Thanks, Peter! Your videos are always interesting and useful! Please don't be too concerned with your English. You speak it amazingly well....and I believe that language is first about communication. You certainly communicate not only the contents, but also your enthusiasm for Olympus and your love of photography. Thanks again!
Peter -- thank you for posting these videos in English and your other media posts -- I have no trouble understanding you and appreciate all that you do for us!!!
Dear Peter, Your English language is clear and simple and delivers all your messages and assessment without any problems. Please do not get embaraced at all. The digital teleconverter is very useful and simply gives you an additional lens reach.
You triggered my curiosity about that digital tele-converter in one of your last videos. I tried it and was very surprised seeing the good results. I tried it on a E-M1 with the 40-150mm R and was very pleased with the results. When you look at 100% you’ll see some grain in the picture but that is really depending on the background you choose. The subject was still very sharp and I will definitely use it when I have no other means to get closer. The only thing I regret is that you only get a JPEG picture
I never even considered using the digital tele converter until seeing your video. Much better than I expected. Thank you, now I have another feature I can toy around with. I shoot jpg+Raw always so it is the best of both worlds. BTW, you speak the English language better than many where I live that’s for sure.
I've found the most helpful feature of the digital teleconverter is for video. You didn't touch on that in this video but just to let people know it works GREAT on video.
Right -- because video (4K or 1080p) is already a lower resolution than the full sensor resolution, the teleconverter function really does not drop any resolution. My Lumix G85 has pretty much the same function and I use it as a quick 2x "zoom" when doing video.
Yes, this, I would argue, deserves a video of its own. When I first noticed the digital teleconverter function, my thought was, "why bother in an ILC?" Then I realised the implications for video: every prime lens (looking at you, Oly 12 f2) is really two lenses---for 1080p, at least---such that a 12mm lens provides 135-equivalent 24mm *and* 48mm. You basically end up with a 2/3" sensor at 1/4 the resolution, so (again, for video) you can adapt C-mount lenses without image circle worries.
Thanks Peter. I am primarily a Jpeg shooter -- even for professional work (there are valid reasons). I have used the DTC (Digital Teleconverter) for years and have found it to produce excellent results. Two important considerations regarding using the DTC are: 1. Unlike an optical 2X teleconverter, the DTC does not cost two stops of speed -- f/4 without the DTC, remains f/4 with the DTC on. 2. Those who insist that better quality images can be obtained by cropping in post production are overlooking the fact that most photographers are going to frame a scene for the best composition -- regardless of focal length. This means that in any composition where your subject is placed according to the 'rule of thirds', if you crop after the fact in post you are cropping away from the center of the image where the lens is sharpest, where as the DTC for the same final composition is by definition a crop to the center of the frame -- the sharpest area. Personally, I use the DTC so often that I have it programmed to my Video Button, since I don't shoot much video. The DTC is excellent for birds and wildlife -- if you use Jpegs. My Olympus 100-400mm @ 400mm f/6.3 becomes an 800mm f/6.3 effective lens with the DTC -- and I get sharp, printable results.
Whoa, thank you so much for this LifeHack. Can't afford a longer lens, I have the Olympus 75-300mm lens & now I can reach the Ospreys in the middle of the Hudson River.
I have used the digital teleconverter, in combination with recording in both jpeg and raw, to great effect when shooting Division 1 sports for the local college. My reason was simple: I had to deliver usable files within 15 minutes of the end of game, with the images to be displayed on the website. I was always shooting stills, and my files were seldom printed larger than 16 X 20 inches. Within those parameters, there was no other system which could compete. The raw images gave a completely different perspective of the play than the jpegs, and the editors had options no other photographer could give them. Obviously, this appraoch was not used in portrait situations, and in cases where the larger filed of view did not give any advantage. It is all a matter of what your client needs, but in my experience the choice was an advantage I could not get from other systems.
I think in the case of photojournalism, it would be a better option to just have a tool with a customizable crop from the center of the frame, like 6-8-10-12-14MP, but without post-processing.
Hi Peter, very good that you dealt with this topic but I believe you have to look at it from another angle. As a professional or hobby photographer you will not be in need since you do post processing but what if you are a blogger or vlogger and you want your picture immediately online. In that case you use the jpeg out of the camera. Let us not forget that until recently the Olympus share app could not handle raw files! Now it does but it takes a long time to sync the raw files. Having a jpeg made wit the digital teleconverter comes in very handy than for instant syncing and sharing.
Hi Peter, keep up the good work for us Olympus users. I have tried the digital teleconverter on my EM1 MKII, and found it quite useful, I put it in the same class as changing the aspect ratio, if I think I'm going to want to crop an image later, for whatever reason, being able to see an properly frame the composition at the time of capture is important,. One thing you didn't mention, is that if you're using a tripod, which is likely on what is effectively a long lens, then you can also use the hi-res mode and get around the pixel count issues. I've not looked at whether this also gets around the non-cropped RAW issue.
Hi, Peter - good video! I discovered I had a digital teleconverter on my Olympus cameras awhile back, and I have since used it when I need the extra reach (which isn't often). I have a 40-150 Olympus lens, so the teleconverter gets me to 300mm, but with a slight loss of image sharpness. For me, 99% of the time that is fine - you really have to look with a trained photographic eye up close to see the difference. I'm sure many Olympus users don't even know it is there, so from that standpoint this will be a very useful video. Thanks!
I'm new to Olympus and I'm really enjoying your videos. They are helping me get a lot out of my cameras. I didn't about this feature until a few days ago. It's pretty great. Today, I went for a walk in a nearby park ... I had a 15mm lens my camera because that's what I was anticipating that I would need. I came across a situation where I would have loved to have my 25mm. This feature allowed me to take the shot :-)
Thanks for the video. I use the teleconverter quite regularly and I'm happy with the quality. I know it not going to be the best quality, but it has allowed me to take shots that would not have been possible without it. I'm new to Olympus so your videos have been very helpful. Thank you.
Thanks for yet another really useful video. I've never used digital zooms before because I thought the loss of quality wouldn't be worth it, but this has encouraged me to go out an give it a go. Thank you. Keep up the excellent work; maybe I am gradually becoming a better photographer (with your help). Bye for now.
Just come back from a holiday where I found it useful for wildlife shots. I found the kit zoom didn't get me close enough when I saw bears and eagles in the wild. I was shooting with raw and jpeg so found the X2 helpful in framing the shot and also for linking the jpeg to my phone soon after. In my eyes it's effectively a crop of the raw file but certainly found it useful to use for framing and having a jpeg to use straight away.
I have a 2X teleconver for my M42 screw mount lenses it came with a kit of lenses I bought with a number of M42 lenses. I had to recondition the Spotmatic SP2 that came with the kit it needed new light seals and new mirror bumper which l replaced for little money so now I have a full frame working interchangeable lens film camera
I think it’s a great feature if it’s possible to combine with handheld high resolution but I think OM should make it a variable convertor so that we can control the amount of zoom. Let’s say I’m walking around with a 14mm 2.5 pancake, I can use a variable DTC to get a 35mm equivalent FOV and then I could zoom in a touch further for a 50mm FOV. Combined with handheld high res, the cropped image would still be at least 20MP. Brilliant if narrow DOF isn’t a priority.
One of the things people do with images is crop. They get a different opinion on composition viewing the image afterwards and crop, they decide there is too much in frame and they crop, there is a distraction and they crop. One of the things the DTC allows is to visualize the composition which can be very helpful in certain situations and allows you to get the shot. Using math at a total 50% crop of the max image size from a MII you can still print at 15.6×11.7 inches (395×296 mm) at 250 dpi without scaling so throw in the scaling algorithm which does generate some near pixel detail back to the native resolution and you can see that you will be fine for medium prints.
Actually i think it is good to have the raw still maintain the original FOV, because I think the digital tele converter purpose are for us to view at the more cropped fov so that we could actually composite our images as if we will still need to do pos processing after that.
Honestly I didn't see much of a difference between those pictures but TH-cam compression could be a factor. I actually saw a video utilising the digital teleconverter for street photography and I think that at shorter focal lengths it's a pretty smart idea. I may have to try bringing just one lens with me and using the DTC to bump my 45mm to 90mm (90 > 180mm equivalent). Also, as a native Englishman, your intro sounded fine.
Years ago I had the PEN E-PL5 and I remember using this feature with the Panasonic 20mm lens. I found it useful to get a quick zoom for the odd shot. I do sometimes miss that now. I use a Lumix camera these days, yes isn't that terrible! ;-) On Lumix you have the teleconverter option but it only works well for video. I think for photos you have to reduce the image size or something weird. Oly did a better job.
Great video Peter. I have the OMD EM 10 Mk 2 and On a trip to Italy last year I found myself mostly using either my 12-40 Oly or a Rokinon 12mm on day excursions. The digital tele converter was used more and more and saved carrying an extra lens. For travel memories and to avoid changing lenses, I quickly became a fan. You have put it in perspective very well and Inwould encourage more people to try it. They may be pleasantly surprised. Oh, BTW, your English is just fine! 👍🏼😀
Thanks for the video. I guess shooting in raw +jpg might allow you to have the best of both worlds - if you don't like the jpeg you could upscale and process the raw file. Your English is quite good! You know what they say about the Americans and the British - two people separated by a common language (G.B. Shaw).
I take RAW and will upscale in post using Topaz AI, but the digital teleconverter is helpful for three reasons: I can compose better without having to imagine the crop; I can see what is going on more, so I can press the shutter at the right moment for nature photography; if I use auto ISO/Aperture or Shutter priority, then the metering is based on what is visible only in the crop rather than something bright, like the sun or a reflection, outside the crop. I have it on the button on the lens.
I have just gone outside and tested with my EM1 mk1 and 40-150 Pro. I took a photo of some tiles on the water fountain. To get the JPEG close to the RAW I had to increase exposure +0.10, whites by +0.10, luminance 20, the RAW file sharpening 40 (default), luminance 35. I magnified both images again taking a further crop out of the JPEG image, so that both were the same size. Godamit, side by side, the difference was so marginal, not significant in my opinion (contrary to opinions that the digital tele is so bad) That said quite complementary for the RAW image. Yes I do shoot RAW and of course the 300 f4 is going to be so much better, but the cost! The 2x optical tele is an option but still quite expensive and you loose 2 stops of light. The only time I would use the digital tele, is for remote portrait travel photography, which I was wanting to do on my up and coming to trip to Rajasthan, thank you, has saved me lots of money, and also the hassle of carrying yet another lens!
@@ForsgardPeter I forgot to mention that one of the more compelling reasons why an actual lens is better is that you are able to expose more accurately over the frame especially when back lit, because your subject will fill more of the frame, so yea that is a very good reason to purchase the optical tele, I forgot about that, of course the 300 F4 is the outright winner! But I think I am going to wait for the optically stabilized zoom coming, because it will be more versatile, although I am pretty sure its going to be too expensive for me anyway
Hi Peter, I'm experimenting with the teleconverter doing macro. I'm interested to see if the teleconverter image is better than the cropped RAW file. I suspect there is little discernible difference but that, as you point out, the teleconverter image is only available as a jpg file and will therefore offer less post-processing potential. That said, where the teleconverter might add benefit is as a focusing aid for manual focus (I find the magnify aid magnifies too much when using long lenses hand-held and it is difficult to maintain the critical focus point in the field of view).
Thanks, but you did not mention a word about using the digital teleconverter when shooting video. I believe the real benefits are there. Until now I have always disabled digital zoom functions in every gadget I have used during last 20 years, but now with OM-D E-M5 mark II, I have buried this principle and found this feature very useful.
You have used longer image presentation ...excelent ... ! About digital teleconverter ... a lot of starters don’t use RAW image ...only JPEG ..so it is usefull for them. Why could Oly not take 2x picture and use that for extra range.
"Consider to subscribe" may not be the most common usage but it is a bit harsh to say it is wrong. "Remember to subscribe" would be grammatically correct and idiomatically conventional. "Consider to subscribe" combines the same elements: verb and infinitive. In any event the expression is perfectly comprehensible. I considered to subscribe and then I did subscribe.
Digital telecoverter is more important in video because you are not using the whole sensor resolution. Peter could you please make an exception and prepare a follow up video about video teleconverters in Olympus cameras? Is there an option to shoot cropped 4K and 1080p 1:1 without resampling? Or is Olympus always upscaling or downscalling movies?
That is a very good topic and I should do it. I have not used the teleconverter when making videos. It has been requested a few times, so I just might do that.
Very informative video. I did not even realize my OM-D EM10 Mark II had this feature. Question....I have FN1 assigned to Magnify. FN2 assigned to peaking, and FN3 assigned to multifunction. Can I assign this teleconverter feature to FN3 and still keep the multifunction functions I assigned to this button....IE adding Teleconverter to the multifunction list. Or, would it be better to just uses a "Myset" for this ? Thanks and let me know.
You can only have one feature assigned to a function button. Yes if you ait is in the list for features that are included in the multifunction list. Cannot check it right now if it is.
So I take it the camera is just using the center part of the sensor, then upscaling the image to full resolution with the camera firmware and outputting a jpeg? Is that how it works? And are you saying you get somewhat better quality by shooting a full raw file, cropping later in post, then upscaling and exporting a jpeg?
I have a problem, and I hope you can help. When checking the jpeg versus the raw file in my Olympus Mark IV, to my surprise I saw that the jpegs where I used zoom are totally different in the raw file, without any zoom, and basically a TOTALLY different photo. Is this something I can fix? I would really appreciate your help with this, as is it is a BIG problem...
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you. So then there is basically nothing that can be done to change this, or to "save" the images that have already been exposed to this? And the RAW files would not be affected by the zoom at all, no matter what settings are used?
I've never used a digital teleconverter on OLY or other camera. I always turn the digital teleconverter off and shoot jpeg. Would I be better off using a digital teleconverter in jpeg and cropping, or would the results be about the same?
I did not try how the upscaled jpg would look like. Most likely upscaling in post is a bit better. That is because image editing software is better in image editing than cameras, but as I said did not test that.
So, Peter.... each time i change a lens, say from my macro to my 40-150mm, must I go into menu to adjust my settings? Know what I mean? I'm editing here... I forgot to mention that I do have a converter. mc14. Thanks so much.
Dommage, mon anglais est un peu limité pour tout comprendre.... Il y atrop de chiffre dans cette vidéo pour mon esprit de francophone :). Est-il possible d'avoir quelques exemples à télécharger pour que nous puissions nous rendre compte des différence sur nos ordinateurs sans passer par Youtub qui ne rend pas vraiment la réalité de la qualité. Too bad, my English is a little limited to understand everything .... There is atrop of figure in this video for my spirit of French :). Is it possible to have some examples to download so that we can realize the difference on our computers without going through Youtub that does not really make the reality of quality.
Peter Forsgård I watched this again and obviously didn’t take in the fact that when in raw the camera records in raw. This is most helpful as it saves ‘instants’ as I am a manual photographer. What I mean by that is I use the teleconverter as a focus aid so can now just go ahead and take the image if my subject is fleeting
The downside is that your 20 megapixel photo ends up as a 5 megapixel photo. The result is a blocky photo. You would be better off cropping the original 20 megapixel photo.
I tried to use the digital tele-Converter in M1-2 when shooting sports and when shooting 4K, c4k and 1080p. The result in my opinion is not digestible for professional use in 90% of situations. In my opinion the Olympus is that the change in this function, you have more flexibility and adjust the frequency of the Converter. Additionally, I would like to be able to use this function to get immediately cropped image in the JPEG without its subsequent increase to the original 20mp, for example, crop from the center of the frame with a size of 8-12 MP would be more applicable to me than what is now. The use of the same teleconverter when shooting video gives a completely terrible result in the case of 1080p and less acceptable, if you use c4k. Nevertheless, not so long ago I accidentally discovered in the cameras Olympus M5-2 and M1-2 the possibility of using a drop from the matrix when shooting in 1080p. Apparently with this function is taken pixel area in the pixel 1920x1080. In the case of M1-2, this gives an additional 2.7 x magnification in terms of the focal length of the installed lens. To check I put the M5-2 with a 300mm lens and video recording in standard mode and M1-2 with 12-100 to 100mm, but with the additional crop. The result of the angle of view was close, but 300mm gave a slightly smaller angle, which corresponds to my calculations angle with 100mm lens (540mm). Unfortunately, this ability to record video pixel to pixel is not available in 4K and c4k modes, which would be very useful and would allow to "expand" the range of available optics, especially fix lenses.
@@SonnyCrackBeatsSpecially checked the difference and now once again shot on M1-2 in 1080p from one point with a digital teleconverter and with the crop mode from the sensor, you can estimate the difference in angle of view and image detail. Mode crop from the image sensor allows you to switch between recording from the entire width of the sensor and the crop directly at the time of recording. The link is available source, you can download and compare yourself: yadi.sk/d/NvcU2Yq9WR5f7Q
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 17mm f/1.2 PRO Olympus Zuiko MFT 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO MFT Olympus M.Zuiko MFT 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO Olympus M.Zuiko MFT 25mm F/1.2 PRO wich of these would you buy,? the use will be astro ,timelapse, photo stacking, landscape,macro,..allround, wich is best for astro? m4/3 isint the best for astro,so the lince must good =) ..would you pick any of my 4 options? or do you know a better one?... im using om-d e-m1
That is a tough choice. For astro you need a fast lens, so the 8mm could be good for that. But it is a fish-eye, so the 7-14mm f2.8 is a very good option. The 17mm f1.2 might be a bit too long, but it has a very fast aperture. 25mm is too long for most astro photos. Considering all of those needs, I would probably go for the 7-14mm f2.8. But as I said it is not an easy decision. Hope this helps?
@@ForsgardPeter thank you very much, i was thinking the same thing, 17mm might be to long, and the 8mm is a fisheye,and cant use filters,, so its the 7-14mm then, some filter issues there as well, but its good allround, wanted to go lover then f2.8 though hehe... the 7-14mm is a "must" have anyways, i have the 7-14mm f4,but its not pro,and cant stack with that one...upgrading to pro, and going for the 7-14mm=) thanks
@@ForsgardPeter I got it wrong too and I am English! I should have said "Whilst" instead of while. Hahaha what a crazy language! With regards to the tele converter function (we have something similar on Lumix cameras) is it not just basically "in the field cropping" with the benefit of metering being correct and useful only for those that don't want to do a lot of post processing?
I recently tried this out on my 40-150 Kit lens to take pictures of the full moon and was very impressed with the result. instagram.com/p/B2Uv8FYCzsl/? . Unfortunately none of my lens are compatible with the MC-20 so this is a real alternative.
![Olympus MC-14 and MC-20 - [Image Quality?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AZZW_tMImdM/mqdefault.jpg)
The person that complained about your English Peter, I wonder how good his/her Finnish or Swedish is??
You do a great job. Thanks.(Kiitos Peter)
Nobody is actually complaining, just correcting.
Your English is clear, simple and fluent, just forget about the pronunciation because you explain things very well and clear !
Thank you.
Thanks, Peter! Your videos are always interesting and useful! Please don't be too concerned with your English. You speak it amazingly well....and I believe that language is first about communication. You certainly communicate not only the contents, but also your enthusiasm for Olympus and your love of photography. Thanks again!
Thank you!
Nothing wrong with your English Peter, far better than the other languages I speak, which are NONE.
I speak one,you do pretty damn good IMO.
Thanks.
Peter -- thank you for posting these videos in English and your other media posts -- I have no trouble understanding you and appreciate all that you do for us!!!
Thanks.
Dear Peter,
Your English language is clear and simple and delivers all your messages and assessment without any problems. Please do not get embaraced at all. The digital teleconverter is very useful and simply gives you an additional lens reach.
You triggered my curiosity about that digital tele-converter in one of your last videos. I tried it and was very surprised seeing the good results.
I tried it on a E-M1 with the 40-150mm R and was very pleased with the results. When you look at 100% you’ll see some grain in the picture but that is really depending on the background you choose.
The subject was still very sharp and I will definitely use it when I have no other means to get closer.
The only thing I regret is that you only get a JPEG picture
I never even considered using the digital tele converter until seeing your video. Much better than I expected. Thank you, now I have another feature I can toy around with. I shoot jpg+Raw always so it is the best of both worlds. BTW, you speak the English language better than many where I live that’s for sure.
Thanks.
I've found the most helpful feature of the digital teleconverter is for video. You didn't touch on that in this video but just to let people know it works GREAT on video.
Right -- because video (4K or 1080p) is already a lower resolution than the full sensor resolution, the teleconverter function really does not drop any resolution. My Lumix G85 has pretty much the same function and I use it as a quick 2x "zoom" when doing video.
I did not mention that at all. Thanks for bringing that up. I need to test that also.
Yes, this, I would argue, deserves a video of its own. When I first noticed the digital teleconverter function, my thought was, "why bother in an ILC?" Then I realised the implications for video: every prime lens (looking at you, Oly 12 f2) is really two lenses---for 1080p, at least---such that a 12mm lens provides 135-equivalent 24mm *and* 48mm. You basically end up with a 2/3" sensor at 1/4 the resolution, so (again, for video) you can adapt C-mount lenses without image circle worries.
Is there any quality drop? Is the ratio 2x or other? can it be used with digital zoom?
IMO your English is better than many native speakers. The fact it's your third language is fantastic!
Thank you.
Thanks Peter. I am primarily a Jpeg shooter -- even for professional work (there are valid reasons). I have used the DTC (Digital Teleconverter) for years and have found it to produce excellent results. Two important considerations regarding using the DTC are: 1. Unlike an optical 2X teleconverter, the DTC does not cost two stops of speed -- f/4 without the DTC, remains f/4 with the DTC on. 2. Those who insist that better quality images can be obtained by cropping in post production are overlooking the fact that most photographers are going to frame a scene for the best composition -- regardless of focal length. This means that in any composition where your subject is placed according to the 'rule of thirds', if you crop after the fact in post you are cropping away from the center of the image where the lens is sharpest, where as the DTC for the same final composition is by definition a crop to the center of the frame -- the sharpest area.
Personally, I use the DTC so often that I have it programmed to my Video Button, since I don't shoot much video. The DTC is excellent for birds and wildlife -- if you use Jpegs. My Olympus 100-400mm @ 400mm f/6.3 becomes an 800mm f/6.3 effective lens with the DTC -- and I get sharp, printable results.
Thanks for sharing.
Tried the teleconverter today, with 14-42 lens, amazing results! Great! thanks
Glad that it worked for you.
Whoa, thank you so much for this LifeHack. Can't afford a longer lens, I have the Olympus 75-300mm lens & now I can reach the Ospreys in the middle of the Hudson River.
Happy to help!
I used the digital tele-conv. with the Oly 14-150 to shoot the Moon many times and I was very happy with the results.
I have used the digital teleconverter, in combination with recording in both jpeg and raw, to great effect when shooting Division 1 sports for the local college. My reason was simple: I had to deliver usable files within 15 minutes of the end of game, with the images to be displayed on the website. I was always shooting stills, and my files were seldom printed larger than 16 X 20 inches. Within those parameters, there was no other system which could compete. The raw images gave a completely different perspective of the play than the jpegs, and the editors had options no other photographer could give them. Obviously, this appraoch was not used in portrait situations, and in cases where the larger filed of view did not give any advantage. It is all a matter of what your client needs, but in my experience the choice was an advantage I could not get from other systems.
I think in the case of photojournalism, it would be a better option to just have a tool with a customizable crop from the center of the frame, like 6-8-10-12-14MP, but without post-processing.
Hi Peter, very good that you dealt with this topic but I believe you have to look at it from another angle. As a professional or hobby photographer you will not be in need since you do post processing but what if you are a blogger or vlogger and you want your picture immediately online. In that case you use the jpeg out of the camera. Let us not forget that until recently the Olympus share app could not handle raw files! Now it does but it takes a long time to sync the raw files. Having a jpeg made wit the digital teleconverter comes in very handy than for instant syncing and sharing.
That is a good point about the sharing.
Hi Peter, keep up the good work for us Olympus users.
I have tried the digital teleconverter on my EM1 MKII, and found it quite useful, I put it in the same class as changing the aspect ratio, if I think I'm going to want to crop an image later, for whatever reason, being able to see an properly frame the composition at the time of capture is important,.
One thing you didn't mention, is that if you're using a tripod, which is likely on what is effectively a long lens, then you can also use the hi-res mode and get around the pixel count issues. I've not looked at whether this also gets around the non-cropped RAW issue.
That is a good point about the high res mode. Thanks for bringing it up.
Hi Peter, as usual a great informative video for us Olympus users and have never had any trouble understanding your English keep up the good work.
Thanks.
your vlog video montage is better to cut the waiting scene or mis saying scene. Keep up the good work peter..
Hi, Peter - good video! I discovered I had a digital teleconverter on my Olympus cameras awhile back, and I have since used it when I need the extra reach (which isn't often). I have a 40-150 Olympus lens, so the teleconverter gets me to 300mm, but with a slight loss of image sharpness. For me, 99% of the time that is fine - you really have to look with a trained photographic eye up close to see the difference. I'm sure many Olympus users don't even know it is there, so from that standpoint this will be a very useful video. Thanks!
I'm new to Olympus and I'm really enjoying your videos. They are helping me get a lot out of my cameras. I didn't about this feature until a few days ago.
It's pretty great. Today, I went for a walk in a nearby park ... I had a 15mm lens my camera because that's what I was anticipating that I would need. I came across a situation where I would have loved to have my 25mm. This feature allowed me to take the shot :-)
Thanks!
Thanks for the updates. You're English is excellent, so don't worry. I prefer the Upscale from the Raw image
Thanks for the video. I use the teleconverter quite regularly and I'm happy with the quality. I know it not going to be the best quality, but it has allowed me to take
shots that would not have been possible without it.
I'm new to Olympus so your videos have been very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you very much Tony Boyd!
Thanks for yet another really useful video. I've never used digital zooms before because I thought the loss of quality wouldn't be worth it, but this has encouraged me to go out an give it a go. Thank you. Keep up the excellent work; maybe I am gradually becoming a better photographer (with your help). Bye for now.
I am glad that these videos help you! Thank you.
Thanks Peter .Good video and good english. You explain well.
Thanks! 😃
Your videos are very high quality and useful. I learned a lot of good things from your videos, thank you so much.
Thank you.
Very helpful 👍 I’m English yours is better than mine 👍😉 your doing great your videos are always helpful and well explained
Thank you! 😃
Kiitos! Enpä olisi ilman tämän videon näkemistä tullut ajatelleeksi koko asiaa.
Eipä kestä.
It's one of the many features Olympus cameras have that
give you better images
Just come back from a holiday where I found it useful for wildlife shots. I found the kit zoom didn't get me close enough when I saw bears and eagles in the wild. I was shooting with raw and jpeg so found the X2 helpful in framing the shot and also for linking the jpeg to my phone soon after. In my eyes it's effectively a crop of the raw file but certainly found it useful to use for framing and having a jpeg to use straight away.
I have a 2X teleconver for my M42 screw mount lenses it came with a kit of lenses I bought with a number of M42 lenses. I had to recondition the Spotmatic SP2 that came with the kit it needed new light seals and new mirror bumper which l replaced for little money so now I have a full frame working interchangeable lens film camera
Thank You Peter fort this video. And abort your english. Much better than my... and I always understund.what You mean.
Thanks.
I think it’s a great feature if it’s possible to combine with handheld high resolution but I think OM should make it a variable convertor so that we can control the amount of zoom. Let’s say I’m walking around with a 14mm 2.5 pancake, I can use a variable DTC to get a 35mm equivalent FOV and then I could zoom in a touch further for a 50mm FOV. Combined with handheld high res, the cropped image would still be at least 20MP. Brilliant if narrow DOF isn’t a priority.
One of the things people do with images is crop. They get a different opinion on composition viewing the image afterwards and crop, they decide there is too much in frame and they crop, there is a distraction and they crop. One of the things the DTC allows is to visualize the composition which can be very helpful in certain situations and allows you to get the shot. Using math at a total 50% crop of the max image size from a MII you can still print at 15.6×11.7 inches (395×296 mm) at 250 dpi without scaling so throw in the scaling algorithm which does generate some near pixel detail back to the native resolution and you can see that you will be fine for medium prints.
I attached the digital teleconverter to the red dot button on my E-M1 II. I use it rarely for things “out of reach” but prefer to re-size from RAW.
Resizing from raw-file you get a bit better image quality.
Thanks for the tip Peter.
You are welcome.
Actually i think it is good to have the raw still maintain the original FOV, because I think the digital tele converter purpose are for us to view at the more cropped fov so that we could actually composite our images as if we will still need to do pos processing after that.
Honestly I didn't see much of a difference between those pictures but TH-cam compression could be a factor. I actually saw a video utilising the digital teleconverter for street photography and I think that at shorter focal lengths it's a pretty smart idea. I may have to try bringing just one lens with me and using the DTC to bump my 45mm to 90mm (90 > 180mm equivalent).
Also, as a native Englishman, your intro sounded fine.
Thanks. Give the digital teleconverter a try and see if it is something that you like to use.
Years ago I had the PEN E-PL5 and I remember using this feature with the Panasonic 20mm lens. I found it useful to get a quick zoom for the odd shot. I do sometimes miss that now. I use a Lumix camera these days, yes isn't that terrible! ;-) On Lumix you have the teleconverter option but it only works well for video. I think for photos you have to reduce the image size or something weird. Oly did a better job.
Great video Peter. I have the OMD EM 10 Mk 2 and On a trip to Italy last year I found myself mostly using either my 12-40 Oly or a Rokinon 12mm on day excursions. The digital tele converter was used more and more and saved carrying an extra lens. For travel memories and to avoid changing lenses, I quickly became a fan. You have put it in perspective very well and Inwould encourage more people to try it. They may be pleasantly surprised. Oh, BTW, your English is just fine! 👍🏼😀
Thanks for the video. I guess shooting in raw +jpg might allow you to have the best of both worlds - if you don't like the jpeg you could upscale and process the raw file.
Your English is quite good! You know what they say about the Americans and the British - two people separated by a common language (G.B. Shaw).
I take RAW and will upscale in post using Topaz AI, but the digital teleconverter is helpful for three reasons: I can compose better without having to imagine the crop; I can see what is going on more, so I can press the shutter at the right moment for nature photography; if I use auto ISO/Aperture or Shutter priority, then the metering is based on what is visible only in the crop rather than something bright, like the sun or a reflection, outside the crop. I have it on the button on the lens.
The idea to have the exposure from that area is quite good. If you crop it anyway it will give a better starting point for a perfect exposure.
Now it makes more sense why would they use a dedicated button for the digital teleconverter on the M10 Mark IV!
I have just gone outside and tested with my EM1 mk1 and 40-150 Pro. I took a photo of some tiles on the water fountain. To get the JPEG close to the RAW I had to increase exposure +0.10, whites by +0.10, luminance 20, the RAW file sharpening 40 (default), luminance 35. I magnified both images again taking a further crop out of the JPEG image, so that both were the same size. Godamit, side by side, the difference was so marginal, not significant in my opinion (contrary to opinions that the digital tele is so bad) That said quite complementary for the RAW image. Yes I do shoot RAW and of course the 300 f4 is going to be so much better, but the cost! The 2x optical tele is an option but still quite expensive and you loose 2 stops of light. The only time I would use the digital tele, is for remote portrait travel photography, which I was wanting to do on my up and coming to trip to Rajasthan, thank you, has saved me lots of money, and also the hassle of carrying yet another lens!
It is a good feature to have and as you said the quality loss is not very big. Of course it is better if you do not have to use it.
@@ForsgardPeter I forgot to mention that one of the more compelling reasons why an actual lens is better is that you are able to expose more accurately over the frame especially when back lit, because your subject will fill more of the frame, so yea that is a very good reason to purchase the optical tele, I forgot about that, of course the 300 F4 is the outright winner! But I think I am going to wait for the optically stabilized zoom coming, because it will be more versatile, although I am pretty sure its going to be too expensive for me anyway
Hi Peter, I'm experimenting with the teleconverter doing macro. I'm interested to see if the teleconverter image is better than the cropped RAW file. I suspect there is little discernible difference but that, as you point out, the teleconverter image is only available as a jpg file and will therefore offer less post-processing potential. That said, where the teleconverter might add benefit is as a focusing aid for manual focus (I find the magnify aid magnifies too much when using long lenses hand-held and it is difficult to maintain the critical focus point in the field of view).
Thanks, but you did not mention a word about using the digital teleconverter when shooting video. I believe the real benefits are there. Until now I have always disabled digital zoom functions in every gadget I have used during last 20 years, but now with OM-D E-M5 mark II, I have buried this principle and found this feature very useful.
I did not cover the video part. I have not used it, but I need to try and see how it is. Thanks for bringing that up.
You have used longer image presentation ...excelent ... !
About digital teleconverter ... a lot of starters don’t use RAW image ...only JPEG ..so it is usefull for them.
Why could Oly not take 2x picture and use that for extra range.
Your English is amazing!!!
Thanks.
Nice overview, thank you. I like the background music, who is the musician, please?
Ou nou I forgot to mention it in the description. The song s is from www.epidemicsound.com and here is a link: www.epidemicsound.com/track/Q0SClZlKHn
It might be useful in video, but in photo - only for JPG shooters
"Consider to subscribe" may not be the most common usage but it is a bit harsh to say it is wrong. "Remember to subscribe" would be grammatically correct and idiomatically conventional. "Consider to subscribe" combines the same elements: verb and infinitive. In any event the expression is perfectly comprehensible. I considered to subscribe and then I did subscribe.
Thank you.
Digital telecoverter is more important in video because you are not using the whole sensor resolution. Peter could you please make an exception and prepare a follow up video about video teleconverters in Olympus cameras? Is there an option to shoot cropped 4K and 1080p 1:1 without resampling? Or is Olympus always upscaling or downscalling movies?
That is a very good topic and I should do it. I have not used the teleconverter when making videos. It has been requested a few times, so I just might do that.
It’s only working with 1080, for 4K you can’t use this option at least on em5 m3
👍 Definitely worth a try 🙏
Yes, it is.
Very informative video. I did not even realize my OM-D EM10 Mark II had this feature. Question....I have FN1 assigned to Magnify. FN2 assigned to peaking, and FN3 assigned to multifunction. Can I assign this teleconverter feature to FN3 and still keep the multifunction functions I assigned to this button....IE adding Teleconverter to the multifunction list. Or, would it be better to just uses a "Myset" for this ? Thanks and let me know.
You can only have one feature assigned to a function button. Yes if you ait is in the list for features that are included in the multifunction list. Cannot check it right now if it is.
@@ForsgardPeter Thanks for replying !!!
What is the difference between Digital Teleconverter and the Qx2 Button
Nothing, the Digital teleconverter function is assigned to Qx2 button. It can be assigned to something else if you want.
So I take it the camera is just using the center part of the sensor, then upscaling the image to full resolution with the camera firmware and outputting a jpeg? Is that how it works? And are you saying you get somewhat better quality by shooting a full raw file, cropping later in post, then upscaling and exporting a jpeg?
Yes.
Thanks for that Peter , could be useful in an emergency!
Excatly.
I use the digital TC a lot in raw, how do I know how much I can upscale in pixels if I edit in LR and then export!
I have a problem, and I hope you can help. When checking the jpeg versus the raw file in my Olympus Mark IV, to my surprise I saw that the jpegs where I used zoom are totally different in the raw file, without any zoom, and basically a TOTALLY different photo. Is this something I can fix? I would really appreciate your help with this, as is it is a BIG problem...
Teleconverter works only on jpg. If I remember correctly.
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you. So then there is basically nothing that can be done to change this, or to "save" the images that have already been exposed to this? And the RAW files would not be affected by the zoom at all, no matter what settings are used?
I've never used a digital teleconverter on OLY or other camera. I always turn the digital teleconverter off and shoot jpeg. Would I be better off using a digital teleconverter in jpeg and cropping, or would the results be about the same?
I did not try how the upscaled jpg would look like. Most likely upscaling in post is a bit better. That is because image editing software is better in image editing than cameras, but as I said did not test that.
So, Peter.... each time i change a lens, say from my macro to my 40-150mm, must I go into menu to adjust my settings? Know what I mean?
I'm editing here... I forgot to mention that I do have a converter. mc14. Thanks so much.
No you do not have to. The settings are only suggestions and if those settings suite your style of making images use them, if not then do not.
Does it work in 4k video as well?
Yes, if the camera has 4K.
Peter, can you use it in high res mode?
No it does not work on highres mode.
Dommage, mon anglais est un peu limité pour tout comprendre.... Il y atrop de chiffre dans cette vidéo pour mon esprit de francophone :).
Est-il possible d'avoir quelques exemples à télécharger pour que nous puissions nous rendre compte des différence sur nos ordinateurs sans passer par Youtub qui ne rend pas vraiment la réalité de la qualité.
Too bad, my English is a little limited to understand everything .... There is atrop of figure in this video for my spirit of French :). Is it possible to have some examples to download so that we can realize the difference on our computers without going through Youtub that does not really make the reality of quality.
I have done that sometimes. I should do it more often.
Also available on Pen!
Thanks for the info!
Peter Forsgård I watched this again and obviously didn’t take in the fact that when in raw the camera records in raw. This is most helpful as it saves ‘instants’ as I am a manual photographer. What I mean by that is I use the teleconverter as a focus aid so can now just go ahead and take the image if my subject is fleeting
The downside is that your 20 megapixel photo ends up as a 5 megapixel photo. The result is a blocky photo. You would be better off cropping the original 20 megapixel photo.
No, it will be 20 megapixel photo. The camera upscales it.
@@ForsgardPeter Or 5 megapixels magnified !
#PeterForsgard
Love your videos and no need for apologies
I tried to use the digital tele-Converter in M1-2 when shooting sports and when shooting 4K, c4k and 1080p. The result in my opinion is not digestible for professional use in 90% of situations. In my opinion the Olympus is that the change in this function, you have more flexibility and adjust the frequency of the Converter. Additionally, I would like to be able to use this function to get immediately cropped image in the JPEG without its subsequent increase to the original 20mp, for example, crop from the center of the frame with a size of 8-12 MP would be more applicable to me than what is now. The use of the same teleconverter when shooting video gives a completely terrible result in the case of 1080p and less acceptable, if you use c4k. Nevertheless, not so long ago I accidentally discovered in the cameras Olympus M5-2 and M1-2 the possibility of using a drop from the matrix when shooting in 1080p. Apparently with this function is taken pixel area in the pixel 1920x1080. In the case of M1-2, this gives an additional 2.7 x magnification in terms of the focal length of the installed lens. To check I put the M5-2 with a 300mm lens and video recording in standard mode and M1-2 with 12-100 to 100mm, but with the additional crop. The result of the angle of view was close, but 300mm gave a slightly smaller angle, which corresponds to my calculations angle with 100mm lens (540mm). Unfortunately, this ability to record video pixel to pixel is not available in 4K and c4k modes, which would be very useful and would allow to "expand" the range of available optics, especially fix lenses.
Not sure.. I got great results in 1080p.. I'm using an EM-10 Mark II..
@@SonnyCrackBeatsSpecially checked the difference and now once again shot on M1-2 in 1080p from one point with a digital teleconverter and with the crop mode from the sensor, you can estimate the difference in angle of view and image detail. Mode crop from the image sensor allows you to switch between recording from the entire width of the sensor and the crop directly at the time of recording. The link is available source, you can download and compare yourself: yadi.sk/d/NvcU2Yq9WR5f7Q
Interesting, I need to check that out! Thanks for sharing.
@@ForsgardPeterThe easiest way to enable this feature is to assign one of the function buttons in the video mode.
Surprisingly, I think the digital teleconverter looks better than the RAW .... or I need to clean my glasses 😂.
It is a matter of opinion. The difference is not very big.
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 17mm f/1.2 PRO
Olympus Zuiko MFT 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO MFT
Olympus M.Zuiko MFT 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO
Olympus M.Zuiko MFT 25mm F/1.2 PRO
wich of these would you buy,? the use will be astro ,timelapse, photo stacking, landscape,macro,..allround, wich is best for astro? m4/3 isint the best for astro,so the lince must good =) ..would you pick any of my 4 options? or do you know a better one?... im using om-d e-m1
That is a tough choice. For astro you need a fast lens, so the 8mm could be good for that. But it is a fish-eye, so the 7-14mm f2.8 is a very good option. The 17mm f1.2 might be a bit too long, but it has a very fast aperture. 25mm is too long for most astro photos.
Considering all of those needs, I would probably go for the 7-14mm f2.8. But as I said it is not an easy decision.
Hope this helps?
@@ForsgardPeter thank you very much, i was thinking the same thing, 17mm might be to long, and the 8mm is a fisheye,and cant use filters,, so its the 7-14mm then, some filter issues there as well, but its good allround, wanted to go lover then f2.8 though hehe... the 7-14mm is a "must" have anyways, i have the 7-14mm f4,but its not pro,and cant stack with that one...upgrading to pro, and going for the 7-14mm=) thanks
While we are correcting your English (😂)
Can you say "This channel is all about helping you become a better photographer"
😂😂😂
I could. Sounds good! I just might use that!
@@ForsgardPeter I got it wrong too and I am English! I should have said "Whilst" instead of while. Hahaha what a crazy language!
With regards to the tele converter function (we have something similar on Lumix cameras) is it not just basically "in the field cropping" with the benefit of metering being correct and useful only for those that don't want to do a lot of post processing?
Robin Wong would respectfully disagree with you!
Shaka yeah, I thought all it does was crop your raw photo and you lose mega pixels I’m so confused lol
Yes, I know. I saw his great video. Robin has a point, the image quality is not as good, because of the upscaling.
How does the image quality of the image quality of the OM10 mk 3 compare with the OM1 mk2?
Have not tested them side by side. I assume that the difference is the same as in IQ over all.
I recently tried this out on my 40-150 Kit lens to take pictures of the full moon and was very impressed with the result. instagram.com/p/B2Uv8FYCzsl/? . Unfortunately none of my lens are compatible with the MC-20 so this is a real alternative.