Olympus E-510 with 14-42.Infinity focus?

I really can't find a way to obtain sharply focused final images at infinity,no matter which technique I've used

so far.All images seem out of focus at long distances,even at F22,manual/auto focus,IS on/off,tripod or

not.Sharpness never exceeds a distance of 50-100 metres when outdoors.Indoor captures seem good,though the

quality is not comparable with good prime manual focus lenses I've used with film,when these are mounted on E-510

through an adapter.None of them can obtain infinity focus BTW(faulty adapter?)

Has anyone experienced such a problem with the above camera and lens?<div></div>

Was the test shot done with the 14-42 or a manual fous lens? That shot looks like the AF focused on the tree branches and not the distant houses. I have a hard time understanding how focus could be off with both AF and manual focusing. Check your diopter setting.

George.

14-42 at 36mm,F9,check properties.Single,centered AF during such a test shot means no one has to look through the viewfinder/screen to take a sharp image.Although when this one was checked(as tenths of others as well in similar tests shots) seemed perfectly in focus when I half pressed the shutter release.

<p>I'd have to agree with George, it looks as if the AF focused on the tree.</p>

<p>I would also try a larger F-Stop number; a larger F-Stop = Larger area of focus, a smaller F-Stop = a smaller area of focus. If you notice your area of focus is from the tree to approximately the bottom 3rd line.</p>

<p>Last but not least, you can adjust the sharpness setting on the E-510.</p>

The tree also looks slightly soft to be the focus point, but is certainly sharper than the rest of the image. It

would appear that the lens has focused somewhere odd. I don't know much about this lens, but I can give you some

advice about shooting landscapes in manual focus. First off, f/9 is the sharpest aperture setting for a 4/3's

lens, so that was a good place to start. Secondly, does this lens have a hyperfocal distance scale? These are

really rather important for making uniformly sharp landscapes, and unfortunately most lower tier AF lenses lack

them. :(

 

The difficulty with using lenses without a distance scale or hyperfocal scale, is that you never really KNOW

where the lens is focused other than what your eye sees in the viewfinder. This is bad news because if the

diopter setting on the viewfinder is not properly calibrated to your vision, you really are just guessing. So,

check and set your diopter, this is crucial. Distance scales are especially useful with wide lenses, because the

focus changes so rapidly with little movements of the focus ring. It is also important because MANY lenses focus

"beyond" infinity, meaning that when you rotate the focus ring all the way towards infinity, many lenses do not

stop AT infinity, but focus as some impossible distance beyond it. So manually setting the lens all the way

until it stops does not ensure actual infinity focus, so do not trust this method.

 

Why is hyperfocal distance important for landscapes?

 

Basically hyperfocal distance is the distances at which a lens appears to resolve "in focus" based on depth of

field of the aperture selection. Lenses tend to resolve about twice as far beyond the focus point as they do in

front of the focus point. What this means is that when you set your lens to infinity, you are cutting off all of

the background focus and keeping only foreground focus. In general, most lenses tend to render sharper beyond

the focus point than in front of it, so you are really only keeping the crappy part of the resolving power of any

given lens. The general rule is 1/3rd in front and 2/3rd's beyond. Another issue is that the closer your focus

point, the less depth of field you get in general. So how do you get maximum depth of field using hyperfocal

distance? Since you don't have a distance scale or a hyperfocal scale, this is going to require some educated

guessing. But experience says that you should set your lens to f/9 or somewhere around there, and in this

example focus on that line of trees cutting through the city, this should give you a decent amount of focus all

the way to the mountains and at least to the closest buildings in the image. The trees in the foreground will be

problematic and may require focusing a little closer, the one branch in the foreground should definitely be

cropped out of the image altogether by either stepping to the right, or having a friend bend it out of your way

temporarily, it will be nearly impossible to get this branch and the distant mountains both in focus.

 

Why can't you trust AF?

 

Well, this scene in particular will be difficult for autofocus to get a grasp on. The area you want to focus on

is a dense repeating pattern with no clearly contrasting straight lines. Basically it's a massive checkerboard

and the camera doesn't know which checkers to line up with each other. In this case, even your eyes will have

difficulty seeing the correct focus and the only thing you could really trust would be a distance scale which you

don't have. Start with calibrating the diopter to minimize any possible difference between apparent focus and

actual focus, and go from there. (Why these AF cameras don't have something useful like a distance scale as part

of the viewfinder information but have dozens and dozens of other completely useless "features" is really beyond

my comprehension.)

 

Using manual focus and guessing hyperfocal distance, you should be able to come up with some very sharp images of

this scene. If you are really serious about landscapes, you may consider the 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 which at least

has a distance scale, although I think it still lacks a hyperfocal scale, or a decent wide angle manual focus

lens that has both. I personally don't think I could own a lens without a distance scale for a week without

putting some tape on it and calibrating my own!

I did a little research for you and came up with this link: <br /><br />

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_14-42_3p5-5p6_o20/page4.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_14-42_3p5-5p6_o20/page4.asp</a>

<br /><br />

Hope that helps out.

I use this camera with the 14-54mm lens. As Patrick says, I've found this particular lens to be most sharp at f8-f11. I

set the AF point to the center mark so I can tell the camera what to focus on. I am surprised at times that it will focus

on a thin blade of grass or limb that is out-of-focus through the viewfinder because it's outside the depth of field. Now I

use the LCD monitor to zoom in on images to make sure I'm getting the sharp focus where I want.

 

Check on this site for posts on changing the screen in the E510 to one more useful for manual focusing if you find this is

a better method than using AF. It's more like a film experience although the viewfinder is smaller and darker, at least

when I compare it to my OM-1.

 

You can download hyperfocal scales from different websites to use as a guide for infinity focuses.

Patrick is right about hyperfocal!

 

For years I have been using prime zuikos. It was simply a case of focussing on the nearest spot I wanted sharp, noting

the distance; then focussing on the most distant spot; then lining both distances up between the f-stop markers. This

way it was easy to get full front to back sharpness even at lower f-stops like 5.6 or 8. It became second nature and very

quick.

 

Now I have the digital 12-60 and things are not so easy. It is frustrating to get home and find that distant mountains and

trees are indistinct blobs - because the review images on the camera back (510) are rubbish. Zoomed in, there is no

sharpness, just artifacts. Which is rubbish.

 

Seriously - a "decent" lens like the 12-60 DEMANDS a hyperfocal scale ORan option to auto-hyperfocus: ie focus on

near point, then far point and the camera will hyperfocus automatically

Feedback appreciated.There is no hyperfocal distance scale on 14-42,and the manual focusing ring is of endless rotating construction,with no markings at all.I've used manual focus as well,diopter was adjusted from the very first minute of course and tests with manual focus lenses proved good for short distances,but awfully blurred for longer than say,20 metres.My Planars rendered a contrasty,underexposed by 1 fstop image,which is adjusted by any novice through PS auto levels,auto contrast,and were of excellent resolving power,far above 14-42 lens.Tests made with 14-54 lens,produced a slightly sharper image,even when the lens was mounted on an E-3,but it wasn't possible to test the camera in real infinity conditions at Olympus local service last week,because of bad weather conditions.

Due to the fact that I am mainly a landscape photographer,the whole situation is very embarassing and I doubt if there is a way to improve these poor quality results because whenever infinity focusing seems allright,the results on my screen are awful.See another example at 14mm,F8.<div></div>

So,the question remains the same.What is faulty here?The camera or the lens?A crop from a portrait,taken with Planar 1,4/50.<div></div>

well, that doesn't help at all because it is not focussed at infinity!

 

go outside and take a snap of something at optical infinity....

One thing I see in both your shots of the city, a great deal of haze in the distance. At infinity the image becomes considerably flat as a result. That will cause a perception of softness, however neither shot is what I would call OOF. Both shots seem to lack contrast in the distance, but I can still make out identifiable structures at the greatest distance, towers on the top of the hill in the BG.

 

Were these shot as jpgs, and were you using a UV filter? It would have a affect on how the shot looks. I think you might realize a better result using raw. You could then process the image to the look you want. I did copy the image and play with it in PS 7. A bit of sharpening and a 20% boost to the contrast provided a much better image.

My portfolio here shows that I also use PS to alter my images, and I always had a thing with filters during exposure,especially PL.Here,with E-510,the shots are made to test the camera as is,and not my photographic knowledge or abilities.I think of sending it back for testing and if someone there could find a way to make a well defined infinity image out-of-camera,then I'll keep it.

Al Zuniga:Dpreview is a site I trust,and I have printed and studied their extensive tests,adjustments in noise filter and noise reduction along with sharpness,well before I decided to buy this camera and lens.

William:I am already tired of clicking and hoping the next one will be in focus!I played with F22 and 14mm with no result and everyone involved in photography understands that this combination can produce a sharp DOF from 0,40cm to sun and stars,at least on a manual focus Distagon.

Another drawback is that C-AF and C-AF+MF are frequently inactive when selecting one program after another,sth not mentioned anywhere in the manual.

f22 is never going to give you much sharpness, even on a lens designed for a 35mm camera

 

Try f5.6.

 

Set anti-shock on (4 secs minimum) Put the camera on a tripod, switch off IS. Set the ISO to 100. Focus at infinity, wait

for the wind to die down and fire the shutter.

 

If objects at optical infinity are not in focus then you could have a lens or camera problem.

 

Change the lens.

 

Try again then

 

If objects at optical infinity are in focus then the camera has a problem.

 

 

(btw I get sometimes get out-of focus shots with my 12-60 focussing at infinity using auto-focus. The focus just doesn't

lock on properly sometimes. I can focus on several points of say, a distant mountain, and the focus will be ranging in

and out. It's pretty poor really. Manual focus is better)

oops, meant:

 

If objects at optical infinity are in focus then the first LENS has a problem.

William.Anti shock at 4secs,IS off,tripod,F5,6 for 8 secs,manual focus...a 3X crop.Seems better?<div></div>

looks pretty sharp to me; but maybe you could try again in daylight so the horizon is visible?

I have already contacted Olympus Japan and I'll let everyone know about how they'll face the situation of this problematic camera and lens.

"Here,with E-510,the shots are made to test the camera as is,and not my photographic knowledge or abilities."

 

Photis, Before I buy anything, I use every feature on the camera. If you don't challenge the camera with your knowledge of photography, how will you ever learn whether it will work? Using the automatic settings provides nothing but an average image. The camera should be tuned to your style through experimentation with the various setting in raw.

 

I use both a E-510 and an E-500. I still use the original kit lenses, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm f/3.5-5.6, on both bodies. I also use have a 70-300mm /f 4-5.6 and a 35mm f/3.5 Macro. I also have a number of well used OM manual lenses that operate perfectly on the modern hardware. I wouldn't personally shoot a wedding with anything no matter what the price.

 

The E-510 is reliable well made camera. The kit lens is rated standard/consumer grade by Zuiko. Put the extra money into the pro grade 12-60mm or 14-54mm II f/2.8-3.5 lens. You'll get the sharpness that you expect.

I'm late in this thread, but has anybody pointed out that the ZD lenses focus past infinity?

 

They do, so simply racking a lens all the way out using the manual focus ring (which is focus-by-wire with all but the SWD lenses) will not necessarily correctly focus at infinity.

 

I'd recommend doing these experiments using live view zoom, stopped down no more than a single stop or so, and focus by eye. Repeat using SAF. And ensure test conditions will provide the level of detail you're hoping to see (e.g., a clear day, etc.)

 

--Rick

Test conditions:A clear day.SAF.14-42 F8,ISO 100.<div></div>

I have a similar problem, but only with Autofocus. I can manually focus to perfection near infinity using the magnified live view. However, when I try to AF on distant subjects such as trees, clouds, mountains etc, it gets it wrong probably 9 times out of 10.

 

It's not THAT far off, but it is off enough to notice on a larger print.

 

Here are the things I've discovered so far:

 

1. The problem is worst at wide angles. At 14mm on my 14-54 the AFis accurate most of the time near infinity. However at 12mm and 9mm on my 9-18 and 12-60, the AF is nearly useless for infinity subjects.

 

2. Accuracy increases with focal length, but the infinity point changes quite dramatically with focal length too. Correct focus at infinity on my 12-60 at 12mm is *right at the end* of the scale (turn till it stops). However at 60mm, correct infinity focus is right in the middle of the figure of eight mark.

 

3. It's not just the E510. My E1 and E500 do the same. In fact, the E510 is the most accurate of the lot. Also, my 11-22, 9-18 and 12-60 all suffer from this problem.

 

4. It's not just Olympus. The 350D I have at work does the same. If you try to AF near infinity, the focus 'twitches' or 'dances' around the infinity mark every time you half-press the shutter. It gets perfect sharpness only about half of the time.

 

If this sounds like what you're experiencing, welcome to the club!

 

The only conclusion I have reached so far is that phase detect autofocus systems in SLR cameras is basically rubbish at properly focusing on very fine details. And that basically is the problem, because when you go to wide angle, everything at infinity (ie: trees) is very small and fine.

 

The CDAF system on the E520 live view is far more accurate, in my experience.

 

David

Went to the sea yesterday,after buying another kit lens,the 40-150.It seems better than 14-42,although the tests I read say it's "not as sharp as 14-42".The camera was supported on the table,S-AF,F8,14mm focal distance set on the capture you can see here.Made various shots,short to long distances.

<p>Long distances have always got the poor Olympus 14-42 quality,no matter what one does with manual focusing or screen selectable AF zone.I'll post more examples with my new 40-150 shortly.

<p>Thank you for your concern.<div></div>

14-42 :Olympus poor quality.Digital nothing.

<p>Tripod,F8,center AF.Nobody's choice.<div></div>

<p>My apologies for not following the thread a bit more closely.<br>

Just out of curiosity Photis, are you shooting RAW or JPEG or both? If your shooting RAW, what software are you using to convert your RAW files for import into Photoshop?</p>