help get you closer since the magnification is double at the same minimum distance and, unlike the EX25, you get to keep infinity focus. The downer is the losing of two f-stops, but the better noise filters in Adobe Camera RAW now gives me easily 2-3 more stops I am willing to work with. I need to use f11 more with the EC20 now instead of f8. My new Auto ISO ceiling these days is 1250, and I know now I could go much higher still and do well.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Jul 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 10:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Hi, Zig.

I was actually a little disappointed I didn't stop the darn lens down some more and get some better depth of field in the wings, but I was pleased that I at least captured most of the body in the field of focus.

The EC20 does help get you closer since the magnification is double at the same minimum distance and, unlike the EX25, you get to keep infinity focus. The downer is the losing of two f-stops, but the better noise filters in Adobe Camera RAW now gives me easily 2-3 more stops I am willing to work with. I need to use f11 more with the EC20 now instead of f8. My new Auto ISO ceiling these days is 1250, and I know now I could go much higher still and do well.
Funny, how there are many over at DPReview that carp about "poor" ISO performance of the E-30. I've been tempted to comment in those threads but decided to stop wasting my time and just move on. It's so much more fun just using the E-30, not worrying about ISO and being happy about the results.

Zig
Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 10:48 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

I've read the same posts and thought the same thoughts, but instead of making any comments in their posts about how I'm not seeing that, I comment about how easy the files have been to work with when I post my images, especially the extreme high ISO shots that are now looking so much better with the new software.

One user in particular was trying to do some pretty extreme post processing. Once I saw his images from Central America it was pretty obvious the dynamic range of the files would challenge any smaller format DSLR. When you start raising shadows 2 stops or more you are definitely pushing it, but I also think Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5's newest version of ACR would pull it off with little to no noise.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 1:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
When you start raising shadows 2 stops or more you are definitely pushing it, but I also think Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5's newest version of ACR would pull it off with little to no noise.
It is clear from your most recent posts that you're getting stellar results from ACR+CS5. As much as I like Elements 8.0 + ACR RAW 5.6, I can't get the same degree of flexibility. There's obviously a reason why CS5 costs what it does. That being said, I just can't bring myself to migrate towards a fullblown version of Photoshop at this time.

Oh, so many things to dream about ............. I need to win the lottery.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 1:36 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

Adobe should be coming out soon with the update to Elements, which should contain the same Adobe Camera RAW as is in CS5 and Light Room 3, which is where these noise sliders are. It's been so long since I have used any version of Elements so I have no idea if Adobe uses a dumbed-down version of ACR in Elements, but I'd be surprised if they did.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 6:05 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Is there any chance you could post one of the non-edited versions. I'm amazed at the results you've gotten at ISO640. Personally I never use anythng over 400 for closeup and even then only when I have to but your dragonfly looks great full size, I'm not seeing much loss of detail, if any.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 6:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Is there any chance you could post one of the non-edited versions. I'm amazed at the results you've gotten at ISO640. Personally I never use anythng over 400 for closeup and even then only when I have to but your dragonfly looks great full size, I'm not seeing much loss of detail, if any.

John
Since I shot it RAW, would you want a JPEG straight from Viewer or Studio using a certain set of parameters to compare? I used to load RAW files to a site and give the links, but it's been forever and I'd have to figure out how to do that again!
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2010, 9:14 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Is there any chance you could post one of the non-edited versions. I'm amazed at the results you've gotten at ISO640. Personally I never use anythng over 400 for closeup and even then only when I have to but your dragonfly looks great full size, I'm not seeing much loss of detail, if any.

John
John,

Here's a page of 5 files, processed in both Olympus Viewer and Adobe Camera RAW to compare the results. The Viewer results should be very close to what the in-camera JPEG engine would have achieved.

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...32766313_WEGU5

Besides comparing noise, look at the color and other differences between the two files. Other than setting up ACR's default file handling preferences, I did no other processing in ACR to try and match color results in Viewer. What differences there are in coloration and/or contrast, I consider of no-consequence. All I did in ACR was sharpen, use the noise filters and, in a few cases, straightened and/or cropped the files in ACR. The Viewer files are uncropped and unstraightened, mainly because you cannot straighten an image in Viewer. You have to first save a JPEG, then straighten in the regular processing window, which then requires a second save. Olympus does offer cropping in the RAW converter. Not offering a straightening option in the RAW converter of Viewer (and the pay-to-own Studio program) was just flat stupid.

I read a lot of stories about how users convert to TIFF using Viewer or Studio, then do noise processing, sharpening, etc, in Photoshop and save the resulting files as JPEG's just to keep those "fantastic Olympus colors...". That process to me is a little over the top when you see the actual differences between a file processed that way and one just processed in Adobe Camera RAW once you've set the program up to use the cameras' embedded information to open the files up.

In Viewer I used the standard in-camera parameters, including the standard noise filter setting and the normal gradation setting.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Jul 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM.
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 4:42 AM.