Reading mode: Light Dark

One beautifull system soon true?

Go to last post
Robert Schroeder said:
Entropius said:
... make a 300mm f/4 lens that is worthy of the Zuiko name, that will focus on a Four Thirds-size sensor and can be previewed in a viewfinder of some kind (either optical or good EVF), and I'll be a very happy customer. I don't care if it's phase-detect, contrast-detect, or runs on pixie dust.
Click to expand...
Right, and the big still-unanswered question regarding contrast AF is whether such a lens can be built to focus as quick as the new E-P3/E-PL3 is now rumored to do, and it will stay unanswered until such a lens will actually be made. Because the heavier the focusing group, the greater the disadvantage for the contrast AF system.
Click to expand...
Ive always thought this simplistic rubbish
it depends on how it works

if they need dedicated lenses it might be that they shimmy one of the elements so see which way the system has to drive the AF, in doing so it uses the same motors for PDAF, so the speeds are at least the same. Given that sort of concoction CDAF or PDAF makes no difference. Now might I add is the time to remember those 2 extra contacts on each lens base

the power to drive AF motors is important
the processing power is important
and the method of detection is important

until now theyve been batting 1 out of 3

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Phase-detect does an independent analysis of the focus point provides information to the camera as to where to move the lens motor to focus. Although it is not 100% accurate, it makes one move and then done.

Contrast detect uses a trial an error approach, making minor shifts in the focus and settles the focus of the lens to where the contrast detected in lines is sharpest. IT is trial and error, often making many errors before getting it right. It also relies on the image sensor and processing power behind it.

I don't see how CD can ever perform as fast as a good PD system just because it needs timing to make motor adjustments to detect good focus.

--
Upstate NY Waterfalls and Photography
My Galleries: http://www.nyfalls.com
My Niagara Falls Gallery: http://www.nyfalls.com/niagara/niagara-main.html
 
nyfalls said:
Phase-detect does an independent analysis of the focus point provides information to the camera as to where to move the lens motor to focus. Although it is not 100% accurate, it makes one move and then done.

Contrast detect uses a trial an error approach, making minor shifts in the focus and settles the focus of the lens to where the contrast detected in lines is sharpest. IT is trial and error, often making many errors before getting it right. It also relies on the image sensor and processing power behind it.

I don't see how CD can ever perform as fast as a good PD system just because it needs timing to make motor adjustments to detect good focus.
Click to expand...
simply by phasing the AF points, the question is how

Fuji do it by half pixels, thats 1 approach but it may be more light limited

If it is possible to shimmy a single lens element back and forth perhaps 1/2 a mm, that could do the same thing, would require little power and be quite fast. All CDAF requires is to know which way to drive and when to stop when it gets there

the one thing in engineering, never say never

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
Robert Schroeder said:
Entropius said:
... make a 300mm f/4 lens that is worthy of the Zuiko name, that will focus on a Four Thirds-size sensor and can be previewed in a viewfinder of some kind (either optical or good EVF), and I'll be a very happy customer. I don't care if it's phase-detect, contrast-detect, or runs on pixie dust.
Click to expand...
Right, and the big still-unanswered question regarding contrast AF is whether such a lens can be built to focus as quick as the new E-P3/E-PL3 is now rumored to do, and it will stay unanswered until such a lens will actually be made. Because the heavier the focusing group, the greater the disadvantage for the contrast AF system.
Click to expand...
Ive always thought this simplistic rubbish
it depends on how it works

if they need dedicated lenses it might be that they shimmy one of the elements so see which way the system has to drive the AF, in doing so it uses the same motors for PDAF, so the speeds are at least the same. Given that sort of concoction CDAF or PDAF makes no difference

the power to drive AF motors is important
the processing power is important
and the method of detection is important

until now theyve been batting 1 out of 3
Click to expand...
Mass inertia has more impact on a focusing method which needs to frequently accelerate and decelerate a mass for many small movements instead of just a few times for one or two larger and just a few smaller movements — that's physics, not 'rubbish'. And physics sometimes is that simple.

As to whether it is possible to build suitable AF motors, which are both powerful enough and quick enough to start, stop and change directions, which is another requirement, and which fit into the usual lens casing and which don't drain batteries too fast, well — I never said it can't be done, I only say there's no proof yet that it can be done. And there is no proof because no manufacturer has yet built such lenses which are a matter of course for every DSLR system — and the E-PL3/E-P3 won't constitute such proof either, as long as there are no such lenses.

Nothing else was my statement.
 
Robert Schroeder said:
Rriley said:
Robert Schroeder said:
Entropius said:
... make a 300mm f/4 lens that is worthy of the Zuiko name, that will focus on a Four Thirds-size sensor and can be previewed in a viewfinder of some kind (either optical or good EVF), and I'll be a very happy customer. I don't care if it's phase-detect, contrast-detect, or runs on pixie dust.
Click to expand...
Right, and the big still-unanswered question regarding contrast AF is whether such a lens can be built to focus as quick as the new E-P3/E-PL3 is now rumored to do, and it will stay unanswered until such a lens will actually be made. Because the heavier the focusing group, the greater the disadvantage for the contrast AF system.
Click to expand...
Ive always thought this simplistic rubbish
it depends on how it works

if they need dedicated lenses it might be that they shimmy one of the elements so see which way the system has to drive the AF, in doing so it uses the same motors for PDAF, so the speeds are at least the same. Given that sort of concoction CDAF or PDAF makes no difference

the power to drive AF motors is important
the processing power is important
and the method of detection is important

until now theyve been batting 1 out of 3
Click to expand...
Mass inertia has more impact on a focusing method which needs to frequently accelerate and decelerate a mass for many small movements instead of just a few times for one or two larger and just a few smaller movements — that's physics, not 'rubbish'. And physics sometimes is that simple.
Click to expand...
logically not while using the same AF motors
once the direction is determined, speed should be no different

focussing group doesnt suddenly become heavier b/se you chose anther focussing method

what was against them before, was the need to know which direction to transport the group, and when to stop. To get around this they artificially had the AF group moving backwards and forwards, then narrowing the travel to complete the process.

All that too and fro movement is certainly aided by a lighter group as there are many accelerations. Add phasing to the detection system and that situation goes away along with the need to constantly drive the group backwards and forwards,
there is no reason it should be any different to other forms of phasing
Robert Schroeder said:
As to whether it is possible to build suitable AF motors, which are both powerful enough and quick enough to start, stop and change directions, which is another requirement, and which fit into the usual lens casing and which don't drain batteries too fast, well — I never said it can't be done, I only say there's no proof yet that it can be done. And there is no proof because no manufacturer has yet built such lenses which are a matter of course for every DSLR system — and the E-PL3/E-P3 won't constitute such proof either, as long as there are no such lenses.

Nothing else was my statement.
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
DonParrot said:
Let's wait and see if this doesn't mean an improvement for the FT lenses, too.
Click to expand...
DonParrot said:
But even if this shouldn't be the case, I think this is just the next step on the way to achieving the guaranteed goal: to fully exploit the FT-Zuikos's capabilities with mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
I would certainly like a good AF performance of FT lenses ,even though I only have the 12-60 and 50macro { they are better than current mFT offerings} . I have been wondering what would be best for Olympus, people buying all new lenses in mFT mount or one camera body with improved AF on FT lenses and at least from a business point of view selling all new lenses would be a more profitable option.
Jim
 
That might be nice for someone coming into the system anew but it does nothing for me. Sounds like it (still) won't be fast with my 4/3rds lenses (only upcoming m43 lenses) so it has little benefit over looking at changing systems altogether. Plus, if they are using the name PEN, it is unlikely it will be a form factor that I would be interested in.

Also sounds like it is not much help to current PEN owners unless they are willing to buy new lenses plus the new body. Is that the way future upgrades are going to be...want a faster AF...buy new lenses when you upgrade your body? No thanks.

Still holding out hope for Oly but it is fading fast. Good thing I don't 'need' a new camera. Eventually the 'want' will win out, though, and Oly isn't keeping themselves in the running.

--
Stu
Eee Six Two Zero

.
 
I am with you on this comment, I am happy with the E-620 (bought right after release)

but I will be looking for something with better ISO, less shadow noise,8+ fps,and NO FOCUS ISSUES with moving objects.My keeper ratio in manual focus out performs AF,5-1 when birding.I understand the E-5 is slightly better at most of these issues, but nothing groundbreaking compared to simular priced systems.
Bill
 
Having just come back from my first trip to Europe, I saw a perfect Guinness being pulled from the tap, learned to "Mind the Gap", and wished I had something a little lighter than my E330/14-54, 40 - 150 and associated other gear. I can only imagine what carrying an e5/12-60/50-200, etc. would have been like.

So, if they could pull it off, it would be marvelous. Problem is, Panasonic has the faster focus and (arguably) better glass NOW and what we're hearing from Olympus remains rumors. Announcement of new equipment isn't the same as availability. And if you've got to buy these new lenses and one of the new rumored bodies to take advantage of the faster focus, what's that say to current m4/3s users?

If the rumor is true, we'll have four types of 4/3s lenses: SG, HG, SHG and CDAF-enabled; the original m4/3s lenses; the MSC m4/3s lenses; and now the unreleased new lenses. That's seven different types of lenses!

Hopefully, I've got a lot of years left in my gear, because the more I hear about the plan, the more difficulty I have seeing a "beautiful system." No doubt, the system is improving, and the two major issues we have: slower focus and lower quality lenses, are being addressed. I'll acknowledge that's progress, but I really have difficulties seeing it as a system, beautiful or otherwise.
 
be all Olympus do, whether it's really replaced or not.

Yes.

The pro camera is still a couple of years away (from March 2011). Looks like the E_P3 may be very interesting as a stepping stone.

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
jim stirling said:
DonParrot said:
Let's wait and see if this doesn't mean an improvement for the FT lenses, too.
Click to expand...
jim stirling said:
But even if this shouldn't be the case, I think this is just the next step on the way to achieving the guaranteed goal: to fully exploit the FT-Zuikos's capabilities with mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
I would certainly like a good AF performance of FT lenses ,even though I only have the 12-60 and 50macro { they are better than current mFT offerings} . I have been wondering what would be best for Olympus, people buying all new lenses in mFT mount or one camera body with improved AF on FT lenses and at least from a business point of view selling all new lenses would be a more profitable option.
Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

on the one hand - from a purely financial point of view - I have to admit that you are right. The more lenses you sell, the more money you will make.

But will they really sell more lenses if they try to force us to trepölace our fine FT Zuikos by new µFT lenses? How many of those who have spent thousands and thousands of Euros on the SG/SHG lenses would be so annoyed that they would say farewell to Olympus for good. Even if they want to stay in the µFT camp - they can do so with Panny.

And, on the other hand, I was told that fast primes and zooms for the area beyond 50mm wouldn't be significantly smaller and easier for µFT. So, Oly could save a lot of money by making the great FT Zuikos also fully usable for the µFT camp. They are proven top quality and I'm convinced that a lot of those currently using Panasonic µFT cameras would make the switch to Olympus - just to have the chance of using these outstanding lenses stabilised.

So, it - as always - a question of wrong and right decisions, isn't it?

As I see it, annoying your faithful user base definitely can't be the right solution if you want to survive in a market as hard-fought as this one.
 
I find that new sensor interresting - seems to be that "famous photography-minded oly-specified sensor".

I think Oly sometimes overestimates their AF improvements, but if it has the AF speed of the GH2 then their problem is solved, in this year its not necessary to have something faster than the GH2 AF
--
cheers

Mr.NoFlash
 
DonParrot said:
jim stirling said:
DonParrot said:
Let's wait and see if this doesn't mean an improvement for the FT lenses, too.
Click to expand...
DonParrot said:
But even if this shouldn't be the case, I think this is just the next step on the way to achieving the guaranteed goal: to fully exploit the FT-Zuikos's capabilities with mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
I would certainly like a good AF performance of FT lenses ,even though I only have the 12-60 and 50macro { they are better than current mFT offerings} . I have been wondering what would be best for Olympus, people buying all new lenses in mFT mount or one camera body with improved AF on FT lenses and at least from a business point of view selling all new lenses would be a more profitable option.
Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

on the one hand - from a purely financial point of view - I have to admit that you are right. The more lenses you sell, the more money you will make.

But will they really sell more lenses if they try to force us to trepölace our fine FT Zuikos by new µFT lenses? How many of those who have spent thousands and thousands of Euros on the SG/SHG lenses would be so annoyed that they would say farewell to Olympus for good. Even if they want to stay in the µFT camp - they can do so with Panny.

And, on the other hand, I was told that fast primes and zooms for the area beyond 50mm wouldn't be significantly smaller and easier for µFT. So, Oly could save a lot of money by making the great FT Zuikos also fully usable for the µFT camp. They are proven top quality and I'm convinced that a lot of those currently using Panasonic µFT cameras would make the switch to Olympus - just to have the chance of using these outstanding lenses stabilised.

So, it - as always - a question of wrong and right decisions, isn't it?

As I see it, annoying your faithful user base definitely can't be the right solution if you want to survive in a market as hard-fought as this one.
Click to expand...
The world moves on, nothing last for ever. That FT lenses will be obsolete at one time in the future should supprise no one! If you want new and better products, the old ones will be obsolete. Thats like all other stuff you buy, like dishwasher, car, TV etc. etc. And I can use my old FT lenses on mFT when you have a second extra for focusing, whish is OK for 90 % of all my photos.

--
http://www.ohb.no/foto
************
Torstein
 
TorsteinH said:
TorsteinH wrote:

The world moves on, nothing last for ever. That FT lenses will be obsolete at one time in the future should supprise no one! If you want new and better products, the old ones will be obsolete. Thats like all other stuff you buy, like dishwasher, car, TV etc. etc. And I can use my old FT lenses on mFT when you have a second extra for focusing, whish is OK for 90 % of all my photos.
Click to expand...
Ditto on that for me. I was just out last night doing some shooting with my E-PL1 and the 50-200 SWD, with and without the EC20 and off a tripod. Worked beautifully. Weight-wise, it's like shooting with the lens and no camera. Truth be told, three weeks ago I was lugging my E5 outfit and tripod around in Palo Duro Canyon when I could have gotten every one of those shots with the same lenses using the E-PL1 and would have saved the extra weight.







 
I used an E-510 to shoot birds for a long time, with the antiquated 3-point AF. (I used center-point only 90% of the time.)

No real focus issues, except sometimes on hummingbirds in flight (whose wings confuse the heck out of the AF sensor, and you have to hold the little dot on their head, which is not that easy).

What lens and focus mode are you using?
 
Rriley said:
Robert Schroeder said:
Rriley said:
Robert Schroeder said:
Entropius said:
... make a 300mm f/4 lens that is worthy of the Zuiko name, that will focus on a Four Thirds-size sensor and can be previewed in a viewfinder of some kind (either optical or good EVF), and I'll be a very happy customer. I don't care if it's phase-detect, contrast-detect, or runs on pixie dust.
Click to expand...
Right, and the big still-unanswered question regarding contrast AF is whether such a lens can be built to focus as quick as the new E-P3/E-PL3 is now rumored to do, and it will stay unanswered until such a lens will actually be made. Because the heavier the focusing group, the greater the disadvantage for the contrast AF system.
Click to expand...
Ive always thought this simplistic rubbish
it depends on how it works

if they need dedicated lenses it might be that they shimmy one of the elements so see which way the system has to drive the AF, in doing so it uses the same motors for PDAF, so the speeds are at least the same. Given that sort of concoction CDAF or PDAF makes no difference

the power to drive AF motors is important
the processing power is important
and the method of detection is important

until now theyve been batting 1 out of 3
Click to expand...
Mass inertia has more impact on a focusing method which needs to frequently accelerate and decelerate a mass for many small movements instead of just a few times for one or two larger and just a few smaller movements — that's physics, not 'rubbish'. And physics sometimes is that simple.
Click to expand...
logically not while using the same AF motors
once the direction is determined, speed should be no different

focussing group doesnt suddenly become heavier b/se you chose anther focussing method
Click to expand...
No, but harder to move. And the heavier it is, the greater is the disadvantage.
Rriley said:
what was against them before, was the need to know which direction to transport the group, and when to stop. To get around this they artificially had the AF group moving backwards and forwards, then narrowing the travel to complete the process.

All that too and fro movement is certainly aided by a lighter group as there are many accelerations. Add phasing to the detection system and that situation goes away along with the need to constantly drive the group backwards and forwards,
there is no reason it should be any different to other forms of phasing
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe, but the E-P3 and the E-PL3 still prove nothing.

I'll believe in your (or any other) option for a universally fast mirrorless AF when I can buy it.

Until there's proof that it can be made, it's all speculation.

And whether a really usable, SLR-grade phase detection AF can be implemented at all, or if it can be implemented without significant disadvantages in another area (the only existing solution, as far as I understand, has no usable pixels where the imager is used for AF, meaning the exact portion of the scene on which the focus has been put won't even really be in the image), is something which still has to be proven, too.
 
DonParrot said:
How many of those who have spent thousands and thousands of Euros on the SG/SHG lenses would be so annoyed that they would say farewell to Olympus for good. Even if they want to stay in the µFT camp - they can do so with Panny.
Click to expand...
Lets say it this way:The 4/3 lenses do focus well on 4/3 cameras but in 10 years, those 4/3 cameras will be 8 years old like the E-1 is now. The disadvantage is, the focus slower on m4/3. The advantage is having a OVF.

The m43 lenses focus then fast on the newest m43 cams, but there is no OVF.

So even if one switches the m43 ( but keeps an old 4/3 cam ), the 4/3 lenses have not only disadvantages.
--
cheers

Mr.NoFlash
 
TorsteinH said:
A new rumor from 43 rumors says that Olympus has reinvented CD/AF to be on par with PDAF in their new m43 models to be announced on June 30.

Maybee this will make the merging of the 43 systems into one "beautifull system " pretty soon?
Click to expand...
The last time Olympus made claims about AF was with the E-3 and 12-60mm: "world's fastest AF." Well, that might have been true in certain conditions, and I'll even hand it to them overall with that combo. But as it turned out, that was the only combo that ever lived up to that claim. No other lense on the E-3 performs as well, unfortunately (speed, accuracy, precision).

Makes it hard to believe m4/3 is replacing 4/3 any time soon.

Cheers,
--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/7-14/12-60/35-100/150/25/EC14/EC20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/
 
as it happens, Olympus havent made any claims yet

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MJ_Photo38
What Ifs and other alternate history theories
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
380
Todd Yes
T
Bexounet
in 2024 : EM1.2 or EM5.3 (autofocus difference) ?
Replies
10
Views
220
Bexounet
Bexounet
M
Dilemma: get 300mm f4 or switch the system?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
42
Grimstod
G
R
Ep7 full specs leak
2
Replies
36
Views
37
baxters
B
P
Panasonic develops Time of Flight,"PERFECT autofocus system"
Replies
14
Views
15
Funny Valentine
Funny Valentine

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top