You said: "You can not touch it with anything Olympus has today."
And they have been producing sharp images since cameras only had manual focus.Considering that almost universally DSLR cameras dominate the professional market { including all the most demanding AF scenarios sport, nature etc} , and APS cameras make up by far the largest chunk of interchangeable lens cameras , literally millions of people seem to manage to take sharp well focused shots.Every dSLR I have owned has been unable to achieve perfect focus at all focus points at all focal lengths over the zoom range of any lens I have tried. It is a fundamental issue with off sensor PDAF systems.I have been using mFT since 2009as for shooting at F1.2 or F1.4 you have double the DOF to help achieve " perfect accuracy. 100% focus hit" . I have never owned a camera any camera that could not take photos of static subjects { that was the discussion}The fact that one does it tiny fractions of a second quicker is of minimal interest that is the advantage of shooting static subject
The D3s was closest in achieving this, but minor focus errors were partly masked by the lower resolution sensor.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Jim
The reason PDAF has precision problems with fast zooms like the f/2.0 is that the focus sensors are designed for specific f/stops. Most sensors are designed to "see" an aperture of f/5.6 and no larger, and only a few top end DSLRs are designed for up to f/2.8. The sensors always get the benefit of additional light saturation, but a given focus distance might be perfectly acceptable at f/5.6 and completely wrong at f/2.0. I suspect this is also a large part of complaints about the focus accuracy of lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.8 on FT, and other DSLR brands can't be immune either.
No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
That is possible., The newest canon lenses and bodies have improved AF performance and enhanced drive mechanisms & rotation sensors in the lenses. However your original post said, and I quote again
Pointing out the issues with Nikon autofocus by itself does nothing. There is no argument that the Nikon PDAF is not perfect. But neither is the PDAF from any other manufacturer, and at the moment, neither is CDAF perfect either.
No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
He NEVER said there was. Go back and read.No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Exactly and there is one coming.
No, he clearly pointed out it was a 600mm equivalent, which it is. Only if one does not understand "equivalency" would the they assume it was an F/4 equivalent.
That's odd. I've just tried my EM1 in single drive mode (meaning I have to press the shutter button for every photo) and got just over 30 shots in 10 seconds. Could probably have got more but my finger wouldn't move fast enough.This is simply not true,
Shot to shot tiem for E-M1 is 0,5s.
Olympus E-M1 Review - Performance - Imaging Resource
Olympus E-M1 Review - E-M1 Performancewww.imaging-resource.com
??? certainly someone needs to go back and read, but I think its you and not me.He NEVER said there was. Go back and read.No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
but the original quoted sentence was for a '600mm f4 equivalent' for an EM1, this means a 300mm f2.0 - I don't think this is coming is it?
Someone here doesn't understand equivalency, but its not me. Here, have a lovely read of this authorotative article by our very own even lovelier DPR team:
Nope. Someone is indeed clueless, but it isn't me.
Sure.
Great post!
I did.
You are right.
I made no mistake, but apologies if you found what I wrote unclear.??? certainly someone needs to go back and read, but I think its you and not me.He NEVER said there was. Go back and read.No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
but the original quoted sentence was for a '600mm f4 equivalent' for an EM1, this means a 300mm f2.0 - I don't think this is coming is it?
Someone here doesn't understand equivalency, but its not me. Here, have a lovely read of this authorotative article by our very own even lovelier DPR team:
Nope. Someone is indeed clueless, but it isn't me.
Sure.
Canon 600mm f4, around £10K probably around 4KG
Nikon 600mm f4, around £7K and more like 5KG.
but here's the real kicker. Canon and Nikon make these very lenses because there is a need for the reach, light gathering and DOF properties of these lenses.
So, now I've played your little game, you try and play one for me. Please list the price and weight of ANY equivalent lens designed for MFT (i.e. a 300mm f2.0).
There was a Nikkor 300 F2 lens. The weight was 7 kg. A new Nikin 600 F4 is about 5 kg.I made no mistake, but apologies if you found what I wrote unclear.??? certainly someone needs to go back and read, but I think its you and not me.He NEVER said there was. Go back and read.No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
but the original quoted sentence was for a '600mm f4 equivalent' for an EM1, this means a 300mm f2.0 - I don't think this is coming is it?
Someone here doesn't understand equivalency, but its not me. Here, have a lovely read of this authorotative article by our very own even lovelier DPR team:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Nope. Someone is indeed clueless, but it isn't me.
Sure.
Canon 600mm f4, around £10K probably around 4KG
Nikon 600mm f4, around £7K and more like 5KG.
but here's the real kicker. Canon and Nikon make these very lenses because there is a need for the reach, light gathering and DOF properties of these lenses.
So, now I've played your little game, you try and play one for me. Please list the price and weight of ANY equivalent lens designed for MFT (i.e. a 300mm f2.0).
I did not state anything other than focal length equivalence. Why would I? I've shot Nikon for most of my life... trying to belittle their kit by feeding false information wouldn't reflect well on my choice of equipment for the past 20 years.
I'm simply trying to use the fact that I have experience with both systems to try and give an objective opinion of the options available.
It would be good if Olympus released a 300mm f2. It would be considerably shorter and one would presume lighter than the Nikon and Canon 600mm offerings.
Not for me though. Bad back
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
They built them strong in the early '80s !There was a Nikkor 300 F2 lens. The weight was 7 kg. A new Nikin 600 F4 is about 5 kg.I made no mistake, but apologies if you found what I wrote unclear.??? certainly someone needs to go back and read, but I think its you and not me.He NEVER said there was. Go back and read.No, it was a mistake on your part. Maljo commented there was "no 500/600 f4 equivalent for the EM1"No mistake. I only quoted the equivalent focal length not the aperture.Oh dear. The classic equivalence mistake.
What you should be saying is:
"A 300mm f4 (600mm f8 equivalent) is coming soon. Should be a cracker, if you can live with the f8 equivalence ..."
here, let me give you a lovely new link: Somehow I have a feeling history will show this will be one of the most linked pages in DPR ever
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
but the original quoted sentence was for a '600mm f4 equivalent' for an EM1, this means a 300mm f2.0 - I don't think this is coming is it?
Someone here doesn't understand equivalency, but its not me. Here, have a lovely read of this authorotative article by our very own even lovelier DPR team:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Nope. Someone is indeed clueless, but it isn't me.
Sure.
Canon 600mm f4, around £10K probably around 4KG
Nikon 600mm f4, around £7K and more like 5KG.
but here's the real kicker. Canon and Nikon make these very lenses because there is a need for the reach, light gathering and DOF properties of these lenses.
So, now I've played your little game, you try and play one for me. Please list the price and weight of ANY equivalent lens designed for MFT (i.e. a 300mm f2.0).
I did not state anything other than focal length equivalence. Why would I? I've shot Nikon for most of my life... trying to belittle their kit by feeding false information wouldn't reflect well on my choice of equipment for the past 20 years.
I'm simply trying to use the fact that I have experience with both systems to try and give an objective opinion of the options available.
It would be good if Olympus released a 300mm f2. It would be considerably shorter and one would presume lighter than the Nikon and Canon 600mm offerings.
Not for me though. Bad back
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
