This article features a small selection of frog test images captured handheld with the M.Zuiko MC-20 teleconverter. This posting expands on a recent article that featured some pond images also captured with this teleconverter.
As mentioned on this website numerous times, folks should always buy and use the camera equipment that best suits their specific needs. This article is not intended to encourage anyone to go out and change their camera kit. It simply shares some frog test images that help demonstrate some of the Olympus/OM System technology that I love using.
Although I’ve never been a pixel peeper, I have included a few 100% crops for folks interested in such things.
NOTE: Click on images to enlarge.
The photograph above is one of our frog test images that utilizes Handheld Hi Res (HHHR) technology. It combines 16 images in camera while automatically adjusting for a photographer’s unique hand/body movements… and produces a 50 MP RAW file (i.e. 8160 x 6120 pixels). A 100% crop is shown below.
Handheld Hi Res technology can be effectively used with a range of stationary subjects including landscapes, flowers, insects, still life and so on. Obviously it is not well suited to windy conditions or live subjects that are constantly on the move.
Above is another Handheld Hi Res test image.
Along with an HHHR 100% crop from that same image.
For the past few years I’ve been using the in-camera focus stacking technology in my E-M1X on a handheld basis. My typical subject matter has been macro flower photography. Since frogs tend to be quite stationary much of the time I tried a couple of handheld in-camera focus stacked images, including the photograph above.
The photograph above is another handheld in-camera focus stacked image of the same frog, this time captured from a different angle. The output with in-camera focus stacking is a jpeg. Photographers can use software to stack the RAW files that were used to create in-camera focus stacking if they so desire. My standard in-camera focus stacking settings are 10 images with a focus differential of 4.
I also rely on my M.Zuiko MC-14 and MC-20 teleconverters to deliver additional reach when needed. Even when shooting with my M.Zuiko 100-400 fully extended, the resulting images when using the MC-14 or MC-20 teleconverters have shown themselves to be absolutely useable captures. As long as I have sufficient light I do not hesitate to use my M.Zuiko MC-20 teleconverter.
As regular readers know, I enjoy pushing myself and my camera gear. From time to time, I try somewhat extreme approaches simply to find out whether something is possible or not for me to achieve.
The photograph above is an example of some extreme testing. The image was captured handheld using the M.Zuiko 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 IS fully extended to 400, along with the MC-20 2X teleconverter, and my E-M1X’s Digital 2X Teleconverter. This creates a focal length of 1600 mm, or an efov of 3200 mm.
As you can see in the EXIF data, the photograph was captured handheld at f/13, with a shutter speed of 1/1250, using ISO-2500. This is an out-of-camera jpeg that was not cropped, but did have some minor adjustments done in post.
Given the shooting parameters for this photograph, I was pleased with the resulting image quality… especially since the output when using the Digital Teleconverter is a jpeg.
While using the Digital Teleconverter produced quite acceptable results, it is important to keep in mind that a RAW file has considerably more digital information to work with in post. The image above was processed from the corresponding RAW file and cropped to 2585 pixels on the width to approximate the subject size in the Digital Teleconverter version.
If you toggle back and forth between the two versions you will see some differences. Whether those differences are deemed significant would be up to an individual photographer to decide.
Our final test image using the M.Zuiko MC-20 in combination with the 2X Digital Teleconverter is illustrated above. Below you will find a 100% crop from that out-of-camera jpeg.
Ultimately the camera equipment that we choose is an intensely personal decision based on our interests and photographic needs. Being able to get a useable image shooting handheld under the somewhat extreme parameters outlined in this article was a ton of fun! This experience also provided me with an opportunity for personal growth.
I love the flexibility and creative options like Handheld Hi Res, In-Camera Focus Stacking, Digital Teleconverter and other technologies that are resident in my E-M1X. For the photography that I enjoy doing… I simply can’t imagine using any other camera equipment.
Technical Note
Photographs were captured handheld using camera gear as noted in the EXIF data. All images were captured using an M.Zuiko MC-20 teleconverter. Images were produced from RAW files and out-of-camera jpegs using my standard process. This is the 1,296 article published on this website since its original inception in 2015.
How you can help keep this site advertising free
My intent is to keep this photography blog advertising free. If you enjoyed this article and/or my website and would like to support my work, you can purchase an eBook, or make a donation through PayPal. Both are most appreciated.
Our eBooks…
The Finding Visual Expression eBook is designed to provide readers with some photographic inspiration and composition ideas. The Little Camera That Could details our extensive experience using the Nikon 1 system. Our eBooks also include a number of travel photography publications including Images of Ireland, New Zealand Tip-to-Tip, Desert & Mountain Memories, Images of Greece, and Nova Scotia Photography Tour. We also have a business leadership parable… Balancing Eggs.
Donations support this website…
If you click on the Donate button below you will find that there are three donation options: $7.50, $10.00 and $20.00. All are in Canadian funds. Plus, you can choose a different amount if you want. You can also increase your donation amount to help offset our costs associated with accepting your donation through PayPal. An ongoing, monthly contribution to support our work can also be done through the PayPal Donate button below.
You can make your donation through your PayPal account, or by using a number of credit card options.
Word of mouth is the best form of endorsement. If you like our website please let your friends and associates know about our work. Linking to this site or to specific articles is allowed with proper acknowledgement. Reproducing articles, or any of the images contained in them, on another website or in any social media posting is a Copyright infringement.
Article and images are Copyright 2023 Thomas Stirr. All rights reserved. No use, duplication or adaptation of any kind is allowed without written consent. If you see this article reproduced anywhere else it is an unauthorized and illegal use. Posting comments on offending websites and calling out individuals who steal intellectual property is always appreciated!
Tom, many thanks for your “Pond” and now “Frog” posts. They inspired me to revisit the 2x-doubler technique I had long ago given up on, back in my Canon days, due to loss of light and focus accuracy. So I went to our Botanical Gardens and came home with decent results. Then I went back and followed your suggestions about in-camera focus stacking, and this morning it paid off, even in less-than-full brightness.
My OM-1 is very similar to your E-M1X, and with the 100-400 and MC-20, handheld, I got my best-ever dragonfly. Upward and onward!
PS Your NZ book gives us ideas for our upcoming umpteenth visit, we’re scouring it with maps in hand.
Hi Lorenz,
I’m glad you gave the MC-20 another go… and got good results with it. Getting a “best ever” image is always a rewarding experience… congratulations.
My wife and I have also had the good fortune to visit New Zealand on a number of occasions and enjoyed every trip. We love the people, the culture and the amazing scenery. I hope you find some good ideas in New Zealand Tip-to-Tip.
Tom
Thomas, thanks for another informative article. This one is a bit of a mind bender in terms of how you’re gleefully stretching the limits of the technology.
Since your are stacking jpegs in-camera, how much latitude do you have in post to adjust color and other parameters? Do you get your color balance as close as possible in the viewfinder of the camera by manually adjusting the color temperature, or do you use AWB, or a preset such as Daylight, Cloudy, Shade?
Hi Edward,
🙂 I had to smile with your “gleefully stretching the limits of the technology” comment as it is an apt description of how I often approach my photography.
All of the images in this article were captured pretty much in bright sunlight so I left my E-M1X in auto white balance and just let the camera do its thing. I use AWB the bulk of the time with my photography and seldom adjust white balance while in the field. If I need to adjust white balance I typically tweak that in post.
In terms of the amount of latitude that is available in post, that does vary by the technology used in each image. The output for Handheld Hi Res is a RAW file so there’s no issue working with that in post. I am limited to some degree in post when using in-camera focus stacking (unless I want to stack the RAW files using software in post) and the digital teleconverter, as the output for both of these is a jpeg. I’m not sure if in-camera focus stacking uses the jpegs or RAW files to produce the jpeg output… I thought it used RAW files but I could be wrong on that.
If I think the jpeg output needs a bit more work I’ll do the bulk of that in DxO PhotoLab 4… then complete the process using the other four programs I utilize in post. If the jpeg looks decent (and if I’m feeling especially lazy that day) then I’ll open it in PhotoShop CS6 and go from there. For most of the images in this article I skipped DxO PhotoLab and started my process using my out-of-date version of PhotoShop.
Since I often use a combination of 5 programs in post (DxO PhotoLab 4, PhotoShop CS6, Nik Collection, Topaz Denoise AI, Topaz Sharpen AI… BTW all of them are out-of-date versions) I likely have a broader array of adjustments available to me than most folks would use in post. Regardless of the combination of programs that I may use in post I don’t typically spend more than 3-4 minutes, including computer processing time, with an individual image. Since I dislike working in post I tend to be pretty lazy in that regard and try to get in and out of post as quickly as I can.
Tom
The images using the MC-20 and those using the Digital Teleconverter are far better than what we are lead to believe on the forums. Thanks, Tom, for posting “live” examples and for being so meticulous in your work and in your descriptions. There is much more to be learned from “doing”, rather than by just talking about it!
Hi Terry,
I should clarify that all of the images in this article utilized the MC-20. The Digital Teleconverter was used in combination with the MC-20.
As with any technology it is important for each photographer to determine how to best apply it for the kind of work that they do.
I still have a lot of experimentation to do with the Digital Teleconverter. Having said that, a few things have become apparent to me. The Digital Teleconverter isn’t technology that I would use for distant subjects where I would be unable to get a high number of native pixels on a subject. The way that the Digital Teleconverter ‘adds in’ pixels seems to fall apart a bit when used for a distant subject. Also, subjects in motion like birds-in-flight don’t really work for me either.
Where the Digital Teleconverter seems to really shine is in situations where I can use it to help fill my frame with a static subject, or even have the subject bleed off the edges of the composition by getting in really tight on it. I’ve been doing some initial work with perched dragonflies and so far I’m quite encouraged by my early results… especially with the MC-14 in combination with the Digital Teleconverter.
I know you relate to full frame perspectives… that combination provides an efov of 2240 mm. I’m beginning to think that this may be the ‘sweet spot’ for using the Digital Teleconverter with the 100-400 fully extended in combination with an MC teleconverter. I still think the MC-20 has potential to be used with the 100-400 and Digital Teleconverter… but being forced into an aperture of f/13 with an extreme efov of 3200 mm does limit practical use in the field. Using the MC-14 at f/9 with an efov of 2240 mm is something that is much easier to do handheld and also is more flexible in terms of available light.
Tom