GH3 - Who says that m43 is not good for sports !!!

Started Apr 29, 2013 | Discussions
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,232
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

Crap photo, yeah, but I don't really want photos of LWDs.

First of all, As illy pointed out, DOf is much much deeper and it is nowhere near as stressing on the AF.

Secondly, despite the deep DOF,  your image is OOF, looking at at larger size, the ground within focus plain is very sharp while the face of the dog is nowhere near as sharp.

And of course, let's not forget:

Grey Hound Racing

Very good images, but again DOF is much thicker.

Why are you even here?

To correct some incorrect assertions.

I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what the focussing capabilities of M4/3s  actually are.

I know what they are - they are good - much better than what they were 3 years ago, but to say they are now as good as SLR for tacking, you would have to be kidding yourself.

If you want shoot an image matching my shot to prove the point, you'll need to shoot it at 160mm F3.2.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 12,492
Like?
Re: A Summary
In reply to Brian Wadie, 11 months ago

Brian Wadie wrote:

For fun I thought I would try to summarise all the words written here, see if I've got it about right:

- there are some sporting situations where a DSLR will be able to cope much better than a CSC, but for the majority of cases both can do an adequate job

It's a sliding scale and depends on the sport and the situation. Shooting pics of your kid batting at home plate is not hard; catching him diving for second base or jumping to catch a fly ball is harder. Both are pics of the same sport.

- a long focal length wide aperture lens on a dslr body will isolate the subject better than any existing "long" CSC lens on a CSC body

True, and that's just the physics of sensor size.

, but the DSLR combo will cost more and weigh more (often a lot more)

This is your only point with which I've got more than a minor quibble. The OP's example used a camera and lens which Amazon (generally about the cheapest prices) currently offers for $1199 and $967 respectively. Nearly $2200, or $1000 more than I've got in my dslr with three kit lenses (please don't scoff, kit lenses are much better these days) and I can match or better those results for much less money invested. Possibly the OP's system is more expensive than might otherwise do the same job in m4/3, I don't know, I'm just going off what he used. The m4/3 system will be lighter.

If you want to talk full frame and pro glass weight and cost, yes the dslr will be more heavier and more expensive, no doubt.

- the greater depth of field makes it easier for CSC systems to shoot sporting action than the shallow depth of field with an equivalent DSLR system, some see this as undesirable

The greater depth of field also takes a little stress off the autofocus system.

- there are those of us with experience of both systems who are happy that with our lighter and cheaper CSC system we can still shoot sporting action in a way that gives satisfactory results for our needs

And that is the only thing that counts - if you are happy with your system and I'm happy with mine, then good for both of us. Each system has strong points we value, and weak points that don't concern us.

anything you feel I've missed, please add 

I'm glad this thread has stayed positive and polite, a discussion instead of a battle.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to ultimitsu, 11 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

Crap photo, yeah, but I don't really want photos of LWDs.

First of all, As illy pointed out, DOf is much much deeper and it is nowhere near as stressing on the AF.

Secondly, despite the deep DOF,  your image is OOF, looking at at larger size, the ground within focus plain is very sharp while the face of the dog is nowhere near as sharp.

And of course, let's not forget:

Grey Hound Racing

Very good images, but again DOF is much thicker.

Why are you even here?

To correct some incorrect assertions.

I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what the focussing capabilities of M4/3s  actually are.

I know what they are - they are good - much better than what they were 3 years ago, but to say they are now as good as SLR for tacking, you would have to be kidding yourself.

If you want shoot an image matching my shot to prove the point, you'll need to shoot it at 160mm F3.2.

From the ground you should be able to identify exactly where in the photo the focal plane is. It's approximately the front edge of the sideways brick in front of the pebble, or, about the tip of the dogs nose. You are, I presume, comparing shadowed areas with shadowed areas?

Second, I don't have to shoot the exact same image as you. I can shoot anything I like, with any lens I like. It's pretty easy to tell if the focus is accurate enough or not, even with a slow lens. Don't worry. I'm used to people who want to shift the goalposts. I'd like to know what happens if I go out and grab a very shallow DoF, "fast action" photo. What's the next request?

Can't say I've seen too many (anyone?) people claim M4/3s C-AF is better than a DSLRs PDAF. I have however seen some very stupid DSLR users make blanket claims that M4/3s cannot get shots like these, followed by posting birds, dogs and bees.

As you can tell from my gallery, the C-AF from m4/3s is hardly the penalty you keep claiming it to be.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SHood
Senior MemberPosts: 3,750Gear list
Like?
Re: A Summary
In reply to Jorginho, 11 months ago

Jorginho wrote:

If you want a compelling photo and want to have a good chance to catch one you need high frames per second, very fast focussing and very good focus tracking. Also, you need to be able to single out the subject so our eyes are drawn to where I want them to be.
That is why they invented D4 and 1Dx. Now, thart being thee pinnacle for sportshooting the current m43s are about the opposit of that. D7000 and 7D are much closer to that than any mFT camera currently.

mFt can overcome all those hurdles bar the subject isolation, which will be difficult. I can see how software can blur things out, giving that isolation. When camera processing power gets powerfull enough, smart software settings should be able to tackle that too. But that is an assumption and we are not there at all currently.

If you are comparing m43 to APS-C the subject isolation difference is not that great (2/3 stop) assuming you are using similar equivalent focal length and lens aperture.  Once m43 fills out the long end with faster lenses then this will be overcome for the most part.  The DOF differences between m43 and FF (2 stops) will be much more noticeable and impossible to overcome without a huge lens, negating the compactability of m43.

 SHood's gear list:SHood's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Quick lesson for you though, Ultimutsu.

The claims you've made in previous threads - "M4/3s can't do this because C-AF.".

They're the camera equivalent of the phrase "All swans are white". All I need to do to disprove it is post a single picture and you're entire claim is wrong, same as a single black swan proves "all swans are white" is wrong.

As we don't know how many shots you took for your photos, or how many shots I might take if I choose to disprove your claims the actual usefulness and accuracy of your argument is rather poor. The only notable thing about your argument is that the claims are falsifiable with a single photo.

What is far more interesting is how much of a performance difference in autofocus there is between various cameras. So far no one has done any significant testing that I'm aware of. If you want to impress me, get some data. If you want me to keep laughing at you, please, post more pictures claiming M4/3s C-AF won't do this or that.

I don't mind looking for the odd black swan.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,337Gear list
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Ulric, 11 months ago

Ulric wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

Arguing is good for you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Mjankor wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

Arguing is good for you.

nothing better than arguing over photography gear, it's lead to someone hilarious threads over the years.....do i post my mobile shots of moving cars to annoy people now, or later?

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,337Gear list
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to illy, 11 months ago

illy wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

Arguing is good for you.

nothing better than arguing over photography gear, it's lead to someone hilarious threads over the years.....do i post my mobile shots of moving cars to annoy people now, or later?

Of moving cars? I thought all your shots were from moving cars.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Ulric, 11 months ago

Ulric wrote:

illy wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

Arguing is good for you.

nothing better than arguing over photography gear, it's lead to someone hilarious threads over the years.....do i post my mobile shots of moving cars to annoy people now, or later?

Of moving cars? I thought all your shots were from moving cars.

Oh yeah? Well I've got shots of moving cars from moving cars!!!

Inverted!!!!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Ulric, 11 months ago

Ulric wrote:

illy wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

***Shrug***

You never get tired of playing whack-a-mole, do you?

Arguing is good for you.

nothing better than arguing over photography gear, it's lead to someone hilarious threads over the years.....do i post my mobile shots of moving cars to annoy people now, or later?

Of moving cars? I thought all your shots were from moving cars.

i do take shots from moving cars and Tuks Tuks in Thailand, it's a fun way to do street photography over there, i do like to take pictures of fast moving stuff with big lenses, i normally stand next to m4/3rds users and dangle my 500mm in front of them.........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 1,548Gear list
Like?
Re: A Summary
In reply to Jorginho, 11 months ago

Jorginho wrote:

If you want a compelling photo and want to have a good chance to catch one you need high frames per second, very fast focussing and very good focus tracking. Also, you need to be able to single out the subject so our eyes are drawn to where I want them to be.
That is why they invented D4 and 1Dx. Now, thart being thee pinnacle for sportshooting the current m43s are about the opposit of that. D7000 and 7D are much closer to that than any mFT camera currently.

mFt can overcome all those hurdles bar the subject isolation, which will be difficult. I can see how software can blur things out, giving that isolation. When camera processing power gets powerfull enough, smart software settings should be able to tackle that too. But that is an assumption and we are not there at all currently.

So does this not count?

"Decisive moment" caught quite easily without a burst mode in sight... Check.

Pin point focus, as far as I can tell, without using any form of C-AF... Check

Good subject isolation... Check

Also can I point out that the way to get better subject isolation with m4/3 doesn't have to be resorting to computer magic. You could just do what everyone does with DSLRs and stick a faster lens on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,232
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Mjankor wrote:

From the ground you should be able to identify exactly where in the photo the focal plane is. It's approximately the front edge of the sideways brick in front of the pebble, or, about the tip of the dogs nose. You are, I presume, comparing shadowed areas with shadowed areas?

it is rather obvious the focus plane is a bit behind the dog's head.

Second, I don't have to shoot the exact same image as you. I can shoot anything I like, with any lens I like. It's pretty easy to tell if the focus is accurate enough or not, even with a slow lens. Don't worry. I'm used to people who want to shift the goalposts. I'd like to know what happens if I go out and grab a very shallow DoF, "fast action" photo. What's the next request?

you can do anything you like but they do not prove your point.

Can't say I've seen too many (anyone?) people claim M4/3s C-AF is better than a DSLRs PDAF.

they say it is as good, it is false.

I have however seen some very stupid DSLR users make blanket claims that M4/3s cannot get shots like these, followed by posting birds, dogs and bees.

the only stupid people are those who disagree without being able to prove it.

As you can tell from my gallery, the C-AF from m4/3s is hardly the penalty you keep claiming it to be.

it cannot, i can see it in your gallery.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,232
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

Mjankor wrote:

Quick lesson for you though, Ultimutsu.

The claims you've made in previous threads - "M4/3s can't do this because C-AF.".

They're the camera equivalent of the phrase "All swans are white". All I need to do to disprove it is post a single picture and you're entire claim is wrong, same as a single black swan proves "all swans are white" is wrong.

As we don't know how many shots you took for your photos, or how many shots I might take if I choose to disprove your claims the actual usefulness and accuracy of your argument is rather poor. The only notable thing about your argument is that the claims are falsifiable with a single photo.

What is far more interesting is how much of a performance difference in autofocus there is between various cameras. So far no one has done any significant testing that I'm aware of. If you want to impress me, get some data. If you want me to keep laughing at you, please, post more pictures claiming M4/3s C-AF won't do this or that.

I don't mind looking for the odd black swan.

This is by far the most idiotic analogy i have seen. to say "M43 cannot do this is" is saying m43 is objectively limited to do that because of its known capability is not quite there yet. To prove this is wrong you need to shoot a picture to that standard.

the claim  "All swans are white" makes an entirely different proposition, it is saying something objectively does not exist, without identifying why it does not exist.

For what its worth, "All swans are white" are about as right as people say "aliens do not exist". it is correct until proven wrong.

But I guess stupid people do not get it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,232
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to illy, 11 months ago

illy wrote:

i normally stand next to m4/3rds users and dangle my 500mm in front of them.........

That is so wrong...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to ultimitsu, 11 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

From the ground you should be able to identify exactly where in the photo the focal plane is. It's approximately the front edge of the sideways brick in front of the pebble, or, about the tip of the dogs nose. You are, I presume, comparing shadowed areas with shadowed areas?

it is rather obvious the focus plane is a bit behind the dog's head.

Behind the dog's head, hmmmm? How far back along the dog is it? By the collar? Back legs? Maybe describe, or draw an arrow showing where on the dog you think the focal plane is.

Second, I don't have to shoot the exact same image as you. I can shoot anything I like, with any lens I like. It's pretty easy to tell if the focus is accurate enough or not, even with a slow lens. Don't worry. I'm used to people who want to shift the goalposts. I'd like to know what happens if I go out and grab a very shallow DoF, "fast action" photo. What's the next request?

you can do anything you like but they do not prove your point.

Can't say I've seen too many (anyone?) people claim M4/3s C-AF is better than a DSLRs PDAF.

they say it is as good, it is false.

Who does? I've seen people make the claim for Single shot AF (Which is actually often true). Haven't seen very many people claim Continuous-AF is better though. Maybe you can post some links.

I have however seen some very stupid DSLR users make blanket claims that M4/3s cannot get shots like these, followed by posting birds, dogs and bees.

the only stupid people are those who disagree without being able to prove it.

You don't quite seem to get it. Your entire methodology is flawed. The difference between C-AF on M4/3s and DSLR comes down to a percentage of successful shots. You're arguing that a single photo proves M4/3s can't focus fast enough, yet there's heaps of photos in the M4/3s forums that prove your particular claim wrong. You'll end up moving the goalposts as people take up your challenge. You'll claim DoF isn't small enough, or that the conditions were different, or eventually that's it's not the same "because", while ignoring the fact that the focal plane is pretty easy to determine. Then you'll forget all about the examples posted and the reasons why your methodology is flawed and continue blathering with no clue or interest in determining the actual reality.

As you can tell from my gallery, the C-AF from m4/3s is hardly the penalty you keep claiming it to be.

it cannot, i can see it in your gallery.

It cannot what?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to ultimitsu, 11 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Quick lesson for you though, Ultimutsu.

The claims you've made in previous threads - "M4/3s can't do this because C-AF.".

They're the camera equivalent of the phrase "All swans are white". All I need to do to disprove it is post a single picture and you're entire claim is wrong, same as a single black swan proves "all swans are white" is wrong.

As we don't know how many shots you took for your photos, or how many shots I might take if I choose to disprove your claims the actual usefulness and accuracy of your argument is rather poor. The only notable thing about your argument is that the claims are falsifiable with a single photo.

What is far more interesting is how much of a performance difference in autofocus there is between various cameras. So far no one has done any significant testing that I'm aware of. If you want to impress me, get some data. If you want me to keep laughing at you, please, post more pictures claiming M4/3s C-AF won't do this or that.

I don't mind looking for the odd black swan.

This is by far the most idiotic analogy i have seen. to say "M43 cannot do this is" is saying m43 is objectively limited to do that because of its known capability is not quite there yet. To prove this is wrong you need to shoot a picture to that standard.

the claim  "All swans are white" makes an entirely different proposition, it is saying something objectively does not exist, without identifying why it does not exist.

For what its worth, "All swans are white" are about as right as people say "aliens do not exist". it is correct until proven wrong.

But I guess stupid people do not get it.

Quite.

So M4/3s is "objectively limited to do that because of its known capability is not quite there yet". The only problem is, it's pretty clear you don't have any idea of its "known capability". This is not too surprising as I doubt you have any actual data on C-AF success rates. Which brings us back to the obvious failing of your argument (making blanket statements based on a sample of 1), which brings us back to the white swans analogy, which you failed to comprehend.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paul cool
Regular MemberPosts: 209
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

From the ground you should be able to identify exactly where in the photo the focal plane is. It's approximately the front edge of the sideways brick in front of the pebble, or, about the tip of the dogs nose. You are, I presume, comparing shadowed areas with shadowed areas?

So did you use the pebble as a marker,its good idea to obtain focus first .?seems a shame to only have the dogs nose in focus ,we're both images shot using the canon 60 d ,I have had great difficulty obtaining in focus shots of my dogs running with my gh3 .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to paul cool, 11 months ago

paul cool wrote:

From the ground you should be able to identify exactly where in the photo the focal plane is. It's approximately the front edge of the sideways brick in front of the pebble, or, about the tip of the dogs nose. You are, I presume, comparing shadowed areas with shadowed areas?

So did you use the pebble as a marker,its good idea to obtain focus first .?seems a shame to only have the dogs nose in focus ,we're both images shot using the canon 60 d ,I have had great difficulty obtaining in focus shots of my dogs running with my gh3 .

Nope. Mine was shot using C-AF on the OM-D. No prefocussing.

I'm afraid I don't have a dog to test focusing methods upon. I found this one while I was out and about and spent a few minutes playing "chase the man with the camera" with it.

Of course, we've no idea of the success rate of Ultimutsu and his 60D either. While he has a few portrait pics of his little white dog, he's only posted the single shot of it running.

I'd recommend a fast focussing lens, C-AF, slow burst, and take small bursts or single shots. The biggest problem I had was trying to get down low, and get the camera to my eye before the dog started running towards me. It may be worth getting someone else to play with the dog while you photograph.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paul cool
Regular MemberPosts: 209
Like?
Re: I do.
In reply to Martin.au, 11 months ago

bella

well I tried to capture the sense of motion which sort of worked but low light ruined it with noise the dogs run fast also which is a real challenge bet the Olympus 75mm f1.8 would fair better .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads