windsprite
Veteran Member
I know what you're saying. Any camera "can shoot action." Any camera at all. That's quite a different thing from saying the AF is good, isn't it? 
Julie
Julie
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Four Thirds - My Say
- Thread starter Louis_Dobson
- Start date
LOL. Just ask Brian Mosley who shot a horse jumping with a 14-150 recently.
You tested it... for one day ? You must not be afraid of ridicule
And your source is... an employee? You must not be afraid of ridicule
There aren't? Whrt about the M. Zuiko 14-150? Or the 9-18? Or equivalent Panny lenses? As I said you don't fear to be economical with the truth
Oh well, there is the Panny 45-200 which is not terrific, but it was one of the early lenses, better will come.
BTW I hope you realise that you represent only a very negligible share, and decreasing at that, of Oly consumers who are ready to buy the new 'plastic' lenses.
It will be a miracle if the upper tier will be saved from extinction for a few more years. Clearly the demise of the 4/3 line of bodies, save the flagship, shows that there was not much profit in it.
A humbling thought, for those who feed their arrogance with glories of the past.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Yes, very clever. However this is true for my E-620 too, and in practice it never stopped Micro users to buy 30% of the ILS market, and growing by the month.
It is also unfair not to mention that improvement of CDAF is Oly's top priority, and that it already has done so, with the latest firmware upgrade. So nothing will stop them to make a further one.
The new lenses, the 9-18 and 14-150 are also reportedly much faster to focus and silent than the early ones.
Fast PDAF will probably save 4/3 skin for a few years, the time that CDAF will achieve maturity with much lighter and less expensive lenses. Give it two or three years, and this argument will be worth nothing.
Am.
IMHo there's no doubt on which is the more cost effective and precise system.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Robert Schroeder
Veteran Member
Wow, he shot a horse jumping! (BTW, was he jumping or the horse?)
Well, Mr Afraid-of-Ridicule, you might be surprised what can be tested in one day, or even in one hour. Do you need a year to check whether an AF system is fast or slow?You tested it... for one day ? You must not be afraid of ridicule
Indeed I'm not, as I know my contenders around here... Would you, Mr Afraid-of-Ridicule, rather trust an unemployed person in technical matters regarding AF?And your source is... an employee? You must not be afraid of ridicule
A very slow (as in aperture), compact entry-level lens with not too much telephoto length and a small and light moving lens group, which does not prove anything for larger-aperture and/or longer lenses.
A very slow (as in aperture), compact entry-level lens with a small and light moving lens group, which does not prove anything for larger-aperture and/or longer telephoto lenses.
A very slow (as in aperture) lens, too, with a rather small and light moving lens group, which [etc.]
Sorry, don't know what you mean. What "new 'plastic' lenses"? Are you talking about the existing Micro FT lenses?
Exactly my thoughts.
The only interesting question, though, is, will Micro FT become something which can compete with full-fledged DSLR systems, which is what Olympus seems to think, if the rumours are true, or will a move to Micro FT mean that Olympus will finally put a stop to making serious camera gear.
I fear the latter is the case, and no existing mirrorless gear can prove otherwise yet.
Cheers,
Robert
Could you provide some links to those samples? I dont want to ask on the m43 forum, because they would probably see it as provocative, but I have never seen any mirrorless action samples that comes anywhere close to what sports pros produce every day with their DSLRs.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Doug Brown
Veteran Member
I think you are really over-selling m4/3's action shooting capabilities here. I have both the 9-18mm and 14-150mm, and while I enjoy using them within their performance envelopes, I wouldn't say you could realistically shoot sports or any kind of unpredictable action with either.
As Rob has pointed out, there are work arounds (pre-focusing) but these techniques do not substitute for a DSLR's far better capabaility in focus tracking.
Within their limits micro four thirds cameras can produce really outstanding, sellable images. There are a couple of areas where I now prefer to use m4/3's over a traditional DSLR, but presently they are a long way from being first choice for action shooting.
I'm sure that Olympus will make steady progress in this area in the future, but right now focus speed and tracking ability is one of the few weak spots for micro four thirds. Fortunately, these marvelous cameras do so many other things well that it is easy to forgive them for this one small deficit.
For instance, the 9-18mm and 14-150mm combo is a travel photographer's dream set up. I'm really liking what I'm seeing from the 14-150mm so far.
Cheers,
Douglas Brown
Sport Pros? You know a sport pro using Olympus? In that case I am afraid you'll have to do your homework all by yourself
BTW I never saw a sports pro using Olympus here. The only thing approaching it on this Forum was a Chinese gentleman shooting circus. Also, I remember a Russian Rallye photographer, who showed that that his E-Px was perfectly adequate for it.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
'Serious camera gear? WTF do you mean by that? Didn't you notice that with Digital all camera bodies have become expendable?
My 4/3 CDAF compatible lenses, lightly built are also expendable, and more and more will become so. Pure metal and glass lenses are aready a thing of the past, with corrective elements being replaced by firmware correction.
I think you have a psychological problem, something like the fear of gravity loss, nostalgia for thing that were, or lens snobbery. I can't answer to those.
In a way mirrorless is really the last nail to the coffin of the Film Age.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
TrapperJohn
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
M4/3 has shrunken some lenses. The Panny 7-14 is smaller than the Oly 7-14, and the MZD9-19 (a sweetheart of a lens) is smaller than the ZD 9-18 (also a sweet lens). In both cases, the smaller size is related to the shorter registration distance, which lessens the need for a retrofocal design.
With the longer lenses, this doesn't come into play. The PL45 2.8 is about the size of the ZD 50F2. The Panny 45-200 is about the size of the ZD 40-150.
M4/3 does not change the laws of physics. Once outside the benefits of the shorter registration distance, the glass doesn't appear to be much if any smaller. As well it should be, the sensor is the same size.
With CDAF, what I've seen tends to indicate great improvements. The only decent CDAF enabled lens I have is the PL25. With the most recent firmware on both lens and body, it's a fast focuser on the EP1. Very fast, just a shade slower than it is on the E3. With that in mind, I suspect that the best ZD glass can be made to focus as quickly with a circuitry change. And if Oly is real smart, they'll offer a retrofit upgrade for existing ZD owners, there's a tidy little revenue stream.
If in fact Oly wants to bring it's M4/3 owners into the precise world of ZD glass as they have hinted, it will need to make a larger body. A lens like the 50-200 is at best a clumsy handling affair on the EP1. Useable, but not optimal.
Or you could do what a few of us did: get both. The tiny little Pen for when you want light, portable and very discreet, the E3 or E30 for when you want the best handling with the best glass. Works for me.
With the longer lenses, this doesn't come into play. The PL45 2.8 is about the size of the ZD 50F2. The Panny 45-200 is about the size of the ZD 40-150.
M4/3 does not change the laws of physics. Once outside the benefits of the shorter registration distance, the glass doesn't appear to be much if any smaller. As well it should be, the sensor is the same size.
With CDAF, what I've seen tends to indicate great improvements. The only decent CDAF enabled lens I have is the PL25. With the most recent firmware on both lens and body, it's a fast focuser on the EP1. Very fast, just a shade slower than it is on the E3. With that in mind, I suspect that the best ZD glass can be made to focus as quickly with a circuitry change. And if Oly is real smart, they'll offer a retrofit upgrade for existing ZD owners, there's a tidy little revenue stream.
If in fact Oly wants to bring it's M4/3 owners into the precise world of ZD glass as they have hinted, it will need to make a larger body. A lens like the 50-200 is at best a clumsy handling affair on the EP1. Useable, but not optimal.
Or you could do what a few of us did: get both. The tiny little Pen for when you want light, portable and very discreet, the E3 or E30 for when you want the best handling with the best glass. Works for me.
I am talking about a general comparision m43/EVILs vs DSLRs. I thought you said there were hundreds of great action samples from m43 cameras.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Did you ever notice that there is such a thing like a 'Search' here at DPR? So do yourself a favour.
Go to the Micro Four Thirds Forum and do a Search for Sports . Really a gold mine, LOL
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Gregm61
Veteran Member
No freakin' kidding. I keep hearing "give it time..", well, get back to me when that time gets there. News flash....itsn't not yet, and I don't think it's going to be as fast as anyone thinks. I don't give a flip about being able to prefocus on one spot and getting ONE shot, or maybe two if the subject haven't moved far enough. I could do that with a 30 year-old Nikon F3 and any manual focus Nikkor. I want to be able to feather the release and shoot several one or two image bursts really fast over just a few seconds, re-zooming as needed and be able to keep the subject in focus at changing distances and capture maybe 5-8 shots, not one or two.
Every one of these was at a significantly different enough distance I had to refocus and still captured 5 shots in 4 seconds yesterday. When I can do this with a micro four-thirds camera, get back to me. Until then, keep sharing that Koolaide with the micro-four thirds folks. It ain't selling over here.
Gregm61
Veteran Member
You can get ONE good action shot with any camera. I shot this with a Panasonic TZ5..
What I could not do with that TZ5 was get a second or third shot AFTER this image, or one or two shots before because of the finders inability to allow me to keep the subject accurately framed enough for those extra shots. Sure, there's lot of great single image action shots on the micro 4/3rd's page, because you cannot get multiple shots unless you either (1) don't zoom in too tightly to the extent you can guesstimate the subjects movement enough to keep it somewhere within the frame enough, or (2) are dealing with action where you can leave the camera in one spot and the action never moves. Show me the 4, 5, 6 image sequences where the subject was moving and you actually have to refocus and keep the subject tightly framed. The list of that type of action shooting on the micro page is much, much smaller, LOL...
Not what I want in one camera system I want to be able to shoot ALL subjects.
ginsbu
Veteran Member
This isn't quite right, I'm afraid. As I understand it, CDAF focus speed depends in large part on the mass of the focus group: a low mass focusing group allowing for the many CDAF focus steps to be taken quickly. Apparently, the focus motors suited to many rapid start-stop movements of the focus group are also different than the best PDAF motors.
I recall reading recently that the poor CDAF performance of the MZ 14-42 compared to the Panasonic offerings was due to Oly's fairly direct adaptation of their existing (PDAF optimized) ZD 14-42 design with a heavier focus group, while the improved AF performance in the MZ 9-18 and 14-150 were due (in part) to use of a lighter focus group. I also recall that Oly was asked about whether a redesign of the MZ 14-42 would be forthcoming, and the reply being that Oly was focusing on introducing new lenses for the moment. I can't locate the source at the moment, but I'm sure others saw it as well.
I am certainly not interested in horses' legs and loathe the idea of shooting 5 frames in in 4 seconds, the negation of photography in my view, but it's your trip, so enjoy it.
OTH the sports issue in Liveview is really adead beaten horse. It was excellently illustrated by Kirasir, a Russian offtrack photographer using LiveView with a 620 for an Off Track Competition:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=32189751&q=Rallye+EP1&qf=m
Now the 620 LiveView might be three times as slow as my current PL1. That's why I said that I don't feel limited in any way by the latter. Kirasir might even have demonstrated the G1 at work in the Off Track world in this forum. Anyway he uses it.
However if framing the precise position of a horses' legs were my bread and butter, or a matter of life and death, then I would prefer a dSLR, but without the arrogance of saying that a Micro is useless for sports.
Placing horses' legs is a very specialised problem, and a very specious argument for the general discussion about action and Micro. Kirasir showed that competitions can perfectly be done, and he is a photojournalist.
There are quite a few of them using Micros, btw.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
OTH the sports issue in Liveview is really adead beaten horse. It was excellently illustrated by Kirasir, a Russian offtrack photographer using LiveView with a 620 for an Off Track Competition:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&message=32189751&q=Rallye+EP1&qf=m
Now the 620 LiveView might be three times as slow as my current PL1. That's why I said that I don't feel limited in any way by the latter. Kirasir might even have demonstrated the G1 at work in the Off Track world in this forum. Anyway he uses it.
However if framing the precise position of a horses' legs were my bread and butter, or a matter of life and death, then I would prefer a dSLR, but without the arrogance of saying that a Micro is useless for sports.
Placing horses' legs is a very specialised problem, and a very specious argument for the general discussion about action and Micro. Kirasir showed that competitions can perfectly be done, and he is a photojournalist.
There are quite a few of them using Micros, btw.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Veteran Member
Not quite, it depends on the DOF of the lens, the video frame rate of the video stream and the speed at which the focus change necessary for the different frames to be examined can be executed. The only major speed win in this context is to be had by producing slow lenses (large DOF and little mass to move) and by synchronizing movement of the focus motor with the video frame electronic shutter - which I suspect has been done on those CDAF capable lenses.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Same answer:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35826631
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35826631
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
....after looking through the first five pages without any convincing samples, but lots of discussion of the shortcomings.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Gregm61
Veteran Member
This tells me all I need to know about you and action shooting. "Placing horses legs" (what the heck does that mean?) isn't the subject here. Keeping a moving subject in focus and framed is. Ever tried shooting hockey, and not the slow-@ssed club-in-the-terribly-lit rink-type, but guys who actually move that you have to follow and keep re-focusing (I guess you'd call it placing hockey players legs-type shooting) until the actual moment something happens? By the time any E-P model would have aquired focus, this type action will have already happened unless you pre-focussed on the goalie and waited for something to happen, which isn't all that often.
One of a three image burst series and the pick of the three that you have to be ready to capture and the camera has to focus on very fast or you miss it..
Gregm61
Veteran Member
I see nothing there but several one frame-type shots I described above that could have been pre-focussed by someone with knowledge of the track. Show me some multi-image busts where the trucks are flying over those hills and coming down on one tire or flipping over.
Not even a good try.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum