a6300: C-AF tracking capabilities a wake-up call for mFT?

[Chris R-UK]

Its clear to me now my next camera will be for action, might be an old Nikon 1 or a new a6300 or something else. I have lots of m43 lenses and it 100% will not be m43 unless they can start competing in the CAF and action arena.

I can shoot almost everything with my E-M1 that I could shoot with my Canon 7D DSLR and that includes birds in flight. The techniques are different and I use an E-M1 red dot sight for some things, but for most things the shots are just as good as I could get with the DSLR.

I would wait for the next version of the E-M1 which may come out later this year. Also wait for feedback on DFD focusing on the GX8/GH4 now that the Panasonic 100-400mm lens has arrived.

 

[Billy Ray Valentine]

Mirrorless could catch up DSLRs for continuous focusing really quickly.

It's just Sony and Olympus catching up with Nikon.

But that is really important because Nikon 1 has been the king of mirrorless continuous AF for several years now.

DSLRs have two major advantages over mirrorless: optical viewfinders and continuous AF. When mirrorless catch up with non-professional level DSLRs for continuous AF (and I personally think that the best mirrorless already have caught up) then all that is left is the OVF argument which is getting pretty weak.

There remains great market inertia and Canon/Nikon marketing clout, but those aren't going to keep the DSLR alive for ever.

 

[Steve_]

Mirrorless could catch up DSLRs for continuous focusing really quickly.

It's just Sony and Olympus catching up with Nikon.

But that is really important because Nikon 1 has been the king of mirrorless continuous AF for several years now.

DSLRs have two major advantages over mirrorless: optical viewfinders and continuous AF. When mirrorless catch up with non-professional level DSLRs for continuous AF (and I personally think that the best mirrorless already have caught up) then all that is left is the OVF argument which is getting pretty weak.

There remains great market inertia and Canon/Nikon marketing clout, but those aren't going to keep the DSLR alive for ever.

I understand all that, but I don't think you're quite considering the fundamental issue here. If Olympus were still making DSLRs, they would have just as much catching-up to do with Nikon AF as they currently do. It's just a coincidence that the current Olympus lineup is entirely mirrorless. This is not a characteristic inherent in mirrorless cameras - it's inherent to Olympi - and to a lesser degree, Panasonics.

Truth be told, if autofocus performance was critical, there would be nothing but Nikons, with a smattering of mid to high-end Canons. Olympus had only abortive attempts at AF in the film days, and that was a huge differentiating factor between their product lineup and Nikon's. It still is - it is not driven by the technical challenges involved in creating leading AF performance in mirrorless cameras. It is driven by the technical challenges involved in creating leading AF, period. Olympus, rather like Pentax, has never measured up here.

 

[Yxa]

Sorry to break it for you, but check the Tony Northrup's presentation of it and you see it isn't magical for C-AF or tracking at all. He ranks it below 7D MK2 and more like original 7D.

If it has the same continuous focusing performance as the 7D MkI (which I used to own) that will be a huge step forward for mirrorless C-AF.

--
Chris R

And Canon is lagging after Nikon here

 

[zackiedawg]

But that is really important because Nikon 1 has been the king of mirrorless continuous AF for several years now.

I think some consideration must be given to the fact that the Nikon One system has a significantly wider depth of field at any focal length compared to APSC (or M4:3) which does help it a bit when it comes to getting accurate focus on a target - there's a bit more 'forgiveness' as the focus doesn't need to be quite as pinpoint perfect - it gets harder as the sensor gets bigger and the subject gets smaller. I think that's why Nikon's mirrorless always were touted as better overall with AF-C, even as some competitors in the M4:3 and APS-C fields started using OSPDAF or other methods to make more effective use of AF-C. No question it's good...but it was also a little easier to get that good coming from the smaller sensor...it's harder to get to that level of performance with the larger sensors and much shallower DOF and larger files with higher-res sensors. The Sony A6000 was fairly groundbreaking for mirrorless with its AF-C ability because it was delivering good speed and frame rate with continuous focus on that size sensor - seeming to come close to or match the Nikon 1 continuous focus speed and accuracy, though not the frame rate.

DSLRs have two major advantages over mirrorless: optical viewfinders and continuous AF. When mirrorless catch up with non-professional level DSLRs for continuous AF (and I personally think that the best mirrorless already have caught up) then all that is left is the OVF argument which is getting pretty weak.

I personally agree - for the last 2 years I've found myself wanting to use my A6000 more and more for BIF work, rather than my DSLR. It's just better - it picks up the initial subject faster, it continuously focuses faster and better with faster subjects, it's more accurate frame to frame with a higher hit rate, and of course smaller and lighter and therefore less fatiguing. I do wish there were longer focal lengths available - the A6300 may well have broached that problem a bit by adding near-native functionality on Alpha lenses. And the 8fps live feed EVF mode should make panning/tracking of subject in the finder easier for small and fast subjects - though honestly I never had much problem adapting to EVFs for that type of subject - I find the lag pretty easy to automatically adjust for, and I switch between an OVF and EVF daily.

The good news is that there has been significant improvement in AF-C functionality across the board with mirrorless systems - pretty much all have gotten better, some have gotten to entry-level DSLR levels, and some may even have a few advantages. None can quite compete with a semi-pro DSLR which has not only the excellent speed and tracking but also the myriad additional controls over the focusing parameters and tracking stickiness that the mirrorless systems don't yet have to that level. But all of this has developed in a pretty short time - really only in the past 2-3 years have mirrorless cameras started to seriously work on AF-C capabilities, and they're already putting some models in DSLR territory.

 

[abe4652]

With what lens?

1. i tried the a6000 a year or two ago with a zoom telephoto lens, and it was slower in focusing than a 100-300 pana would be on a GF1.

 

[G1Houston]

They licensed it to Sony.

Can you be a bit more specific about that.

Are you talking about hybrid PDAF/CDAF which a lot of cameras use, are you talking about Nikon's particular on sensor PDAF (which seems to be better than anybody else's) or are you talking about something else?

Do you know when it was licensed and which Sony cameras use the Nikon 1 technology?

But allowing the EVF to provide a nearly instant live feed to make it easier for the photographer to track the moving objective by maintaining framing. Beside PDAF, dSLR is better for tracking because the OVF allows a continuous line of sight of the moving objects with no black out.

The key to higher keep rate, not whether or not you can one or two usually shots, is not how fast the camera can lock on to the subject, but to maintain the AF-lock and in particular the framing so that the object is always in the VF. The EVF black out in all other mirrorless cameras makes the latter nearly impossible.

 

[OzRay]

Beside PDAF, dSLR is better for tracking because the OVF allows a continuous line of sight of the moving objects with no black out.

The EVF black out in all other mirrorless cameras makes the latter nearly impossible.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. Put a 500mm lens on a D5 and try and follow the path of an erratically flying bird. There is no difference in the ability, or lack of, to keep the bird in the viewfinder whether a DSLR or mirrorless.

I do not understand this devotion to OVFs. When you consider where EVFs and transmitted images are used every day, ones that require pinpoint accuracy, ie military operations, EVFs are in constant and increasing use.

This is from nearly two years ago: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185535-trackingpoint-rifle-lets-you-hit-what-you-cant-see

The times they are a changing.

 

[danieljcox]

I hope Olympus is watching SONY's products and innovations... GX8 didn't even have pdaf and it can't be used for sports / wildlife. Yes, the af was improved but not that much. Panasonic's CAF can't still compare to SONY's a6300.

If you pay for 1500+ for a body then you expect to be better than 1000 € a6300.

Your comments regarding the GX8 C-AF are complexity unfounded. I've been shooting the GX8 now since it was released and I do a lot of wildlife, much of it action oriented. I can't say the new Sony is any better or any worse than the GX8 but I can tell you the LUMIX has excellent C-AF. I shot Nikons for nearly 35 years and Panasoinc is getting very close to equaling what I used to get with my Nikons. Here's just a couple of examples of LUMIX being able to do action wildlife.


GX8 with new Leica 100-400mm zoom


GX8 with new Leica 100-400mm zoom.


GX8 with Leica 100-400mm zoom

--
Daniel J. Cox
http://www.naturalexposures.com
http://naturalexposures.com/corkboard/
#Lumixlounge

 

[danieljcox]

For me the real test of C-AF is BIF photography. Wait until serious BIF photographers have really given it a work out over several months, then we will know how well it works.

I am still waiting for some really good feedback on how well DFD works for BIF with the 100-400mm, but it is a but early for that too.

It took me 4-5 months after getting my E-M1 to really learn how to shoot BIF with it.

Also note that no other mirrorless camera has yet come close to the Nikon 1 series for C-AF.

--
Chris R

Birds in flight? I've been doing a lot of birds in flight the GX8, most recently with the new 100-400 Leica zoom. One below as a sample.


GX8 with Leica 100-400mm zoom

There are other birds in flight y can see here. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8357585495/albums/-s-winter-wildlife-2016

Daniel J. Cox

Daniel J. Cox–Natural Exposures, Inc.

Natural Exposures photo tours is your connection to the world of photography, travel, wildlife, nature and conservation. Traveling with Dan and Tanya is uniquely different. Dan’s forty-five years as a professional photographer provides learning opportunities few other photo instructors can...

www.naturalexposures.com

Blog

Photography, Travel Conservation Join Daniel as he discusses the world of photography including detailed reviews, travel tips and conservation projects.

naturalexposures.com

#Lumixlounge

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

But that is really important because Nikon 1 has been the king of mirrorless continuous AF for several years now.

I think some consideration must be given to the fact that the Nikon One system has a significantly wider depth of field at any focal length compared to APSC (or M4:3) which does help it a bit when it comes to getting accurate focus on a target - there's a bit more 'forgiveness' as the focus doesn't need to be quite as pinpoint perfect - it gets harder as the sensor gets bigger and the subject gets smaller. I think that's why Nikon's mirrorless always were touted as better overall with AF-C, even as some competitors in the M4:3 and APS-C fields started using OSPDAF or other methods to make more effective use of AF-C. No question it's good...but it was also a little easier to get that good coming from the smaller sensor...it's harder to get to that level of performance with the larger sensors and much shallower DOF and larger files with higher-res sensors. The Sony A6000 was fairly groundbreaking for mirrorless with its AF-C ability because it was delivering good speed and frame rate with continuous focus on that size sensor - seeming to come close to or match the Nikon 1 continuous focus speed and accuracy, though not the frame rate.

DSLRs have two major advantages over mirrorless: optical viewfinders and continuous AF. When mirrorless catch up with non-professional level DSLRs for continuous AF (and I personally think that the best mirrorless already have caught up) then all that is left is the OVF argument which is getting pretty weak.

I personally agree - for the last 2 years I've found myself wanting to use my A6000 more and more for BIF work, rather than my DSLR. It's just better - it picks up the initial subject faster, it continuously focuses faster and better with faster subjects, it's more accurate frame to frame with a higher hit rate, and of course smaller and lighter and therefore less fatiguing. I do wish there were longer focal lengths available - the A6300 may well have broached that problem a bit by adding near-native functionality on Alpha lenses. And the 8fps live feed EVF mode should make panning/tracking of subject in the finder easier for small and fast subjects - though honestly I never had much problem adapting to EVFs for that type of subject - I find the lag pretty easy to automatically adjust for, and I switch between an OVF and EVF daily.

The good news is that there has been significant improvement in AF-C functionality across the board with mirrorless systems - pretty much all have gotten better, some have gotten to entry-level DSLR levels, and some may even have a few advantages. None can quite compete with a semi-pro DSLR which has not only the excellent speed and tracking but also the myriad additional controls over the focusing parameters and tracking stickiness that the mirrorless systems don't yet have to that level. But all of this has developed in a pretty short time - really only in the past 2-3 years have mirrorless cameras started to seriously work on AF-C capabilities, and they're already putting some models in DSLR territory.

--
Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

whilst the deeper DOF of the Nikon does give you some leeway regarding accurate focus, when using a longer FOV the DOF will still be quite slight, i know from shooting the Nikon 1 whilst not perfect it does do a very good job and can be very reliable.

The shot i have show is quite complex with foreground and background elements, very easy to trip and AF system up, yet the face is in focus, you can always change the f stop of a lens to deepen the DOF don't forget, but i think my shot shows just enough DOF and accurate focus, this is what i expect from a camera