As I mentioned last week I bought a new camera, a used Olympus EM5. It’s an excellent camera and I love the colours. Last weekend I took it out for a trial and managed a few nice images but also ruined a few for reasons I’ll outline.
Recently I’ve been experiencing problems with flare when using my G9. After more testing, I can confirm this is an issue, but it isn’t the only one. I currently use two sets of 75mm filters for my micro 43 cameras. One set are Nisi glass filters and other Lee Resin. When I use the Nisi filters with the G9, I see a lot of flare but with the Lee filters I don’t. If I use the same filters with the EM5, I don’t see this problem or at least a lot less often.
These is however another problem when using filters with the G9. Look at this example.
The image on the left was shot with the Nisi filters whilst the image on the right is Lee. The Nisi filters seem to suck the life out of the image and turn it grey. Interestingly, I don’t see the problem to the same extent on the EM5. They do sometimes shift the sky to look completely grey where at other times they work great.
I don’t know if I will get to the bottom of this problem, but my other is when using the high-resolution mode on the EM5. Last week someone mentioned in a comment, had I considered diffraction. Well, I had, and I dismissed it because I hadn’t seen any diffraction problems with my lenses.
But this did get me thinking and I decided to look back at some of my Fuji XT5 images where I was disappointed with the focusing. What I found was my images would typically be soft in the distance and corners unless I focussed further away from the camera than I usually would. When I experimented with wider apertures, the image would often be sharp throughout. This had all the hallmarks of being diffraction.
Now looking at the evidence, I suspect I may have a diffraction issue. It looks like I forgot about the role of pixel size in problem. I decided to put the XT5 details into the Photo Pills diffraction calculator which produced the following.
This shows that when viewing the image at 100% magnification, diffraction may become visible at f/6.3 whereas in a print it’s f/16.0. Typically, I’m in the habit of shooting at f/11.0 or f/13.0. I don’t know why I’m doing this because I probably don’t need more than f/6.3 for most shots.
My suspicion is that I’m encountering a similar diffraction problem with the high-resolution mode on the EM5, although it is better since I updated the firmware. What I can’t quite get my head around is why diffraction would be more of a problem in the high-resolution mode; the size of each pixel on the sensor hasn’t changed. I’m wondering if it’s something as simple as the problem becomes easier to see at the increased resolution.
I’ll be doing more testing around this with all my cameras and lenses, but it looks like I’ve forgotten some of the basics of photography and how to optimise image quality.
Finally, let me share one of images from last weekend when I headed up to the Peak District.
I don’t normally shoot in the middle of the day but this one worked out OK. This is Derwent Edge, captured using the Olympus EM5 with Leica 12-60 lens at 60mm. The exposure is 1/160” at f/8.0 and ISO200. I also used a 2 stop Lee ND grad filter on the sky.
I hope you like the image and have a great weekend.
The Lightweight Photographer 
Hi Robin, sorry about the typo.
As a fellow user of the now discontinued Lee Seven5 system, I thought that you might like to know that it is soon to be replaced by an 85mm system.
Lee are almost giving the filters away! Have a look : https://leefiltersdirect.com/search?q=lee+seven5&type=product
Regards
Martin
Thanks Martin. I knew about the Lee 85mm filters but I didn’t realise they were still selling them on their site. I agree they are a very good price but I managed to get a few even cheaper. I took a chance on someone selling a range of new seven 5 filters at a heavy discount and picked up an individual filter for £17 and a set of 3 for £50. I was dubious at first but they were brand new and properly wrapped and work like a dream. I’m very sad to see the end of the seven 5 series.
The thing is though ….
Viewing distance …a vitally important consideration
The vast vast vast majority of people view images on a phone . Viewing on a large screen computer is far far different
In print people do not view with their nose up to the print .
I’ve never seen any of your images other than on a phone .
I agree viewing distance is important but…
I can see diffraction on a 27-inch 5K Mac when the image is at 100%. Whilst this isn’t visible on a print, the effect is noticeable at normal viewing distance. You can see that the central area of the shot is pin sharp but then it kind of fades out. Whilst you can see that the edges aren’t sharp you notice something is happening and it’s distracting.
However ..the point I am making is …how many people view your images at 100pct on a 27inch screen . Very very few . Even those that do will read the image , even if subconsciously, taking in the visual impact , the feeling they get and so on .
A great image does not need to be technically perfect down to pixel level
Most of the photographers that I know do exactly that and look at their images at 100%. They also zoom in to check the image quality on the back of the camera regularly. This includes hobbyists and club photographers as well as pros.
Viewing images at 100% is also a necessity when submitting work to stock libraries because that’s exactly how they will judged. Any softness will get them rejected and if you do that too often they will close your account.
I do agree that a great photograph doesn’t need to be perfect. The point I’m trying to make is that if I can improve the way that I’m using the aperture and focus for a better result then I should. It certainly costs less than buying more expensive lenses.