What is the best m43 for focus tracking?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Questions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,838Gear list
Like?
Re: Another true believer
In reply to peevee1, Apr 5, 2013

peevee1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

PerL wrote:

I mention the G5 vs D4 as just one example of many very odd results. I can say a few more: Panasonic GX1 - best of all cameras in AF-C? Panasonic G3H - worst of all m43? Anders took out the OM-D values, because he thought they were flawed. That is 3 out 5 cameras in the m43 group with strange results.

Lets go to the DSLRs. Best of all - Canon 650D? The super cheap Canon 1100D - very close to 5DIII and Nikon D800, better than all medium DSLRs, including Canons own? Lets look at the SLT Sonys. The top of the APS-C line, Sony A77, slower than a NEX 7? The results are all over the place, contradicting AF system sophistication and processing power.

And finally - m43 CDAF vs PDAF DSLRs. Judging from this, the low end m43 Panasonics are now in the class of pro or semipro DSLR cameras in AF-C performance (Nikon D4, Nikon D800, Canon 5DIII, Nikon D600) and also better than all Sony SLTs and capable DSLRs like Nikon D7000 and Canon 60D.

You mention that the test may be a special case where CDAF works better - AF-C head on. Well, here good DSLRs perform excellent - at least on real targets. This is a series from a Nikon D300S (green indicates sharp)

I am getting out of this discussion now since it leads nowhere, too much waste of time and energy.

I am afraid that it is indeed a waste of time to argue with you. Having dealt with objections like those you now raise for the umpteenth time already in my first post on the subject as well as in several later posts, I have now lost any hope of having you understand why there is a need for elementary statistical tools like averages, standard deviations or correlation coefficients when dealing with data of the present kind. If you are ever to pass Statistics 101, you need to find a more patient teacher.

I don't see any averages and standard deviations in the list you cited, no confidence intervals.

I count on people's ability to count to the extent that they need to. But within limits, I try to give them a helping hand with the math. Here's one example from a prior post:

"Consider the fact that in the FNAC report of two years ago (the one where they tested the GH2 that you have personal experience with), the average value for the mirrorless camera tested was 16.25 meters. Two years later, that figure is down to 11. For MFT cameras specifically, the value two years ago was 13.5. By now, the average is down to 7.  In the meantime, the results for DSLRs haven't changed much. PDAF is a rather mature technology. CDAF has been developing rapidly in the last few years and is now catching up."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51207299

That is why it looks like the result of a single try, or, frankly, just BS.

That's what it may look like to people who can't, or don't want to, count, and therefore, as an unfortunate result, speak BS.

Count what?

You remarked that you didn't see things like averages in the list I cited. I responded that I thought people would be able to compute those themselves.

Averaging mft cameras, very few of them, does not help.

Exactly why wouldn't it help to average, for example, mirrorless cameras, MFT cameras, and DSLRs and then compare those averages?

Even the parameter itself, the closest distance, is not very useful

Exactly why wouldn't that be useful?

, but just with a single try is not useful at all. And in the light of things like using the cameras with locked focus

What do you mean by locked focus and why wouldn't it be useful to lock it. In this test, the AF point is on the target throughout the test. What's wrong with that?

and different shooting speeds leading to buffer overflow,

See my response to amtberg here

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51220164

where I deal with that matter in some detail.

How do you suggest the test should cope with the fact that cameras have different fps and different buffer sizes?

just shows complete incompetence of the testers.

So what data sources would you suggest we use instead?

And in what regards are their tests better?

BTW, I am not a m43 detractor, I like E-M5 very much and often even shoot sports (gymnastics) with it. And know the limitations of its AF-C and AF-C+Tr very well by now, and how to get around them for best results. The discussion or tests of the performance, without mentioning specific lenses, light levels, apertures, picture modes, sizes of the subjects, and especially "Rls priority" settings are laughable as the parameters greatly affect the performance of AF-C and tracking.

Apparently you didn't read the test description.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow