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.

Compare DXO 6.5 vs ACR 6

A comparisson between two RAW-converters

First the total picture. The picture has a lot of wideangle distortion. With DXO can be remedied by drawing two lines on the photo on lines which should be parallel  In ACR, you use a slider to adjust the disortion. The way of DXO is easier, but carries the risk that the picture is 'too straight' is, and therefore unnatural.

ACR makes the brightest picture in the 'auto mode'. The red of the building is also better than DXO.



At the crop of the lower right corner is easy to see what the software has done with the photo. In the original there are a lot of chromatic aberrations visible. At the branches of the trees it's visible how the software handles sharpness. In addition, good to see that there DXO a lot more detail in the snow can be seen. The colors in ACR are more realistic. The license plate on the car is in ACR yellow, the color in DXO is almost entirely invisible.

ACR in terms of sharpness is just a little neater. At DXO there are some artifacts will be seen and the picture is very messy.

The chromatic aberrations in both software as good as gone,but this does DXO better. That could also be expected fromsoftware that has begun to correct lens errors.



And last a crop from the center. ACR again is sharper and has less noise left.



Verdict: ACR does the job just a little better, but the difference is not that big. But one big difference is speed. DXO needs a lot of time to process all the photos. 

Is there any rational reasion to choose DXO? Of course. ACR is part of much more expensive package. Lightroom uses nearly the same software, but is more expensive and far more extensive and complicated.

Click here for the full test of DXO Optics Pro
Posted by Picasa

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.