100-300: is the OIS this bad??

[luisflorit]

Are you planning to use fill flash or flash actually providing the maximum of the light on the subject?

Mostly the first case, but quite frequently the second, unfortunately.

If fill flash, you probably need a much slower shutter speed yet to get any natural light on the parts that have not gotten flash on them.

Not necessarily. That depends on the amount of natural light, of course. Sometimes you shoot quite fast, but use the fill flash to compensate from backlight, for example.

If you actually use flash to light the item, 1/160 will produce sharp images, because the light actually coming from the flash is emitted and bounced back in a much shorter time.

Yep.

The rest of the period that the shutter is open is too short for the background light to actually make much difference.

True, but only on the foreground subject, not on the background. Slower shutter speeds are better to lighten the background, with the side effect of a slight black 'halo' around your main subject.

I recently took some images of an owl in Costa Rica at 1/4 second exposure at 400 iso using my FZ18 (that long a time was necessary without flash), so the light coming during 1/160s at iso 160 would not have influenced anything.

Not really: it would have made the background a lot darker (unless the background is in deep shadows, of course).

Cheers,
L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

I will certainly do some more testing. BTW, shooting series with continuous drive is normally a good recipe to obtain sharp images despite handshake.

True, but not a good idea if you use flash, since you'll have to wait much more for it to recycle.

L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

As to continuous drive versus single shots, my experience when testing the SR with my Pentax K100D was that shooting bursts did not improve my results but rather made them slightly worse. But the main reason for asking you not to this when you test is that it would limit the effective sample size. You wouldn't really have 10 independent units/pictures to play with if you shot them as two series of say five each. Part of the results would depend on factors that affect the entire series.

Indeed. Actually, one of the reasons I almost never use fast burst mode is that if the first image is out of focus, all the series is. With cameras without really reliable AF systems (like Olympus DSLRs) abuse of burst mode is certainly not a good idea. But perhaps not so bad for the GH2.

L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

Indeed. Actually, one of the reasons I almost never use fast burst mode is that if the first image is out of focus, all the series is. With cameras without really reliable AF systems (like Olympus DSLRs) abuse of burst mode is certainly not a good idea. But perhaps not so bad for the GH2.

Very true. Aside from system size/bulk/weight, the promise of more accurate/reliable AF is one of the main attractions of m43 as I see it. There's a lot of talk about AF speed, but accuracy is at least as important to me. Just look at the number of threads on pretty much any DSLR forum about unreliable AF as well as various systematic errors (back focus, front focus), as well as the tendency for these systematic errors to vary depending on light conditions (bright vs dark, tungsten vs daylight) and from one lens to another. It seems that lenses as well as bodies are constantly sent in for adjustment in this or that direction and the micro-adjustment offered by some DSLR bodies seem to be of only partial help. No end to it.

Why have a separate system to do it (PDAF) when it can be done on the sensor (CDAF), thereby avoiding a number of error sources that may make the AF system see things differently than the sensor itself. With the GH2 having solved most of the speed issue, it's a no-brainer to me, although I can understand that people with certain specialized needs see things differently.

 

[deep7]

Indeed. Actually, one of the reasons I almost never use fast burst mode is that if the first image is out of focus, all the series is. With cameras without really reliable AF systems (like Olympus DSLRs) abuse of burst mode is certainly not a good idea. But perhaps not so bad for the GH2.

Very true. Aside from system size/bulk/weight, the promise of more accurate/reliable AF is one of the main attractions of m43 as I see it. There's a lot of talk about AF speed, but accuracy is at least as important to me. Just look at the number of threads on pretty much any DSLR forum about unreliable AF as well as various systematic errors (back focus, front focus), as well as the tendency for these systematic errors to vary depending on light conditions (bright vs dark, tungsten vs daylight) and from one lens to another. It seems that lenses as well as bodies are constantly sent in for adjustment in this or that direction and the micro-adjustment offered by some DSLR bodies seem to be of only partial help. No end to it.

Why have a separate system to do it (PDAF) when it can be done on the sensor (CDAF), thereby avoiding a number of error sources that may make the AF system see things differently than the sensor itself. With the GH2 having solved most of the speed issue, it's a no-brainer to me, although I can understand that people with certain specialized needs see things differently.

Well, that's true in theory. In practice, shooting distant birds in a forest as the example given here, contrast detect autofocus will regularly focus on the forest behind the bird unless the bird completely fills the focus point (which obviously should happen but in practice won't, especially if you are trying to nail focus on the eyes, for example). This is really frustrating and results in many, many missed shots.

Now, when I grab my E3 and 50-200, it's absolute bliss as it immediately and accurately nails the focus every time. The difference is night and day and the main reason I wouldn't go to a mirrorless system for critical work just yet.
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

 

[luisflorit]

Well, that's true in theory. In practice, shooting distant birds in a forest as the example given here, contrast detect autofocus will regularly focus on the forest behind the bird unless the bird completely fills the focus point (which obviously should happen but in practice won't, especially if you are trying to nail focus on the eyes, for example).

This is not always the case. For example, if you use normal AF on the ooooold FZ50 you will see exactly what you wrote, but if you use macro AF (it begins focusing from close to far), you won't have problems. At least, not more than with PDAF cameras. Branches behind are always tricky with small birds.

This is really frustrating and results in many, many missed shots.

Now, when I grab my E3 and 50-200, it's absolute bliss as it immediately and accurately nails the focus every time. The difference is night and day and the main reason I wouldn't go to a mirrorless system for critical work just yet.

My E3 + 50-200 + EC14 PDAF absolutely SUCKS . It's simply unreliable. My E5 is a bit better, but still not good enough. Even my oooooold P&S CDAF FZ50+TCON17 at 714mm is MUCH more reliable than the PDAF of the 2 """"pro"""" oly bodies I own. Not only with the 50-200, but also with the 12-60, so it is not the lens, nor the body. It's Oly AF.

No, please, don't post samples! I have tons already. Unreliable means that sometimes it is fine, even good, and even perfect.

But, anyway, you don't add the EC14 and hence you're shooting at (relatively) short focal lengths of 400mm EFL. Those focal lengths are of little use for wildlife birding.

Cheers,
L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[deep7]

Well, that's true in theory. In practice, shooting distant birds in a forest as the example given here, contrast detect autofocus will regularly focus on the forest behind the bird unless the bird completely fills the focus point (which obviously should happen but in practice won't, especially if you are trying to nail focus on the eyes, for example).

This is not always the case. For example, if you use normal AF on the ooooold FZ50 you will see exactly what you wrote, but if you use macro AF (it begins focusing from close to far), you won't have problems. At least, not more than with PDAF cameras. Branches behind are always tricky with small birds.

This is really frustrating and results in many, many missed shots.

Now, when I grab my E3 and 50-200, it's absolute bliss as it immediately and accurately nails the focus every time. The difference is night and day and the main reason I wouldn't go to a mirrorless system for critical work just yet.

My E3 + 50-200 + EC14 PDAF absolutely SUCKS . It's simply unreliable. My E5 is a bit better, but still not good enough. Even my oooooold P&S CDAF FZ50+TCON17 at 714mm is MUCH more reliable than the PDAF of the 2 """"pro"""" oly bodies I own. Not only with the 50-200, but also with the 12-60, so it is not the lens, nor the body. It's Oly AF.

No, please, don't post samples! I have tons already. Unreliable means that sometimes it is fine, even good, and even perfect.

But, anyway, you don't add the EC14 and hence you're shooting at (relatively) short focal lengths of 400mm EFL. Those focal lengths are of little use for wildlife birding.

Cheers,
L.

Your FZ50 has a very large depth of field compared to micro four thirds at the equivalent focal length and same aperture. So you think you have nailed the focus because it is good enough, even though you probably have actually often got focus on something behind your bird. It's a CDAF issue. PDAF is significantly better in this regard. It just is, I'm not giving an opinion, it's an observation that you can share by pixel-peeping away with the zillions of photos posted by various folk on the internet.

I'm sorry to hear you have had two bad Oly DSLR bodies and it would be something that would make me look elsewhere. I have had my E3 for three years and taken many thousands of photographs and the focus is consistently perfect, bad light, good light and particularly in the context we are talking about here. I can put a small focus point on a birds head and it will be in focus within a fraction of a second. Every time, with either the 50-200 or 12-60.

I have no intention of posting examples. It's a waste of time.

The difference your 1.4 teleconverter makes is incremental only. You still have to get very close to small birds and quite close to larger ones or you will end up with poor images regardless.
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

 

[Anders W]

Well, that's true in theory. In practice, shooting distant birds in a forest as the example given here, contrast detect autofocus will regularly focus on the forest behind the bird unless the bird completely fills the focus point (which obviously should happen but in practice won't, especially if you are trying to nail focus on the eyes, for example). This is really frustrating and results in many, many missed shots.

Now, when I grab my E3 and 50-200, it's absolute bliss as it immediately and accurately nails the focus every time. The difference is night and day and the main reason I wouldn't go to a mirrorless system for critical work just yet.

I have no practical experience with any mirrorless camera yet, but I can read in the GH2 manual that I downloaded, that it is possible to change the size of the AF area frame. Do I understand you right that it does not, in your experience, help to set it to the smallest size?

I have no experience with any Oly DSLR either, but I am far from perfectly satisfied with the AF on my current Pentax K100D. It shows random unreliability of the kind luisflorit talks about as well as systematic bias (tends to backfocus in low, tungsten light). I also sometimes have exactly the problem you describe (camera focusing on the background rather than the subject) although I haven't thoroughly checked out how much of the problem is due to the camera and how much is due to camera shake during focusing.

 

[deep7]

I have no practical experience with any mirrorless camera yet, but I can read in the GH2 manual that I downloaded, that it is possible to change the size of the AF area frame. Do I understand you right that it does not, in your experience, help to set it to the smallest size?

I have no experience with any Oly DSLR either, but I am far from perfectly satisfied with the AF on my current Pentax K100D. It shows random unreliability of the kind luisflorit talks about as well as systematic bias (tends to backfocus in low, tungsten light). I also sometimes have exactly the problem you describe (camera focusing on the background rather than the subject) although I haven't thoroughly checked out how much of the problem is due to the camera and how much is due to camera shake during focusing.

I don't have a GH2, I have an E-P1 and have had and used many other CDAF cameras. Yes, making the focus point smaller clearly helps. However, the problem remains that the system is looking for the highest contrast, which can often be the background even if the subject takes up most of the focus frame. On my little E-P1, it is a convoluted process to make the focus frame smaller and it seems that the focus speed slows right down when I do. The GH2, it would seem, would focus much quicker on a small point.

None of my recent SLRs have been immune to the problem of focussing on a background. However, they are much more likely to focus on a larger object which is nearer the camera. Using a small focus point on the E3 hugely minimises the likelihood of a miss and is super-fast too.

I have thought about the problems some people have with their DSLRs not quite focussing and wonder if some of that is technique? I tend to play with the shutter button a lot, waiting for that perfect moment, which must help. Having said that, my E3 still focusses well if I do a quick focus-and-fire but I could understand a rushed technique resulting in problems.
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

 

[njlarsen]

As to continuous drive versus single shots, my experience when testing the SR with my Pentax K100D was that shooting bursts did not improve my results but rather made them slightly worse. But the main reason for asking you not to this when you test is that it would limit the effective sample size. You wouldn't really have 10 independent units/pictures to play with if you shot them as two series of say five each. Part of the results would depend on factors that affect the entire series.

This has been discussed quite a lot on Birdforum, with dSLR shooters often saying exactly that, and P&S superzoom users often saying that taking shots in a series helps (that is my experience using a FZ18). I believe the main conclusion is that the mirror slap of the SLR induces vibrations that build up through the series, and that is the cause that burst mode does not help in SLR shooting low light.

Which side the GH2 will fall on is up in the air: it does not have the mirror but does have a mechanical shutter that moves for each picture. It is one of those things I am looking forward to testing when mine arrives.

Niels

 

[luisflorit]

Your FZ50 has a very large depth of field compared to micro four thirds at the equivalent focal length and same aperture. So you think you have nailed the focus because it is good enough, even though you probably have actually often got focus on something behind your bird.

You're wrong. When you shoot at 714mm F3.7, even with a small sensor camera, DOF is tiny unless the bird is very far away. For example, if the bird is at 5 meters (not far from the minimum focus distance at those FL for the FZ50), the DOF is 4.8cm. So with only 2.4cm of far focus, you clearly see when it focuses on the branches behind, of course.

You seem to be far less picky than me in this regard...

It's a CDAF issue. PDAF is significantly better in this regard. It just is, I'm not giving an opinion, it's an observation that you can share by pixel-peeping away with the zillions of photos posted by various folk on the internet.

Among these photos, 24000 I took with the FZ50, and 67000 I took with E3+E5, and you can check more than 2400 here (with both systems), only about birds:

http://luis.impa.br/foto/birdindex.html

I assure you that the FZ50 CDAF is far more more reliable than both the E3 and E5 PDAF for birds between branches, if you use macro AF. Could I have too bad sample cameras of different models with exactly the same problem? Possible, but highly unlikely. Specially because AF is the Achilles heel of Olympus 43rds: many Oly users that switched systems did so precisely because of the unreliable AF.

BTW, have you tested macro AF in the FZ50? It works like magic, slowly though.

I'm sorry to hear you have had two bad Oly DSLR bodies and it would be something that would make me look elsewhere. I have had my E3 for three years and taken many thousands of photographs and the focus is consistently perfect, bad light, good light and particularly in the context we are talking about here. I can put a small focus point on a birds head and it will be in focus within a fraction of a second. Every time, with either the 50-200 or 12-60.

I would say again that perhaps you're less picky than me w.r.t. AF... OTOH, perhaps it is not pickyness: with identical conditions, at 200 vs 283 or 400 mm, your DOF is considerably bigger than mine, your subject is smaller, and hence critical focus is harder to check.

I have no intention of posting examples. It's a waste of time.

Thanks.

The difference your 1.4 teleconverter makes is incremental only.

Well, it's 'only' 41% bigger... I wouldn't call that incremental. 400mm would useless for my uses, and 563mm EFL, although far from being good enough, is considerably better. And don't forget that I also have the EC20, so we're also comparing 400 vs 800mm. I wouldn't call that incremental either.

You still have to get very close to small birds and quite close to larger ones or you will end up with poor images regardless.

You always need to be as close as possible, of course. But 400mm is way too short for shooting small birds in the wild . Of course for captive animals, all this discussion is totally irrelevant. You have plenty of time and short distance to take fantastic pictures of any subject... with any camera and any lens.

Cheers,
L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

I don't have a GH2, I have an E-P1 and have had and used many other CDAF cameras. Yes, making the focus point smaller clearly helps. However, the problem remains that the system is looking for the highest contrast, which can often be the background even if the subject takes up most of the focus frame. On my little E-P1, it is a convoluted process to make the focus frame smaller and it seems that the focus speed slows right down when I do. The GH2, it would seem, would focus much quicker on a small point.

Let's hope you are right about that (last sentence). At any rate, changing the size of the focus frame appears to be quite straightforward on the GH2.

None of my recent SLRs have been immune to the problem of focussing on a background. However, they are much more likely to focus on a larger object which is nearer the camera. Using a small focus point on the E3 hugely minimises the likelihood of a miss and is super-fast too.

I have thought about the problems some people have with their DSLRs not quite focussing and wonder if some of that is technique? I tend to play with the shutter button a lot, waiting for that perfect moment, which must help. Having said that, my E3 still focusses well if I do a quick focus-and-fire but I could understand a rushed technique resulting in problems.

Don't know about others but my own problems cannot be chalked up to poor technique. Like you, I always prefocus. In addition, I take care to move the focus frame rather than recompose after focusing (since that causes systematic error). In essence, the problem is that the camera tells me that it nailed focus although it didn't. I do hope and think that the GH2 will do better in this regard.

 

[Anders W]

As to continuous drive versus single shots, my experience when testing the SR with my Pentax K100D was that shooting bursts did not improve my results but rather made them slightly worse. But the main reason for asking you not to this when you test is that it would limit the effective sample size. You wouldn't really have 10 independent units/pictures to play with if you shot them as two series of say five each. Part of the results would depend on factors that affect the entire series.

This has been discussed quite a lot on Birdforum, with dSLR shooters often saying exactly that, and P&S superzoom users often saying that taking shots in a series helps (that is my experience using a FZ18). I believe the main conclusion is that the mirror slap of the SLR induces vibrations that build up through the series, and that is the cause that burst mode does not help in SLR shooting low light.

Which side the GH2 will fall on is up in the air: it does not have the mirror but does have a mechanical shutter that moves for each picture. It is one of those things I am looking forward to testing when mine arrives.

Thanks for your thoughts Niels! As you can see from earlier posts in this thread, the mechanical shutter in at least some m43 cameras have turned out to be a much more significant source of blur than I thought possible. Read this if you haven't already:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1/EP1BLUR.HTM

So let's hope that the global electronic shutter will soon be a reality.

 

[luisflorit]

Don't know about others but my own problems cannot be chalked up to poor technique. Like you, I always prefocus. In addition, I take care to move the focus frame rather than recompose after focusing (since that causes systematic error). In essence, the problem is that the camera tells me that it nailed focus although it didn't.

Absolutely. It is not uncommon for both of my Oly """pro""" DSRLs to give focus lock and end up with a picture without a single pixel focused in the whole frame. Even using tripod, shutter release, etc, with both teles and wides. Of course not all PDAF works so badly, Nikon's is much better than Oly's. Not even talking about C-AF here, where Oly's is a joke.

I do hope and think that the GH2 will do better in this regard.

I would like to see some comparisons between the GH2 S-AF and the Nikon's D300s or the D7000. But these kind of tests are quite hard to make.

Cheers,
L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Alan OB]

OS on Canon is much better, but here I think Panasonic can make changes, because the lens can be updated. On Canon I was able to make steady shots at 1/30s at 200mm, with Panasonic this is mostly a dream.









Alan

--
http://alanob.blogspot.com
http://www.poglej.si/izstekani

 

[Anders W]

I do hope and think that the GH2 will do better in this regard.

I would like to see some comparisons between the GH2 S-AF and the Nikon's D300s or the D7000. But these kind of tests are quite hard to make.

Yes, but there's nevertheless at least one site that do them: optycne.pl, the native Polish version of Lenstip. They review both cameras and lenses but only the lens reviews are so far translated to English. Their review of the GH2 came up a week or so ago, and judging by what they found, we will both be very happy with the AF accuracy of the GH2. In fact, I doubt that I have ever seen a better result than this:

http://translate.google.se/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.optyczne.pl%2F149.3-Test_aparatu-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2_U%C5%BCytkowanie_i_ergonomia.html&sl=pl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

The leftmost bar shows the number of images that are essentially perfect. Bars to the right of it shows the number that are off by an increasingly large margin (larger the further to the right you go).

They haven't reviewed the D7000 yet, but you can compare with the results for D300s, E-3 and E-5. AF accuracy is always in section three of the review. Although the D300s and the E-5 (but not the E-3) do pretty well for AF accuracy compared to other DSLRs, they still trail the GH2, which gets it perfect nearly all the time.

 

[Anders W]

OS on Canon is much better, but here I think Panasonic can make changes, because the lens can be updated. On Canon I was able to make steady shots at 1/30s at 200mm, with Panasonic this is mostly a dream.

And how far down would you say it is possible to go with the Panasonic 100-300 at 200 and 300 and still have decent odds of getting it right? I don't know exactly which Canon lens you are talking about, but the Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM should give you at least three stops and actually does it according to Lenstip (who really test OS systems, not just report their unsystematic impressions).

Nice pictures by the way!

 

[luisflorit]

OS on Canon is much better, but here I think Panasonic can make changes, because the lens can be updated. On Canon I was able to make steady shots at 1/30s at 200mm, with Panasonic this is mostly a dream.

I see. I am actually surprised that the 100-300 OIS appears to work worse than the old FZ50. Perhaps this has to do with the mechanical vs electronic shutter.

Thanks for your feedback!

L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

I do hope and think that the GH2 will do better in this regard.

I would like to see some comparisons between the GH2 S-AF and the Nikon's D300s or the D7000. But these kind of tests are quite hard to make.

Yes, but there's nevertheless at least one site that do them: optycne.pl, the native Polish version of Lenstip. They review both cameras and lenses but only the lens reviews are so far translated to English. Their review of the GH2 came up a week or so ago, and judging by what they found, we will both be very happy with the AF accuracy of the GH2. In fact, I doubt that I have ever seen a better result than this:

http://translate.google.se/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.optyczne.pl%2F149.3-Test_aparatu-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2_U%C5%BCytkowanie_i_ergonomia.html&sl=pl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

The leftmost bar shows the number of images that are essentially perfect. Bars to the right of it shows the number that are off by an increasingly large margin (larger the further to the right you go).

They haven't reviewed the D7000 yet, but you can compare with the results for D300s, E-3 and E-5. AF accuracy is always in section three of the review. Although the D300s and the E-5 (but not the E-3) do pretty well for AF accuracy compared to other DSLRs, they still trail the GH2, which gets it perfect nearly all the time.

WOW!! If this test is indeed representative, the GH2 AF accuracy is not only better than the best APS's, something that is expected, but in fact much better. I didn't expected so much difference. The comparison with the 7D is particularly interesting. The D300s comes somewhat close, but still not enough. I am surprised how the D300 scored quite low.

The low score of the E3 is exactly what I expected and match my experience, although it is interesting that the E3 works much better with the Panaleica than their own 12-60. So it is Oly system, not just the camera. OTOH, the E5 scored somewhat higher of what I would expect.

However, I don't understand why the E3+12-60 data in the graph for the E3 differs from the one in the graph for the E5.

I wonder how much the AF microadjustments would impact these tests.

Thanks for the info,
L.

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



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[Anders W]

The low score of the E3 is exactly what I expected and match my experience, although it is interesting that the E3 works much better with the Panaleica than their own 12-60. So it is Oly system, not just the camera.

Or just the individual Oly lens. As you can see, the results for the 14-54 are quite a bit worse than those for the 12-60. One difficulty when testing AF systems is that the result depends on the camera as well as the lens and that it is difficult to sort out the contribution of each.

However, I don't understand why the E3+12-60 data in the graph for the E3 differs from the one in the graph for the E5.

Neither do I. Looks like the E3+12-60 got better with time. ;-)

I wonder how much the AF microadjustments would impact these tests.

Probably not much. I am pretty sure they test for systematic front focus/back focus before they test for unsystematic inaccuracy and have the camera/lens adjusted if necessary (by sending it in or using the microadjustment on the camera if available).