photis santamouris

How can I upload images?

9 hours ago, William Michael said:

The lighter frame suits.

Good eye, really nice capture.

WW

I appreciate your approval William.

9 hours ago, William Michael said:

Expanding:

This is one example of why edit time is 10 minutes, (originally it was zero):  - if the OP deleted the first image, then some of the comments following (i.e the critique which was requested), would not make sense.

WW

A member since 2007,absent for 10 yrs,I really try to understand/evaluate the present PN site appearance.

Done.How can I delete the first one?

6 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

 I really like this too! Well spotted! 

A matter of taste but personally, I find the frame a bit 'heavy' (and distracting). A heavy black frame always reminds me of funeral notices 😉.

You might want to try a 'lighter, thinner' greyish-white frame. Perhaps a similar color to the ice crystals?

The Temple of Olympian Zeus

<p>Brian.<br /> It's about circuitry,LiveMOS sensor and default factory settings.I quote dpreview:</p>

<h4>"Noise Filter</h4>

<p>As already discussed turning off the camera's Noise Filter option can deliver more detail, although obviously at the expense of more visible noise, especially from ISO 400 up. We also noted that the default sharpening level appears to be designed to recover some of the sharpness lost by the Noise Filter but that baseline of sharpness doesn't decrease in line with the Noise Filter setting, hence you need to reduce sharpness if you turn down the Noise Filter."<br /> So try this combination and you may see quite a difference when enlarging full size.I do this from the very beggining,because trial and error had conviced me that their test results are true for my camera as well.<br /> Hope you achieve better quality once you have this combination set,and the only problem you can face in image quality could be when noise shows its ugly face at higher ISO.<br /> Best regards.</p><div></div>

<p>Brian.<br>

Sorry for being so late.After fixing the AF(this took around a month,meanwhile I was given a replacement body)the camera never stopped making pictures,but the quality is not what you can get from other brands of APS-C size,or a full frame,no matter which lens you use.I strongly believe that the limitation is the small 4/3rds sensor.As far as your focusing problems are concerned,I recommend you have your gear serviced,because I'm sure they can fix the AF problem,so you'll get the most out of your camera.The quality differences between lenses are minor if the AF is not carefully calibrated.Anyway,I don't think 14-45 is better than 14-42 and worth trying.I've made images with 14-54 which is a little better,but it's impossible to exceed 2000lines,no matter which lens you use.The best is 50/2.0 macro,but for those who really need it.<br>

My piece of advice is to set Sharpness to -2 and turn noise filter to OFF.That way picture resolution seems much better than with factory settings.Leave noise reduction to ON as this is useful for low light conditions.Reduce exposure by at least 0,3(to avoid highlight clipping,which seems inevitable with this camera).Do not use ISO 800-1600,as picture quality becomes worse because of noise.<br>

Thank you for your time spent here.</p>

<p>Al,thanks for your concern and being so helpful.<br>

All images I've uploaded in this forum are raw images(meaning no PS post treatment, just out-of-the-camera jpegs),posted on purpose just to illustrate what this camera and lens can achieve in terms of overall quality and focusing at infinity,and not to prove how good the photographer is,either in shooting or post processing.<br>

I use the Adobe sRGB on camera and Photoshop as well.<br>

Tripod and usually high speeds are selected when light permits and serious work has to be accomplished.<br>

The outfit with 14-42 was returned to the local Olympus dealer,40-150 remains at home,and if they won't do sth about it ,it'll be their mistake.<br>

It's just that I can't accept such low quality image making,after so many years of shooting on film and using high quality prime lenses,either with 135 or 120 sizes.<br>

Mail exchange with Japan hasn't proved fruitful so far,and I can do without this camera and lens,as long as it takes,because they just haven't gained my approval.<br>

As far as the image you've corrected is concerned,fact is that increasing the contrast and sharpening in such extent,except making the image look sharper and brighter,cannot really hide the equipment's shortcomings and defects, to the eyes of the experienced photographer.<br>

I'll sure let you know for whatever comes up.Many thanks.</p>

<p>I strongly doubt.<br>

On my E-510 not one out of my 7 CONTAX Carl Zeiss T* lenses can reach infinity focus.<br>

I've informed Fotodiox.Got no answer.The adaptor is at least 1-2mm thicker than it should be,not allowing the lenses to reach infinity.<br>

Signs of the times.Mechanical nonsense coupled with digital nothing.<br>

For anyone interested,see my thread on E-510 with 14-42.<br>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00RaEQ>here</a></p><div></div>

<p>Both jpeg and raw.I use Olympus Master 2,but my first target is lens quality.I also have 40-150 kit lens,which resolves more lpm and seems better,but Planars and Sonnars are really top notch,if you are patient and shoot inside,usually tripod mounted and live view magnifying(although my Fotodiox adapter also refuses to focus Carl Zeiss T* lenses at infinity).<br>

This week I'm gonna send both(bought new in November 2008) camera and 14-42 to Portugal,because I'm tired of poor quality results,focusing problems especially in low light (which turns the screen in a B&W digital nonsense),lack of C-AF in most cases and camera shake,either in IS 1 or 2.<br>

I really don't feel proud of one single image I've made with this camera.<br>

Many thanks for your feedback</p><div></div>

14-42 :Olympus poor quality.Digital nothing.

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

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>

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.

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>

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.

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>

Has anyone tried to fit a prime, 1974-2000 Zeiss prime CONTAX RTS lens via a

(Fotodiox maybe) adapter on Olympus E-410,420,510 etc, four thirds SLR

bodies?How does it manage with focus,exposure and quality?