Zuiko 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 zoom, OM-D E-M10, MMF-3 Adapter

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by VidThreeNorth, Apr 13, 2019.

  1. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    "Olympus Digital" Zuiko 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 zoom, First Use
    Olympus "MMF-3" 43 to M43 adapter
    Olympus OM-D E-M10
    Monopod

    [I had originally planned to test this lens at least twice before posting anything, but I am running short of disc space again and decided that the files from this test could be "moved to storage" sooner rather than later. So I'm writing up this much for now.]

    Looking at all my equipment as of the beginning of March, 2019, I did not feel that I had much that rose above "entry level" in either image quality or other capabilities. Specifically, my general lack of low light optics meant that I was to that extent, restricted to sunny day photography. Only my dedicated camcorders could be counted on for use in available light indoors, and they would often give up quality in such situations.

    I have a couple of primes in this range, but I did not expect to find a good quality auto-focus zoom brighter than F3.5 for any of my cameras. In a near miracle, I found a Zuiko "4:3" 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 zoom. This is only a "near" miracle. The "4:3" format is the DSLR predecessor of the "Micro 4:3" ("M43") system. That means it is NOT a native M43 system lens and needs an adapter, which is always, to a degree, a step into the unknown.


    History:

    The Zuiko 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 debuted in 2003 with the first "4:3" camera and like the camera itself, was a "Halo" product aimed at professionals and pro-sumers. During the run of "4:3" cameras, none of the bodies exceeded 12MP, which is where the "Micro 4:3" cameras started. All indications were that this lens, and probably the whole lens lineup, were capable of better.

    In 2008, Olympus updated the lens with their "II" version. From what information I could find, there is no optical difference between the two lenses. Both are 15 elements in 11 groups with 3 aspherical glass elements. The new lens had a new drive system. The description sounds like a "linear motor", but DPreview.com lists it as a "micro-motor". The new drive was intended to combine with a new version of the focussing system for quicker focussing, which means the the control method and perhaps including the control signals, must have changed. I have not looked for more detailed information about this. Also, the 7 blade aperture (same number in both lenses) was rounded, so if you see the results of both lenses, you might be able to tell the difference by looking at bokeh. Otherwise, I expect identical performance.

    DPreview.com has three sample pictures from the "II" version taken on the OM-D E-M1 (16MP). The "best" picture is the Post Office at:

    "Olympus OM-D EM-1 preview samples"

    This shows "perfect" linearity. I am not sure how perfect the lens itself is. I think there is in-body correction.


    Not Perfect Compatibility

    I was looking forward to try this lens on my Yi-M1 with its 20MP sensor. Unfortunately, the body did not work with the lens through the MMF-3 adapter. The combination failed completely. The body identified "no lens". The focus would not respond -- even manually, and the aperture also failed. This leaves open a number of questions:

    Would the "II" version work through the "MMF-3" adapter?
    Would either lens work using a "Panasonic" adapter?

    I tried the lens and adapter on my Lumix GF-3 and it worked properly, so it seems likely that it will work on the rest of the Panasonic line, including their recent 20MP bodies, so we might yet see how the good the lens' optics perform at that level.
    [2019-05-19 23:18 NOTE: I recently found out that support for these Olympus 4:3 lenses is NOT consistent on all Panasonic M4:3 bodies. See reply #9 below.]

    [Also] be aware that if you buy a M4:3 camera other than Olympus or Panasonic, you might run into this problem.


    More Random Specs:

    Diameter: 74 mm (2.89″)
    Filter thread: 67 mm
    Length: 87 mm (3.43″)
    Weight: 435 g (0.96 lb)
    Environmental Sealing: Yes
    Colour: Black
    Zoom method: Rotary (extending)
    Hood supplied: Yes


    Testing:

    I would have preferred to have tested it on a 20MP body, but the only one I have is the Yi-M1, so this test was a full Olympus setup using my E-M10 body and the MMF-3 adapter, and my monopod. The temperature was above freezing, but breezy. The sky was mixed sun and clouds, with about 50% coverage while I was out.


    Handling:

    Focussing:

    Manual focus works about as well as my Olympus 40-150mm F4-5.6 M4:3 zoom. I did not try it much, and deliberately did not take any manually focussed pictures in this set. When I do testing, I try to limit my tests so I can come to specific conclusions. Auto-focus takes longer than my 40-150mm zoom, but I am not sure whether it is faster than my 18-55mm A-mount zoom on my a5000. They work very differently. Mostly, the Zuiko zoom has a brief pause, then moves quickly to near the focus, and then slows down to a crawl till it finds focus. Occasionally it has to "restart" the processes. If the focus is close, then sometimes it will just "crawl" a bit and get it right. Focussing can take from a couple of seconds to around ten seconds. I might come to a more definite conclusion someday, after a lot more use.

    Olympus warns that adapted lenses focus slower than the lens working on its native body. The Sony A-mount to E-mount adapters have similar issues. I have generally accepted this limitation, but lately, "not so much". Canon and Nikon faced the same issues adapting their lenses, and the reports are that there is no such focussing speed difference when adapting their DSLR lenses to their new Mirror-less ILC bodies.

    Other Handling:

    There is not much I can say so far. I like the zoom control. Since the main lens moves progressively in a single direction while zooming, the control does not have a change in torque during zooming, which means that I might have a good "slow zoom" for video. The ~3.8:1 zoom ratio might make this useful. I have not yet looked at focus breathing nor focus shifting while zooming ("par focus").

    Yes, the lens is heavy, but I do not find it excessive. I do wish that the MMF-3 adapter had a tripod mount, but the thickness of the adapter is not as great as the Canon, Nikon and Sony equivalents, so structurally, it might not have been as good an idea.


    Results:

    I had intended to find out what the maximum apertures were through the zoom range, but the information was not provided in the EXIF data. Instead, the lens always reported the max. aperture as "2.97265625" (roughly "2.8"). This is my second Olympus zoom and both of them report the maximum aperture as the overall maximum of the lens. I am starting to think that this is just Olympus' interpretation of what this value should be. All other zoom lenses that I have tried report the maximum aperture at that particular focal length, which is more useful information. Olympus should "correct" this.

    I have only looked at three of the ORFs (raw files) so far. These were at 14mm, 19mm and 54mm. I was looking for lens linearity, and general performance issues. I have no current intentions of looking further at ORFs from this batch of files.

    Due to the subject matter, I cannot tell much about corner sharpness or field flatness. I need to find a brick wall for that. The only files I have from 14mm show soft corners, but since the corners were much closer to me than the focus point, it is meaningless.

    As I noted before, the final pictures I made from the ORFs show "perfect linearity". I doubt that this is true. It is more likely that Corel PaintShop Pro is applying lens correction based on a header parameter. The program is supposed to turn this off if I chose to bypass lens corrections, and I have tried this before, and the bypass does not seem to work. So I cannot say for certain how linear the lens is. But sharpness and detail off axis is generally "very good" to "excellent" through most focal length, focus distance and aperture combinations. In this group of files, long distances seem to soften the images throughout the zoom range, but this might be the subject matter.

    The following are the uploaded images from this test. No sharpening or noise reduction was used for any of these uploaded files. Then again, most of these, including the "detail crops" are based on the camera JPEGs, which used Olympus' standard noise reduction and sharpening. In the files are reduced, only very bad noise or lack of sharpness will show up. Aside from the cropping or resizing only two files have had any adjustments at all (the two created from the ORFs) and I have described the changes.

    "P4090022.JPG"
    - 54mm, near
    2019-04-09 13:14:38
    Size: 7,960,080 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop f/3.5
    Exposure time 1/320 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Focal length 54mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [108 mm]

    "P4090022-1b-rsz1283-C1.jpg"

    Conversion from ORF:
    White balance "As Shot"
    Temperature 5565
    Tint 100
    - Lens correction "Off"
    - note that the Corel output lowered the exposure. This was not an adjustment that I made, however, I preferred the overall appearance, particularly the light coloured rock in the foreground, so I kept it this way.

    "P4090022a-Crop1280-C1.JPG"

    - Detail crop from Camera JPEG
    Crop From: 4607, 511
    1280 x 960

    The reduction down to 1280 was necessary to maintain the C1 compression without exceeding the 2MB upload limit. I was very happy with the quality of this image, both in the JPEG version and from what I saw in the ORF based version. The lens is definitely sharp.


    "P4090023.JPG"
    - changed focal length
    2019-04-09 13:14:46
    Size: 7,798,895 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF:
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop f/4
    Exposure time 1/320 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Focal length 40mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [80 mm]

    "P4090023a-rsz1440-C1.JPG"
    Resize: 1440 x 1080

    As noted, this is one of the pictures where I simply changed focal length looking for maximum aperture. That turned out to be a wasted effort, since the EXIF data did not report it. Still, the image quality did not change with the focal length. It remained very sharp and with good detail.


    "P4090027.JPG"
    - flowing grasses
    April 9, 2019, 13:15:22
    Size: 7,471,973 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF:
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop f/4.5
    Exposure time 1/400 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Focal length 19mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode Center Weighted Average

    "P4090027-2d-rsz1243-C1.jpg"
    Convert from ORF:
    Scenario: "As Shot"
    Temperature: 5722
    Tint: 100
    Highlight Recovery: "Normal"

    SmartFix
    Overall 28
    Shadows 0
    Highlights 10
    Saturation 21
    Focus 0 [44 recommended]
    White Balance Yes
    Black 6

    This file is the only one that I applied corections to exposure, colour balance and saturation. If you compare this with the "detail crop" below, which is based on the camera JPEG, without adjustments, you can see that Corel's "Smart Photo Fix" suggested a warmer and more saturated image, which in this case, I preferred.

    Each time I looked at an ORF and compared it to the camera JPEG, I was looking for linear distortion. Either there isn't any, which is unlikely or corrections are already in the ORFs. Probably the latter.


    "P4090027a-Crop1280-C1.JPG"
    - Detail crop from Camera JPEG
    Crop from
    4001, 1401
    1280 x 960



    "P4090041.JPG"
    - river tree
    April 9, 2019, 13:21:50
    Size: 7,940,387 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF:
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop f/5
    Exposure time 1/500 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Focal length 32mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average

    This is where "sharpening" creates anomalies in a picture. As far as I can tell, I actually focussed too close to myself. I think I was focussed on a batch of bubbles on the water, near the tree, but on my side of it, where there is a small "waterfall". Yet much of the far bank looks sharp. This is probably the result of sharpening being triggered by the contrast.
    [2019-04-23 22:30 I have looked at this picture and tried to remember what happened. I think I might have focussed further away than I thought. However, the two seagull shot was definitely focused at the distance of the birds. I actually focussed on the rock between them.]

    "P4090041a-rsz1440-C1.JPG"
    Resize: 1440 x 1080


    "P4090043.JPG"
    2 seagulls, [anti-social]

    Partial EXIF
    Date April 9, 2019, 13:22:24
    Size: 7,917,684 bytes [JPEG]
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop f/5
    Exposure time 1/640 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Focal length 54mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average

    "P4090043a-rsz1440-C1.jpg"
    Resize: 1440 x 1080

    Similarly, I am focussed on the seagulls, yet the objects on the far bank seem in focus or within the depth of field, and I do not think they should be as sharp as they are. I think sharpening was probably triggered by contrast. Still, the lens is performing quite well overall.


     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  2. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I have found a couple of reviews of this lens. I have had time to read the "Imaging Resource" review, and was surprised to find that the lens really does have near perfect linearity throughout the full zoom range. Sharpness and other characteristics confirm what I was seeing, including a touch of chromatic aberration at both ends of the zoom range. It was sad to find out that the CA does not change with aperture adjustment. This is something I have seen before, so it is not entirely surprising.

    The reported price was ~$450 US, which is almost double the cost of the Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital (~$249 US).

    "Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital"
    Lens Reviews / Olympus Lenses
    Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Review

    The version "II" model of this lens also has its own test and pretty much confirms what I thought about it. IR's test shows very close performance to the original model. I think that the results do not show a change in the optical design. The results are as close as I would expect in "production line variations." As I wrote above, the main advantages of the "II" are the rounded aperture and the (confirmed) faster focussing. The original cost was only ~$15 US higher for the "II", but used, there might be a bigger difference.
    [2019-0416 17:58 reworded last sentence for clarity.]
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    44,827
    Likes Received:
    17,051
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    A 14-54mm f/2.8~3.5 zoom sounds like a very handy walk-about/weekend/beach lens on a 2x FOV factor, crop sensor camera! Great focal length range, and pretty good max aperture values, with f/2.8 and f/3.5 at the extremes being relatively fast these days.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    @Derrel: I'm finding this lens is a very nice fit. The closest current lens is the Olympus M.Zuiko (M4:3) 12-40mm F2.8 (constant aperture) zoom. That zoom slightly outperforms this one for IQ in the overlapping range, but only by a very small difference, and this older lens has a range more suitable to my taste. Also, the 12-40mm list price was almost 2x the original price of the older lens. If Olympus came out with a new M4:3 mount version of the older lens at a price, maybe mid-way the two, I think I would actually prefer the 14-54. Also, though I still don't want to stick my neck out and say anything definite about the auto-focus, it hasn't been "terrible" so far. Overall, I think I'm going to find it a very good lens. Good thing I bought the E-M10 body though. . . .
    [2019-05-19 23:24 Corrected a typo.]

    Maximum Aperture Table:

    My first test was supposed to result in a table of values for the maximum apertures for each focal length. That failed. So I did it the less interesting, but actually easier way (for this camera) of copying manually set apertures at each focal length. Luckily, the E-M10 shows the focal lengths in the rear screen display, so it was actually very easy. I decided to match some of the numbers against my Panasonic Lumix G Vario Mega O.I.S 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 zoom, "H-FS014042":

    [Sorry for the simplified formatting. I don't understand how the formatting works yet.]
    Focal Length, Olympus 14-54, Panasonic 14-42
    14mm, f/2.8, f/3.5
    17mm, f/2.8, f/3.9
    18mm, [Untested], f/4.1
    19mm, f/2.9, [Untested]
    20mm, f/2.9, [Untested]
    22mm, f/3.0, [Untested]
    23mm, f/3.0 [No 24mm], [Untested]
    25mm, f/3.1, f/4.6
    29mm, f/3.2 [No 30mm], [Untested]
    31mm, f/3.2, [Untested]
    34mm, [Untested], f/5.3
    35mm, f/3.2, [35mm is marked on ring but not reported]
    39mm, [Untested], f/5.5
    40mm, f/3.3, [No 40mm]
    41mm, f/3.3, [No 41mm]
    42mm, f/3.3, f/5.6
    44mm, f/3.4, [Beyond Lens Capability]
    50mm, f/3.4, [Beyond Lens Capability]
    54mm, f/3.5, [Beyond Lens Capability]
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    44,827
    Likes Received:
    17,051
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Personally, I would rather have the 14-54 range rather than 12-40mm. To me, the much longer top end of 54m would be the reason, even though the 14-54mm has less wide-angle, I would prefer the longer top end, even though the 12-40 is a constant f/2.8.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    OM-D E-M10, Zuiko 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 Zoom
    MMF3 Adapter & Monopod


    Easter Report

    For roughly a half year now, I have had bad weather luck for photography. So came the Easter weekend, and clouds and rain for Friday and Saturday. The Toronto Star predicted cloud and sun mix for Sunday and Monday, but without committing to how much and when. With such a vague forecast I decided to take the Sunday afternoon for my photography day. I went on a hike and got lost following a new trail, and ended up covering about a mile overall, under a dull overly flat day, taking over 110 pictures, most of which I could be as happy without.

    Monday, I had "other things to do". The day started out overcast like the previous afternoon, but after lunch, the sky looked like it was clearing, and I decided to take some extra time and try again. This time, I did not get lost, and I only covered about 1/2 mile overall, and took another 95 pictures, which were generally more satisfactory.

    Still, with about 200 pictures over these two days, along with my previous tests, I think I can say a few things about this lens and camera setup.

    First, the image quality is definitely all I hoped it would be. It is the optically the best zoom lens I have on any ILC camera I have. Second, focussing has not been a problem. It might not be as fast as my native M4:3 lenses, but it is not that much slower. In good light, I think it was taking 1 - 2 sec. It might have even gotten under 1 sec. -- that is always hard to tell, because I am not paying attention to how long it takes, I am paying attention to the composition.

    As far as that is concerned, I would still advise preferring the "II" version of this lens, but for casual picture taking this is a noticeable step up from my first version Panasonic 14-42mm F3.5-5.6, which was not so bad in the first place. And I would also suggest that a Pro could reasonably keep one of these on the shelf as a backup studio lens, assuming ones studio work did not require lightning fast focussing, and an M4:3 camera is in use in the first place.

    I tried some manual focus using the "SAF+Manual" focussing setting (which is what I have been using for quite a while now). I am not really happy using that setting, but I want to give it a fair test and see if I can get sufficiently adjusted to it -- to see if it can be an advantage. If it is not an advantage, then I will try another setup by defining a button to switch to Manual focus.

    Just recently, I have also started to use "EV = +0.3" as my default exposure. I am trying to reduce noise on the ORFs. It would be better if I set the ISO-160 because right now, the JPEGs come out over exposed, which does not look very good. But I intended to make that change later.


    The HDR1 Setting:

    I also wanted to try one of the HDR settings on the E-M10. There are two HDR settings. The first -- "HDR1" takes four exposures and then builds the output file immediately following. As far as I can tell, one has no exposure related adjustments beyond choosing HDR1. It did not indicate that it paid attention to EV+= adjustments, though ISO probably has an affect.

    When taking the picture, the mechanical shutter mashes away for each exposure, with resulting the shutter-shock. Why? If you think about it, the main reason for using a mechanical shutter is to avoid "rolling shutter". But the very nature of the subject matter when using HDR makes that irrelevant. The Yi-M1 does not use its mechanical shutter at all during its HDR function and it has no problem. I think the E-M10 could take the four exposures a bit quicker if it did not use its mechanical shutter, and getting them all done as quickly as possible can be helpful for this function.

    The result of the HDR Mode for me was one JPEG and one ORF, which was probably the function obeying my general setting. The ORF seems to be the composite ORF from which the JPEG could be made. The camera probably builds the final image into a single buffer and then processes that buffer into the JPEG and ORF as the user specifies -- I'm just guessing.

    As you will see in the sample pictures, I ran into an interesting problem.

    The sparkles of the splashing stream waters took on colours. It looks like some kind of strange manifestation of chromatic aberration. I have no idea why this happened. When I checked the ORF, the colours are there. However, in more normal HDR1 usage it does not happen.

    Anyway, the following relates to the specific uploads:


    "P4210065.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - bike path
    Size: 7,426,838 bytes [JPEG]

    As I mentioned before, this lens suits me because I have more preference for the longer focal lengths than the wider. This is one of the few pictures I took at 14mm (28mm eq) since I got the lens.

    I mentioned above that I have been using "EV = +0.3 step" lately as a "default exposure" and that this results in over-exposed images. In this set of pictures, you can assume that pictures I actually processed from the ORF (raw) files were done because of this overexposure. I will point out other reasons if they occurred.

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-21 13:40:16
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/4.5
    Exposure time: 1/200 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias +0.3 step
    Focal length 14 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [28mm]

    "P4210065-1b-rsz1203-C1.jpg"

    - conversion from ORF:
    White balance:
    Scenario: As Shot
    Temperature: 5770
    Tint: 100
    Highlight recovery:
    Normal
    Lens correction: Enabled, Automatic
    OLYMPUS 14-54mm Lens
    Focal length: 14.0

    Smart Photo Fix:
    Brightness
    Overall: 28
    Highlights 10
    Saturation 22
    Focus 24
    White balance [Yes]
    Black: 6
    ---

    "P4210105.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - aka "nasty wedding photographer"
    - river past forest
    Size: 7,477,879 bytes

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-21 14:04:30
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/4.5
    Exposure time: 1/160 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias +0.3 step
    Focal length 25 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [50mm]

    At this point I am "lost", but looking at this picture and the order of others I took, I think I am just south of James Gardens. I called this "Nasty Wedding Photographer" because it resembles an arch in which such a photographer might use to pose a wedding party. A couple of weeks from now, the trees will have some green and it will look pretty nice. But right now, well, maybe with some lighting. . . . But the photographer would be mean to pose a party in the mud that was there on Easter Sunday.

    "P4210105-1a-rsz1203-C1.jpg"

    Conversion:
    Scenario: As Shot
    Temperature: 3754
    Tint: -10
    Lens correction [Yes] Automatic

    Smart Photo Fix
    Brightness
    Overall 20 [Recommended 28]
    Shadows -50
    Highlights 20
    Saturation 24
    Focus 31
    White Balance [yes]
    Black 20

    ---
    "P4210112.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - duck pond
    Size: 7,234,760 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-21 14:06:20
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/4.5
    Exposure time: 1/160 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias +0.3 step
    Focal length 22 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [44mm]

    I was not in the mood to chase birds during this hike, but this duck landed in this ponding just as I was hiking past and I decided to "go through the motions" of setting up quickly and getting a few pictures as if I'd run into a rare specimen. I deliberately composed the duck towards the upper right and chased it in the view screen with the Auto Focus Spot using the touchpad controls. Actually, I think I "missed". I think I ended up with the focus spot just behind the duck, which is close enough. The duck swam slowly and stopped at this point, just outside the focus box, probably to irritate me. I got off this picture, then I zoomed in about 2x and got two more. When I looked at the results, the third has the best "portrait" of the duck, but I like this overall composition the best. The lesson was that with a bit more practice, I could have gotten it right with this setup. Not bad. . . .
    [2019-04-24 13:45 After I posted this, I was looking at the picture and I noticed that there is a second duck in the background. So this would be a "two duck pond"?]

    "P4210112-1b-1243-C2.jpg"

    From ORF
    Scenario As Shot
    Temperature 5675
    Tint 100 (actually 0?)
    Lens correction Off

    SmartFix
    Brightness
    Overall 0 [Recommended 29]
    Shadows -60
    Highlights 10
    Saturation 20
    Focus 46
    White Balance No
    Black 14
    White 14

    ---
    Monday:

    "P4210128.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - buds
    Size: 7,935,327 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 14:54
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/7.1
    Exposure time: 1/500 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias +0.3 step
    Focal length 14 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [28mm]

    Not much to be said about this one. No leaves yet, but the buds are opening. In a few days it will look nice. The clear blue sky is a rare reward for my getting out. There seems to be a spot on my lens in this pictures (upper right). I check the lens occasionally during the day, but sometimes I miss something. This was another rare 14mm "wide angle" composition. Corner sharpness (lower left) at F7 looks quite good.

    "P4220128a-rsz1920-C1.JPG"
    - resized

    ---
    "P4210145.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - sun flare, spider web
    Size: 6,703,667 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 14:50:34
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/7.1
    Exposure time: 1/400 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias +1.3 step
    Focal length 45 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [90mm]

    I took three similar pictures of this. In the other two I kept the sun out of the picture and then for this one I decided to test the lens flare. This one with the flare is enough. Still, in this one and one of the others, I see that a spider has probably started building its web. I did not see the web lines while I was composing the pictures. In the other picture it shows up as very fine lines. This picture shows them brighter, and one line has some interesting detail. The lens has shown excellent IQ and the combination has done well with the spot autofocus. As for the lens flare, it did not overwhelm the picture, which was good. I will try it again eventually.
    [2019-04-24 22:03 Corrected many typographical errors and added opinion about lens flare.]

    "P4220145b-rsz2304-C1.JPG"
    Resize 2304

    ---
    "P4210161.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - "green at last"
    Size: 6,958,866 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 15:01
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/6.3
    Exposure time: 1/320 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias -0.3 step
    Focal length 46 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [92mm]

    This picture was early in my second-day walk and I just rattled it off thinking that I would probably find better greenery later. Heh, nope. I could have taken more with different compositions, but I knew this one would be "crop-able". The "detail" crop is one example.

    "P4220161a-rsz2000-C1.JPG"
    - resized

    "P4220161c-Crop2048-C1.JPG"
    - detail crop
    Crop from: 2899, 2399
    2048 x 1536


    ---
    "P4210196.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - regular exposure
    7,428,632 bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 15:26:44
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/5.6
    Exposure time: 1/250 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias -0.3 step
    Focal length 22 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [44mm]

    This and the next pair of pictures demonstrates the effect of HDR1. This first picture is a "normal" single exposure picture.

    "P4220196a-rsz1243-C1.jpg"
    - resized

    ---
    "P4210198.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - HDR1
    Size: 7,151,533 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 15:28:06
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/5.6
    Exposure time: 1/250 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias 0 step
    Focal length 22 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [44mm]

    This is one of the HDR1 versions I made. Overall, I like the effect, but notice the problem: The "sparkles" in the stream, particularly where it falls over the rocks turn magenta or cyan. I have no idea why. It looks like there are magenta and cyan bubbles floating down the stream.

    As I mentioned above, there is a single ORF file for this image, so one can partially re-process it.

    "P4220198a-rsz1243-C1.JPG"
    - resized

    "P4220198b-crop1240-C1.JPG"
    Crop from 1360, 2100
    1240 x 960
    This detail crop shows the "coloured sparkles" more clearly.
    [2019-02-24 22:08 Added note that the detail crop shows the "sparkles" problem.]

    ---
    "P4210207.JPG" [Not uploaded]
    - HDR1
    Size: 7,216,916 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF: [from JPEG]
    Date taken: 2019-04-22 15:36:18
    Program name: Version 1.4
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth 24
    Resolution unit 2
    Color representation sRGB
    F-stop: f/6.3
    Exposure time: 1/320 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias 0 step
    Focal length 17 mm
    Max aperture 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    35mm focal length: [34mm]

    This is a more normal HDR1. It is not a spectacular example, but at least it doesn't have anything "wrong" with it like the "coloured sparkles" in the previous example.

    "P4220207a-rsz1240-C1.JPG"
    - resized
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
  7. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I did a "quick test" of three of my standard M4:3 zoom lenses for video use. I tried them on the Olympus OM-D E-M10 and got a big surprise. The three lenses were my Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 "H-FS014042" zoom lens (the original version), my XIAOYI 12-40mm F3.5-5.6 zoom lens and the Olympus Zuiko 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 zoom lens (the original version) on the MMF-3 adapter. I did not record any video on this "quick test", but I put the camera on a tripod and pointed it at some stuff to check "focus breathing", "par focus" and single auto-focus speed. This was an in-door test with moderate lighting.

    The Lumix zoom was the big surprise. I could not see any "focus breathing" -- at all, at either end of the zoom range, and at a middle focal length. Focus did not seem to shift either during zooming. I expect that a more formal test will show some small amount of one or both of these problems, but it does not look like there will be much. For "zoom out" it might be good enough to use with manual focus. And for auto-focus, the lens was lightning fast at "moderate" refocus jumps. It felt like a an OEM lens on this Olympus body.
    [2019-05-19 23:27 I recently tried the Panasonic zoom on my Yi-M1 and it is definitely NOT par-focus. See reply #9 below.]

    The XIAOYI lens has "some" focus breathing, but it is very little. On a rough estimate I think it might be ~1 - 2% of the screen width at full tele. Focus shifted a bit more during zooming from full wide to full tele than the Lumix (which did not shift visibly on this setup), but did not look terrible. But auto-focus performance was terrible. Sometimes it completely failed. If the "jump" was fairly small it focussed after a couple of seconds, but sometimes (unpredictably) more.
    [2019-05-01 corrected error due to mix up in writing.]

    The Zuiko zoom has significant "focus breathing". The zoom effect seems scaled to the focal length, so that it was less at the wide end and greatest at the telephoto end. At the telephoto end it looked more like 10-20% of the screen width, which is huge. The zoom ratio is larger for 14-54, making it a harder lens to design, but the bottom line is that the focus breathing will be obvious to the audience. Focus shift while zooming is also fairly obvious. For auto-focus, it performed "poorly" in this indoor setting, but not as bad as the XIAOYI lens. As in previous testing it was taking about 4 sec. typically, which is far slower than outdoors in good sunlight.
    [2019-05-01 corrected error due to mix up in writing.]

    Conclusions:

    It did not surprise me that the Zuiko lens did not perform well for these "video oriented" tests. It is definitely the best zoom lens I have for still pictures, and that was why I bought it.

    It did surprise me that the XIAOYI zoom performed so poorly at single-autofocus for "indoor" use on the E-M10 body. I had not used it in that way on the E-M10, but it works quite well on its intended Yi-M1 body. The "focussing logic" must be very different between the two cameras.
    [2019-05-01 clarification.]

    The Lumix lens was the biggest surprise, and thankfully a very happy one. Apparently it is a very good entry level video lens. It was probably designed with video being considered from the outset, because it needed to perform well on the "GH" series cameras. Panasonic's version "II" lens has better image quality, so assuming it did not lose these characteristics, it is probably preferable, but this "original version" lens is probably good enough for most people.
    [2019-05-01 clarification.]
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    "Telephoto", Close Focus and Open Aperture

    So far, all my opportunities to use this setup have featured brown sticks and old dead leaves, empty of colors beyond brown. This is early Spring and it takes a while for things to get better. The weather forecasts have not been good, but I saw some sun, so I went out specifically to add more to this set, and specifically to get some samples at the tele end, and with wide aperture, and hopefully, not barren twigs.

    This is what I got. It is all "close focus", all 52 - 54 mm, and a couple with full aperture (or near), and yes, some flowers. The only thing I have not gotten is "linearity" and realistically, from the test report and what I have seen, it is unnecessary, so I will not be going out of my way to do such a test.

    Habit and Persistence vs. Good Sense

    Auto focus or manual? All the pictures that I have taken with this lens so far have been auto-focus, including all the close focus pictures. Does it always work? No. Why haven't I used manual focus? Just about every picture was taken with a breeze blowing. In such a case, with everything waving around, focus is as much luck as skill. Even if I manually focus perfectly, whatever I focussed on is not going to be there by the time I finish pressing the shutter release. All I can do is take a "bunch" and look at the results later. At worst, the autofocus of this adapted lens was not much worse than a proper "native" mount lens. Most of my "hit rates" were actually better than 1 in 2. But yes, partly, I am just being persistent. It might be more sensible to start using manual focus for these close focus pictures instead of trying to get it done with auto-focus. I just didn't do it that way. . . .
    [2019-05-09 20:07 changed "don't" to "didn't."]

    Check them later? Don't I check them right there? Sometimes, but not very often. Partly that is habit and partly I don't find it helps that much. The "habit" part comes from my background with film cameras. After years of going home not knowing what I have, I'm just used to it. But also, I have found that when trying to look at something like this in the field, I miss things. I might not have checked for a detail that I should have. Also it's harder to decide whether an area that is out of focus is hurting a composition. Sometimes it helps. Bokeh in general is an example of this. So I need to see a picture on a large screen and then decide if it is good or not. But again, yes, it would make sense for me to check my pictures "while I'm still there" more often than I do.


    About the Uploads:

    All these are based on camera JPEGs. Noise reduction and sharpening are "normal". I think this is more useful than unadjusted raw because I haven't "create detail" that isn't there, and realistically, anyone can add sharpening. These are not over-sharpened, so the represent the camera and specifically the lens, fairly. None of the files uploaded have been altered except for the cropping or resizing as noted.


    "P5070004.JPG" [not uploaded]
    - blossoms (I don't know what type)
    Size: 6,460,478 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF [from JPEG]:
    Date taken: 2019-05-07 15:57:14
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth: 24
    Resolution unit: 2
    Color representation: sRGB
    F-stop: f/9
    Exposure time 1/640 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias -1 step
    Focal length 52 mm
    Max aperture: 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    White balance: Auto
    35mm focal length: [104 mm]

    "P5070004a-rsz2400-C1.JPG"

    resize 2400 x 1800

    "P5070004b-Crop01-C1.JPG"

    crop from 2030,2430
    size = 1620 x 2160

    This is closer to my preferred "style" F9.0 is shallow enough depth of field for something this close. The depth of field at F3.5 - 4.0 was around 1 inch for these pictures. If I had used apertures F8 - F16 for the rest of these pictures, the depth of field would have been around 2" - 3", and most of the subject matter would have been better covered.
    [2019-05-09 20:12 Substantially re-written. I was very tired when I was writing up and the above was what I had intended to say in the first place, but I got side-tracked and never got back to it.]

    It was interesting to see F9. It is not a common number. It will be interesting to see if there are other "fine gradation" values. If I am lucky, maybe the aperture is "fully variable" which would be good for video. I am not expecting that.


    "P5070018.JPG" [not uploaded]

    Size: 6,229,271 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF [from JPEG]:
    Date taken: 2019-05-07 16:00:38
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth: 24
    Resolution unit: 2
    Color representation: sRGB
    F-stop: f/4
    Exposure time 1/4000 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias -1.3 step
    Focal length 52 mm
    Max aperture: 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    White balance: Auto
    35mm focal length: [104 mm]

    "P5070018a-rsz2400-C1.JPG"

    resize 2400 x 1800

    This one was just for fun! A part of the plant had some shadow on it. So I thought I'd see if I could focus on some of the bright blooms. So focus is "here and there" and the shadows and light are "here and there" and sometimes they do not correspond. I took a couple and this one worked the best.


    "P5070031.JPG" [not uploaded]

    Size: 6,544,332 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF [from JPEG]:
    Date taken: 2019-05-07 16:04:54
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth: 24
    Resolution unit: 2
    Color representation: sRGB
    F-stop: f/3.5 [fully open]
    Exposure time 1/2500 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias -0.3 step
    Focal length 52 mm
    Max aperture: 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    White balance: Auto
    35mm focal length: [104 mm]

    This is a deliberate test of full aperture, close focus, almost full zoom. It is not a great example, but corner to corner, the lens is doing an excellent job at 16MP. I have no doubt that it would be a good lens at 20MP. A pity it did not work on the Yi-M1. Exposure is higher than I like for the overall picture, losing detail of the light petal colours, but the fresh green leaves are well exposed.

    "P5070031a-rsz2160-C1.JPG"

    resize 2160 x 1620

    "P5070031b-Crop01-C1.JPG"

    Detail Crop:
    Start: 3780,450
    size: 2160 x 1620


    "P5070056.JPG" [not uploaded]
    [2019-05-09 20:18 added the following comment:]
    Pansies:

    Flowers are often disappointing subject matter. From a distance they might look good, but when you get close, you often find them tattered or bug-eaten, or drying out. I think the parks department plants "hot house" pansies in early Spring. Later plants might have grown in spot by seed, but the current ones were probably hand planted already grown.

    Yet, by the time I get to see these, they are often somewhat "torn up". When I looked at a planter, I only found a couple that were in good shape.

    Again "open aperture" was not the best choice for this picture. F8 would have been safer and might have been better. But I do not think that it was the biggest problem here. If you look at the "soft spots" on the petals, they do not correspond with depth of field issues. Rather, I think the wind causing them to flutter, which resulted in motion blurring. This despite the reasonably high 1/250 sec. exposure time.

    Size: 7,562,199 Bytes [JPEG]

    Partial EXIF [from JPEG]:
    Date taken: 2019-05-07 16:27:22
    Dimensions: 4608 x 3456
    Bit depth: 24
    Resolution unit: 2
    Color representation: sRGB
    F-stop: f/4.0
    Exposure time 1/250 sec.
    ISO speed ISO-200
    Exposure bias 0 step
    Focal length 54 mm
    Max aperture: 2.97265625
    Metering mode: Center Weighted Average
    White balance: Auto
    35mm focal length: [108 mm]

    "P5070056a-rsz1920-C1.JPG"

    resize 1920 x 1440

    "P5070056b-Crop01-C1.JPG"

    Crop start from: 1370,1050
    Size 1920 x 1440
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 9, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. VidThreeNorth

    VidThreeNorth No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    47
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit


    Corrections and Expansions:

    1. My Panasonic 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 zoom model H-FS014042 is definitely NOT par-focus. I tried it on my Yi-M1 and even on a fairly slow zoom the autofocus could not keep up with the change in focus during zooming. Not much I can say about this right now, except that I am confused by my "quick test" on the E-M10. I will eventually try that one again.

    Poking around on YouTube I found out a bit more about adapting the Zuiko "4:3" mount zooms to "M4:3" bodies:

    2. Zuiko zoom support is not consistent on Panasonic bodies.

    See the video:

    "Comparing version I and II of Olympus 14-54mm lens on Panasonic GH1 and GX7", posted to YouTube June 24, 2015 by "Martin Kužela"


    This would indicate that further, more detailed testing might turn up other inconsistencies. But I do not own any of the more "important" Panasonic bodies, so even if I do further testing, my results will probably not yield significant results. I think most people would be interested in results on a G7, or G85 or GH5, and I just don't have any of those bodies. So hopefully someday someone will test them for us. Still, it does appear that the "II" model zoom lens is probably your best bet on the Panasonic bodies. . . .

    3. According to the only test I have seen, the Model II zoom on the Olympus E-M10 II does not appear to be that much better than my Model I zoom on my Olympus E-M10. Having watched the video, the focus speed looks similar. I do expect that if the setups were tested "side - by - side" then a small advantage would appear in favour of the newer products, but when I watch this video, I think my "older" version body and lens perform very much like what you see in it:

    "My Olympus E-M10II 14-54MM 2.8-3.5 II auto focus t", posted to YouTube Dec. 26, 2015 by "Olympus Trujillo"
     

Share This Page