Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 600/6.5 on OMD [was: 300/5.3 Mirror Lens [was On topic, well, c

Subject: Re: [OM] 600/6.5 on OMD [was: 300/5.3 Mirror Lens [was On topic, well, could be ...]]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 22:25:53 -0800
On 3/10/2017 12:34 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
On 2017-03-10, at 03:16, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As I think about it, the OM 300/4.5, other than size/weight, would be a
better MF choice, as well. Pretty decent IQ - and - you can stop it down.
Yea, I’d agree, except for one thing: portability. You can throw a mirror in 
your bag on speculation that you might use it, whereas the 300/4.5, well, you gotta 
have a reason to haul it along!

I agree, in principal. In practice, If I were still shooting film I'd rather haul around the 300/4.5 - or neither. I just wasn't happy with the images I got from the 350/5.6. I don't know how the new mirrors might work.

Today, if I wasn't going to carry the PLeica 100-400, but wanted something long, I'd put the Oly 75-300, which I still have, in the bag. It's not much larger/heavier than the 300/6.3 mirror lens, same speed at 300 mm, I know I can get good images with it and It's far more flexible.

Aside: anyone have any tricks for getting the OMZ 600/6.5 to perform on a digital body? I’ve 
tried multiple tripods, weights, stopped-down, shutter release delay, IS on/off — I just 
can’t get that sucker to be sharp.

This one was taken hand-held with the OMZ 500/8 mirror, on E-3 with 4/3rds adaptor and IS set 
to “500”:
        http://www.EcoReality.org/images/P8046832.jpg

Typical mirror-lens flat contrast, which punches up nicely with a simple tweak 
in Aperture:
        http://www.EcoReality.org/images/P8046832%20-%20Version 2.jpg

So I go back up on the mountain toting the 600/6.5 and two tripods, seeking a “more 
better” image. This was the BEST of a half-dozen different tries:
        http://www.EcoReality.org/images/P8257437.jpg

You can’t see it well in this 1024px image, but when blown up, it shows signs 
of vertical movement.

This is the set-up, except I hung my camera bag on the lens, between the two tripods. 
Didn’t help much!
        http://www.EcoReality.org/images/P1011150.jpg

I’ve always liked this lens on an OM film body, but now it just sits on the 
shelf.

AG has posted the most comments on differences in lens performance between film and digital. Quick summary: some lenses that are wonderful on film are not on some or all digital bodies he has - and - vice versa. No consistency useful in predicting.

I had a Tokina 150-500/5.6 lens that worked well on film, a little low contrast in flat light, but easily perked up in post. I tried it on the 5D, just poor. Later, taking much more care, I tried it on a 60D. The results were just weird, and not appealing. This and some others in the same little gallery are taken with that lens @ 500 mm. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Marin%2C_Sonoma%2C_Mendocino_Coast/Albion&image=_MG_9159cr1iim.jpg> I did what I could with them, but - just kinda weird.

I gave up on it and sold it.

It's been proven that the thick sensor stacks of many digital cameras give poor results with some lenses designed for film. OTOH, that's mostly with WA lenses, and I don't see why that would be for really long lenses, where the light hitting the sensor stack is close to parallel.

After the time of his lens tests, Gary Reese posted comments on how he later got better results with the long lenses with different techniques, such as resting the whole thing on sand bags. But he also expressed frustration:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The 600mm tests were at the 1/2-way mark.  They were done on a concrete floor
in a storage unit hallway, probably with the  self-timer and weight attached
to the tripod.  Given my exposures were equivalents to a 1/8th sec @ f/16
light level, I wouldn't think of touching the camera during exposures - at
least with lenses over 400mm.  The second test with "lens support" was
probably a tripod head resting under the front of the lens hood.  It made no
difference.  I use the same lens to this day. I shoot at 1/500th or faster
and drape an arm over the top of the lens and bear down into the tripod with
my weight. I get a very stable setup that way. I hide myself from the wind,
if there is any.  Don't even try and use one when it is windy out unless you
can shelter yourself.  The hands on the camera technique is worthless for
shutter speeds of about 1/250th sec. or slower.  The multicoated 600mm
probably produces B or B- SQF grades at f/6.5 and f/8, which are usually the
only two apertures I can shoot at. High shutter speeds are way more important
than using an optimum aperture. But, I never can enlarge them more than about
an 8x12.

After the lens tests, I put the 600mm though bench testing thinking something
was wrong with the lens.  However, it passed a collimeter test with flying
colors.  It all comes down to controlling vibration.

The 1000mm test was done very late in testing, on concrete in an indoor
hockey rink. I used the self-timer. Most other OM-4/4T and 2S based tests
were done on an ice skating rink with the tripod frozen to the ice, plus a
heavy bag. I think I would hate trying to use one for actual picture taking.
There are just too many stability issues to deal with.

Two tripods are a ridiculous setup. Even if you think you have a static scene
framed and lock down your tripod head, the darn lens will "settle."  I can
hold a very steady rifle, so the best technique for me is a single tripod in
the lens tripod socket, one arm way out in front and the second on the
camera.  I restrict myself to Provia 400F (or 400-800 speed neg film) and
leave it loaded in a OM-4 or 4T that stays attached to the camera."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't seem to have my other correspondence with Gary. I recall him saying that shooting with the camera and lens on sand/shot bags on something solid made a big difference. He said something like finally getting their potential, or something similar, as best I can remember.

He also found, as others here have, that hanging a weight from tripod, and perhaps, as you did, from lens, was not as effective as a sand/shot bag draped over camera and lens.

You could try using a vehicle and multiple sand bags, instead of tripods.

Anyone have better results to report? If so, how?

Well . . . Take that shot with a PLeica 100-400 on Panny GX8 or 85, E-M1, I or II or E-M5 II. You can hand hold the whole thing, and get far superior results.

Good Luck!

Long View Moose

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz