What is the best m43 for focus tracking?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Questions thread
peevee1 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,247
Re: Another true believer

Anders W wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

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.

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.

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.

I am afraid that it is indeed a waste of time to argue with you. Having dealt with objections like those you now raise for the umpteenth time already in my first post on the subject as well as in several later posts, I have now lost any hope of having you understand why there is a need for elementary statistical tools like averages, standard deviations or correlation coefficients when dealing with data of the present kind. If you are ever to pass Statistics 101, you need to find a more patient teacher.

I don't see any averages and standard deviations in the list you cited, no confidence intervals.

I count on people's ability to count to the extent that they need to. But within limits, I try to give them a helping hand with the math. Here's one example from a prior post:

"Consider the fact that in the FNAC report of two years ago (the one where they tested the GH2 that you have personal experience with), the average value for the mirrorless camera tested was 16.25 meters. Two years later, that figure is down to 11. For MFT cameras specifically, the value two years ago was 13.5. By now, the average is down to 7.  In the meantime, the results for DSLRs haven't changed much. PDAF is a rather mature technology. CDAF has been developing rapidly in the last few years and is now catching up."


That is why it looks like the result of a single try, or, frankly, just BS.

That's what it may look like to people who can't, or don't want to, count, and therefore, as an unfortunate result, speak BS.

Count what? Averaging mft cameras, very few of them, does not help. Even the parameter itself, the closest distance, is not very useful, but just with a single try is not useful at all. And in the light of things like using the cameras with locked focus and different shooting speeds leading to buffer overflow, just shows complete incompetence of the testers.

BTW, I am not a m43 detractor, I like E-M5 very much and often even shoot sports (gymnastics) with it. And know the limitations of its AF-C and AF-C+Tr very well by now, and how to get around them for best results. The discussion or tests of the performance, without mentioning specific lenses, light levels, apertures, picture modes, sizes of the subjects, and especially "Rls priority" settings are laughable as the parameters greatly affect the performance of AF-C and tracking.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow