TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Thanks for your kind reply. As I replied to him, I will be trying this out. Glad to hear your opinion of this lens. It is not cheap, but if it can be put to several different uses, it will be worthwhile.

grandpaw

Very nice image!!!

TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Thanks for your kind reply. I already have the 14-150 and the 70-300 and like them very much. Took both on a safari last spring and they performed admirably. But neither is as fast as I need. And I have just got the E M1ii and am learning how to get the best from it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You might find a better solution here.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=7-ysW_TVIqqQ_QaHr4zYAQ&q=creating+a+blurry+background+in+post+processing&oq=creating+a+blurry+background+in+post+processing&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3428.7115..7565...0.0..0.171.1940.11j8......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30j33i22i29i30j33i160j33i21.4qrXJJV89TA

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Unfortunate in this case. Very fortunate in others, LOL

MartyfromWNY Loc: Rochester, NY

Nice pic, Linda. A former active birder shouldn't have to ask, but I will. Woodcock?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Good guess if I were still on the east coast But in central/eastern Washington State, this is a relative: the Wilson's Snipe (which is a far cooler name, no?). Thank you!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you’ll pick the “quote reply” selection under the response when you respond, we’ll know who you’re responding to. Thanks!

CaptainBobBrown

MFT cameras such as the Olympus have smaller sensors (i.e. "crop" sensors) and have two image consequences: 1) smaller field of view for a given focal length lens as compared to a larger sensor & 2) greater depth of field at a given aperture than the same focal length lens on a larger sensor camera. Therefore, you will always have greater depth of field with an MFT camera unless you can counteract by opening to a larger image. Good news is that because the smaller MFT lenses remain sharper clearer to the edge of the image. However for outdoor or other bright light conditions your limited for exposure reasons so you might consider adding neutral density filters to enable use of larger apertures to give better bokeh. Good luck with that.

kmbro2 Loc: Wildwood FL. 34785

Is this with a full frame, or the same type camera as well?

TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Sorry! this is my first time at replying.

MartyfromWNY Loc: Rochester, NY

Thanks. I wasn't comfortable with my Woodcock guess because it has buffy underparts, but I can see where Wilson's makes sense.

Unclehoss

Practice, practice, practice. Set up some sort of object(fence posts, pop cans, bowling pins) at different distances to the camera with each of them in view. Take copius notes for camera to object distance, shutter speed, F-stop, focal length on the zoom lens, etc. Without the objects moving you will have time to change shutter speeds, f-stops, zooms and take a WHOLE BUNCH of shots. Study them to figure out what look you are looking for. Remember, faster shutter speed means less movement blur, larger aperature (lower f-stop number) means shallower depth of field(DoF), physically the closer you are to the subject, the shallower the DoF, the larger the sensor the shallower the DoF for an equivalent f-stop. Since you don't want to change formats, you can work with the other variables to achieve your goal. I used to drive my wife nuts with the number of pictures I took of pop bottles lined up. There are numerous online charts to tell you numbers of depth of field for different sensors, f-stops, but a picture is worth a thousand words, when you see it in practice you will be able to anticipate what it will look like for the real thing.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Who are you asking? But to answer your question, every photo in this thread are from M4/3 cameras

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am assuming you may be referencing my shots. Those pictures were taken with mostly the 14-54 f2.8/3.5 and the 50-200 f2.8/3.5 on my E-M1 mrII. All the shots were handheld. This was my first attempt at sport action photography even though I have been shooting since 1975. I believe the blur action side shots were approximately 1/15 second pan and could be made tack sharp if I had chosen a much faster shutter speed (blur was what I was trying for). I would have to open up my file to see what speed the straight-on shots were. I had the focus set for tracking and all the focus sites on (full screen focus). I started my shooting without the EE-1 viewsight. My shooting percentages were 50% to 60%. It is much hard than I thought to properly track the action using the normal viewfinder. Once I switched to the EE-1 viewsight, I feel my shooting percentages were around 80% once I got use to shooting with EE-1.

My suggestions for you are to give the 40-150 f2.8 another chance, set the camera to aperture mode and f2.8, focusing to tracking and all sensors active, and rent or buy the EE-1 viewsight. This is likely to produce the pictures that I think you are describing to us. And if the all focusing sites doesn't seem to track the way you want, try setting it to a smaller focusing size. Please get back to us with results and pictures. That way I might get more ideas on how to shoot my second attempt at sports action shots. Also, although I had to learn very quickly how to use my EE-1, it will take a little getting use to not using the normal viewfinder and how to pan steady handheld.Try tucking your elbows into your chest and sides and then just rotate your body. That seemed to do the best for me.