E-M1 CAF compared to D800 question

Currently I own D800 and 80-200 2.8 D AF, mainly as action photography combo (read my dog photography).

Here is my flickr album with some examples: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93055168@N04/sets/72157633815940931

Current combo (d800 and 80-200) also struggle sometimes with my dog - it is smallish and very fast, so it is hard to keep AF point on it all the time. Biggest problem is C-AF when dog comes near me, since in that range lens has longer steps to focus and usually it just can not keep up.

Lately I read that E-M1 with latest firmware is capable of excellent CAF. I also saw good examples from capable photographers. Mostly I see that those results were achieved with 40-150 2.8 lens.

I saw that currently Olympus offer cash back for Olympus 75-300, so I am considering purchase of that lens. How good is this lens for AFC on E-M1?

Is there anyone that used to have D800 and went to E-M1, so can compare C-AF?

I am currently on a kind of a crossroads what should I do. On one hand I have tried and true D800 for which I am considering new 70-200 f4 lens which has very good reputation and weight and size wise is near 40-150 f2.8.

On the other hand, E-M1 + 40-150 2.8 would be my entry to one system photography which in my opinion is better and more friendly to my pocket on the long run. Also my GF is now m4/3 photographer, so she could benefit from this also.

I also considered selling off m4/3 and get bridge camera RX10 or FZ1000 for light travel. But I suspect quality won't be up to standard that I am used to with m4/3.

I would be grateful for any input!

I can comment on

"I also considered selling off m4/3 and get bridge camera RX10 or FZ1000 for light travel. But I suspect quality won't be up to standard that I am used to with m4/3."

as I have both systems and would say that you are correct re: the lack of comparative IQ. It does however make a very competent and lightweight travel camera and is capable of producing acceptable quality images for prints to 15" x 10"

(not able to make useful comment on the comparison EM-1 + 40-150 pro vs Nikon 800 AF though)

I have the E-M1 and use it with the older FTs lenses and find that it works well in CAF mode as long as you keep the focus points on the target.  I will leave evaluation of the 75-300 and 40-150 to others, since I don't have either lens.

One thing you might want to try on your Nikon is the Olympus EE-1 dot sight to help you track small fast moving targets.  The other evening I successfully followed a flying bat for 9.5 seconds using the dot sight.  With the bat, I did use all focus points, since they change directions as well as move up and down quickly.

Great summary, just two points to add.  First, like Photo Pete said the E-M1 is quite decent at tracking non-accelerating subjects in good light.  Once the light level drops however, the C-AF becomes much less reliable.  Second is that the initial focus acquisition time in C-AF mode is quite long.  I was shooting a road bike stage race this weekend and brought the E-M1/40-150 along with my 1DX/70-200 and shot them side-by-side in a few situations.  The E-M1 did pretty well in a few scenarios that fit the bright light/non-accelerating/plenty of time to lock focus requirements.  Often times, however, the E-M1 struggled mostly due to the long focus acquisition time.

At one point I was camped out on a steep downhill section leading into the finishing straight.  The racers would pop out from around a corner at ~50mph and quickly blast by me.  The 1DX had no trouble locking focus pretty much instantaneously and tracking them even at f/2.8.  I tried a few times with the E-M1 but because the initial focus acquisition time is so long, I wasn't able to get even a single in focus shot using C-AF.

Overall though, the E-M1 is still pretty decent at C-AF as long as you have plenty of time to lock focus, good light, and a non-accelerating target.

Small, fast, close?

Use a red dot sight (regardless of the camera you use).

steppenwolfer wrote:

I saw that currently Olympus offer cash back for Olympus 75-300, so I am considering purchase of that lens. How good is this lens for AFC on E-M1?

Can't comment on that particular combo, but I used 75-300 on my E-M10 last year, and I did not feel that it was particularly fast at focusing. It was not a speed daemon by any stretch of imagination. Maybe it would be a bit better on E-M1, but I would not expect that. Bear in mind that my experience with it was kinda limited (really used it for couple days). But it's probably safe to assume that 40-150/2.8 is a much better lens in this respect.

whumber wrote:

Great summary, just two points to add. First, like Photo Pete said the E-M1 is quite decent at tracking non-accelerating subjects in good light. Once the light level drops however, the C-AF becomes much less reliable. Second is that the initial focus acquisition time in C-AF mode is quite long. I was shooting a road bike stage race this weekend and brought the E-M1/40-150 along with my 1DX/70-200 and shot them side-by-side in a few situations. The E-M1 did pretty well in a few scenarios that fit the bright light/non-accelerating/plenty of time to lock focus requirements. Often times, however, the E-M1 struggled mostly due to the long focus acquisition time.

At one point I was camped out on a steep downhill section leading into the finishing straight. The racers would pop out from around a corner at ~50mph and quickly blast by me. The 1DX had no trouble locking focus pretty much instantaneously and tracking them even at f/2.8. I tried a few times with the E-M1 but because the initial focus acquisition time is so long, I wasn't able to get even a single in focus shot using C-AF.

Overall though, the E-M1 is still pretty decent at C-AF as long as you have plenty of time to lock focus, good light, and a non-accelerating target.

I agree with the somewhat slow acquisition time with the FTs lenses as well. However, with the 50-200 SWD I find that quick manual pre-focus solves most of this problem (it helps that I first started photographing moving targets with manual focus film cameras). I generally have no problem with targets where I can manually pre-focus with the EVF (the EC14+50-200SWD has mechanically linked focus)

I am not sure how the FTs lenses differ from the mFTs lenses in low light. I personally use Low Sequential (which is only PDAF with the FTs lenses) for the live view and find that the E-M1 tracks fairly well with relatively low light with fast targets which move in unpredictable ways(at least for bats). However, these are typically against a more homogeneous background which makes focus simpler.

See attached bat image below at 1/400 second, f5 and ISO 20,000 (sky lightened in the image - it was very low illumination) from one of my first set of attempts. That is about as low light as I would probably ever want to use a crop sensor for a moving target. My success rate on those conditions was 36%, which may sound low. However, I shoot with Rls Priority C = On (shutter release prior to focus without focus confirmation), so the initial images will not be in focus. In addition, since I used the dot sight, I could only zone pre-focus by setting the focus slightly shorter than infinity, resulting in more initial unfocused images. Also included are those situations where I failed to successfully follow the bat and the camera had to refocus after I corrected the tracking.

This percentage improved to 56% with better light (1/500, f4.9, ISO 3200) for the image I posted in my first response. That improvement may have been partially due to the camera focusing better with more light, but I was also able to follow the bat better with more light, so I don’t know if the improvement was due to the camera or the photographer.

I have never used the Nikon D800, but I would expect it to be somewhat better than the E-M1, since Nikon has been developing their PDAF CAF for far longer than the first generation Olympus mirrorless camera with PDAF.

Martin,,can i ask if you think the red dot sight would be worth adding to my em-5 with my 75-300 markll?...Whilst fast in single autofocus,,i actually had a better bif keeper ratio with my old sammy nx10 with the 50-200 f5.6!!

In fact so much so i've considered switching to fuji xt-10 with the 55-200 f4.8,,especially with the fuji's new autofocus abilities (i don't mind the shorter focal length )...but...could the red dot sight be just what i need??...

I am new to m43 and looking to buy a tele lens too. My main subjects would be family especially running kids in the park, some indoor sports / school performances. C-af would be important to my requirements too. I just wonder how the 40-150 2.8 and Panasonic 35-100 2.8 differ in performance in these situations (I use em1). Given the very low price of the 40-150 4/5.6 currently, is it  also worth a try at all? Sorry for my novice questions. Thanks in advance.

I shake my head every time I see your photos of swallows. I guess bats might be even harder to shoot, considering the reduced light — but swallows are insane in their weaving, dodging and diving. Well done!
I know nothing about red dot sights. Would anyone be thinking you're pointing a laser at them?

webber15 wrote:

Martin,,can i ask if you think the red dot sight would be worth adding to my em-5 with my 75-300 markll?...Whilst fast in single autofocus,,i actually had a better bif keeper ratio with my old sammy nx10 with the 50-200 f5.6!!

In fact so much so i've considered switching to fuji xt-10 with the 55-200 f4.8,,especially with the fuji's new autofocus abilities (i don't mind the shorter focal length )...but...could the red dot sight be just what i need??...

It depends on you I'm afraid. I've had no issues with a red dot on an E-M5. My technique relies on learning how quickly the E-M5 achieves focus (it's very consistent), and avoiding long bursts (where it will lose focus before possibly regaining it again).

Barry Stewart wrote:

I shake my head every time I see your photos of swallows. I guess bats might be even harder to shoot, considering the reduced light — but swallows are insane in their weaving, dodging and diving. Well done!
I know nothing about red dot sights. Would anyone be thinking you're pointing a laser at them?

Nope. The only light they project is a tiny reflection of an LED, back towards you. The light goes from the back of the scope, bounces off the scope glass, and back to your eye. No light travels forward of the scope.

I also have both, a D800 (now also a D810) and the E-M1 but I have not fully tested my E-M1 with the new firmware in terms of focusing on fast-moving subjects. I did however try both a few months ago on the same day at our local motorcross bike track. As much as I like my Oly gear, the results with my E-M1 were abysmal with, I would guess, only about a 15-20% success rate of a sharp photo, if that. My D810 however was vastly superior, having about an 80% success rate. I found the lviewfinder lag on my Oly, when doing high frame rate shooting, to be absolutely unacceptable as I kept losing sight and track of the fast-moving bikes completely between frames. With my D800, the mirror blackout was not a problem at all and I could follow my subject with no issues. For me, shooting fast moving subjects with my Oly has been very disappointing. As I mentioned however, I have not had a chance to test the firmware update properly. I tried shooting a flying gull recently and had about a 50% success rate of in focus shots which was better but by no means stellar...

I have the 40-150 2.8 and, imo, it is a stellar lens. I posted some wedding shots I took with it here this evening. The only thing I don't like about it is the big, bulky, retractable lens hood. I have not had a chance to test it much on fast-moving subjects but it is very sharp, nice and fast and has wonderful close focusing ability. Here's a recent shot I took with it followed by a 1;1 crop. I uploaded these from my iPad after downloading from FB so I don't know if the tech data is still maintained.

Leaf shot w E-M1 plus MFT 40-150mm Pro

1:1 Crop of the above photo.

Alan GR wrote:

I also have both, a D800 (now also a D810) and the E-M1 but I have not fully tested my E-M1 with the new firmware in terms of focusing on fast-moving subjects. I did however try both a few months ago on the same day at our local motorcross bike track. As much as I like my Oly gear, the results with my E-M1 were abysmal with, I would guess, only about a 15-20% success rate of a sharp photo, if that. My D810 however was vastly superior, having about an 80% success rate. I found the lviewfinder lag on my Oly, when doing high frame rate shooting, to be absolutely unacceptable as I kept losing sight and track of the fast-moving bikes completely between frames. With my D800, the mirror blackout was not a problem at all and I could follow my subject with no issues. For me, shooting fast moving subjects with my Oly has been very disappointing. As I mentioned however, I have not had a chance to test the firmware update properly. I tried shooting a flying gull recently and had about a 50% success rate of in focus shots which was better but by no means stellar...

Alan, I wonder if your low success rate with the EM-1 may in part be down to using the same technique as you do with the 800 / 810?

I ask this because when I originally moved from Canon pro kit to Olympus EM series I found I was getting much lower hit rate but after modifying my technique following loads of experimentation I would expect >70% keeper rate with something as predictable as motocross / motorcycle track racing / windsurf / kite sailing etc. with something similar when shooting BIF at a falconry display (even tracking and capturing a Peregrine taking the lure or Kites catching food on the wing on a consistent basis)

That said, there is no doubt that it is far easier to achieve this with a good DSLR rig than with an m4/3rds system

So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Possibly not the best example. Looks like movement in the leaf shot.