what’s wrong with this picture…

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

p5230042

Except for being converted to a jpg format from the original RAW, the photo above is just as it came out of the camera.  No adjustments have been made but the faults are obvious.  Subject matter notwithstanding, the most noticeable fault is the composition.  Let’s assume that the subject is interesting.  A huge assumption, I grant you, but it’s suitable for our purpose.  That purpose is actually part of a test of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II and the 14-42mm lens.  I picked this subject because it had a lot of nice detail and I was hoping the camera could do a good job of resolving it.

With that in mind, I didn’t pay very much attention to the composition (an error on my part) but it is a reasonably good example of the close-focusing capability of the lens.   The photo below is the same photo with some Lightroom adjustments.  The photo was shot at 42mm, 1/100th sec., f8, ISO 200 handheld:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

p5230042

The adjusted photo is cropped somewhat and some of the green color tones are desaturated.  Some clarity was added to the seed head as well.  I’m happy with this shot overall but it still needed to be cropped even more (close to a 1:1 ratio) to see how well the camera resolved the features of the seed head.  Below is the cropped portion of the same photo.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

p5230042

There were more adjustments made which included additional sharpening and color control.  It’s difficult to see in a 1200 pixel web version but the original looks excellent on my monitor.  I’ll have to see what it looks like printed.  While I don’t think the kit lens is as capable as a dedicated macro lens, I’m more than happy with its performance.  I’ll be doing extended testing on the camera and lens combination in the near future but I will say that my first impressions are very favorable.

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “what’s wrong with this picture…

  1. disperser

    Unless I’m way off, that’s at most a 640-pixel photo. If you uploaded a 1200-pixel version, it’s not linked to the photo (clicking on it does nothing).

    This photo would benefit from a larger version being shown.

    Reply
    1. oneowner Post author

      Thanks, Ash. I try not to get too technical because most folks aren’t interested. But to tell the truth, This is the kind of post I find most interesting.

      Reply
    1. oneowner Post author

      Thanks, AJ. I used to write technical reports for a living and sometimes I get carried away. The camera is in a trial period because I wanted something small and lightweight but handles like a traditional camera. While this isn’t a pocket camera, it’s small enough to be much less of a burden to carry compared to the 610. I like it because it has a lot of controls from buttons and switches (rather than going through a menu system) and the ability to easily function in a fully manual mode. Not that I’m a control freak or anything but…..

      Reply
  2. bluebrightly

    Yes, lots of controls and buttons! I have the OM D EM1, which is similar, and I’ve been very happy with it. What I’m wondering now is if the kit lens that came with mine, also 14 – 42mm, is the same as the one that came with your EM10 Mark II camera. I wasn’t thrilled with my kit lens and put it away but told myself recently that I have to get it out and play with it again.
    For macros, I really like the m Zuiko 60 mm macro lens. It’s sharp, has image stabilization (I never use tripods) and it’s really bright. A pleasure to use.
    I enjoyed the post, naturally! Everything you say about the photograph makes sense – it’s so easy to forget composition when you’re thinking about something else. The crop does look nice and sharp.

    Reply
    1. oneowner Post author

      Thanks, Lynn. I’m not sure if the kit lenses are the same but I’m pleasantly surprised by the quality of this one. The camera also comes with a 40-150mm but I haven’t received that lens yet. By the end of this week, I’ll be getting an adapter to put my Nikon lens onto the Oly. It’s strictly manual in all respects but I usually shoot macros in manual mode anyway. I plan on writing a report on the adapter and the 40-150 after I have a chance to try them out. I’m interested in the 60mm macro, too. I haven’t ruled that out either.. I use the Nikon macro lens for (about) 50% of my shots, so I know the value of a good macro. Your macro shots are outstanding and I’ve admired them for quite a while. If I decide to get the Oly 60mm I’ll get good use of it and I’ll still be able to use the adapter for the bellows attachment and focusing rail. Decisions, decisions!

      Reply
      1. bluebrightly

        Adapters make sense, I think – and who knows, maybe it will come in handy for something down the road. I have this vintage lens that required an adapter. It’s really difficult to focus but when I work at it, I can get interesting shots that I wouldn’t get any other way. I look forward to hearing how everything goes.

  3. serialphotographer

    I owned that lens and have to say I loved it, the resolving power was superb given it’s outlay an absolute no brainer for an walkabout lens especially on that camera with is as good as that.

    As for the finished shot I love it

    Reply
    1. oneowner Post author

      Thanks, SP. I still have a few more days in my trial period but I really like this camera/lens. I purchased an adapter to mount my Nikon macro lens on the Oly and, though I’ve only tried a few test shots, it seems to work fine. I’m okay with the totally manual operation but we will see how it performs in the field. Stay tuned.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s