Another C-AF test with the E-M5

Started May 15, 2012 | Discussions
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Another C-AF test with the E-M5
May 15, 2012

I was asked to shoot a subject approaching, passing by and departing again,

I did this the other day (a car at a pace of somewhere between 60 and 90 kph) and once again, I was rather impressed.

Although it was the first time I tried to shoot a subject doing this, it worked rather well. And Even when the cam temporarily lost the focus - arguably due to my incompetence - it quickly regained it.

All the pics were shot with a single AF field and without tracking. And I show the entire series to demonstrate how the cam regained the focus after it lost it.
Here's the link to the flickr slideshow...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/sets/72157629746072442/show/
...and here's the one to the album:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/sets/72157629746072442/
Hope this is helpful for some of you.
--

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
muddyfunster
Regular MemberPosts: 447
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to DonParrot, May 15, 2012

thx for posting these it's what i have been hoping to see, what lens did you use and gave you tried this kind of shot at either 200mm or 300mm, i'm not too bothered about the FPS but if the camera can lock focus and track so i can take the shot when i want
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to muddyfunster, May 15, 2012

muddyfunster wrote:

thx for posting these it's what i have been hoping to see, what lens did you use and gave you tried this kind of shot at either 200mm or 300mm, i'm not too bothered about the FPS but if the camera can lock focus and track so i can take the shot when i want
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Hi Muddyfunster

First ol all: the night may be dark, but it's full of Chow Chows and Shar Pei, over here.

And then: The series was shot with the M.Zuiko 75-300 at 179mm.

But please note that it was shot in C-AF and not C-AF tracking. Whenever I tried to shoot my running dogs with C-AF tracking, the system opted for focusing on something else. Should have worked better with a bigger subject such as the car but just didn't think about trying it. Will do so in the coming days.

Without tracking, using the C-AF in the burst mode is somewhat of a challenge as the AF field in the EVF disappears as soon as you have pressed the shutter button - and as there isn't a dynamic AF or log on, you have to practice for quite a while to keep your chosen subject in focus. But if you succeed in doing so, the C-AF works fine. And that's a challenge I love to cope with. It increases the satisfaction if you suceed in shooting a properly focused action series.

Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see if the AF system also will able to deliver with faster tele zooms or tele primes.

But at the end of the day, the AF system keeps on surprising me. And just an hour ago, I got another hint that is supposed to even increase its performance. But I'm going to test it myself before claiming that it works.

Cheers

Nicolaus

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 14,837
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to DonParrot, May 15, 2012

Hi Don ,

I have not followed this subject very closely, but I am a bit curious on a technical level. (If I have this right), the use of "Vivid" JPG mode(s) appears to enhance the C-AF performance ? If so, do you find that (what I'm assuming are simultaneously available) values of in-camera JPG control-settings (i.e. Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness) also similalry modify the nature of C-AF performance?

If so, in what ways, and to what degrees, and do you find that the settings which appear to enhance C-AF performance may in some way(s) conflict with your aesthetic preferences as a user creating in-camera produced OOC JPGs ? Are there ways to compensate for any such unwanted effects later in JPG post-processing - or, are they of a nature which makes doing so problematic ?

DM ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fleabag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,274
Like?
Bogus
In reply to DonParrot, May 15, 2012

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to Detail Man, May 15, 2012

Detail Man wrote:

Hi Don ,

I have not followed the subject very closely, but I am a bit curious on a technical level. (If I have this right), the use of "Vivid" JPG modes appears to enhance the C-AF performance ? If so, do you find that (what I am assuming are simultaneously available) values of in-camera JPG control-settings (such as Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, etc) also similalry modify the nature of C-AF performance?

If so, in what ways, and to what degrees, and do you find that the settings which appear to enhance C-AF performance may in some way(s) conflict with your aesthetic preferences as a user creating in-camera produced OOC JPGs. Are there ways to compensate for any such unwanted effects later in JPG post-processing - or, are they of a nature which makes doing so problematic ?

DM ...

Hi DM, unfortunately I still am extremely busy - that's why I even wasn't able to answer your message, so far - and am far from having completed all the tests I would have liked to execute.

Nonetheless, I can say the turning the saturation to -2 in vivid makes a negative impact on the C-AF performance.

Fortunately, I prefer the warmer colours produced by the previous olympus cameras and so, using the E-M5 in vivid is my preferred option, anyway. Still, I have not yet found the perfect JPEG adjustments to date as I'm somewhat unhappy with the green of the JPEGs, so far. Although I'm coming closer to it. Currently I'm shooting in vivid with sharpness -1, saturation -1, contrast +1 and A and G set to -1 in the WB adjustments. And I'm sure that I will be able to even increase the JPEG settings when I finally will find the time for focusing on it - hopefully after this weekend's Nürburgring 24h Race.

but even with the settings I'm using currently, it's easy to PP the pics with ACDSee 5 pro or even the very basic freeware programme PhotoScape to get the results I want.

Sorry for not being able too tell you more at this point in time but my work load currently is enormous - that's why I still am sitting at my computer at 01.40hrs (over here in Germany).
--

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

Cheers
Nicolaus

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to Fleabag, May 15, 2012

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.
--

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
muddyfunster
Regular MemberPosts: 447
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

DonParrot wrote:

muddyfunster wrote:

thx for posting these it's what i have been hoping to see, what lens did you use and gave you tried this kind of shot at either 200mm or 300mm, i'm not too bothered about the FPS but if the camera can lock focus and track so i can take the shot when i want
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Hi Muddyfunster

First ol all: the night may be dark, but it's full of Chow Chows and Shar Pei, over here.

And then: The series was shot with the M.Zuiko 75-300 at 179mm.

But please note that it was shot in C-AF and not C-AF tracking. Whenever I tried to shoot my running dogs with C-AF tracking, the system opted for focusing on something else. Should have worked better with a bigger subject such as the car but just didn't think about trying it. Will do so in the coming days.

Without tracking, using the C-AF in the burst mode is somewhat of a challenge as the AF field in the EVF disappears as soon as you have pressed the shutter button - and as there isn't a dynamic AF or log on, you have to practice for quite a while to keep your chosen subject in focus. But if you succeed in doing so, the C-AF works fine. And that's a challenge I love to cope with. It increases the satisfaction if you suceed in shooting a properly focused action series.

Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see if the AF system also will able to deliver with faster tele zooms or tele primes.

But at the end of the day, the AF system keeps on surprising me. And just an hour ago, I got another hint that is supposed to even increase its performance. But I'm going to test it myself before claiming that it works.

Cheers

Nicolaus

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

i'm just hoping it could manage aviation photography, if it manages better than an E-1 i really think i could get it working relaibly
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 14,837
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

DonParrot wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

Hi Don ,

I have not followed the subject very closely, but I am a bit curious on a technical level. (If I have this right), the use of "Vivid" JPG modes appears to enhance the C-AF performance ? If so, do you find that (what I am assuming are simultaneously available) values of in-camera JPG control-settings (such as Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, etc) also similalry modify the nature of C-AF performance?

If so, in what ways, and to what degrees, and do you find that the settings which appear to enhance C-AF performance may in some way(s) conflict with your aesthetic preferences as a user creating in-camera produced OOC JPGs. Are there ways to compensate for any such unwanted effects later in JPG post-processing - or, are they of a nature which makes doing so problematic ?

DM ...

Hi DM, unfortunately I still am extremely busy - that's why I even wasn't able to answer your message, so far - and am far from having completed all the tests I would have liked to execute.

Nonetheless, I can say the turning the saturation to -2 in vivid makes a negative impact on the C-AF performance.

Fortunately, I prefer the warmer colours produced by the previous olympus cameras and so, using the E-M5 in vivid is my preferred option, anyway. Still, I have not yet found the perfect JPEG adjustments to date as I'm somewhat unhappy with the green of the JPEGs, so far. Although I'm coming closer to it. Currently I'm shooting in vivid with sharpness -1, saturation -1, contrast +1 and A and G set to -1 in the WB adjustments. And I'm sure that I will be able to even increase the JPEG settings when I finally will find the time for focusing on it - hopefully after this weekend's Nürburgring 24h Race.

but even with the settings I'm using currently, it's easy to PP the pics with ACDSee 5 pro or even the very basic freeware programme PhotoScape to get the results I want.

Sorry for not being able too tell you more at this point in time but my work load currently is enormous - that's why I still am sitting at my computer at 01.40hrs (over here in Germany).

Nicolaus ,

Thanks for your response. No sweat about your other obligations. Fully understood ! My general interest in this matter of (at least some) Olympus models seeming to possibly affect the operational functionality of the AF systems due to particular in-camera JPG settings is the discovery of any potential disadvantages of configuring an AF system in such a manner (on a camera design level).

This is to me a matter of technical interest - and not a matter of necessarily passing judgments upon this or that brand or camera model. However, if it is indeed the case that Olympus does implement this in some/all of it's camera models - and particulalry in the generalized case of AF not confined to C-AF or "Vivid" mode(s) - then I as a Panasonic user am curious about whether or not Lumix cameras implement AF (in general, or in specific modes) in a similar, or in a different, manner.

DM ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fleabag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,274
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

Added a for clarity.

DonParrot wrote:

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.
--

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to muddyfunster, May 16, 2012

muddyfunster wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

muddyfunster wrote:

thx for posting these it's what i have been hoping to see, what lens did you use and gave you tried this kind of shot at either 200mm or 300mm, i'm not too bothered about the FPS but if the camera can lock focus and track so i can take the shot when i want
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Hi Muddyfunster

First ol all: the night may be dark, but it's full of Chow Chows and Shar Pei, over here.

And then: The series was shot with the M.Zuiko 75-300 at 179mm.

But please note that it was shot in C-AF and not C-AF tracking. Whenever I tried to shoot my running dogs with C-AF tracking, the system opted for focusing on something else. Should have worked better with a bigger subject such as the car but just didn't think about trying it. Will do so in the coming days.

Without tracking, using the C-AF in the burst mode is somewhat of a challenge as the AF field in the EVF disappears as soon as you have pressed the shutter button - and as there isn't a dynamic AF or log on, you have to practice for quite a while to keep your chosen subject in focus. But if you succeed in doing so, the C-AF works fine. And that's a challenge I love to cope with. It increases the satisfaction if you suceed in shooting a properly focused action series.

Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see if the AF system also will able to deliver with faster tele zooms or tele primes.

But at the end of the day, the AF system keeps on surprising me. And just an hour ago, I got another hint that is supposed to even increase its performance. But I'm going to test it myself before claiming that it works.

Cheers

Nicolaus

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

i'm just hoping it could manage aviation photography, if it manages better than an E-1 i really think i could get it working relaibly

Well, I think this easily should be possible in S-AF. Just aim at the plain, press the shutter-button in one go - and you've captured a perfectly focused shot. Unfortunately, I've never tried aviation with any of my cameras, so I just can't say how the C-AF might deliver. But I assume it should do rather well as the distance to the subject makes the C-AF's work easier.

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to Detail Man, May 16, 2012

Detail Man wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

Hi Don ,

I have not followed the subject very closely, but I am a bit curious on a technical level. (If I have this right), the use of "Vivid" JPG modes appears to enhance the C-AF performance ? If so, do you find that (what I am assuming are simultaneously available) values of in-camera JPG control-settings (such as Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, etc) also similalry modify the nature of C-AF performance?

If so, in what ways, and to what degrees, and do you find that the settings which appear to enhance C-AF performance may in some way(s) conflict with your aesthetic preferences as a user creating in-camera produced OOC JPGs. Are there ways to compensate for any such unwanted effects later in JPG post-processing - or, are they of a nature which makes doing so problematic ?

DM ...

Hi DM, unfortunately I still am extremely busy - that's why I even wasn't able to answer your message, so far - and am far from having completed all the tests I would have liked to execute.

Nonetheless, I can say the turning the saturation to -2 in vivid makes a negative impact on the C-AF performance.

Fortunately, I prefer the warmer colours produced by the previous olympus cameras and so, using the E-M5 in vivid is my preferred option, anyway. Still, I have not yet found the perfect JPEG adjustments to date as I'm somewhat unhappy with the green of the JPEGs, so far. Although I'm coming closer to it. Currently I'm shooting in vivid with sharpness -1, saturation -1, contrast +1 and A and G set to -1 in the WB adjustments. And I'm sure that I will be able to even increase the JPEG settings when I finally will find the time for focusing on it - hopefully after this weekend's Nürburgring 24h Race.

but even with the settings I'm using currently, it's easy to PP the pics with ACDSee 5 pro or even the very basic freeware programme PhotoScape to get the results I want.

Sorry for not being able too tell you more at this point in time but my work load currently is enormous - that's why I still am sitting at my computer at 01.40hrs (over here in Germany).

Nicolaus ,

Thanks for your response. No sweat about your other obligations. Fully understood ! My general interest in this matter of (at least some) Olympus models seeming to possibly affect the operational functionality of the AF systems due to particular in-camera JPG settings is the discovery of any potential disadvantages of configuring an AF system in such a manner (on a camera design level).

This is to me a matter of technical interest - and not a matter of necessarily passing judgments upon this or that brand or camera model. However, if it is indeed the case that Olympus does implement this in some/all of it's camera models - and particulalry in the generalized case of AF not confined to C-AF or "Vivid" mode(s) - then I as a Panasonic user am curious about whether or not Lumix cameras implement AF (in general, or in specific modes) in a similar, or in a different, manner.

DM ...

Yep, I understand. And I remember some Panny users replying in my first or second thread on this topic that switching to the Panny equivalent of vivid also improved the AF performance of their Lumix cams.
--

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to Fleabag, May 16, 2012

Fleabag wrote:

Added a for clarity.

Okay thanks - it's late in the night, over here. Too tired and so, i just missed the joke. Sorry.

DonParrot wrote:

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
intruder61
Senior MemberPosts: 2,490Gear list
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to muddyfunster, May 16, 2012

muddyfunster wrote:

i'm just hoping it could manage aviation photography, if it manages better than an E-1 i really think i could get it working relaibly
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

i dont think you will have a problem,
this shot was taken "for fun" while in a car moving,
nothing special, but i was testing this cam,
it was on AF-S.....with the right set-up it should be ok.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
peevee1
Senior MemberPosts: 4,106Gear list
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

DonParrot wrote:

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.

Privacy laws are good for everybody except a few voyeurs. Too bad the US is far behind in this regard. My skin crawls when I read here the discussions of all those "street photographers" here shooting people without their consent and publishing it on the web!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonParrot
Senior MemberPosts: 1,564Gear list
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to peevee1, May 16, 2012

peevee1 wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.

Privacy laws are good for everybody except a few voyeurs. Too bad the US is far behind in this regard. My skin crawls when I read here the discussions of all those "street photographers" here shooting people without their consent and publishing it on the web!

Unfortunately, I have to fully disagree. This is an extremely (sorry, this is not supposed to be an offense) paranoid point of you. What the hack is bad on being photographed when moving in public places. You have been there and seen by hundreds ot thousands of people.

This is just another law made for lawyers who want to make money out of it. And by a clever strategy they succeeded in making people belive that they have to sue those who have taken and published pics of them.

In addition it reminds me of the times when some aborigines didn't want photographers to shoot pics of them as they believed their soul would be stolen. The western world is moving into a really weird directions and most of the freedoms our forefathers have given their lives for are gone again - without anybody having realised it. This generation is ready to sell their freedom for a dose of safety, but do you think that anybody is living safer in the western world than in the 1960s, '70s, '80s or '90s? Something is going massively wrong here. Big brother won't guarantee you safety - but it guarantees that you can't live the life you want to.

Yes I know - the individual freedom comes to an end when it makes an impact on the freedom of somebody else - but in the recent past, the courts always have decided for those who claim that their freedom is cut down by the one of another. I'm really disgusted by this development.

And what is it that makes the many US American believe than anybody with a camera is a pervert? Yes, there are sick and pervert people and as I see it, the hardest punishment is still too kind, for them.

But there always have been these pervets and nonetheless, the parents of my generation used to say "Go out playing and don't comeback before sundown."

We really shouldn't allow our fears to dominate and ruin our lives.

Life is dangerous, it always has been and it always will be. The current safety obsession doesn't make life safer - but far unhappier.

We've got the safety fascism, the health fascism and the climate fascism - and I've had more than enough of all that BS.

Sorry for losing my cool, but this development is giving me the creeps.

-- hide signature --

Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...

I'm a HOlygan

 DonParrot's gear list:DonParrot's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 14,837
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

DonParrot wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Fleabag wrote:

You blurred out the drivers face therefore it cannot be a valid test.

Unfortunately we have to do so, in Germany. Can't help it. You mustn't publish the pic of a person without having asked for permission. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point. The test was about the car, not the driver.

Privacy laws are good for everybody except a few voyeurs. Too bad the US is far behind in this regard. My skin crawls when I read here the discussions of all those "street photographers" here shooting people without their consent and publishing it on the web!

Unfortunately, I have to fully disagree. This is an extremely (sorry, this is not supposed to be an offense) paranoid point of you. What the hack is bad on being photographed when moving in public places. You have been there and seen by hundreds ot thousands of people.

While personally do not like to have my picture taken without my permission being asked - and as a result it is not within me to photograph other people without specifically requesting permission of them to do so, I don't think that a reasonable "expectation of privacy" could or should exist in public places. Merchants and governments constantly video-record our images without asking, rights granted by the full police-power of government legislatures. While I am myself a bit of a privacy-freak in general, if it is the case that merchants and governments are granted the right to photograph people in any public places, individuals should also be granted those very same rights ...

Most importantly, despite the self-serving paranoia of police and military farces as well as private businesses and corporations, it is similarly essential that private citizens have the right to photograph and video-record police, military, and business activities that occur in any public places.

A number of individuals here in Seattle, WA, (as well as across the US) have (literally) had their heads "busted-in" by police officers for doing just that, however. "If cameras are restricted, then only the police will have cameras". In many ways, cameras and video are more powerful than firearms - and in the US we are (rather tragically all too often, in practice) obsessed with firearms and rights to bear as well as use them. No camera, or video-cam, has ever harmed or killed people !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
muddyfunster
Regular MemberPosts: 447
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to intruder61, May 16, 2012

intruder61 wrote:

muddyfunster wrote:

i'm just hoping it could manage aviation photography, if it manages better than an E-1 i really think i could get it working relaibly
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

i dont think you will have a problem,
this shot was taken "for fun" while in a car moving,
nothing special, but i was testing this cam,
it was on AF-S.....with the right set-up it should be ok.

thx for that, it gives me hope it would perform as expected
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,120Gear list
Like?
Re: Bogus
In reply to Detail Man, May 16, 2012

Detail Man wrote:

In many ways, cameras and video are more powerful than firearms - and in the US we are (rather tragically all too often, in practice) obsessed with firearms and rights to bear as well as use them. No camera, or video-cam, has ever harmed or killed people !

. . . This is getting more and more disturbing to me. You keep posting, recently, viewpoints that I actually share as well. And you didn't even juice it up this time by going overboard with the over-the-top rhetoric that I've thought was so annoying in the past.

 Tim in upstate NY's gear list:Tim in upstate NY's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 14,837
Like?
Re: Another C-AF test with the E-M5
In reply to DonParrot, May 16, 2012

DonParrot wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

Hi Don ,

I have not followed the subject very closely, but I am a bit curious on a technical level. (If I have this right), the use of "Vivid" JPG modes appears to enhance the C-AF performance ? If so, do you find that (what I am assuming are simultaneously available) values of in-camera JPG control-settings (such as Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, etc) also similalry modify the nature of C-AF performance?

If so, in what ways, and to what degrees, and do you find that the settings which appear to enhance C-AF performance may in some way(s) conflict with your aesthetic preferences as a user creating in-camera produced OOC JPGs. Are there ways to compensate for any such unwanted effects later in JPG post-processing - or, are they of a nature which makes doing so problematic ?

Hi DM, unfortunately I still am extremely busy - that's why I even wasn't able to answer your message, so far - and am far from having completed all the tests I would have liked to execute.

Nonetheless, I can say the turning the saturation to -2 in vivid makes a negative impact on the C-AF performance.

Fortunately, I prefer the warmer colours produced by the previous olympus cameras and so, using the E-M5 in vivid is my preferred option, anyway. Still, I have not yet found the perfect JPEG adjustments to date as I'm somewhat unhappy with the green of the JPEGs, so far. Although I'm coming closer to it. Currently I'm shooting in vivid with sharpness -1, saturation -1, contrast +1 and A and G set to -1 in the WB adjustments. And I'm sure that I will be able to even increase the JPEG settings when I finally will find the time for focusing on it - hopefully after this weekend's Nürburgring 24h Race.

but even with the settings I'm using currently, it's easy to PP the pics with ACDSee 5 pro or even the very basic freeware programme PhotoScape to get the results I want.

Sorry for not being able too tell you more at this point in time but my work load currently is enormous - that's why I still am sitting at my computer at 01.40hrs (over here in Germany).

Nicolaus ,

Thanks for your response. No sweat about your other obligations. Fully understood ! My general interest in this matter of (at least some) Olympus models seeming to possibly affect the operational functionality of the AF systems due to particular in-camera JPG settings is the discovery of any potential disadvantages of configuring an AF system in such a manner (on a camera design level).

This is to me a matter of technical interest - and not a matter of necessarily passing judgments upon this or that brand or camera model. However, if it is indeed the case that Olympus does implement this in some/all of it's camera models - and particulalry in the generalized case of AF not confined to C-AF or "Vivid" mode(s) - then I as a Panasonic user am curious about whether or not Lumix cameras implement AF (in general, or in specific modes) in a similar, or in a different, manner.

Yep, I understand. And I remember some Panny users replying in my first or second thread on this topic that switching to the Panny equivalent of vivid also improved the AF performance of their Lumix cams.

So you are saying that (some sort of stated opinions exist) that Panasonic as well as Olympus camera models AF systems in general (whether in a Continuous AF mode or not) may be affected by in-camera JPG user-settings ? Such a proposition sounds entirely counter to what (it seems to me) would constitute sensible as well as reliable digital camera system design practices. Sounds strange, indeed. How have (or could) people evaluate this hypothesis on a truly objective basis ???

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads