Skip to main content

Shuttershock and Olympus 75-300

Since a couple of months I own the Olympus 75-300 III. And since day one, I wasn't happy with the results I got. 
All the pictures shot at +/- 300 mm where soft and looked like there was motion blur. How's that possible? I tried it at a 1/1000th of a second, but still the motion blur in my pictures. I regret that I ever sold my Pentax with the 55-300 for this awfull lens!
But... Most reviews of this lens are positive. Is my copy of this lens bad?
I then figured out by reading forums that it could be a phenomena called 'shuttershock'. It that case, the shock of the shutter causes enough movement so the image is blurred.
For example:

How to fix this?
My camera has several drive modes, including one called 'anti-shock'. And that does magic.
In that mode The pictures are sharp again. No motion blur is visible! 
The downside of this mode is that the fasted drivemode can't be used.

Noise Reduction Software comparisson

I've done a new test which is better: click here

Many people are looking for software to reduce the noise in their pictures. This because their camera's can use high iso's with great quality, but noise is still there. There are many in the marked, so I compared a couple most used ones. The comparisson is based on the auto setting, or when there was no (wavelet and ufraw) I tried to optimize the settings to reduce the amount of noise to a level is was no more annoying. Al the pictures are a small piece of the duck's tail.

Iso 1600
Original after producing in DXO Optics Pro

5. As you can see are there some differences. UFraw is the worst, there are many details lost and the colour noise is still there. You can't adjust much with it, only less or more.

4. Second last is Noiseware. The noise is gone, but it does a strange job on the edges. There is some garbage left and the picture doesn't look natural anymore. I think this is because Noiseware is reducing more noise on the larger areas. 

3. Third place is Wavelet. And that's great for a free software! Ok, it will cost some time because there's no auto, but when playing a little bit with the sliders, the result is great. The noise has almost gone.

2. Second place for DXO optics. That's not bad for software that's not only made for noisereduction. The noise has been removed but also some detail. The colours has lost some saturation. That's why DXO didn't win this test. When tweaking a little bit, the los of detail and colour can be avoided. What I like most of DXO is the noise that's left. It's like very fine grain. The others are a little bit more messy.

1. First place for Neat image. The noise is reduces very well, without losing colour and detail. This was done with only a couple clicks with the mouse. 


As you can see are the differences very small. Only UFraw is bad. Noiseware is a little bit messy, but the result is still great. The top three are all close. DXO is a RAWconverter so, that's great that the noise reduction is that good (as are with LR etc.)

Wavelet deserves special attention. This free plugin for The Gimp (also free). The result are up with the best paid versions on the market!

Popular posts from this blog

DXO Optics Pro vs. Corel Aftershot Pro

After using Aftershot Pro for a couple of days, I made this comparison to DXO Optics Pro 7. The difference is really clear. The colors in DXO (on the left) are much more realistic than the colors in Aftershot Pro (on the right).The settings where with the default settings with some tweaking for the contrast, exposure and noise reduction. (WB, saturation etc where left to default settings).
In the first picture, I could get the colors and contrast right with Aftershot Pro, with DXO I had to tweak the contrast, but after all, the picture is really nice and natural.

In this picture, at first view, I really like the version from Aftershot Pro. But this picture isn't real. The saturation of the picture is to much and the contrast unreal. The DXO version is a little bit foggy, but more like reality. With some tweaking of the curves, the DXO version will pop a little bit more.

This one shows the biggest difference. Removing chromatic aberrations. With DXO it was very simple, even if the…

Adobe Lightroom 4 vs. DXO Optics Pro 7

One day ago, Adobe released Lightroom 4.0. Two months ago, DXO released DXO Optics Pro 7. These two updates changed a lot in both software. How do they compare?
I'm using DXO Optics Pro for quite a while. I really like the simplicity and results. For landscape and nature photography the build in HDR tools are great. The possibilities to gain details from highlights is unsurpassed. The lack of speed of version 6 has been fixed in version 7. 
Is DXO still my favorite, or does Lightroom beat it? That question will I answer on the end. First of all I will compare them.
workflowLightroom is still the best workflow tool on the marketWorkflow is not the best in DXO. You need a tool like Picassa to do the file managementwinner: Lightroom, DXO doens't have real workflow toolsimage qualityLightroom gets very much detail from images, the lens correction is okay, but not very good,DXO get's a little less details from my images, but the lens correction tools are the best ever se…

Lightroom vs. DXO. vs. Photodirector

A little comparison of three RAW-converters. This comparison is not about how the program themselves works, but about the result of how one RAW-file is processed.

The version of the software I used:

DXO Optics Pro: 6.5
Adobe Lightroom: 3
Cyberlink Photodirector: 2011
For this test I used a photo of a little owl posted before on this weblog. The picture was a little underexposed and with a cheap lens (Tamron AF 70-300mm Di F/4.0-5.6 Macro 1:2). So there's work to do for the RAWconverter.