Pen F users - some quick questions...

Raist3d wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

So tried another scenario with 25mm F1.8 lens, this time instead of being static approaching a subject. Not zig zagging but more like an arc around as I approached. At F1.8 the results were not all hat good though the Camera still nailed a few shots right.

At F3.5 the rate improved, still had issues but not as bad.

This is all with one relatively low-end lens correct? You mentioned the 75/1.8 in a previous post - that's not what I would consider a lens that is quick to accommodate AF on a subject in motion either. At least not on the EM1mkII or EM1X. This could explain some of your difficulty.

Thinking again about how the scenario with the cars is, you have an approaching subject that is reasonably big with enough detail here and there, and it's going to for the most part first "expand" in scale then start to stretch. Basically you have a mostly 2D object at first then becomes stretched which means more area to nail from the car.

In the case I did of the person you don't have that luxury. Also the fact I was moving this time takes its toll.

You were moving and/or the subject was moving? That would be challenging for any camera I would think.

I was going to test at night but given the focus I already know gets worse, it's going to be just downhill from here, but sure seems to match what I recall from my experience before.

Yeah, every camera I have ever owned yielded worse results at night than during the day. The PEN-F is no different.

My conclusion would be- the PenF can AF reasonably well if you stop down the lens in a bright light scenario, don't move yourself too much, and ideally not use very long focals (though the one 70-300 you use would qualify as a long focal),.

Interesting, I shoot wide open at 300mm (FF eq) with what I consider very good success.

Outside of this range, C-AF starts to go from bad to pretty bad/horrible (I wouldn't call a 40%-50% success and lower great),

Nor would I consider 40-50% "great". But this is with one lens right?

and I have been able to C-AF better with an X-E3 with the old XF35 F1.4 which is usually not a super fast lens, but the X-E3 had another jump in AF tech.

Can you share some examples of this? The "old" XF35/1.4 costs more than 2X what your Oly 25 costs, I hope results would be better. What kind of "success rate" do you get with it in the scene you are shooting the Oly 25/1.8 in?

Update: I just checked the shots under the second scenario on the computer (was checking then on the camera in the field under the sun). Yeah, the hit rate was pretty bad wide open (like 75%+ out of focus in some way to bad). With F3.5 I still got misses but some hits. Yeah, I wouldn't call this stellar. I guess the envelope under with the C-AF PenF works well is narrow, and if that's where you do your photography and want this feature then you are set. Not so much otherwise.

A conclusion based on your level of experience with two lenses you use. Funny how others can achieve good - great results with the same camera. It reminds me of how I came into a used D500 for cheap. Owner couldn't get a BIF rate above 20% with it, and after months of frustration sold it to me for less than half of what he paid for it. Turns out the D500 is excellent at BIF

thanks for proving my point why posting evidence it’s a waste of time

It is not.  What you demonstrated nicely are your own limitations.  Your inability to achieve something someone else can with the same camera only reflects on you.

If you read the conclusion carefully I made exception to the fact other lenses will change the equation and results I even mentioned that the oly 75mm would be more challenging to AF But if you notice the 25mm f1.8 I picked precisely because it will focus fast due to lens speed and focal length This covers a range I have a 45mm lens but didn’t want to put the camera at a further disadvantage

Even the 75/1.8 has more depth of field wide open than the 40-150/2.8 at the long end with the same subject distance.  The 30+ shot sequence I posted was wide open at 150mm.  I don't think "the camera" is at a disadvantage - my sequence had far less DOF than the lenses you're describing here can achieve.

of course none of that matters. First I have no experience. Then I have no experience but don’t provide evidence. Then I do and it’s not enough for some odd reason. It’s all right, like I said - this is exactly why I don’t play this game

You are trying to play this game and you've actually gained some experience in the process.  I'm proud of you.

Of course one can only think that cameras like the em1 mk2, Fuji xt3/xe3, Sony a6xxx having phase detection would make the penf look bad - other wise why bother considering higher end models? Right?

As I showed, a feature like phase detection isn't always a benefit.  I had a hit rate of 28/30 consecutive shots using CDAF only.  Would the XE3 have closed that gap because of PDAF?

or the fact that many other people seem to agree that the oenF c-af is not very good

Yes, other people lack experience just like you and I do on various topics.  That shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

but let’s ignore all that It’s just me!

Your words, not mine.