Old Dog; New Trick

[Here it is: the first post from our new home here at  Google Blogspot - I hope it is the first of many more. As I have been moving "queued" posts, editing and drafting new ones, I am becoming more and more comfortable here, and looking forward to a continued quality experience. Thanks for following us here, and I hope you find some interesting stuff in the weeks and months ahead!]

 

Sochko, South Korea - Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved

 EACH DAY I spend on earth demonstrates to me that the "old dog" thing is real. 😊 What about the "new tricks" thing? While I am a firm believer that in order to keep moving forward, we need to continue to seek and learn, I am as susceptible as the next person to getting comfortable and in a "rut." 

I  SPEND a fair amount of time commenting on and critiquing images I see - mostly in social media - these days. Perhaps I could (should?) spend more introspective on my own images and their shortcomings. One recent morning I was post-processing images from my recent trip to Japan, when I noticed some very visible softness in the foreground jetty of an otherwise (I thought) nice image of a port in Sokcho, South Korea. It is particularly soft in the lower left and on the far right (the "corners" - which is one of the criticisms I have read about the lens). I looked at the metadata. f8; 1/320 second; 300mm focal length (35mm equivalent); IBIS. What gave here?

Perhaps I could (should?) spend more introspective on my own images and their shortcomings

A COUPLE years back, for my travel photography, I started using an M4-3 format setup. The draw is a very classic (Olympus), SLR-like camera experience in a very compact (small) form factor. It has also rendered acceptable image quality - even using "consumer-grade" zoom lenses. Most of the time. The softness I saw in this image, though, took me by surprise (though I should probably have spotted it before). The lens in question is one that I would expect - of all that I have used - to show some softness. Especially on the edges. It was zoomed all the way out. As I looked more carefully at the image, I wondered what produced what I felt was unacceptable softness. My conclusion is two-fold. One is marginal quality glass. Only thing I can do about that is "upgrade" to a better-quality lens. I acquired a "pro"-labeled M.Zuiko 12-100 f4 zoom and did some side-by-side comparison shots with the lens I had been using - an M.Zuiko 14-150 f5.6-5.6 zoom. The latter is considered a "consumer-grade" lens. Zooming each lens out to the maximum (for comparison) 200mm, the difference is remarkable. More than I expected, particularly in the f4-f5.6 range. The detail and sharpness in the "pro" lens is very noticeably improved (The images used here are a one-time thing and aren't anything I am going to put on my website from an artistic point of view. I was just trying to find something near home, in similar lighting, that would come somewhere close to duplicating the conditions in the shot of Sokcho above.)

MY RESULTS  are very disappointing to me. It is not disappointing that the new lens is sharper (among other things). That is a good thing. The "pro" lens, though, is half again as long, larger in diameter, and nearly 2 times heavier, kind of defeating my purpose of going to the M4/3 format. There is that compromise again, though. "Better" glass will be bigger, heavier, and more expensive. I have had to slightly re-think my pack and carry solutions to accommodate this increase in size. In the end, though, I simply concluded that the image quality - at least some of the time - yielded by the "consumer" zoom was not up to my desired standards.

AS I thought about it, it seemed that a primary difference in these modern lenses is aperture design. The so-called "pro" lenses tend to have a constant, maximum aperture of somewhere between 1.8 and 4. There are, of course, other factors, but the current technology is so good that there is less difference between consumer and pro grade lenses these days. As I thought more about it, I realized that for the type of photography I use this equipment for, I am shooting at a constant, medium-small aperture most of the time. Mostly f8. That's the "old dog" thing. "F8 and be there." In doing so, I reasoned that I didn't need the "fast" apertures provided by the "pro" lenses for the majority of my travel work. I was shooting during relatively bright daylight conditions. When I wasn't I always carry a small, travel tripod. In addition, while I don't totally rely on it, the in-camera-image-stabilization (IBIS) in the Olympus Camera is very good. It is always on when handholding.

the "old dog" thing is real. 😏

SOMETHING I had read sometime back (but hadn't really registered with me) popped into my mind as I was thinking about why my image might have such decided softness. I remember reading that the smaller (approximately 50% smaller than "full-frame") sensor, and the commensurately smaller M4-3 lens circle, yields significant differences in depth of field, even given equal focal-length lenses. More importantly, though, for purposes of this issue, the smaller setup also yields image softness caused by diffraction (a result of very small apertures, and smaller sensor/sensor photo sites) much sooner than the larger sensor/lens combinations. I also learned that at some point an aperture that is too small will create something known as diffraction limit, which in turn, shows up as visible softness in an image. The old, (35mm-based) rule of thumb was that for general photography and general landscape images, f8 was a pretty good compromise of the depth of field/diffraction dichotomy. "Old dog" stuff. These rules are still valid when applied in the right context. In this case, my context was 35mm (first analog-film and later digital). That old rule doesn't necessarily hold with the M4/3 format. "New Tricks." Old habits die hard. I have been shooting with the Olympus M4-3 setup for over 2 years now. I am still making most of my images at an aperture of f8! My research suggested that I just might losing sharpness from diffraction. Commentary recommends a "default" aperture of f4 - f5.6 (instead of f8) for the M4/3 sensor. What do I mean by "default?" In the context of our discussion that would be the "new" "f8 and be there rule" (f5.6 and be there, for M4/3 setups). That obviously doesn't mean every shot must be at f5.6.

WORKING WITH this knowledge, after my side-by-side comparison convinced me that the (larger, heavier) 12-100 f5 "pro" lens yields better sharpness and overall quality, I also did some same-scene, focal length and ISO shots at various apertures. On my desktop screen, without any intensive "pixel peeping," in some areas of the images I can see loss in sharpness as aperture moves from f4 - f11. I know most M4/3 shooters have known this for ages. Did I mention that the "old dog" thing is real? I am going to have to consciously train myself to set that aperture lower (I will probably settle on 5.6, though it may well vary from lens to lens). I will also have to consciously remember to revert to my old f8 rule of thumb when going back to my Sony "full frame" gear.

Old habits die hard

AS I use the new lens more, I plan to change my default shooting specs with my M4/3 setup to use f5.6 instead of f8 (maybe even f4). I will be watching and noting differences and improvements in image quality. It will probably be a challenge to my brain's "muscle memory," but if it will improve my imagery, I am ready and willing to learn a "new trick."