I’ll have to see how the 40-150 R does on my OM1 for birding. 150mm is rather short for birding unless you are shooting something as social as robins or are hidden.
Andrew
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Growing niche argument for a "real" OM-5 Mark II
- Thread starter UrbaneHobbit
- Start date
Andrew
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Yup,
If you follow semiconductor progress you see the goals are faster and lower heat generation. It's a guess that this is what enables a camera company to eventually put flagship electronics and capability in a smaller than the original body. The M1X as an extreme example, needs two image processors and a liquid heat sink to dissipate heat. The OM-1 needs neither and is faster and better at every function with one image processor in a much smaller body. The ability to exceed the M1X's two image processors in performance with one image processor in the OM-1 is I'd guess the reason the OM-1 has so much capability and performance in a lighter, smaller package. We tend to focus on the sensor but the image processor plays a big role. Yeah, we have a stacked BSI sensor in the OM-1, but also it needs only one image processor to do faster and better what the M1X does with two.
I'll assume this progress of faster semiconductors with less heat generation will continue so that eventually an OM-5 model will be able to do everything the OM-1 can do for $1,200 MSRP because costs come down for performance too so improved models of the semiconductors used in the OM-5 can be made at the same cost. Design and engineering improve semiconductor performance and capability while manufacturing cost remains constant. Moore's Law still applies.
A SONY engineer told me they need 18 months for major firmware improvements and 36 months for major hardware improvement. I suspect the camera product cycle is so governed so I align my next-gen product expectations accordingly. We had to wait a long time from the EM1.2 to the EM1.3 and it was evolutionary, not revolutionary, not as big an improvement IMO as between the EM1.3 and the OM-1 which is the reason I skipped the EM1.3 and waited for the OM1. I'm doing the same thing with the EM5.3 and the OM-5.
I'm not going to predict when an OM-5 model will match the performance and features of the OM-1 at the current OM-5 price or when we will have an OM-2 or whatever name the company chooses as a successor to the OM-1. Maybe we will have an OM-1.2 first, a tweaked version product management will give the marketing and sales departments to keep product sales moving.
It should be noted in Thomas Eisel's U-Tube videos on the OM-1, he recommends using the OM-1 grip for extended, continuous use with the battery removed from the camera body. He says battery discharge is a significant heat source and that internal heat sensors monitor the internal camera body temperature to slow the camera down automatically as necessary. Isolating a single battey in the grip with the camera body battery bay empty slows the process of heat buildup in the body to which I add the OM-1 battery has a high capacity I have never exceeded unless I used ProCap over an extended time period. I almost always only need one battery in a day and I never experienced an overheated OM-1 as far as I know.
I'm not suggesting that the OM-1 has a heat issue with continuous use. I never experienced it in a 99% discharge of the battery in the body on a day at a road race trackside on a reasonably hot day. I'm pointing this out as another example of the importance of heat control and dissipation in smaller camera bodies. SONY probably needs to engineer and produce the semiconductors that can perform at the level of the OM-1 system with the heat signature that works in the smaller OM-5 body. It may not be possible in 2023. Or 2024, or whenever.
BTW, I use a half-leather case with my EM5.3 because I find it makes the body much more comfortable to shoot using any lens mounted, though I do not as a habit use large, heavy lenses on it. I have the OLY grip to add to the EM5.3 if I want to use large, heavy lenses. I haven't used it since I bought the OM-1. As a by-product, the half case provides significant support for the EM5.3 baseplate. It has its own tripod screw mount - and it looks cool which makes me a better photographer, or at least a cooler-looking one.
How is that Stylus-1? I used to enjoy OLY compacts but I skipped the Stylus-1 because I had been using ILCs by then. An intriguing camera, I always wondered how good it is. I took a PEN PM2 on a half-day boat trip a few weeks ago for snaps with the 14-42EZ and the 14-150 and enjoyed the results shooting in "P" to give myself a rest.
I wonder if it would be fun to own a Stylus-1 for something like that? What do you think, Urban? Would you use the Stylus-1 for grins? Or is it actually a serious camera?
EZ
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
If you follow semiconductor progress you see the goals are faster and lower heat generation. It's a guess that this is what enables a camera company to eventually put flagship electronics and capability in a smaller than the original body. The M1X as an extreme example, needs two image processors and a liquid heat sink to dissipate heat. The OM-1 needs neither and is faster and better at every function with one image processor in a much smaller body. The ability to exceed the M1X's two image processors in performance with one image processor in the OM-1 is I'd guess the reason the OM-1 has so much capability and performance in a lighter, smaller package. We tend to focus on the sensor but the image processor plays a big role. Yeah, we have a stacked BSI sensor in the OM-1, but also it needs only one image processor to do faster and better what the M1X does with two.
I'll assume this progress of faster semiconductors with less heat generation will continue so that eventually an OM-5 model will be able to do everything the OM-1 can do for $1,200 MSRP because costs come down for performance too so improved models of the semiconductors used in the OM-5 can be made at the same cost. Design and engineering improve semiconductor performance and capability while manufacturing cost remains constant. Moore's Law still applies.
A SONY engineer told me they need 18 months for major firmware improvements and 36 months for major hardware improvement. I suspect the camera product cycle is so governed so I align my next-gen product expectations accordingly. We had to wait a long time from the EM1.2 to the EM1.3 and it was evolutionary, not revolutionary, not as big an improvement IMO as between the EM1.3 and the OM-1 which is the reason I skipped the EM1.3 and waited for the OM1. I'm doing the same thing with the EM5.3 and the OM-5.
I'm not going to predict when an OM-5 model will match the performance and features of the OM-1 at the current OM-5 price or when we will have an OM-2 or whatever name the company chooses as a successor to the OM-1. Maybe we will have an OM-1.2 first, a tweaked version product management will give the marketing and sales departments to keep product sales moving.
It should be noted in Thomas Eisel's U-Tube videos on the OM-1, he recommends using the OM-1 grip for extended, continuous use with the battery removed from the camera body. He says battery discharge is a significant heat source and that internal heat sensors monitor the internal camera body temperature to slow the camera down automatically as necessary. Isolating a single battey in the grip with the camera body battery bay empty slows the process of heat buildup in the body to which I add the OM-1 battery has a high capacity I have never exceeded unless I used ProCap over an extended time period. I almost always only need one battery in a day and I never experienced an overheated OM-1 as far as I know.
I'm not suggesting that the OM-1 has a heat issue with continuous use. I never experienced it in a 99% discharge of the battery in the body on a day at a road race trackside on a reasonably hot day. I'm pointing this out as another example of the importance of heat control and dissipation in smaller camera bodies. SONY probably needs to engineer and produce the semiconductors that can perform at the level of the OM-1 system with the heat signature that works in the smaller OM-5 body. It may not be possible in 2023. Or 2024, or whenever.
BTW, I use a half-leather case with my EM5.3 because I find it makes the body much more comfortable to shoot using any lens mounted, though I do not as a habit use large, heavy lenses on it. I have the OLY grip to add to the EM5.3 if I want to use large, heavy lenses. I haven't used it since I bought the OM-1. As a by-product, the half case provides significant support for the EM5.3 baseplate. It has its own tripod screw mount - and it looks cool which makes me a better photographer, or at least a cooler-looking one.
How is that Stylus-1? I used to enjoy OLY compacts but I skipped the Stylus-1 because I had been using ILCs by then. An intriguing camera, I always wondered how good it is. I took a PEN PM2 on a half-day boat trip a few weeks ago for snaps with the 14-42EZ and the 14-150 and enjoyed the results shooting in "P" to give myself a rest.
I wonder if it would be fun to own a Stylus-1 for something like that? What do you think, Urban? Would you use the Stylus-1 for grins? Or is it actually a serious camera?
EZ
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
Last edited:
Regor250
Veteran Member
Just curious why you'd find an OM1 without a mechanical shutter more attractive?
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,436
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,909
Because I want a sensor with read speed that matches a mechanical shutter, at which point there is no need for a mechanical shutter.
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
I would vote for real a successor to the EM5.2 from 2015. With the innards (and all the software features) of the EM1.3 inside a robust dependable all-metal EM5.2 sized body. Priced the same as the current OM5. The old 20MP sensor will do perfectly well.
I think that could be a big winner today.
If they could make that with the new sensor, without adding more than say $150 to the current OM5 price, now that could even claw back some of the lost m43 market share.
I think that could be a big winner today.
If they could make that with the new sensor, without adding more than say $150 to the current OM5 price, now that could even claw back some of the lost m43 market share.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Sounds like a good idea while they are working on fitting the OM-1 innards to the OM-5. It would interest me. Sort of an almost as good as an OM-1 for less money. Maybe they can do it.
If they include the OM-1 menu that alone would generate some sales. I'm happy with the physical body and don't need the base strengthened. I've had no trouble with the EM53 base and neither have the vast majority of owners. I don't want them to make the body any heavier. Lightweight is one of the reasons I own it. Either the OMS grip or a leather half-case would strengthen it. I'd rather go that way and add something besides weight.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
If they include the OM-1 menu that alone would generate some sales. I'm happy with the physical body and don't need the base strengthened. I've had no trouble with the EM53 base and neither have the vast majority of owners. I don't want them to make the body any heavier. Lightweight is one of the reasons I own it. Either the OMS grip or a leather half-case would strengthen it. I'd rather go that way and add something besides weight.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
Last edited:
Brandon birder
Veteran Member
AF in my OM1 is way better than myEM1 m2. Using just single point and CAF. Then there are the subject detect modes also. I don’t use SAF but I use CAF and back button focus.
SAF on the OM1 is less predictable than on the EM1.2. Now I use CAF with small target.
Andrew
Jon Schick
Veteran Member
I worry OMDS is backing themselves into a very specific niche of birding and wildlife photographers and leaving behind some of the other lightweight travel/street and general photography crowd.
The OM1 is admirable and excellent but it's not for me. I don't need many of its strengths and all it did was to make me feel I was shooting with a capable computer rather than a camera. I much prefer the G9, which also has better ergonomics and handling for me.
I do think the OM5 was a miss though. It needed the new menu system and USB C charging. It's clearly an interim model. Actually I think OMDS need to come up with a model that spans EM10/5 territory which would actually be more camera than most people ever need. And an updated Pen F because I want one!
The OM1 is admirable and excellent but it's not for me. I don't need many of its strengths and all it did was to make me feel I was shooting with a capable computer rather than a camera. I much prefer the G9, which also has better ergonomics and handling for me.
I do think the OM5 was a miss though. It needed the new menu system and USB C charging. It's clearly an interim model. Actually I think OMDS need to come up with a model that spans EM10/5 territory which would actually be more camera than most people ever need. And an updated Pen F because I want one!
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Interesting. Everything I use the OM-1 for requires CAF. I use the EM5.3 when I'm photographing something I use SAF for. I would never see the problem with SAF on the OM-1. I don't plan it this way - to use CAF with the OM-1 and SAF with the EM5.3. It's just how the use case breaks out. I use the OM-1 for moving subjects and the EM5.3 for static subjects unless I want to use HHHR in which case I have to use the OM-1.
I believe you and wonder what the reason is and if OMS is going to address it. What would be the point of offering SAF on the OM-1 if CAF works better?
I believe you and wonder what the reason is and if OMS is going to address it. What would be the point of offering SAF on the OM-1 if CAF works better?
I think SAF stands for Super Accurate Focus - ie the final stages are CDAF. If you try and shoot a featureless surface in low light with the right settings, the focus point will jump to the closest high contrast area.
CAF is fundamentally driven by PDAF, so it works differently. At least that's my rationalisation for the difference in behaviours. There are other differences, but I mostly use either CAF or MF, so I've not studied them in detail. I just find CAF works more the way I expect.
Andrew
EZGritz
Veteran Member
You piqued my interest so I dialed in SAF and took 100 photos inside and outside of the house at various distances, shutter speeds, lighting, and ISO with the 40-150 f/4 to see what I could learn.
Using all the focus points the camera picks something to focus on no matter where it is in the frame, usually something closest to the camera than everything else. That makes sense to me. If you give the AF system the entire composition to choose from how can it know what you want to focus on? It does what it's programmed to do. Pick something, usually the closest subject it finds.
When I change this to "small focal point" = PERFECT. It looks like a 9-pixel array in the monitor. It instantly focuses exactly where the focus point is, ignoring everything else in the composition no matter what the distance to the camera anything else is.
It worked perfectly over and over many times. It NEVER jumped focus to a different subject.
I have to conclude all this talk about problems with SAF and the OM-1 is 100% nonsense = incorrect settings. Photographer error, not camera error. I can't replicate the problem if I'm using "small focus point" under any conditions I tried, even in very busy low-light compositions where I have to use shutter speeds of 1/20 with potential subjects in the foreground and background when I want to focus on something in the midground. I had no problems at all. ZERO.
I know it will struggle with no contrast. CDAF is a "contrast detection" system.
Many cameras have trouble focusing in low light. I can focus my M43 cameras in much lower light than my friend can with his Nikon Z6. He's amazed. The Z6 is supposed to be the best low-light Nikon MILC.
All of the following photos were taken in RAW and converted in WS with no modification or enhancement at all. No color, exposure adjustments, no sharpening, nothing. All in SAF. I don't see a problem with any of them and I gave the camera plenty of opportunities for failure. You can see what I wanted to focus on and there were lots of opportunities to focus on the wrong place or jump to something closer or farther than where I asked the camera to focus. It never did jump at all. It behaved exactly and as well or better than every other SAF/CDAF system on every other OLY/OMS body that I ever used. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
In almost every image I placed something in the composition to throw the AF system off. It never did.
For static subjects use SAF. For moving subjects use CAF.
Here are 30 examples.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
Using all the focus points the camera picks something to focus on no matter where it is in the frame, usually something closest to the camera than everything else. That makes sense to me. If you give the AF system the entire composition to choose from how can it know what you want to focus on? It does what it's programmed to do. Pick something, usually the closest subject it finds.
When I change this to "small focal point" = PERFECT. It looks like a 9-pixel array in the monitor. It instantly focuses exactly where the focus point is, ignoring everything else in the composition no matter what the distance to the camera anything else is.
It worked perfectly over and over many times. It NEVER jumped focus to a different subject.
I have to conclude all this talk about problems with SAF and the OM-1 is 100% nonsense = incorrect settings. Photographer error, not camera error. I can't replicate the problem if I'm using "small focus point" under any conditions I tried, even in very busy low-light compositions where I have to use shutter speeds of 1/20 with potential subjects in the foreground and background when I want to focus on something in the midground. I had no problems at all. ZERO.
I know it will struggle with no contrast. CDAF is a "contrast detection" system.
Many cameras have trouble focusing in low light. I can focus my M43 cameras in much lower light than my friend can with his Nikon Z6. He's amazed. The Z6 is supposed to be the best low-light Nikon MILC.
All of the following photos were taken in RAW and converted in WS with no modification or enhancement at all. No color, exposure adjustments, no sharpening, nothing. All in SAF. I don't see a problem with any of them and I gave the camera plenty of opportunities for failure. You can see what I wanted to focus on and there were lots of opportunities to focus on the wrong place or jump to something closer or farther than where I asked the camera to focus. It never did jump at all. It behaved exactly and as well or better than every other SAF/CDAF system on every other OLY/OMS body that I ever used. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
In almost every image I placed something in the composition to throw the AF system off. It never did.
For static subjects use SAF. For moving subjects use CAF.
Here are 30 examples.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
Last edited:
I designed my experiment based on reports by others.
If I focus on the side of the car across the street in daylight, it works fine. Do the same at night and focus jumps to the rear of the car. You can see a slight tonal gradient at the focus point in daylight but none at night.
You are going to say this is an extreme case and I’m going to agree. It is however what a handful of people have been complaining about.
I’ve also had a couple of experiences where it focussed just outside the target in SAF.
A
--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
If I focus on the side of the car across the street in daylight, it works fine. Do the same at night and focus jumps to the rear of the car. You can see a slight tonal gradient at the focus point in daylight but none at night.
You are going to say this is an extreme case and I’m going to agree. It is however what a handful of people have been complaining about.
I’ve also had a couple of experiences where it focussed just outside the target in SAF.
A
--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
Last edited:
Regor250
Veteran Member
No white walls or Lego men... what kind of test are these!
EZGritz
Veteran Member
SAF = single autofocus
CAF = continous autofocus
CDAF = Contrast Detect Autofocus
PDAF = Pahase Detect Autofocus.
SAF uses CDAF only.
CAF uses PDAF and CDAF. It's a hybrid system.
PDAF measures distance between subject and camera and drives the lens focus directly to the focus point. It's faster but less accurate than CDAF which racks the lens forward and back to find focus using contrast variations in the subject. CDAF is slower but more accurate as long as the subject has enough contrast variation to detect. If it doesn't, it can jump to a place in the image that has enough contrast if the camera is set to use autofocus points in a pattern larger than the subject.
SAF uses CDAF only. That's why it can't focus where you want it to if there is no contrast there. It will look for an area of contrast and go there.
CAF begins with PDAF to drive the lens focus close where the focus point is without racking the lens. Then CDAF does the final precision focus which is already close to perfect because it takes over after PDAF brings the focus close. CAF racking is minimized because PDAF already placed the lens focus close to the correct subject distance.
If nothing in the composition is moving use SAF because it will use CDAF only and give you the best possible focus as long as there is enough contrast in the subject to detect. It can struggle to find contrast in low light but I haven't seen this problem with the OM-1. The EM5.3 has an illumination light on the front of the body, on the upper right of the lens. It can use this light to focus with SAF/CDAF virtually in the dark. Maybe the OM-1 doesn't need a contrast illuminator light. It's a different sensor. Maybe it shoots a light through the lens. I haven't tried it in the dark but I have in lower light than I would never take a photo in. It worked. Focus doesn't seem to be light-sensitive in a practical range of lighting with the OM-1. It can take a photo using ISO100K... That's pretty dark even with a slow shutter speed. I never tried to take a photo with ISO100K or in light low enough to need it.
If your subject is moving, SAF can work but it will sometimes miss when the subject moves and changes the distance to the camera after it found focus by pushing the shutter halfway and before you fire the shutter or from any shutter lag that is set for example to eliminate shutter shake. If the subject is moving and the camera is set to SAF push the shutter button all the way down. Do not push it halfway and wait. Subject movement may change the distance to the camera before you fire the shutter. Focus will not be adjusted and the photo may be out of focus or the camera will refuse to take the photo if you set it to refuse when the subject is out of focus.
SAF (single autofocus) focuses only once when you press the shutter halfway. CAF is a continuous autofocus system. Since CAF constantly measures distance between the camera and the subject, it will refocus the lens if this distance changes.
The subject can move, changing the distance to the camera without changing the contrast. If it does, SAF does not know the distance changed so it can't adjust focus. It can be wrong so it is programmed to measure focus only once. PDAF (Phase Detect) which CAF uses, knows when the distance from the subject to the camera changes because its constantly measuring it. It can adjust focus if it needs to. That's why it works better for moving subjects.
You can use SAF for moving subjects if you push the shutter all the way down and not just halfway.
When you add tracking to CAF it automatically moves the focus point to follow a moving subject when it detects movement and adjusts focus when it detects a change in the distance from the subject to the camera.
Tracking does not work with SAF because SAF takes one contrast distance measurement when you push the shutter halfway or all the way. It does not continuously measure distance between camera and subject like CAF does so it can't adjust focus when the subject moves and changes the distance to the camera. Since It can make errors due to distance changes it can't detect, tracking is not used with SAF. If it did the camera could track a subject and take an out-of-focus photo unless it's set not to. CAF can work with tracking because it can adjust focus.
Subject Detect works differently. It identifies a shape, focuses on it, then uses the focus points to detect movement of the shape and moves the focus points to stay on the shape. For motorsports and birding I find it amazing if not perfect all the time. It locks on helmets and faces, even inside the helmet behind a dirty windshield on a wet, muddy rallycross track in gloom and rain, and sticks with them. I'm amazed it can do that. I found from inspecting 150 images from each of a Canon 5DIII, R5, and OM-1 in low light, all taken at the same location at the same time focus from the OM-1 was more accurate. I hoped the OM-1 would be almost as good. I never thought it might be better but it was.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
CAF = continous autofocus
CDAF = Contrast Detect Autofocus
PDAF = Pahase Detect Autofocus.
SAF uses CDAF only.
CAF uses PDAF and CDAF. It's a hybrid system.
PDAF measures distance between subject and camera and drives the lens focus directly to the focus point. It's faster but less accurate than CDAF which racks the lens forward and back to find focus using contrast variations in the subject. CDAF is slower but more accurate as long as the subject has enough contrast variation to detect. If it doesn't, it can jump to a place in the image that has enough contrast if the camera is set to use autofocus points in a pattern larger than the subject.
SAF uses CDAF only. That's why it can't focus where you want it to if there is no contrast there. It will look for an area of contrast and go there.
CAF begins with PDAF to drive the lens focus close where the focus point is without racking the lens. Then CDAF does the final precision focus which is already close to perfect because it takes over after PDAF brings the focus close. CAF racking is minimized because PDAF already placed the lens focus close to the correct subject distance.
If nothing in the composition is moving use SAF because it will use CDAF only and give you the best possible focus as long as there is enough contrast in the subject to detect. It can struggle to find contrast in low light but I haven't seen this problem with the OM-1. The EM5.3 has an illumination light on the front of the body, on the upper right of the lens. It can use this light to focus with SAF/CDAF virtually in the dark. Maybe the OM-1 doesn't need a contrast illuminator light. It's a different sensor. Maybe it shoots a light through the lens. I haven't tried it in the dark but I have in lower light than I would never take a photo in. It worked. Focus doesn't seem to be light-sensitive in a practical range of lighting with the OM-1. It can take a photo using ISO100K... That's pretty dark even with a slow shutter speed. I never tried to take a photo with ISO100K or in light low enough to need it.
If your subject is moving, SAF can work but it will sometimes miss when the subject moves and changes the distance to the camera after it found focus by pushing the shutter halfway and before you fire the shutter or from any shutter lag that is set for example to eliminate shutter shake. If the subject is moving and the camera is set to SAF push the shutter button all the way down. Do not push it halfway and wait. Subject movement may change the distance to the camera before you fire the shutter. Focus will not be adjusted and the photo may be out of focus or the camera will refuse to take the photo if you set it to refuse when the subject is out of focus.
SAF (single autofocus) focuses only once when you press the shutter halfway. CAF is a continuous autofocus system. Since CAF constantly measures distance between the camera and the subject, it will refocus the lens if this distance changes.
The subject can move, changing the distance to the camera without changing the contrast. If it does, SAF does not know the distance changed so it can't adjust focus. It can be wrong so it is programmed to measure focus only once. PDAF (Phase Detect) which CAF uses, knows when the distance from the subject to the camera changes because its constantly measuring it. It can adjust focus if it needs to. That's why it works better for moving subjects.
You can use SAF for moving subjects if you push the shutter all the way down and not just halfway.
When you add tracking to CAF it automatically moves the focus point to follow a moving subject when it detects movement and adjusts focus when it detects a change in the distance from the subject to the camera.
Tracking does not work with SAF because SAF takes one contrast distance measurement when you push the shutter halfway or all the way. It does not continuously measure distance between camera and subject like CAF does so it can't adjust focus when the subject moves and changes the distance to the camera. Since It can make errors due to distance changes it can't detect, tracking is not used with SAF. If it did the camera could track a subject and take an out-of-focus photo unless it's set not to. CAF can work with tracking because it can adjust focus.
Subject Detect works differently. It identifies a shape, focuses on it, then uses the focus points to detect movement of the shape and moves the focus points to stay on the shape. For motorsports and birding I find it amazing if not perfect all the time. It locks on helmets and faces, even inside the helmet behind a dirty windshield on a wet, muddy rallycross track in gloom and rain, and sticks with them. I'm amazed it can do that. I found from inspecting 150 images from each of a Canon 5DIII, R5, and OM-1 in low light, all taken at the same location at the same time focus from the OM-1 was more accurate. I hoped the OM-1 would be almost as good. I never thought it might be better but it was.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
Last edited:
EZGritz
Veteran Member
I'm not going to disagree with you and I am going to say they should not be complaining about it because yes - it sounds like an extreme case maybe only valid in a test. As you know a test can be set up to make an AF system fail but it does not mean the same conditions will be encountered in practical photography.
As I said in another post, the EM5.3 has a low light illumination light on the front-upper right where the remote shutter cable is usually found. It has no remote shutter cable port. The OM-1 does not have this light. It has the remote shutter cable port.
Now I'm curious. My ancient TG-630 has one of these lights. My PEN PM1 and 2 have them.
The EM5.3 uses this illuminator to find focus virtually in the dark when it's way darker than any lighting I would ever take a photo in. It works very well. It may have a distance restriction.
Why doesn't the OM-1 have one of these lights?
As I said in another post, the EM5.3 has a low light illumination light on the front-upper right where the remote shutter cable is usually found. It has no remote shutter cable port. The OM-1 does not have this light. It has the remote shutter cable port.
Now I'm curious. My ancient TG-630 has one of these lights. My PEN PM1 and 2 have them.
The EM5.3 uses this illuminator to find focus virtually in the dark when it's way darker than any lighting I would ever take a photo in. It works very well. It may have a distance restriction.
Why doesn't the OM-1 have one of these lights?
EZGritz
Veteran Member
So I cheated to make my camera look good. But you can see from some of these, the lighting was pretty poor and the AF system still worked. The camera never missed focus.
I've never had a situation where the OM-1 could not focus. Until I do I don't care if it fails in a test.
I've never had a situation where the OM-1 could not focus. Until I do I don't care if it fails in a test.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Was the DOF too shallow?
My opinion: Robin's was given a lemon for a gift. He should send it in for service. It should be at least as reliable as the E-M1 II
Similar threads
- Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude
- Micro Four Thirds Talk
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum