PDA

View Full Version : E-M1, 50-200 SWD, EC-14 and Sparrows


Olybirder
2nd November 2013, 12:42 PM
I tried using the E-M1 with my 50-200 SWD and EC-14 converter today for the first time. The only victims available were the usual Sparrows in my garden, so apologies for posting them again. These are JPEGs, straight from the camera with no post processing, just cropped and resized for web viewing, so I make to claim to any intrinsic merit in them. I was just interested in seeing how the lens and converter worked with the E-M1.

Generally, focusing was quite fast, although it did stutter a few times. It is probably not quite as fast as the E-30 but not far behind. It definitely doesn't like focusing on horizontal lines, like the fence top. I have to say it feels incredibly heavy after the 75-300 II, especially with the HLD-7 grip attached.


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1175/EC-14_Sparrow_1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/67210)


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1175/EC-14_Sparrow_2.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/67211)


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1175/EC-14_Sparrow_3.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/67212)


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1175/EC-14_Sparrow_4.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/67213)


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1175/EC-14_Sparrow_5.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/67214)


Ron

timd1230
2nd November 2013, 02:06 PM
But as for the quality - pretty impressive

David Morison
2nd November 2013, 03:18 PM
But do you feel it is better than the 75-300mm?

David

DavyG
2nd November 2013, 03:28 PM
Nice examples Ron.

Have you tried removing the EC-14 and using the E-M1's digital teleconverter or trying the 50-200 with both?

I tried my 50-200, with the EC-20 and the digital teleconverter today, I think this equates to a 200-800 lens, I'll test this with the Bigma if we get some decent weather tomorrow.

Dave

Gwyver
2nd November 2013, 04:21 PM
Ron,
These show perfectly what a wonderful optical combination the 50-200 + EC14 are.

However I found it too heavy to comfortably take on walkabouts, and when the AF seemed so unsatisfactory on the E-M5 I decided to sell the lens.

I have some regrets about parting with the 50-200, but console myself with the thought that it's fairly pointless keeping a lens that is seldom used. Whether I'll still feel the same when I get an E-M1.....

banjukes
2nd November 2013, 05:21 PM
Superb shots, the sparrows look like they're going to jump out of the screen. I'm blown away by the E-M1.

Olybirder
2nd November 2013, 05:22 PM
Thanks for the comments. I have only used this combination for about half-an-hour so I don't really know how it compares to the 75-300. The maximum aperture of the 75-300 at full zoom is 6.7, whereas with the 50-200 and EC-14 it is 4.9. That might be a slight advantage in poor light. The 50-200 is also splash proof, whereas the 75-300 isn't.

However, the 75-300 is so light and the focusing is lightning fast and that makes it a very attractive proposition. I will have to use both of them for a while before I know which is the more useful for me.

Ron

bilbo
2nd November 2013, 05:43 PM
Looking good Ron! :)

TonyR
2nd November 2013, 06:51 PM
Nice examples Ron.

Have you tried removing the EC-14 and using the E-M1's digital teleconverter or trying the 50-200 with both?

I tried my 50-200, with the EC-20 and the digital teleconverter today, I think this equates to a 200-800 lens, I'll test this with the Bigma if we get some decent weather tomorrow.

Dave

I have never used an Oly digital teleconverter before. What happens to the focus point when using it? Do you just see a smaller array of larger points? Or do you see the full array with each covering a smaller area?

David Morison
2nd November 2013, 06:54 PM
I have never used an Oly digital teleconverter before. What happens to the focus point when using it? Do you just see a smaller array of larger points? Or do you see the full array with each covering a smaller area?

Larger points.

David

photo_owl
2nd November 2013, 07:26 PM
I tried my 50-200, with the EC-20 and the digital teleconverter today, I think this equates to a 200-800 lens, I'll test this with the Bigma if we get some decent weather tomorrow.

Dave

not trying to be 'picky' but the digital tele-convertor is just a digital zoom and doesn't change the lens in use at all ie it's still a 100-400; just viewed at 2x in the viewfinder, or on the monitor (exactly as if you turned the dial to 2x).

the dof, compression etc will all be as for a 100-400

dogsbody
2nd November 2013, 07:38 PM
great images, I am looking forward to giving mine a whirl.

David Morison
2nd November 2013, 07:50 PM
not trying to be 'picky' but the digital tele-convertor is just a digital zoom and doesn't change the lens in use at all ie it's still a 100-400; just viewed at 2x in the viewfinder, or on the monitor (exactly as if you turned the dial to 2x).

the dof, compression etc will all be as for a 100-400

If you turn the dial to 2x you effectively get half the pixels, with the DTC you still get the full number - so something else is going on! And DavyG only said "equates" to 200-800mm in terms of magnification.

David

photo_owl
2nd November 2013, 08:49 PM
... DavyG only said "equates" to 200-800mm in terms of magnification.

David

I missed that bit......

raichea
2nd November 2013, 10:16 PM
- so something else is going on!
David
The something else is upscaling... so 3 out of 4 pixels (2x in horizontal and vertical directions) are invented by the cameras CPU.... based on existing data, for sure, but you can do all that on your computer. I really don't see the point of this for still photography.

Steve.

Ross the fiddler
3rd November 2013, 12:38 AM
The something else is upscaling... so 3 out of 4 pixels (2x in horizontal and vertical directions) are invented by the cameras CPU.... based on existing data, for sure, but you can do all that on your computer. I really don't see the point of this for still photography.

Steve.

Yes you can do it on the computer, but the camera does a very good job of it & if you are going to use the jpeg out the camera then it's worthwhile (I would still save the raw as well though).

Phill D
3rd November 2013, 07:30 AM
For me the x2 dtc does help with selecting the composition at the time of taking the shot. Sometimes I agree it's better to crop and select afterwards but sometimes when I know what I want to get I like to have the close up view to concentrate the composition better. Horses for courses for me and I like having the option to use it or not. Nice sparrow shots by the way.

David Morison
3rd November 2013, 07:39 AM
Another advantage of the DTC, even using RAW, is that it gives you a larger image to help positioning the AF small spot over a very small subject when using a long telephoto lens handheld. OK, magnify function can do that but that's a minimum of 5x and I don't think AF works when the image is magnified?

David

OM USer
3rd November 2013, 12:51 PM
... I don't think AF works when the image is magnified?

It does in the E-M5 so I suspect it will on the E-M1

Zuiko
3rd November 2013, 12:59 PM
The something else is upscaling... so 3 out of 4 pixels (2x in horizontal and vertical directions) are invented by the cameras CPU.... based on existing data, for sure, but you can do all that on your computer. I really don't see the point of this for still photography.

Steve.

Try it, you might be surprised at the quality that is retained. :)

raichea
3rd November 2013, 01:53 PM
Try it, you might be surprised at the quality that is retained. :)
I know upscaling can be OK-ish in certain situations, although, personally, I can't remember the last time I upscaled an image. The only reason I bother to comment is that some seem to attache some mystique to DTC, when it is simply cropping and upscaling.

David Morison
3rd November 2013, 03:50 PM
I know upscaling can be OK-ish in certain situations, although, personally, I can't remember the last time I upscaled an image. The only reason I bother to comment is that some seem to attache some mystique to DTC, when it is simply cropping and upscaling.

Just because it is not mystical doesn't mean it's not useful.

raichea
3rd November 2013, 04:21 PM
Just because it is not mystical doesn't mean it's not useful.
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you should.

magicaxeman
3rd November 2013, 04:47 PM
Whats the AF speed/accuracy like using just the 50-200 with the MMF3 on the EM1?

Is there a slight degradation when using the EC 14?

Glee
3rd November 2013, 04:56 PM
Nice, I never mind sparrows, terrific little birds and the world would duller without them.

birdboy
3rd November 2013, 05:16 PM
Yes these are really detailed pictures. I particularly like the plumage in the first one.

I know upscaling can be OK-ish in certain situations, although, personally, I can't remember the last time I upscaled an image. The only reason I bother to comment is that some seem to attache some mystique to DTC, when it is simply cropping and upscaling.

I made the assumption that it was simply cropping and now find that it is more than that as you say upscaling and for jpgs OOC I think that's a plus. I have noticed that if you take raw only you do not get the advantage of upscaling. In the ned I suppose its now much post processing you want to do.

David Morison
3rd November 2013, 05:29 PM
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you should.

But if it's useful why would you not try it?

raichea
3rd November 2013, 06:26 PM
But if it's useful why would you not try it?
That's where we differ... I don't see the usefulness of it. I just don't like discarding data in the camera.

But it's horses for courses... I teach digital photography on occasions and, while I tell my students not to use digital zoom and that upscaling is, in general, not a good thing and give them reasons why I say so, I finish by telling them if it works for you, fill your boots.

brian1208
3rd November 2013, 06:41 PM
I know some people get excellent results but I haven't yet convinced myself that the result is as good as simply cropping the image and resizing afterwards (over many attempts, because the extra "reach" would be invaluable for my birding and nature work)

Maybe someone will discover and share the secret to making this work to best effect?

photo_owl
3rd November 2013, 07:14 PM
That's where we differ... I don't see the usefulness of it. I just don't like discarding data in the camera.

But it's horses for courses... I teach digital photography on occasions and, while I tell my students not to use digital zoom and that upscaling is, in general, not a good thing and give them reasons why I say so, I finish by telling them if it works for you, fill your boots.

I both agree and disagree, which partly fueled my initial response *chr

As long as you understand what's actually happening the question, as David poses, becomes whether it can, in some way, help you.

Personally I can see it being very useful as part of the overall focus options, but, as a Creative Suite user the upscaling doesn't benefit me in the way it might for others.

Ross the fiddler
3rd November 2013, 10:21 PM
Try it, you might be surprised at the quality that is retained. :)

I know upscaling can be OK-ish in certain situations, although, personally, I can't remember the last time I upscaled an image. The only reason I bother to comment is that some seem to attache some mystique to DTC, when it is simply cropping and upscaling.

Like John said, "try it", then let us know your comments. It is pointless making negative comments about a feature if you haven't actually tried it. I didn't think it was so useful until I actually tried it too.

Ross the fiddler
3rd November 2013, 10:56 PM
I know some people get excellent results but I haven't yet convinced myself that the result is as good as simply cropping the image and resizing afterwards (over many attempts, because the extra "reach" would be invaluable for my birding and nature work)

Maybe someone will discover and share the secret to making this work to best effect?

Depending on the after program used you can compare the 100% crop view of both & notice how smoothly & detailed the OOC jpeg is with the DTC. Using Olympus Viewer 3 for upsizing it (from raw) isn't as good as the camera, but certain other programs may be better. The other thing with the E-M1 is the sharpening is apparently selectively applied to the in focus areas only (for the jpegs according to one reviewer).

Anyhow, the sparrow photos look nice & crisp in detail.

*chr