What is the best m43 for focus tracking?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Questions
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,548Gear list
Like?
Re: Another true believer
In reply to PerL, Apr 3, 2013

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.

Maybe - but they are simpler too - so it wouldn't surprise me that in some elements the less complex cameras can be more impressive - try it on your D300s - turn on 51 point tracking and see how much slower it is than 1, 9 or even 21 point tracking (it made a big difference on my D300)

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.

Again - I'd need to test it for myself but having used both I don't think it's that unbelievable - but it doesn't compete with overall tracking for me.

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.

No worries, thanks for the input - the D300s is a great camera and probably my favourite ever for sports similar to the ones you shoot (I've had some published in specialist press in the UK - it's a great day out )

Happy shooting,

Thanks, you too!

PerL

P.S. Apologies for any typos, this is on my mobile phone and the cursor keeps jumping

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Sony SLT-A99 Sony Alpha 7R Sony 50mm F1.4 Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 85mm F1.4 ZA Carl Zeiss Planar T* +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: what is the best m43 for focus tracking?
In reply to captura, Apr 3, 2013

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

Anders W wrote:

captura wrote:

If I may be forgiven for straying, the best mirrorless cameras for continuous focus tracking may be the Sony NEX's, models 5R and 6. They employ hybrid phase detection auto-focus. (PDAF)

Sure about that? Did you see this test?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51199228

Here is a discussion:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3295085#forum-post-50198435

From the first link, I see that the NEX models had the highest scores, save the NSX1000.

Sony NEX 7: 12.5

Sony NEX 5R: 13

Sony NEX 6: 15

I had expected the GH3 to win this one.

It's only that in this case a lower value is better (see the test description). So in fact all the MFT cameras tested are ahead of all the NEX cameras tested.

I don't think so. The reporter talked about the 5R outperforming his older 5n while doing test shots of his running toddler, at a Best Buy store. The 5R had the numerically higher score. It is designed for this purpose (same as the 6) with the addition of the new hybrid PDAF.

I was referring to what you said about the test by the FNAC lab that I linked to and whose figures you quote above. In that case, lower numbers are better than higher for reasons explained here. So all the MFT cameras are in fact ahead of all the NEX cameras.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
flbrit
Senior MemberPosts: 2,710Gear list
Like?
See this review..
In reply to JamieTux, Apr 3, 2013

This guy shoots pro DSLR Nikons and the OMD..

He is also very straight forward

http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/olympus-camera-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review.html

-- hide signature --

Brian

Below is a link to a slide show of some of my snaps (you may have to copy and paste)

http://briandrinkwater.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Slide-Shows/28194522_dDKzmW#!i=2384402388&k=TJmRb5p

 flbrit's gear list:flbrit's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Nikon D800E Nikon D5200 Fujifilm X-E2 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: what is the best m43 for focus tracking?
In reply to peevee1, Apr 3, 2013

peevee1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

JamieTux wrote:

Hey everyone, since selling my Canon gear to move to m43 I've been shooting with just one top quality body (I have a gf2 as well buits really lacking in dr for my style of shooting so one useful camera only scares me!) I had the money put aside to get the new improved AF all singing all dancing Oly when its announced but all seems quiet on that front at the moment.  So I'd like to get a complementary camera to go with my om-d.  If that is the top at the moment then I guess I will need to hire where needed until the new one is announced and make a decision then.

I've even been looking at the GH3 despite its size, but I can't find anyone willing to put their neck on the line and call a winner!

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

The only site I am aware of that actually tries to test AF-C performance in a systematic fashion is the French Fnac labs.

In one of their tests, they simulate a car approaching the camera at a speed of 50 km/h. The camera is fired in burst mode with a 200 mm (EFL) lens. At the outset, the car is fifty meters away. Obviously, it gets more and more difficult for the AF system to keep up, the closer the car gets. So one significant measure is the distance of the car from the camera when the last reasonably sharp shot is caught. Here are the results from this year's roundup:

CDAF

Panasonic GX1: 2.5

Panasonic G5: 8

Panasonic GF5: 8

Panasonic GH3: 9.5

Sony NEX F3: 11

Sony NEX 7: 12.5

Sony NEX 5R: 13

Sony NEX 6: 15

Samsung NX1000: 19

..........................

CDAF/PDAF

Nikon J2: 6.5

..........................

PDAF

Canon 650D: 6

Canon 7D: 6.5

Nikon D4: 7

Nikon D800: 8

Canon 5DIII: 8.5

Nikon D5100: 8.5

Nikon D600: 8.5

Canon 1100D: 9

Nikon D3100: 9.5

Pentax K-5: 9.5

Pentax K-30: 9.5

Nikon D3200: 10

Sony SLT-A57: 10

Nikon D7000: 10.5

Sony SLT-A65: 10.5

Canon 600D: 11.5

Sony SLT-A37: 11.5

Canon 60D: 12.5

Sony A-77: 13.5

Looks random, like a result of a single try.

To you perhaps.

Not to you?

I see systematic as well as random elements in the results (as pointed out in the post in which I first presented them). A well-known and inescapable random element in photography is photon noise. Nevertheless, our photos don't look entirely random. Have you ever considered why?

Was it a result of statistically significant number of experiments (that would be hundred or so at least)?

Do you really beleive that tracking in 650D is better than the one in 5D3?

No. What makes you think that in view of what I already said about the matter here?

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

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to flbrit, Apr 3, 2013

flbrit wrote:

This guy shoots pro DSLR Nikons and the OMD..

He is also very straight forward

http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/olympus-camera-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review.html

He also fails to get the facts right from time to time. DPR said pretty much the same thing about the E-M5 AF-C and tracking capabilities. Apparently, however, they didn't use the firmware and settings required to get it to work right. This guy did:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42067400

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42081805

There are other slip-ups in Hogan's review. Here are some of them if you are interested. The first one is about as bad as it gets.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50755735

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

There are other slip-ups in Hogan's review. Here are some of them if you are interested. The first one is about as bad as it gets.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50755735

I'm confused about the "bad" problem with his (admittedly trite) discussion of "5-axis" stabilization.

Hogan seems to say the sensor rotates, tilts, and swivels. The infographic (and the video) suggest that the sensor compensates for roll, pitch and yaw. The video in the thread clearly shots the roll compensation, although I can't clearly see a pitch/yaw motion as well. What am I missing?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,045
Like?
Re: what is the best m43 for focus tracking?
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

Second, I have excluded the results for the Olympus E-PM2 and E-M5 since the results indicate that the lab made the mistake of shooting both cameras in high-speed burst mode where they won't even try to AF between shots. The buffer has then filled rapidly, which explains the slow rate at the end of the series.

Seems like you disregard the bad result for two  cameras while ignoring a related problem in this whole test.  It wasn't just the EM5 and EPM2 where bad settings/buffer size affected the results.  Many of the cameras apparently ran out of buffer before closest approach.  I think that is giving some of the DSLR's artificially bad results.  And in general, the results are not as fine-grained as the numbers suggest insofar as there seems to be a +/- difference of at least 3-4m depending on when the burst was started and thus when the last exposure was snapped in relation to the object distance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: what is the best m43 for focus tracking?
In reply to amtberg, Apr 3, 2013

amtberg wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Second, I have excluded the results for the Olympus E-PM2 and E-M5 since the results indicate that the lab made the mistake of shooting both cameras in high-speed burst mode where they won't even try to AF between shots. The buffer has then filled rapidly, which explains the slow rate at the end of the series.

Seems like you disregard the bad result for two  cameras while ignoring a related problem in this whole test.  It wasn't just the EM5 and EPM2 where bad settings/buffer size affected the results.  Many of the cameras apparently ran out of buffer before closest approach.

What would the examples be and how do you deduce that they did?

I think that is giving some of the DSLR's artificially bad results.  And in general, the results are not as fine-grained as the numbers suggest insofar as there seems to be a +/- difference of at least 3-4m depending on when the burst was started and thus when the last exposure was snapped in relation to the object distance.

Again, on what basis do you draw that conclusion? Just want to hear how you reason before saying what I think about it.

More generally, there may well be a margin of error of the kind you suggest (although I'd say it is hard to tell how big it is) which is why I suggest looking at the broader pattern and not pay too much attention to the results for each individual camera. Preferrably, they should have run this test a number of times per camera and reported the mean as well as standard deviations.

But this is about the only systematic AF-C test that I have been able to come up with and I think that, if interpreted in terms of broader patterns, it does tell us something. Let me know if you or anyone else has a better data source.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to olliess, Apr 3, 2013

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

There are other slip-ups in Hogan's review. Here are some of them if you are interested. The first one is about as bad as it gets.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50755735

I'm confused about the "bad" problem with his (admittedly trite) discussion of "5-axis" stabilization.

Hogan seems to say the sensor rotates, tilts, and swivels. The infographic (and the video) suggest that the sensor compensates for roll, pitch and yaw. The video in the thread clearly shots the roll compensation, although I can't clearly see a pitch/yaw motion as well. What am I missing?

Not sure exactly which infographic and video you are referring to. But the real facts are as follows: The system compensates for five types of camera shake: pitch, yaw, roll, vertical shift, and horizontal shift. In order to do so it moves the sensor in three ways: up-down, left-right, and rotation about the horizontal axis.

Here is some additional information on how it actually works (and not):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40558437

Does that help to sort things out?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

Hogan seems to say the sensor rotates, tilts, and swivels. The infographic (and the video) suggest that the sensor compensates for roll, pitch and yaw. The video in the thread clearly shots the roll compensation, although I can't clearly see a pitch/yaw motion as well. What am I missing?

Not sure exactly which infographic and video you are referring to. But the real facts are as follows: The system compensates for five types of camera shake: pitch, yaw, roll, vertical shift, and horizontal shift. In order to do so it moves the sensor in three ways: up-down, left-right, and rotation about the horizontal axis.

Here is some additional information on how it actually works (and not):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40558437

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to olliess, Apr 3, 2013

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

Hogan seems to say the sensor rotates, tilts, and swivels. The infographic (and the video) suggest that the sensor compensates for roll, pitch and yaw. The video in the thread clearly shots the roll compensation, although I can't clearly see a pitch/yaw motion as well. What am I missing?

Not sure exactly which infographic and video you are referring to. But the real facts are as follows: The system compensates for five types of camera shake: pitch, yaw, roll, vertical shift, and horizontal shift. In order to do so it moves the sensor in three ways: up-down, left-right, and rotation about the horizontal axis.

Here is some additional information on how it actually works (and not):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40558437

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Some systems, like Pentax SR and the E-M5 IBIS (but not other/earlier versions of Olympus IBIS), can additionally correct for roll by rotating the sensor about the optical axis.

Finally, the E-M5 IBIS can correct for camera shake that takes the form of vertical and horizontal shift. The sensor movement required to do this is exactly the same as for pitch and yaw. But the information required to do it right is different. The E-M5 IBIS is the only in-body IS that manages this type of correction, which is important primarily in close-up shooting.

Lens-based IS systems typically manage pitch and yaw only and none of them can manage roll (which is pretty much impossible to do optically). I know of a single Canon macro lens that manages vertical and horizontal shift.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to olliess, Apr 3, 2013

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

Don't know quite what "multiple rotation axes" might refer to in this context. But the only kind of camera-shake that the E-M5 IBIS does not correct for, as far as I can see, is movement to and fro the subject, i.e., a third type of shift besides vertical and horizontal (the other three, pitch -- yaw, and roll -- are angular movements). Such a correction would be the sixth axis that is still missing. But I doubt that anyone will get that done in the near future. It seems kind of difficult.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
clengman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,296Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to olliess, Apr 3, 2013

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

I don't think you're understanding correctly.

IBIS (even IBIS on the earlier PEN cameras prior to "5-axis") corrects rotation about all three axes. That is pitch, yaw and roll. Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up/down or left/right respectively. Roll is correct by turning the sensor about the optical axis (z-axis).

The additional corrections added by the 5-axis system are for camera shift up/down and left/right. These are not common. They're also not generally necessary. The only time that pure translational motion of the camera is noticeable is at very close focus distances. (i.e. At 1:1 macro, a movement of the camera of 1 mm straight up corresponds to a movement of the image projected on the sensor of 1mm that would have to be corrected by an opposing 1mm motion of the sensor. At 1:2 macro, that 1mm camera motion translates to a 0.5mm image motion.)

 clengman's gear list:clengman's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to clengman, Apr 3, 2013

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

I don't think you're understanding correctly.

Sorry, I should have said "corrected using multiple rotation axes." You can see from the previous post that I was talking about pitch/yaw compensation (two of three rotation axes) via sensor translation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,045
Like?
Re: what is the best m43 for focus tracking?
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Second, I have excluded the results for the Olympus E-PM2 and E-M5 since the results indicate that the lab made the mistake of shooting both cameras in high-speed burst mode where they won't even try to AF between shots. The buffer has then filled rapidly, which explains the slow rate at the end of the series.

Seems like you disregard the bad result for two  cameras while ignoring a related problem in this whole test.  It wasn't just the EM5 and EPM2 where bad settings/buffer size affected the results.  Many of the cameras apparently ran out of buffer before closest approach.

What would the examples be and how do you deduce that they did?

I think that is giving some of the DSLR's artificially bad results.  And in general, the results are not as fine-grained as the numbers suggest insofar as there seems to be a +/- difference of at least 3-4m depending on when the burst was started and thus when the last exposure was snapped in relation to the object distance.

Again, on what basis do you draw that conclusion? Just want to hear how you reason before saying what I think about it.

More generally, there may well be a margin of error of the kind you suggest (although I'd say it is hard to tell how big it is) which is why I suggest looking at the broader pattern and not pay too much attention to the results for each individual camera. Preferrably, they should have run this test a number of times per camera and reported the mean as well as standard deviations.

But this is about the only systematic AF-C test that I have been able to come up with and I think that, if interpreted in terms of broader patterns, it does tell us something. Let me know if you or anyone else has a better data source.

I'm just looking at their diagrams showing when the photos were taken in relation to the proximity of the approaching focus target.  In many cases, especially with the DSLRs, the buffer seems to have filled up before the target got very close, so the frequency of pics slowed down.  If the last pic in the series was snapped at 20m, that's obviously not going to be an accurate reflection of that camera's C-AF performance.  Look at the Sony A77, for example.  The buffer ran out at about 19m, then one more pic was taken at about 15'.  Could it have AFd at 5'?  Who knows?  In the case of the 5D, the closest shot attempted was at about 8.5m.  With the 600D no pics were taken inside of 11m.

In every case the closest attempt depends entirely on the timing of the burst.  So, for example, with the Nikon D800 the last pic was snapped at 4.5m and the second to last at 8m.  What if the last shot had been at 6m instead of 4.5m?  Might it have been in focus?  Maybe....

If the GX1's buffer had been started a hair later might not have taken that list pic and it could have scored an 8 instead of a 2.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
clengman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,296Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to olliess, Apr 3, 2013

olliess wrote:

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

I don't think you're understanding correctly.

Sorry, I should have said "corrected using multiple rotation axes." You can see from the previous post that I was talking about pitch/yaw compensation (two of three rotation axes) via sensor translation.

Sorry. My mistake.

I think the biggest misunderstanding of the E-M5 IBIS is that it's the 5-axis part that makes it great. The additional two axes are only valuable in limited circumstances and in fact those corrections can't be applied with most lenses. The lens has to be able to communicate its current focus distance to the camera in order for X and Y-axis translation correction to be done right. None of the m43 lenses that I have do that and obviously no adapted lens will either.

 clengman's gear list:clengman's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richarddd
Senior MemberPosts: 2,497Gear list
Like?
Re: Another true believer
In reply to PerL, Apr 3, 2013

PerL wrote:

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)

Showing how one camera performs nothing about how any other camera would perform and therefore doesn't seem to add to a discussion of comparative performance. Without knowing how fast the subject was going, camera settings, etc. it's hard to draw much of a conclusion about the D300s from that series of photos.

You need controlled, repeatable comparative tests for these purposes.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,474Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to clengman, Apr 3, 2013

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

I don't think you're understanding correctly.

Sorry, I should have said "corrected using multiple rotation axes." You can see from the previous post that I was talking about pitch/yaw compensation (two of three rotation axes) via sensor translation.

Sorry. My mistake.

I think the biggest misunderstanding of the E-M5 IBIS is that it's the 5-axis part that makes it great. The additional two axes are only valuable in limited circumstances and in fact those corrections can't be applied with most lenses. The lens has to be able to communicate its current focus distance to the camera in order for X and Y-axis translation correction to be done right. None of the m43 lenses that I have do that and obviously no adapted lens will either.

Not disputing your general point that two of the five axes are of pretty limited importance most of the time. The main point is that the new IBIS is very efficient in correcting the other three.

But I have strong reasons to think you are wrong when you say that all/most native MFT lenses don't report focus distance to the body and therefore can't even enable correction for vertical/horizontal shift. If they don't do that, why would information on focus distance appear in the E-M5 EXIFs, as it does for native, electrically connected lenses (possibly adapted FT lenses too, although I am not sure about that since I don't have any)?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
clengman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,296Gear list
Like?
Re: See this review..
In reply to Anders W, Apr 3, 2013

Anders W wrote:

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

clengman wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

I was asking about that exact post. You state that the system only shifts the sensor in rotation about the horizontal axis (which I take to be the optical axis). So does this system compensate pitch and yaw only using vertical/horizontal translation?

Pitch and yaw are corrected by shifting the sensor up-down and left-right. All in-body IS systems do this and work like that.

Thanks. I understood previous in-body systems to work this way, but I had wondered (from the name?) if the Olympus system actually corrected for multiple rotation axes. It seems not.

I don't think you're understanding correctly.

Sorry, I should have said "corrected using multiple rotation axes." You can see from the previous post that I was talking about pitch/yaw compensation (two of three rotation axes) via sensor translation.

Sorry. My mistake.

I think the biggest misunderstanding of the E-M5 IBIS is that it's the 5-axis part that makes it great. The additional two axes are only valuable in limited circumstances and in fact those corrections can't be applied with most lenses. The lens has to be able to communicate its current focus distance to the camera in order for X and Y-axis translation correction to be done right. None of the m43 lenses that I have do that and obviously no adapted lens will either.

Not disputing your general point that two of the five axes are of pretty limited importance most of the time. The main point is that the new IBIS is very efficient in correcting the other three.

I believe it. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on an E-M5 at some point down the line. It sounds like the improved IBIS will be nice to use.

But I have strong reasons to think you are wrong when you say that all/most native MFT lenses don't report focus distance to the body and therefore can't even enable correction for vertical/horizontal shift. If they don't do that, why would information on focus distance appear in the E-M5 EXIFs, as it does for native, electrically connected lenses (possibly adapted FT lenses too, although I am not sure about that since I don't have any)?

I didn't say anything about all or most of the native lenses. I can only comment on the two native, electronically-coupled lenses I own, the mkI 14-42mm zoom and the non-R version of the 40-150mm zoom. I'm sure that some lenses (maybe most? I don't know.) report this value.

I've looked for the focus distance in the EXIF data for pictures taken with both these lenses and I have not seen a value for subject distance recorded anywhere.

If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected.

 clengman's gear list:clengman's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads