Using the 50-200 SWD on both E-5 and E-M1

Started Nov 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
agogo Contributing Member • Posts: 595
Re: Why do these threads end up going down this weird path?

windsprite wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

If you don't even recognise the name of Hawaii Geek or know what Julie Windsprite has posted, then frankly you need to stop flapping your big mouth here whenever anyone else starts talking about Oly focus issues, because you obviously have NO clue whatsoever about how much testing, agonising, sending gear back to Olympus etc etc etc has been done in the past to try to get to the bottom of all the errors and inconsistencies that intelligent amateurs and working professionals alike were seeing.

Oy. I'm not sure I want to get involved in this debate. I still have PTSD from the arguments of several years ago.

I will say that you are absolutely correct about all the testing, agonizing, etc. I spent so much time trying to get my E-3(s) focusing consistently that I just don't have time at the moment to make a comprehensive list of all the hoops I jumped through, and I know a lot of other very competent shooters who had similar stories. You were smart and got rid of your faulty copy (copies?) early on! The fact is, there were some serious problems with the E-3, and they were far more widespread than some people realize or want to let on.

There may be model-specific issues ('the E-3 has bad AF') or body-specific issues ('serial numbers between x and y of the E-3 have AF issues' or 'this particular E-3 has bad AF').

Canon appear to have had a model-specific issue with the 1Ds mark III -- everyone seemed to have problematic AF, and Canon eventually did a full recall and repair.  Many other cameras seem to have a variable number of lemons escape into the wild, and so you get people taking back bodies and buying another one -- sometimes repeatedly -- to try to obtain a 'good copy'.

(But if you mention that Canon or Nikon bodies experience AF issues you'll get told that they are perfect, and Olympus is terrible, and therefore you must be imagining that your Olympus camera focuses fine or lying about not having such problems.)

The later cameras are better, but I'm not convinced the problems have been eradicated.

There are quite likely going to be some bad bodies produced, as well as lenses -- there will always be a certain number of lemons.  The ZD 14-35 f/2 seemed to be either terrible or excellent when it came to focus, so does that make this lens 'poor at AF'?  Wouldn't that depend on whether you got one that was terrible or one that was excellent?

Olympus put the micro-adjust system in later bodies, so they must have decided that there was enough of an issue with consistent minor mis-focus to warrant that.  (And, interestingly, other manufacturers have followed that lead.  Despite 'not having any AF problems'.)

I'll try and come back later with some more comments.

If you could give a summary of what seemed to be the issue that would be fine.

I recall another person testing the E-5 with some slightly odd set-up for AF problems that they believed the E-3 had.  There was a lot of debate in that thread over whether the tests made any sense.

Reading all thus stuff I sometimes get the feeling that I purchased the only properly focusing E3 Oly ever made - and it's one of the early ones released.
The only real issues I had with the E3 focusing was:
1) CAF is ordinary (well known)
2) focusing wasn't crash hot in very low light
3) Missfocus in heavily backlit scenes - mostly with my 50-200 (non-SWD)

Focus was very accurate with SAF with all my lenses.

Small single focus point is really accurate with my 300/2.8 - I can really focus on the eye of a small bird and get that sharp, even with paper thin DOF.

Another thing is that ALL the 13 focus points are accurate (all being cross-hair type I guess)

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