FULL STEAM AHEAD, LUMIX

cameron2 wrote:

alcelc wrote:

Wildalaskaken wrote:

cameron2 wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Maybe JIP will sell the PDAF tech to Panasonic?

Panasonic does not do PDAF by choice. There's nothing that they would need to buy.

Why they continue to stubbornly choose to use broken focusing, I don't know. That's why my next m43 camera is probably an Oly.

Broken focusing? Are you speaking from experience then?

😁 To some, any thing has Panasonic on it is broken, 2nd trier... 🤔🤪 The anti- non Olympus sentiment is always high here. 😞

It is very interesting to feel from here that if Olympus will finish, so will also be their M43 despite Panasonic or others are still there, and while their EMs were broken, their Olympus lenses could still be shooting well on Panasonic bodies...

A major reason that I worry Panasonic could be very difficult to maintain the M43 system alone while this already small community might shrink further because of departure of those O martyrs...

You're so funny

I am not exaggerated. Of course I wish it would not be really happen...

For a system has 2 major player, their products are generally compatible to each other (not fully), we could naturally assume that while one player leaves the system, the users would change to the other player.

But as per many comments, it seems some would rather prefer to change to another system when their existing gear starting to fall apart... It is a fact.

Yes, I do have some Oly gear, but I started in m43 with the G1 and I've owned at least a dozen Pany cameras since then (and still have a couple that I love and use, plus at least a dozen Pany lenses).

But PDAF is possible now, and there's only one company that doesn't use it: Panasonic. Which if you look at the awesome video functionality that Pany has, the one thing it's missing is the ability to track focus well (I can always tell when I'm watching video shot with Pany autofocus -- it sucks!)

So every year that passes without Pany having PDAF, they're losing another slice of the market. If Oly releases another PenF with a good PDAF implementation, it will be very hard to pass it up ...

Regarding OSPDAF, I am on a similar front of you.

Upon the popularity of OSPDAF sensor (indeed EM1.1/2/3/X and EM5.3 has it already for years, it should no longer be any problem to put OSPDAF on a M43 sensor), it should not be difficult for Panny to source one for its cameras if it wish to.

Does EM5.3 cost a lot more from EM5.2 because of the OSPDAF? No.

I suppose it is just the stubbornness of Panny to insist walking down its DFD path. Not surprise as it did the same on IBIS for many years. Only until certain time, it will change. Would it be because Panny wish to play safe, keeping itself at bay (earlier OSPDAF was quite bad, NEX 7/6 are good examples) and will turn to use it when it is mature?

I wish Panny can change as soon as possible. In reality, reviews showed that DFD of G9 can work efficiently close to EM1.2. But not on every environment only.

We know DFD is a software based technology, it is capable for further improvement on better firmware and more powerful CPU. I am not surprise one day DFD might be good as, or better than OSPDAF. But why does Panny ask its users to wait? IMHO it might not be the best business decision especially under the current market. Put in OSPDAF now can probably reduce the group of people in doubt on DFD (true or just thought to be? A matter of fact not really useful for everyone, including myself a non BIF/wildlife shooter) and let Panny be on their list again.

But have you ever consider that all OSPDAF cameras could be a limiting factor on Low Light AF? Currently, all Pannys, from entry to flagship models are among the best on LLAF. No idea on how EM1.3/EM5.3 on this yet, but EM1X can do LLAF as dark as -4.3ev on low contrast target, -6ev on high contrast target (as per Imaging Resource). Panny could do better (G85: Low contrast target -6ev, GX85: -5.6ev, G9: -4.8ev)... I suppose the tiny PDAF contact point of OSPDAF needs to work on more light than the traditional CDAF which use the entire sensor surface area to do AF...

I personally prefer the better LLAF rather than AF tracking. Hence OSPDAF is not a must to me. YMMV.

As I don't do AF tracking on still so have no comment on this. But Trevor had very successful BIF result form G85 and G9, I suppose AF tracking of Panny's CDAF might just  need more skill (in a word harder) to do it instead of not usable.

To be fair, although I am not shooting video a lot, the 1080 Video AF of GX7/GX85/G85 are absolutely good, at least not much worse than that of the videocam that I owned before. It is always a mysterious to me while coming across the comment on video AF of Panny sucks. Video is an entire different thing to still shooting. Panning fast, frequent zoom in/out etc will just produce a difficult to watch footage.

On 4K video AF, it could be a mix result. But while under proper setting and technique, it should still be very usable.

I suppose our member Richard ( http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyrichard/category/camera-reviews/micro-four-thirds-camera-reviews/ ) had many testings on this. So were some other testing that I had once came across on the web.

I don't know how others expect on the video AF. When I watch a movie, if something moving really fast, I found the motion blur and the aimed object would not be track sharp during the motion until it stops. My G85, slightly better than GX85, can do that (to the worst might be a split second slower on focus acquisition(?)). I won't ask more on my <US$500 bodies.

If you have a G85, might try to set AF sensitivity to -1~-2, use a 3,5,3 blocks diamond shape custom focus zone in the center, keep minimum zoom in/out, pan steadily... It works for me.