Having just read a different thread about EVF settings causing issues with Olympus cameras: the apparent lens-specific problems described by several here – are they dependent on whether the OM-1's EVF framerate is set to "high speed" or "normal"? "High speed" is known to cause AF problems in low light, and lockups during some shooting conditions.
I tested that when I was playing around with this combination the other day and didn't find it to make any difference. Also, the lockup issue was resolved with either FW 1.1 or 1.2.
It isn't "fixed" by changing the EVF refesh rate. The inability to focus on a far subject using CAF and the OM1 with certain lenses is not resolved by all the different settings I have tried. It's a major slip up IMHO.
A "major" slip up that you did not notice until someone brought it to your attention 5 months later ;-)
I've had the OM1 for about 6 weeks. I've mostly done BIF and some stage work at closer distances, some manual focus only lens work, astro with new 9mm lens, and general work with 12-100. I might have picked it up if I had tried some landscapes with the 4 lenses I mentioned, but usually use SAF for that. Someone else has included the 45mm f1.8 as a problem lens... I don't own it.
I would think the factory would have used one of these 5 lenses, there may be others that are a problem, to take some shots out their factory window with CAF as well. I work 3 jobs and have very little time for shooting. It's the factory job to test a new camera. I found out the problem with 4 lenses in about an hour
once the alarm was raised.
It could have been years before you actually ran into the problem on your own. It seems unlikely someone would purchase a fast action camera like the OM-1 only to pair it with older non-weather sealed lenses and shoot AF-C beyond 12m. The 75 seems to have uncovered the problem as it is the longest focal length and more likely to be used at distance and with AF-C. Even still, the camera launched 5 months ago and here we are "surprised" this week.
This is why firmware fixes exist. There is not enough engineering time in the world to catch every potential problem prior to market.
The 75/1.8 is still one of the finest lenses Oly sells, and one I use quite often, I'd caught this on day one
if I had bought an OM-1 and I definitely wouldn't be happy about it.
Wait, IF? IF my aunt had danglies she'd be my uncle! It doesn't appear that you have an OM-1 or found the issue but appreciate you chiming in with confidence lol
I appreciate that mocking others and apologizing for a company that owes us nothing is amusing to you, but it's really not contributing much as far as the issue goes.
I appreciate your confidence. “I would have caught this on day one”. Okay, sure
It's not about confidence in my abilities at all, I dunno where you got that notion.
From the assumption that "
I'd caught this on day one if I had bought an OM-1", which is quite frankly laughable.
How is it laughable? I've yet to figure out why you find that or this whole exchange so giggle worthy. I already explained I use my 75/1.8
a lot, it's literally one of the first lenses I tend to put into my bag even when mixing FF & M4/3 gear... So I would've used said lens shortly after getting a new camera, and the OP ran into the issue during seemingly the first time he went to use it with the OM-1, seems like something I'd stumble into in short order as well.
Again, I wasn't trying to boast or crucify OM, I was just trying to point out that it's a fairly serious issue that would've started bugging me from the get go as it bothered the OP the second he started shooting with his 75/1.8. On my E-M5 III I still use a good mix of S-AF and C-AF, but tbh I'd expect to be about to rely on the latter a lot more with any future bodies, DPR has often explained why this is useful even when not shooting action and it's something I'm doing with other non-M4/3 bodies already.
It's evidently a really really obvious bug when using C-AF with one of the lenses in question (as in they can't focus far at all),
It does focus far. Not in AF-C mode (allegedly).
The proof seems pretty sound right now considering it's impacting multiple lenses for multiple users.
as the OP quickly found out himself, and I happen to use my 75/1.8 a lot and for a wide variety of uses (landscapes, concerts, etc.).
The camera has been in use for 5 months by tens of thousands of users.
Tens of thousands? Do you have the sales numbers to back up that ambiguous claim? Many users have been unable to secure one but that doesn't necessarily mean OM's production line has been cranking out those kinda numbers. Never mind that this is still neither here nor there...
I'm actually sorry the OP was ever doubted and he had to resort to a bit of trial and error diagnosis, but once he took a few simple steps in the right direction the issue became obvious to him, and others too. I'm sorry if you thought I was boasting or something and this spurred this series of personal shots.
No sweat, I just laughed when you claimed you would have caught this on day one. Seems far fetched.
It seems far fetched that I would try using C-AF (the main reason to buy a newer or higher end body than what I have IMO) with one of my most used lenses? Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
lololol
- Am I doing it right?
Heck, if you actually care about OM's future you'd
want them to fix this ASAP as this is the sort of issue that can snowball and impact the perception of their future products.
Hyperbole.
In your opinion.
"Snowball and impact the perception of future products" Seriously? A minor bug with a few older lenses in one AF mode at certain distance?
It's all a matter of perspective, to you it seems minor because it doesn't impact your own particular kit, but some of those lenses are some of the most unique M4/3 offerings for me and they are in fact the sole reason I keep shooting the format alongside other systems. For someone else that 17/1.8 or whatever might be their main walkabout lens.
Depending on circumstances and the level of effort the user is willing to put into figuring things out I could indeed see this bug having a broader impact. I haven't said it has or even that it will, go back and check me on that, just that it could and so it's worth exploring and complaining so OM fixes it in a timely fashion.
Your argument that some users didn't catch it quickly enough seems pretty double edged, by the same token OM has now had plenty of time post-release to catch it themselves and fix it no? I just want them to do so, that's all.
I definitely wouldn't wanna invest in a body that doesn't work as well with my existing lenses as the other half dozen or so M4/3 bodies I've got access to.
You never invested in the OM-1 to begin with so your hypotheticals are baseless.
Unfortunately for you I still get to comment as I see fit. Is this where I drop a few
? I
have invested a fair amount on Oly/OM gear but I really dunno what that has to do with anything. Any other gatekeeping you wanna get out of the way now? Are you gonna ask for links to my gallery or socials next?
All that to say you don't have an OM-1. It's that simple. The issue, no matter how minor doesn't affect you at all.
So? It doesn't affect you either since you don't have the impacted lenses, yet we're both talking about it aren't we?
Really good C-AF is supposed to make things easier, not more complicated, in the very best implementations (together with good tracking) it almost obsoletes S-AF. OM is closer to that than ever, but odd snafus like this undermines that. The OSPDAF implemention in all their older bodies was pretty lens agnostic, so my bet is this is something easily corrected that was overlooked...
With a handful of older lenses with AF-C at certain distances, which nobody here even knew for 5 months. A tempest in a teapot.
Again, in your opinion. Things like this do tend to keep people from relying fully on C-AF which is the wrong direction to be going in. I really don't see the need to minimize the issue. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, other users less inclined to visit the boards might pick the same body up with one of the offending lenses and end up writing the whole thing off as a weak performer.
S-AF and MF have their place too. Which is why they exist.
Sure, but really good C-AF + tracking can greatly minimize the need for the former, tho not with bugs like this lingering around and impacting the relatability. I hardly touch S-AF on some of my bodies tbh, it's nice, just put the AF point where I want and let the body track and focus on it even as I recompose.
At least based on the evidence and scenarios it's shown up in so far, but they definitely wanna nip it in the bud before the issue is carried over to something like an OM-5 which is even more likely to be used with some of those smaller primes / f1.8s. You'd probably be singing a different tune if you actually owned one of the lenses in question, and the inclination to dismiss them as an unlikely pairing with the OM-1 is just shortsighted IMO.
All of my m43 lenses are WR so not an issue for me. You don‘t have an OM-1, so no issue for you either.
What does weather sealing have to do with anything? Why are you so intent on dismissing this?
The 75 is not weather sealed, neither are the other older, small primes being discussed. Panasonic lenses, zooms, PRO primes basically anything recent appears to work just fine so not an issue to me.
Again, what does weather sealing even have to do with it??? We won't know what other lenses are impacted until a whole bunch are more thoroughly tested.
Cross brand weather sealing isn't even always the most trust-worthy since several weather sealed Pana lenses have grommets that cross screws on Oly's mounts (I've never had an incident when mixing brands myself but I recognize the potential is there)
and there's loads of lenses that neither brand makes in a weather sealed variant. There's few to none small weather sealed primes for one (PL25, 20/1.4, the macro, and...).
Just like you don‘t have an OM-1, so no issue for you either.
Is there really a need to keep deflecting?
For the record, unnecessary rationalizations that sparked this pointless exchange:
CruzPhoto, post: 66445871, member: 2162494"]
It could have been years before you actually ran into the problem on your own. It seems unlikely someone would purchase a fast action camera like the OM-1 only to pair it with older non-weather sealed lenses and shoot AF-C beyond 12m... The e camera launched 5 months ago and here we are "surprised" this week.
What's that you were saying about ifs and coulds?
I said nothing about “coulds”. Glassaholoc did not know the issue existed until a few days ago, upon reading this thread.
So? Why did that make you feel like you needed to jump right in and take a shot at him? Can't take as good as you can give?
Wait wait, before I forget...
<3
Sorry if you got offended.
I'm not offended, but I accept your apology if that's what it was. I'm just sorry you feel like OM needs any sort of defense or justification here because "oh it's older non weather sealed lenses I don't have or care about". That's less than helpful IMO...
[/QUOTE]
