Considering an Olympus Em-1 for sports/wildlife

FDD5 · May 8, 2015

luisflorit said:
FDD5 said:

luisflorit said:

FDD5 said:

I think it's pretty accepted that the em-1 does not really pair that nice with the 100-300 ,

Click to expand...

I don't agree, not for a second. I love the combo, and I love its SAF. Just not the CAF.

Click to expand...

Yes i meant the C-af performance!, i found the single shot AF good even on the em-10.

Click to expand...

Yes, I found it really good (well, except when it completely refuses to focus...).

luisflorit said:

luisflorit said:

What I was trying to say is that you cannot talk about a single lens to justify that CAF is finally solved, because then I am allowed to leave the 7D+100-400 realm.

Click to expand...

Thats a valid point..., and might be where some of my logic/experience if flawed.

I have not tried the em-1 with a 100-300, or some of the many other lenses available,

It's why I add the disclaimer that I'm talking about the 40-150 2.8,

Click to expand...

I have no doubts the 40-150 is a great lens, specially for indoor sports or big outdoor work. But way too short for my uses (wildlife). I've seen a recent IQ comparison between the Pany 100-300 and the 40-150 + TC, and I am convinced that it is not worth it for my uses because of the short FL (at least if you got a good copy of the 100-300, like me, that is substantially better than my 50-200+EC14). See the 100% comparison crops here.

luisflorit said:

Still I really wish there will be some focus limiter solution for the m4/3 (that would make it perfect for me!, low light focussing/tracking is an issue other people might want to see dressed, but i want a limiter!)

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand.

L.

I saw that comparison!, I hate that DXO has not tested the 40-150 yet (with and without TC),

Kind of loving their database

(It is a nice way to waste some time comparing the sharpness of different lenses on different cameras), this comparison gives a (very)rough estimation of what to expect when using the tc combination @ 5.6

3--3.5*((300/210))^2 =6-7 p-pix, which should mean around 11-12 without tc (as estimated based on the data from the panasonic 35-100 and olympus 75 1.8 and imaging resource(slrgear) data/reviews)

A bit of a sucker for silly numbers , hehe

****

The 75-300 from olympus is slower than the panasonic 100-300, and lack IS, but since you shoot olympus body I wonder if it might be a good alternative for you?, maybe it greatly improves the c-af performance! ( and it should be a little sharper if@ the long end with similar apertures)

Im quite surprised the 50-200+ec14 is not close to the pana! ( not at F8 either?)

luisflorit · May 8, 2015

FDD5 said:
The 75-300 from olympus is slower than the panasonic 100-300, and lack IS, but since you shoot olympus body I wonder if it might be a good alternative for you? maybe it greatly improves the c-af performance!

People claim that CAF is improved on it, but I haven't seen any convincing tests.

FDD5 said:
(and it should be a little sharper if@ the long end with similar apertures)

The Oly is slower, and I shoot in rainforests where light is always an issue. About the sharpness, it seems this is highly dependent on the copies you look at. Mine is great. The problems with the 100-300 for my uses are the CA and that is not weather sealed. But sharpness is great for a consumer lens:

garibaldi_vocalizando_Bananal-SP-150405-A_10618-rawa.jpg

FDD5 said:
Im quite surprised the 50-200+ec14 is not close to the pana! ( not at F8 either?)

Not for my copies.

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

DonParrot · May 8, 2015

FDD5 said:
Im quite surprised the 50-200+ec14 is not close to the pana! ( not at F8 either?)

This only can be a bad joke. For 10 years or so, the 50-200 has been regarded as the best tele zoom in its range. And now it is supposed to be outperformed by an average lens such as the 100-300. Ridiculous.

Tony8232 · May 8, 2015

Only 5% there is something seriously wrong with either the camera or lens. I just came back from trying a red dot sight on my EPM2 and 75-300 shooting crows and seagulls in flight and I got a heck of a lot better than 5%.

luisflorit · May 8, 2015

Don, I've seen your test, and we discussed about them. The EM1+40-150 CAF worked PEFECTLY on them, to the point that I have no doubt that CAF has been improved, at least for 9fps with FW3.0. Your test even has the virtue of getting rid of the eternal problem of 95% of these tests, where the whole universe is in focus. You handled that with a long fast lens wide open to assure the thinnest possible DOF. Kudos.

But, please, look at your test critically. First, the combo worked perfectly, not just the EM1. I tried mine 100-300, and the answer was that it's a lens fault. Not sure about this, maybe, but still it doesn't work. So no, the FW3.0 didn't improve the CAF for me. Maybe with the 75-300? Haven't seen convincing tests about this either.

But secondly, and more importantly, it worked on your extremely specific test. In your test you had (and even made up) very rare circumstances, that most wildlife shooters can never afford:

1) Your test is perfectly controlled. You had time to set everything for it to work.

2) You knew where your dogs were before starting.

3) Far far away background so the camera cannot be fooled by it.

4) You shoot at 30cm from the floor, so the camera cannot even focus on the floor.

3)+4) ==> the camera cannot focus on anything but the dogs. I am sure you have had the exactly same result with the vast majority of cameras, or with SAF.

5) You virtually didn't pan! The subjects were running basically straight to the camera.

6) Huge (yet beautiful) subjects, so huge that they didn't even enter in the last frame.

If you only shoot dog/car races or similar, your test is all you need to be happy. But if you are a wildlife shooter, they don't mean much.

It would be great for me if you could try the 40-150 with BIFs with "normal" backgrounds/clouds/circumstances. Real world test. Doves are everywhere, easier to find than dogs!

I still haven't seen any remotely convincing test proving that the EM1 CAF can track a dove like a 7D/5D/1D can, and with several long lenses, and not just one or two.

And please, please: forgive me if I offended you. Wrong wording or whatever, it was never my intention, nor I had any reason to do so. We are on the very same boat.

Cheers,

L.

luisflorit · May 8, 2015

DonParrot said:
FDD5 said:

Im quite surprised the 50-200+ec14 is not close to the pana! ( not at F8 either?)

Click to expand...

This only can be a bad joke. For 10 years or so, the 50-200 has been regarded as the best tele zoom in its range. And now it is supposed to be outperformed by an average lens such as the 100-300. Ridiculous.

I never wrote that. First, I compared 50-200+EC14 that matters to me, not just the lens. Secondly, I compared MY copies (I shoot more than 100,000 pictures with MY 50-200, 8000 of which are in my home page for you to see, and 11,000 with MY 100-300). For those, my 100-300 is clearly sharper. Yet, it has much more CA, not weather sealed, pasticky, etc.

In any case, the 50-200 SWD has lots of virtues, but never considered it as an ultrasharp lens. A pity DxO never tested it.

L.

luisflorit · May 8, 2015

Tony8232 said:
Only 5% there is something seriously wrong with either the camera or lens.

Or with CAF.

Member said:
I just came back from trying a red dot sight on my EPM2 and 75-300 shooting crows and seagulls in flight and I got a heck of a lot better than 5%.

Not sure what did you try, but I tried CAF 9FPS on the EM1, and maybe what you consider in focus is not what I consider in focus. With SAF, I can consistently get perfect focus, so probably my gear AF is working just fine.

Cheers,

L.

Tony8232 · May 8, 2015

luisflorit said:
Tony8232 said:

Only 5% there is something seriously wrong with either the camera or lens.

Click to expand...

Or with CAF.

luisflorit said:

I just came back from trying a red dot sight on my EPM2 and 75-300 shooting crows and seagulls in flight and I got a heck of a lot better than 5%.

Click to expand...

Not sure what did you try, but I tried CAF 9FPS on the EM1, and maybe what you consider in focus is not what I consider in focus. With SAF, I can consistently get perfect focus, so probably my gear AF is working just fine.

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

There is no way my camera will do 9 frames a second. I had it on CAF low using the 9 block grid. Your right, what is acceptable to one person may not be to another. A red dot sight for BIF is a god send. The days I tried the camera out with the sight it was very sunny. On dark mornings my keeper rate falls A LOT. I'm estimating I got a least 50% keepers in the last few days. My gallery is full so I can't upload pictures to it right now.

You can decide if these are in focus.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

thelightbythesea · May 8, 2015

howielenny said:
I currently have a Panasonic GX7 (which I love) but I am missing phase detect with my old Nikon DSLR's (D7000, D7100). I've watched a few reviews on the EM-1 but none of them really focus on sports or wildlife photography so I was wondering if anyone had some quality sports/wildlife shots for me to view and their views on the EM-1 as a camera for this type of photography.
I won't be getting rid of my GX7 but would be looking at getting the EM-1 primarily to shoot some wildlife and sports.
Cheers.

Loading…

www.facebook.com

Also someone else site here. More water angles in this site than my own.

Loading…

surflove.com.au

Ric

Midwest · May 8, 2015

DonParrot said:
nopix said:

that if you really want wildlife/sports and miss your Nikon D7XXX than the E-M1 will not satisfy you. I have and use, an E-M1 with the 40-150 f2.8 and quite honestly it does not compare with my Canons (7D and 70D) when it comes to focus tracking and focus following.

Why not go back to Nikon where you know you will be happy?

Click to expand...

I'd recommend to just learn to make maximum use of the AF system that doesn#t work like the one of a DSLR. I'd accept a shootout with a 7D MKI at any time.
C-AF, not tracking.

Post your challenge in the appropriate Canon forum. That is if you really want a chance of someone taking you up on it, because I suspect you will get plenty of offers.

nzmacro · May 8, 2015

luisflorit said:
Real world test. Doves are everywhere, easier to find than dogs! I still haven't seen any remotely convincing test proving that the EM1 CAF can track a dove like a 7D/5D/1D can, and with several long lenses, and not just one or two.

I'll just quote that part if you don't mind. Agreed !! ;-) and doves are fairly slow. I shoot with quite a few FF and APS-C DSLR users for both BIF's and motor sports. If I had to recommend a fast action camera for tracking, I would go with a Canon 7D MKIII or Nikon D7100 for APS-C and for FF, well no one I've seen yet can match Steve with a Canon 1Dx for a fast burst and sharp shots with tracking. The 5D MKIII is no slouch either.

All the best and yep, agreed.

Danny.

horsth · May 9, 2015

You confuses some things here.

I'm talking about AFC sequences.

The E-M1 uses CDAF PLUS PDAF with m43 lenses and PDAF only with the older FT lenses and in AFC high-mode. If you set the AFC-Lock correctly, objects in the foreground or background will be ignored (mostly...).

The GH4 uses CDAF only, there is no PDAF component and yes you have to be careful with foreground obstacles. But instantly the AFC (DFD-technic) comes back to the main subject in most cases after the journey.

AFC sequences need a lot of practice with either camera.

Fri13 · May 9, 2015

horsth said:
You confuses some things here.

I'm talking about AFC sequences.

The E-M1 uses CDAF PLUS PDAF with m43 lenses and PDAF only with FT lenses and in AFC high-mode. If you set the AFC-Lock correctly, objects in the foreground or background will be ignored (mostly...).

Not anymore. Since firmware 3.0 E-M1 use PDAF only in C-AF+H mode and only with m4/3 objectives. If you use C-AF+L mode, then CDAF+PDAF is used, but the PDAF is only a secondary while CDAF is the primary. And if using S-AF+S/L/H then it is CDAF only.

And using C-AF+L ignores by default everything in front or background if subject has enough contrast to be focused (and most often it is). This by experience by photographing all kind stuff trough all kind obstacles that just amazed even today how the camera could focus to subject when the subject was less visible than the small focus point itself on display.

(sorry if you said same, but interpreting your FT etc part was difficult)

horsth said:
The GH4 uses CDAF only, there is no PDAF component and yes you have to be careful with foreground obstacles. But instantly the AFC (DFD-technic) comes back to the main subject in most cases after the journey.

AFC sequences need a lot of practice with either camera.

GH4 does have CDAF only yes, but their DFD makes it like PDAF as it is reading the out of focus areas to meter the distance where the focus needs to jump at once, exactly like the PDAF does. Pure CDAF meters contrast all the time, once it detects the focus is off, it starts turning focus motor based its algorithm (first closer or background depending firmware in objective) to gain a contrast where to focus. It meters continually the contrast change so once it goes less contrasty, it change the direction. But if there comes something contrasty before changing direction, it will lock to that because it believes it is the subject.

And now when you have the subject closer at background or foreground to previous focus distance than the obstacle between camera and subject, the CDAF most likely will regain the focus back to subject because it reverse direction. The CDAF is less fooled by the obstacles than PDAF or DFD technic as those meter just once and does the decision to move focus there. THose doesn't meter continually and recheck the focus distance when focusing. Instead their focus lock is that when the obstacles comes between subject that are clearly out of the focus, there is just simple timer to ignore that before jumping to it, or requiring user to command refocus by re-pressing focus commanding "Target has changed, override the lock!".

The CDAF is like integrated focus limited based algorithms in objective firmware. First it checks the closest focus distances to previous focus starting from either direction, then it widens the search. And most often the subject is found again in first or second distance cap, that is closer than the obstacles between the camera and the subject.

But things turn around differently when using objectives that has fixed small aperture (like Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R that has more depth of field than 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO. As the depth of field being deeper, contrast cap is larger and the camera easily misfocus then. The E-M1 does all the focusing wide open aperture, so your own manually chosen aperture doesn't affect it as long the objective has aperture wide enough compared the subject size and obstacle distance.

The main difference comes with half-pressing shutter release or back-focus-button technic, as PDAF gets so easily confused by obstacles between subject and the camera, even when there is line of sight on the focus point position, while CDAF sees trough it. PDAF gets confused when following the subject with camera (subject moving horizontally/vertically) unlike CDAF as it doesn't even correspond to the obstacles blurred on foreground. The PDAF while being "more aware" is its course as well as it is very well aware what is between it and camera all the time and it makes the decision only once.

What I am waiting is either Panasonic or Olympus implementing a software based focus limited for one of the Function buttons. Working simply manner where you focus to one distance and press a button, that makes a position 1. Then focus to second distance and press button and that is position 2. Now the camera would limit the objective focus to be moved outside of that scale. No more need for objectives to have a AF limited switches or dials. Instead a L-Fn button like in Olympus PRO line objectives has would have totally new functionality and purpose to be there. Hunting in dark would be radically limited as it would work as well with manual focus mode to set the scale. As visually EVF shows enough for photographer to change the focus, but the critical focus point can be challenge even to photographer (OVF would show nothing and PDAF would be blind as bat).

FDD5 · May 9, 2015

Fri13 said:
horsth said:

You confuses some things here.

I'm talking about AFC sequences.

The E-M1 uses CDAF PLUS PDAF with m43 lenses and PDAF only with FT lenses and in AFC high-mode. If you set the AFC-Lock correctly, objects in the foreground or background will be ignored (mostly...).

Click to expand...

Not anymore. Since firmware 3.0 E-M1 use PDAF only in C-AF+H mode and only with m4/3 objectives. If you use C-AF+L mode, then CDAF+PDAF is used, but the PDAF is only a secondary while CDAF is the primary. And if using S-AF+S/L/H then it is CDAF only.

And using C-AF+L ignores by default everything in front or background if subject has enough contrast to be focused (and most often it is). This by experience by photographing all kind stuff trough all kind obstacles that just amazed even today how the camera could focus to subject when the subject was less visible than the small focus point itself on display.

(sorry if you said same, but interpreting your FT etc part was difficult)

Fri13 said:

The GH4 uses CDAF only, there is no PDAF component and yes you have to be careful with foreground obstacles. But instantly the AFC (DFD-technic) comes back to the main subject in most cases after the journey.

AFC sequences need a lot of practice with either camera.

Click to expand...

GH4 does have CDAF only yes, but their DFD makes it like PDAF as it is reading the out of focus areas to meter the distance where the focus needs to jump at once, exactly like the PDAF does. Pure CDAF meters contrast all the time, once it detects the focus is off, it starts turning focus motor based its algorithm (first closer or background depending firmware in objective) to gain a contrast where to focus. It meters continually the contrast change so once it goes less contrasty, it change the direction. But if there comes something contrasty before changing direction, it will lock to that because it believes it is the subject.

And now when you have the subject closer at background or foreground to previous focus distance than the obstacle between camera and subject, the CDAF most likely will regain the focus back to subject because it reverse direction. The CDAF is less fooled by the obstacles than PDAF or DFD technic as those meter just once and does the decision to move focus there. THose doesn't meter continually and recheck the focus distance when focusing. Instead their focus lock is that when the obstacles comes between subject that are clearly out of the focus, there is just simple timer to ignore that before jumping to it, or requiring user to command refocus by re-pressing focus commanding "Target has changed, override the lock!".

The CDAF is like integrated focus limited based algorithms in objective firmware. First it checks the closest focus distances to previous focus starting from either direction, then it widens the search. And most often the subject is found again in first or second distance cap, that is closer than the obstacles between the camera and the subject.

But things turn around differently when using objectives that has fixed small aperture (like Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R that has more depth of field than 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO. As the depth of field being deeper, contrast cap is larger and the camera easily misfocus then. The E-M1 does all the focusing wide open aperture, so your own manually chosen aperture doesn't affect it as long the objective has aperture wide enough compared the subject size and obstacle distance.

The main difference comes with half-pressing shutter release or back-focus-button technic, as PDAF gets so easily confused by obstacles between subject and the camera, even when there is line of sight on the focus point position, while CDAF sees trough it. PDAF gets confused when following the subject with camera (subject moving horizontally/vertically) unlike CDAF as it doesn't even correspond to the obstacles blurred on foreground. The PDAF while being "more aware" is its course as well as it is very well aware what is between it and camera all the time and it makes the decision only once.

What I am waiting is either Panasonic or Olympus implementing a software based focus limited for one of the Function buttons. Working simply manner where you focus to one distance and press a button, that makes a position 1. Then focus to second distance and press button and that is position 2. Now the camera would limit the objective focus to be moved outside of that scale. No more need for objectives to have a AF limited switches or dials. Instead a L-Fn button like in Olympus PRO line objectives has would have totally new functionality and purpose to be there. Hunting in dark would be radically limited as it would work as well with manual focus mode to set the scale. As visually EVF shows enough for photographer to change the focus, but the critical focus point can be challenge even to photographer (OVF would show nothing and PDAF would be blind as bat).

Thanks for elaborating !

If they implement a focus limiter somehow , That would completely do it for me (So far been my only ''complaint'')

Fri13 · May 9, 2015

FDD5 said:
-Thanks for all that information! ( That is really quite useful because I intended to find out the difference and practise/experiment between the small/big centre point and 9cluster with different lock settings!

I have kept lock in Normal (as Olympus suggest) when using 9-point focus point and turned Off when using single focus point. The most important part is to get a good MySet binded to E-M1 button that you can press anytime in fast situation (= subject comes visible suddenly and is about to get hidden soon, so either you or the subject is moving) to override the current settings and get to settings capturing the subject. Mode dial while being easy to turn, slows down because camera switch to each mode between the modes. But the mode dial is far better when you have two MySets next to each other and you switch between those two (Like switching between S and A modes).

FDD5 said:
-The 1 memory card is something I hope they fix in the successor ( pretty big downside imo, just need to pay attention to that and switch ''early'')

There is no need to have second card slot. It was good on early days (like 10 years ago) when cards quality was bad as flash technology was in its early stages for consumers.

There is no backup reasons to have two cards as if card gets malfunction, all the data is possible be recovered later on. But if you drop card on ground and step on it so it gets twisted etc, then it is most likely lost. Even dropping in water etc isn't problem as long you don't put it back device when it is wet.

So basically the only situation where you need a backup card is when you don't notice you are running out of the space. And E-M1 firing 9-10fps bursts in fast situations happening continually (think like lions or tiger running after prey(s)) and you have 500 frames left on the card.... Time just flies and soon you notice that last couple frames gets slowly to be written and card is full.

Oh, and while carrying a second card in pocket, other tip is that do not delete photos in camera. As you are making "caps" to memory card and it can become slow to write some of the photos as the camera is fragmenting the files to fill those holes and as each file is different sized, the process can be slow suddenly after long bursts when camera cache is full. The FAT32 filesystem used in memory cards isn't the best one in these situations.

FDD5 said:
-My initial impressions were that I might actually had more keepers with the em-1 than 1dmkiv ( couldn't believe it), It's nice to see you having such a good experience with the em-1 in such an environment/situation!, I hope the olympus 'dot' gets available/released in time.Would you mind sharing what kind of dot (and how you attached) you are using ?, thank in advance

The Olympus EE-1 has been released and shipper to people. You can find reviews about it here in forum. You can as well use any reflex sight made for firearms as long you get it mounted to hotshoe, but you don't need to mount it even to that as you can example use the objective tripod collar (turn it up or side!) and mount the reflex sight to that! The reflex sight benefit is that you don't need to have it close to eye as it doesn't require correct eye relief.

Do not adjust the reflex sight to specific distance but keep it going parallel with the camera center focus point. That way you know always that the camera focuses little bit "off" the reticle and if something small happens close of you, you can just aim little bit "off" as well. Helps a lot when using zoom and focusing to close distance and far distance. The parallel difference is only about 15cm on all distances then. But if you example adjust sight to center focus point at 20m distance, then it is way off after that and all other focal lengths after that 20m distance.

If you don't get EE-1 or want to get cheaper, You can find from online shops or even from here on dpreview m4/3 forum guides what to get.

FDD5 said:
-Also a small question how did you find battery performance(not sure if you had the BG)?, It does not seem great, Just wondering if you had a lot of spare batteries/did a lot of recharging.

I have only two batteries from the start, thought that I would need third or fourth as some people say but just two because I bought the HLD-7 grip. My main use is that when I have the grip, I keep the default setting that grip battery is consumed first, then the body. Because most of the times I never need to use the body battery at all so it is easy to recharge the battery from grip as I don't need to remove it.

But I left the grip home on that trip, as I needed to save the weight and size. E-M1 + 40-150mm PRO without collar is very small and light to what it offers. Just have a wrist trap as that combo is very easy to drop as its so small and light and you easily put camera on very dangerous places (Like trough train windows/doors in extended arm and use smartphone to release the camera). A monopod is a great tool with smartphone, as you can lower or raise E-M1 with 12-40mm PRO near water or close to dangerous animals, without worrying losing your hand if subject likes to get "easy snack".

I had only a two 32GB cards, shot mostly in JPEG only but have a button to switch to RAW only when I saw the lighting conditions required the post processing capability. And I knew it wasn't a problem to have just two cards as I had laptop where to empty the cards (I would recommend a battery powered cardreader drive as it speeds up the process) Such card gives about 1400-1500 RAW photos and single battery lasted full card. In one day I could easily get that 3000 frames with two cards and two batteries and both batteries had juice left for few hundred more frames if wanted (Like one day I shot one card full, 1470 frames if I remember correctly) and battery started to signal low power (I have set camera to warn earliest as possible). I swapped to other card and recorded 20 minutes of video before battery was empty. And at that point problem was that my second battery was in room and there was 5min walking there.

So I didn't really worry at all about batteries or memory cards lasting. Only worrying that I would lose a card or battery, or something to happen when swapping objectives or handling them etc as I didn't have my quick change pouch with me as it was 42° and no wind...

FDD5 said:
-If you happen to have an album or share some pictures here/online please let me know!, Always like to see pictures of wildlife

I am just today about to start selecting photos, lasted this long as I needed to buy a new HDD as I got 577GB worth of photos (and couple hours of video) that little surprised from two week period as I wanted to go "light". I have already a buyer for dozen photos etc.

But I don't share photos in Online as I don't like that I don't have control of the photos. And anyways those go to prints on walls etc.

One reason why I haven't yet touched the photos is that I am so angry about 7D Mk II failure to focus correctly as in one situation when E-M1 was off hand and I needed to use that Canon, a Kingfisher dropped from its watchout branch above tiger (that was in water looking at me) just 50cm from the tiger face, between me and the tiger. All I could see was the tiger looking up and then everything went blurry and I could just see how the kingfisher snapped something from the water and tiger looking at it. I wanted to mash the Canon as it failed perfectly in the crucial moment. It got couple frames before the situation so it was prefocused etc but when the situation came, it was like something in that camera was "No you will not do that!". And that is my last time I will ever handle Canon and their "TOP WILDLIFE" camera ever. My personal opinion has changed so much about that I need just to shut up. And now I have learned the lesson (by hard way) that always bring a backup body of the same model you have, with same settings and same objectives etc. Or simply keep an eye for your memory card and battery and change as soon as possible when you know something important can happen. No second SD card slot would have saved there, no extra battery etc. As when things goes sideways, universe will happily slam you down and hard!

And I can personally as well say, most animals didn't dislike the E-M1 shutter sound but when Canons and Nikons were firing, it was annoying to them as hell. They hear something in the DSLR shutters that "clicks" badly in their ears. Why I would like to see what E-M1 successor does, especially if it has anything like E-M5 II shutter sound.

Now I have been requested to go back but I am so down from that single failure point that the whole last trip feels bad. It was first (and last) time when I got 7D Mk II to be used in critical time and.... If it would be in a zoo in daily manner... but when you are in wildlife park and you see tiger after 5 weeks them gone missing, you have one change and one moment and....

Nothing like that has happened on me with E-M1 since firmware 3.0.

FDD5 · May 9, 2015

nzmacro said:
luisflorit said:

Real world test. Doves are everywhere, easier to find than dogs! I still haven't seen any remotely convincing test proving that the EM1 CAF can track a dove like a 7D/5D/1D can, and with several long lenses, and not just one or two.

Click to expand...

I'll just quote that part if you don't mind. Agreed !! ;-) and doves are fairly slow. I shoot with quite a few FF and APS-C DSLR users for both BIF's and motor sports. If I had to recommend a fast action camera for tracking, I would go with a Canon 7D MKIII or Nikon D7100 for APS-C and for FF, well no one I've seen yet can match Steve with a Canon 1Dx for a fast burst and sharp shots with tracking. The 5D MKIII is no slouch either.

All the best and yep, agreed.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

Say that to the sony ambassador Gary Wong'

?,

I'm sure he will try to convince us that the a6000 is far superior,

*

On a more serious note, I think nothing will match a 1d for focus acquisition (A big white with focus limiter on a 1d drives it so fast), But when we are talking about tracking, they are not flawless either (DSLR's in general)

*

In my view(I may be a bit trigger happy and also like to anticipate when possible) the d7100 is 'horrible' for anyone shooting sports or wildlife and wanting raw or raw+jpg, 5 frames per second for 5 frames before it's buffer is full, after that it slows down to 2 fps. Nikon has an edge on IQ, but that protectionism of that D4/D4s(with like 100raw buffer) grrr! ,Maybe It's a little personal frustration as well , (I got 'burned' more than once on wildlife trips by the nikon buffer depth).

The d7200 improves on this a lot with 18 raw buffer, but it's still 5fps

Lets not forget the em10(8fps) has 15 raw buffer and the a6000(11fps) 22 raw , So I'm not that impressed by 5 or 18 with 5 fps for the current top of the line nikon APSC

*

If you need high fps and a decent buffer, I think it's down to a 7dII(26 raw , 18 raw+jpg)/1dmkiv(25 raw buffer, 17 raw+jpg) /1dx (31 raw buffer, 16raw+jpg) ,or d4s(100raw buffer), Canon has better buffers across the board, except the d4s/d810 (compared to 1dx and 5dIII)

The 5d3 is 6fps for raw 18 frames, or 6fps for 7raw+jpg, 6fps may be enough for some.

So if we compare a d7100/d7200 we could have half the shots in focus on a 10fps camera, and still match it for in focus shots, that samsung nx1 with 15 fps only needs 1/3rd of the nikon shots in focus.

Off course one could argue that you don't need so much fps and can get by with 5 easily, and that for fair continuous tracking comparisons you would need to keep things equal, Im just saying the 7dII could have half the accuracy of the d7200 and still equal the number of shots in focus.

**

For any serious sports or willd life photographer that wants autofocus, there is nothing for them in the mirrorless world. There are no fast high quality long lenses at the moment,

Also if BIF is your thing and you want autofocus, I think you would need/want a focus limiter!(imo),

I found the 7d to perform pretty good with it's autofocus(substantially better than a d7000 for example), but it did not compare to the 1dmkiv, There are quite some users out there now that opt for the 7dII over the 1mkiv, so for me the it seems the only option out there for sports/wildlife if you want high FPS with a decent buffer depth.

**

For me the 7dII would need some expensive glass though(to make the most out of it) , stuff like the 100-400II or even more expensive 400DOII/200-400with converter engaged might be lovely on full frame(But all data /tests and samples so far did not really convince me for crop bodies) , if you want sharpness with the best af, it's really the 300/400 2.8 (ISII) or 500/600(ISII) one should be looking at. And if the latter three are in your budget you might as well throw in the 1dx

*note here: I like sharp pictures at pixel level ( many might be fine with http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...non_eos7d&version=0&fl=560&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca)

I'd like it to be atleast above 1500, but then again I may be quite a whiner/sad person about that, I did not even found the 200-400VRII from nikon to be 'that' stellar ....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...nikon_d7000&version=0&fl=400&av=4&view=mtf-ca

Neither on the d800 (the 100% crops that is, which would be similar to the d7000 in the center), other than that it was lovely

*

Personally I wouldn't worry as much about the DXO sensor scores compared to nikon,

There is no competition from nikon here , the d7200 should be compared to the 70d(which has slightly worse buffer than the d7200 but 7 fps opposed to 5)

**

Fri13 · May 9, 2015

luisflorit said:
Fri13 said:

DonParrot said:

And I don't know what there is to criticise when it comes to the C-AF of E-M1 and GH4. With both of them, I'd accept a shootout with the 7D MKI at any time.

Click to expand...

While I ago I was on safari and shooting with E-M1 and 7D Mk II and the 7D missed the shots that E-M1 got perfectly. In my experience, E-M1 challenges 7D Mk II perfectly well.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about CAF of fast small things? In general we shoot big stuff in a safari, and usually using SAF.

One of the reasons I shoot m43rds is that I prefer CDAF to PDAF. SAF is much better, and now it is even faster.

C-AF for fast small and large things. Large birds like eagles and hawks, Tiger, Antelopes, Wild-hogs, Hyenas and then more smaller like different kind monkeys and small birds like Kingfisher etc.

If the subject is relative stationary I use S-AF and if needed short bursts. But since E-M1 3.0 firmware update I have changed one MySet to be behind upper front button to be with C-AF+H+9-point focus preset to 1/1250 shutter speed as that is like "Aim and release" function. And when something quick small things is going to happen, I just press button and let go. From 10 frame bursts usually if something is out of focus it is 1-2 first frames depending how camera was first focused.

I have been re-learning away from Back-Button-Focusing from DSLR era and old habits die hard. Now the S-AF/MF switch on one button is far more uselful than BBF was ever and the mirrorless benefits with EVF are helping to focus more about the composition than twiddling with the camera settings. And now and then when I handle DSLR their requirement to take care of AF and everything is just slowing down and requiring to use S or A modes, giving the handling to camera instead doing itself in M mode.

horsth · May 9, 2015

Thanks for this precise explanation. I agree completely. Your first statement wasn't so clear to me.

DonParrot · May 9, 2015

luisflorit said:
Don, I've seen your test, and we discussed about them. The EM1+40-150 CAF worked PEFECTLY on them, to the point that I have no doubt that CAF has been improved, at least for 9fps with FW3.0. Your test even has the virtue of getting rid of the eternal problem of 95% of these tests, where the whole universe is in focus. You handled that with a long fast lens wide open to assure the thinnest possible DOF. Kudos.

Hui Luis, first of all thanks for the apologies. They have been highly apprciated.
And then: these pics were shot in autumn 2013, with the 50-200 SWD and the camera on firmware 1.0 - when many claimed that using the C-AF with the FT lenses was a pain in the lower backside.

luisflorit said:
But, please, look at your test critically. First, the combo worked perfectly, not just the EM1. I tried mine 100-300, and the answer was that it's a lens fault. Not sure about this, maybe, but still it doesn't work. So no, the FW3.0 didn't improve the CAF for me. Maybe with the 75-300? Haven't seen convincing tests about this either.

Luis, within four weeks after the launch of the E-M1 it was clear and could be read anywhere that the 100-300 refuses to cooperate with the camera's C-AF system - that works fine with any Zuiko FT lens, any m.Zuiko µFT lens and numerous Lumix µFT lenses. You somewhen will have to accept that there won't be a cooperation between the 100-300 and the C-AF of the E-M1. And in consideration of the fact that nearly any other lens forbthe FT and µFT mounts delivers with the C-AF of the E-M1, identifying the responsible party is easy, isn't it?

luisflorit said:
But secondly, and more importantly, it worked on your extremely specific test. In your test you had (and even made up) very rare circumstances, that most wildlife shooters can never afford:

1) Your test is perfectly controlled. You had time to set everything for it to work.

Correct. Like nearly every sports photog on this planet.

luisflorit said:
2) You knew where your dogs were before starting.

Correct. Like nearly every sports photog on this planet.

luisflorit said:
3) Far far away background so the camera cannot be fooled by it.

Yeah right. Works just as good on at the dog racetrack with the starting box in the background.

luisflorit said:
4) You shoot at 30cm from the floor, so the camera cannot even focus on the floor.

Strange. My E-30 could. And did, every now and then. And how deep am I supposed to get. After all, I'm working with the view finder. Am notable to shoot action with the display.

luisflorit said:
3)+4) ==> the camera cannot focus on anything but the dogs. I am sure you have had the exactly same result with the vast majority of cameras, or with SAF.

I don't understand. We are talking about C-AF perfomance. The AF bites and keeps on following the subject. S-AF won't. There certainly will be very few cameras providing a 100-percent keeper rate as the E-M1 did here. With feather technique and S-AF you possibky coud, but the FPS rate woud be significantly lower.

luisflorit said:
5) You virtually didn't pan! The subjects were running basically straight to the camera.

Well, as I see it, panned shots are no test for a C-AF as the distance between camera and subject changes significantly slower. I've got hundreds of shots of sighthounds running parallely to the camera but I never show them when performamance of a camera's C-AF system is discussed as I don't regard them as performance proof.

luisflorit said:
6) Huge (yet beautiful) subjects, so huge that they didn't even enter in the last frame.

Correct, BIF has never been my subject. But there are others who shoot BIF with the C-AF of the E-M1 and the 40-150 Pro or 50-200 SWD. One guy in Germany even successfully did so with the C-AF of the E-M5 MKI and the 75-300.

luisflorit said:
If you only shoot dog/car races or similar, your test is all you need to be happy. But if you are a wildlife shooter, they don't mean much.

Well, this is a completely other statement than your claim that the C-AF of the E-M1 is useless and even more so as this claim was based on the well-known incompatibility between the 100-300 and the E-M1's C-AF system.

luisflorit said:
It would be great for me if you could try the 40-150 with BIFs with "normal" backgrounds/clouds/circumstances. Real world test. Doves are everywhere, easier to find than dogs! I still haven't seen any remotely convincing test proving that the EM1 CAF can track a dove like a 7D/5D/1D can, and with several long lenses, and not just one or two.

No doves here, but a crow every now and then. Will give it a go. But BIF is a difficult field - you've got to learn how fast the birds are flying and the likes - so this may take some time.

And when it comes to the lenses...
Well, with the m.Zuikos 40-150 (with TC 1.4) Pro and 75-300 as well as the FT Zuikos 50-200 SWD, 150 2.0, 300 2.8 and 90-250 2.8 (that all can be used with TCs 14 and 20), there's quite a range of lenses to be used for wildlife with the One-Beautiful-System camera E-M1. Oh, and I forgot the Bigma with FT mount. It's just a budget question, but fast tele lenses annoyingly don't come cheap.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

DonParrot · May 9, 2015

FDD5 said:
nzmacro said:

luisflorit said:

Real world test. Doves are everywhere, easier to find than dogs! I still haven't seen any remotely convincing test proving that the EM1 CAF can track a dove like a 7D/5D/1D can, and with several long lenses, and not just one or two.

Click to expand...

I'll just quote that part if you don't mind. Agreed !! ;-) and doves are fairly slow. I shoot with quite a few FF and APS-C DSLR users for both BIF's and motor sports. If I had to recommend a fast action camera for tracking, I would go with a Canon 7D MKIII or Nikon D7100 for APS-C and for FF, well no one I've seen yet can match Steve with a Canon 1Dx for a fast burst and sharp shots with tracking. The 5D MKIII is no slouch either.

All the best and yep, agreed.

Danny.

Click to expand...

Considering an Olympus Em-1 for sports/wildlife

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Tony8232

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Tony8232

Guest

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts