Shooting sports: PEN E-PM2 vs EM5ii/EM1

I'm fairly happy with my $100 refurb EPM2 but after buying those beautiful Oly primes I am seeing general softness even with good technique and shutter speeds twice the rule. I'm thinking shutter shock and I'd like a body that has been engineered with no shock in mind.

I also have the opportunity to shoot my kids sports (soccer, baseball, tennis) or people getting dragged behind a boat.  Soccer is incredibly tough as the subject distance is changing and the whole scene is chaotic.  Here the C-AF on the EPM2 is so wrong. Just always. Hunting, breathing, sharp background or sharp foreground but the subject in the middle is a disaster.

The question becomes is there anything in the EM5 (original since people have experience, or the II) that makes it better at C-AF than the cheapest m43 with the same sensor. My understanding is that the EM1's PDAF only works on legacy 43 lenses and since I have no desire to buy any its not really on my radar.

In case you couldn't tell I'm in the market for a new body. The EM5ii is at the top of my list for sharp stills and super stabilized video. I just wish I could do C-AF with my current lenses (40-150/5.6R) and not either give up or buy into another system.

I had E-PM's (1, 2, maybe 3) back when they first came out, focus was never great. The focusing is much better on E-M1 and assume so for the very soon to be released E-M5 MkII.

I used my E-PL5 for sports shooting for almost a year before getting my E-M1. I still had my E-5 during that year but left it at home unless it was raining. A number of times, it was clear that I should have brought the E-5 and 50-200 swd… but I forced myself to make the E-PL5 and the kit 40-150R work.

First thing: shooting distant objects with a longish lens (40-150R) is difficult when using the back LCD. It's one thing if you have your arms straight out… but if you tilt or tip the LCD (not possible of the E-M2) and have the camera overhead or at your waist, it's very difficult to keep things lined up while the subjects are moving about. An electronic eyepiece (EVF) can be added to any cameras that don't have them built in.

Secondly, that lens is not as responsive as a higher-spec (i.e. "more expensive") lens. It's bound to clog the AF pipeline a little.

Third, I wouldn't put much stock in the C-AF ability of the cheaper cameras. They are great value for what they are… but there's no way Oly can afford to put all of their tools in a low price-point camera.

Realizing all that, I basically went old school when I shot sports with the PL5. The one big advantage it had over the 5 frames per second E-5 was its 10 fps burst mode. I'd lock focus (say, on the goalie in hockey or the batter or baseman in baseball) with a half-press of the shutter and wait for the action to arrive — then rattle off 5 frames at the peak of action.

A small focus point is the first key in getting the AF where you want it.

Most sports need around 1/1000th of a second to freeze limb movement (depending on age and skill), so the F/5.6 of the 40-150 will require you to up the ISO to get that shutter speed. This is a real challenge indoors, or on cloudy days, or in amateur sportsfield light.

There are ways to make a low-budget camera work for you in sports — but hey, if you have the money and want to make things easier, the E-M1 certainly does that. I can't speak for the E-M5 or EM-5 MkII.

Nicholas Johnson wrote:

I'm fairly happy with my $100 refurb EPM2 but after buying those beautiful Oly primes I am seeing general softness even with good technique and shutter speeds twice the rule. I'm thinking shutter shock and I'd like a body that has been engineered with no shock in mind.

I also have the opportunity to shoot my kids sports (soccer, baseball, tennis) or people getting dragged behind a boat. Soccer is incredibly tough as the subject distance is changing and the whole scene is chaotic. Here the C-AF on the EPM2 is so wrong. Just always. Hunting, breathing, sharp background or sharp foreground but the subject in the middle is a disaster.

The question becomes is there anything in the EM5 (original since people have experience, or the II) that makes it better at C-AF than the cheapest m43 with the same sensor. My understanding is that the EM1's PDAF only works on legacy 43 lenses and since I have no desire to buy any its not really on my radar.

In case you couldn't tell I'm in the market for a new body. The EM5ii is at the top of my list for sharp stills and super stabilized video. I just wish I could do C-AF with my current lenses (40-150/5.6R) and not either give up or buy into another system.

The E-M1 is supposed to use both PDAF and CDAF when used in CAF mode with mFTs lenses as long as the target stays within the PDAF part of the frame.  It uses only PDAF with FTs lenses for both SAF and CAF modes.

Nicholas Johnson wrote:

It would seem I'm far away from the setup to get great soccer pics consistently. But they do happen. I'm especially amazed when someone, today even at a school event, was telling their husband I have one of those "mackin' cameras." Bottom of the line and it still gets the shot.

But for the sports pics I do see the need for a big fast zoom, probably a 40-150/2.8 over the 35-100/2.8. At that point I'm spending a bunch of money either way. It also seems likely that a lens of that size wouldn't handle too well on the tiny body. Though I find the EM1 too big for my pocket tastes I think the EM5 size might be perfect, especially since I can add more grip as needed but also shrink down when needed.

So big glass is good, but no good without a body to keep up. My wife seems to remember me saying too many times that "this camera is great but not for kids running around" and I'd like to find one that is. Maybe the EM5 will be that camera. I don't need a Canon 1Dx just a better hit rate.

Who needs weather sealing?

Nah get a lensbaby, they nail every shot

http://w2.sydsvenskan.se/bildspel/ldasmfriidrott/

Nicholas Johnson wrote:

I'm fairly happy with my $100 refurb EPM2 but after buying those beautiful Oly primes I am seeing general softness even with good technique and shutter speeds twice the rule. I'm thinking shutter shock and I'd like a body that has been engineered with no shock in mind.

I also have the opportunity to shoot my kids sports (soccer, baseball, tennis) or people getting dragged behind a boat. Soccer is incredibly tough as the subject distance is changing and the whole scene is chaotic. Here the C-AF on the EPM2 is so wrong. Just always. Hunting, breathing, sharp background or sharp foreground but the subject in the middle is a disaster.

Just use the C-AF plus and press the shutter in one go. With a little practice, this gives you three FPS and each pic is perfectly in focus, due to the camer's great AF speed. Shot running dogs with the even older E-PL3, this way, and it worked fine.

The question becomes is there anything in the EM5 (original since people have experience, or the II) that makes it better at C-AF than the cheapest m43 with the same sensor. My understanding is that the EM1's PDAF only works on legacy 43 lenses and since I have no desire to buy any its not really on my radar.

The C-AF of the E-M5 works reasonably but it takes a lot of practice to achieve a semi pleasing keeper rate. And to date, nobody knows if the MKII will do better, in this area. So I'd rather opt for the E-M1 that C-AFs in fine style with both FT and µFT lenses. And will do even better from Tuesday, with the new 9FPS firmware 3.0.

In case you couldn't tell I'm in the market for a new body. The EM5ii is at the top of my list for sharp stills and super stabilized video. I just wish I could do C-AF with my current lenses (40-150/5.6R) and not either give up or buy into another system.

The 40-150R is a fast fociusing lens and if the light is right, it will give you great results with the E-M1. If video also is on your agenda, I'd recommend the GH4. It has a C-AF for dummies (even with the m.Zuzikos but is even faster with Lumix lenses such as the 45-175 that provide the cam with DFD data) and as one can read everywhere (got the cam but don't do video) it's the king of the hill, in the video area.

Lisa O wrote:

I had E-PM's (1, 2, maybe 3) back when they first came out, focus was never great. The focusing is much better on E-M1 and assume so for the very soon to be released E-M5 MkII.

Sorry, I have to strictly contradict, here. The  PMs and PLs certainly had their weeknesses, but from PL3/PM1, their S-AF was just incredibly fast and precise.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

The kit 40-150 is too slow for sports. Due to the modest apertures it can't isolate the action sufficiently and it also prevents using really high shutter speeds, which is an important component of success. It might be okay for tennis or a lone player on a field, but amongst the chaos and clutter of team sports it is the wrong lens. No matter what system you choose, you'll need to budget for fast glass.

I don't think so. Shot a lot of great sighthound pics with the 40-150R and the 75-300- If the light is right, they both are well suited for fast action.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

"Just" an E-M5 and your existing lenses would up your game, but whether that's just the next step in a journey or an end in itself depends a lot on your goals.

My little soccer player is now 13 and playing on a full-size pitch against girls three times faster than when she was a U8. My kit has had to evolve along with her competition level and the field dimensions. To be honest, I'd have a LOT less invested had she picked tennis or piano or something.

Another pathway: E-M1 and 4/3 50-200. During my E-system days I got the zoom as soon as I figured out the kit 40-150 wasn't cutting it and wow, what an improvement. The Mk1 can be had for less than half the 40-150 Pro. It and a refurb E-M1 could be had for...$12-1300?

Cheers,

Rick

Sorry Rick, but how can you recommend the 50-200 MKI for action. As I see it, it's focusing far to slowly for good keeper raztes. The SWD version will deliver far more pleasing results.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

My first concern is slow apertures--the kit 40-150 is too slow for good subject isolation with team sports.

Yes, I understand. But one of my reasons for opting for FT/µFT was to get less subject isolation. From my point of view, it's nice for portraits but boring for anything else. A slight touch is fine for me but I don't want more. Therefore, I recently even added an FZ1000 with 1" sensor to my gear.

The other concern is that good light is frequently unavailable as the day wanes, as the season turns to winter and as cloud cover gathers. It's the difference between putting the gear away and continuing to shoot.

That's true. And the same applies to indoor sports. But in the right conditions, 40-150R anf 75-300 can be great action lenses.