Panasonic DFD

I already manual focus for video and own a nice set of primes for it.

Sorry but then I don't get why you need DFD

Doux Vide wrote:

I already manual focus for video and own a nice set of primes for it.

Sorry but then I don't get why you need DFD

I don't get why you wouldn't want both.

Raist3d wrote:

hindesite wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

The DFD will work better with Panasonic lenses, and yes, a full profile will realize the full benefit. However, as the Japanese GX850 brochure states, there's a partial DFD benefit even using non-Panasonic lenses (which does include Olympus lenses).

[citation needed]

I already did that before. Go ahead to Panasonic's Japanese website, go to their section on GF9, and translate the Japanese text. It's their Japanese website, not the PDF brochure (my small mistake):

http://panasonic.jp/dc/g_series/gf9/high_image_quality.html

Translate the section on AF- look for "空間認識AF"

"Improve autofocus speed and tracking performance

Adopt space recognition technology (DFD * technology) to instantaneously calculate the distance to all subjects appearing on the screen. Contrast AF which high precision was popular in the past, has also realized faster AF (autofocus) and improved tracking performance. In GF 9, even when using micro Four Thirds lenses other than ours, we can improve AF performance by utilizing a part of DFD technology.

* Abbreviation for Depth From Defocus."

Emphasis mine. You are welcome

I have also mentioned a few times that I thought Panasonic used a form of "DFD Lite" to get its quicker than usual CDAF performance and this manual snippet more or less confirms what I had thought common sense.

Anyone who has used manual focus lenses for more than a moment can agree that a slight  wiggle turn in one direction will soon enough visually disclose whether the lens is moving towards focus or away from it.  The degree of out of focus also give some indication of how far out of focus the lens is and some indication of how far the lens must be adjusted to get within precise focus distances.

I would imagine that if we were to make a science of it with one favourite lens our eye-brain-finger co-ordination might get quite good. Experienced users might not even need a preliminary test turn to determine which direction to twist.

Electronically a DFD lite system might be able to not only tell in which direction the lens is out of focus but also give a good estimation of how far it must travel quickly to get close to good focus.

Therefore "DFD Lite" must only be an electronic version of what any user of manual focus lenses can see and manipulate on any lens.  Full DFD must be when individual lens focus characteristics are fully documented and the process refined.

Therefore if (guess say) DFD lite gets 80% of the speed of PDAF (maybe faster?) then perhaps lens statistic based full DFD might add another 10% to this.  I simply do not know facts but use the figures only to illustrate my thoughts.  As PDAF is supposed to be very quick but lacking in finite precision even good pdaf systems can be hybrid and switch to cdaf for absolute precision.

Whatever method is used there is no doubt that Pansonic bodies focus Olympus lenses acceptably quickly.

I doubt if there is any secret on what needs to be done, just how it is done electronically is much harder.

Raist3d wrote:

brentbrent wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

In GF 9, even when using micro Four Thirds lenses other than ours, we can improve AF performance by utilizing a part of DFD technology.

Interesting. I missed whenever you previously posted this. Thanks for posting it again.

The real bottom line is that DFD or not, I still find Panasonic focuses better (GM5, GX850, GX85) than my OMD EM5 MKII, PenF. OMD EM5 MKII does better than the PenF.

But not only the AF is better, the options are also better. The workflow for pinpoint AF is amazing. That said, the PenF is pretty good with focus peaking in MF.

This raises some interesting issues which might be best illustrated by how Canon EF lenses are handled via Metabones adapters.

Taking the very sharp Canon EF 135mm f2.0 as an example.  For some reason it was one of the hardest EF lenses to give good quick accurate AF when electronically adapted.  It is regarded as one of Canon's sharpest lenses and that may have been part of the problem.

In any case using MF this lens is incredibly sharp.  Once Metabones sorted out how to link the Olympus pdaf routine to the lens it has become equally sharp on the E-M1.  But the "in focus" cdaf image from the GX7 is not quite as sharp as MF or pdaf on the E-M1.  Which is disappointing.

My reasoning runs along the lines that the EF lenses were designed around the use of pdaf focusing methods whereas all M4/3 mount lenses must be designed to first work with cdaf.  I have no technical knowledge of whether a lens understands the difference in its firmware or not but there was little doubt that in the case of the E-M1 the AF performance of Metabones adapters jumped when pdaf was hooked in to replace the Olympus cdaf routine. And so one might guess that there are cdaf and pdaf focus methods and these are probably camera body based and interface with how the lens firmware combines with them.

Therefore does the Panasonic cdaf (DFD-lite) struggle with the relatively old design but very sharp EF 135/2.0 lens?  Later lenses such as the Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro have no focus accuracy issues when used on the GX7.

All this comes with the caveat that the 135mm f2.0 has always been a sort of last fontier lens when adapting to other mount systems with AF support.  Now that it does AF easily maybe it simply only needs a little trimming in the accuracy department.

Raist3d wrote:

hindesite wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

The DFD will work better with Panasonic lenses, and yes, a full profile will realize the full benefit. However, as the Japanese GX850 brochure states, there's a partial DFD benefit even using non-Panasonic lenses (which does include Olympus lenses).

[citation needed]

I already did that before. Go ahead to Panasonic's Japanese website, go to their section on GF9, and translate the Japanese text. It's their Japanese website, not the PDF brochure (my small mistake):

http://panasonic.jp/dc/g_series/gf9/high_image_quality.html

The link you provided is to a pdf brochure on the GF9.  The section on 空間認識AF does not mention other cameras.  It's hard to find the reference you quote below on the Panasonic site.  Perhaps if you quoted more of it in Japanese, to allow for a search?

I'm also interested in this topic in regard to using Oly lenses on my G9.

Translate the section on AF- look for "空間認識AF"

"Improve autofocus speed and tracking performance

Adopt space recognition technology (DFD * technology) to instantaneously calculate the distance to all subjects appearing on the screen. Contrast AF which high precision was popular in the past, has also realized faster AF (autofocus) and improved tracking performance. In GF 9, even when using micro Four Thirds lenses other than ours, we can improve AF performance by utilizing a part of DFD technology.

* Abbreviation for Depth From Defocus."

Emphasis mine. You are welcome

TwoMetreBill wrote:

DFD is a gimmick that delivers very poor results.

" I’m thoroughly impressed by what Panasonic has achieved with the Depth From Defocus (DFD) for continuous AF." (https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/22/review-the-2018-panasonic-lumix-g9/)

For stills you will be lucky if 75-80% of your shots will be in focus.

My own average is more like 95%+, normally shooting burst or 4K video (G9). Maybe you got a bad copy?

If you are serious about video, you will be focusing manually anyway.

Not if you are shooting fast-moving subjects coming toward you or moving away from you. Sports and action video is "serious" too, you know.

No matter what you pay, all video systems hunt on AF. This is true even for 6-figure video gear.

I'll never be able to afford 6-figure gear, but you are right. You can see it even in feature films with moving subjects. Not a lot, not often, but it is there.

Switch from Olympus to Panasonic for AF and you will regret it.

Only if you stick with Olympic lenses. "Using Olympus lenses, you will not have the benefit of DFD for the S-AF and C-AF capability of the G9." (Ming Thien review cited above.)

True that Panasonic is superior for serious video.

Agreed.

Serious means manual focusing, post processing with high end software, shooting on a tripod...

Someone forgot to tell all the award-winning sports and action videographers about the tripod requirement.

bad no matter what

Raist3d wrote:

Paul Amyes wrote:

I'm in a bit of a quandary. I have a m4/3 kit based around an EM1 mki, EM10, and EP5 with the Olympus f2.8 zooms and 4 nice primes. At this stage I'm looking to get more into video - i already shoot quite a bit - and so I want a more video capable camera with 4K. The EM1 mkii would be nice but doesn't have all the video functions I need so consequently I'm looking at the GH5. My question is the Panasonic DFD focus is based only upon Panasonic lens profiles so if I get a GH5 will using my Olympus lenses mean decreased AF performance and so will I need to start acquiring Panasonic lenses as well?

The DFD will work better with Panasonic lenses, and yes, a full profile will realize the full benefit. However, as the Japanese GX850 brochure states, there's a partial DFD benefit even using non-Panasonic lenses (which does include Olympus lenses).

I can say that my GX850 focuses better than my OMD EM5 MKII, Pen-F. Even the GM5 without DFD focuses better than those. But the EM1 MKII represents a major performance jump for Olympus...

My take honestly is- if you need video and by that I mean serious video, go for the GH5. It will still focus very fast with whatever lenses.

If you need ultimate speed/AF performance, but just pretty good video, go with the Olympus.

Honestly I think more than the AF, the first question is how serious you need/are into video. The GH5 may be overkill - or not.

What I can say though is that none of my Olympuses focus the Panasonic pancake F1.7 MKII which I adore accurate on most situations when it should, while the Panasonic bodies do.

My 20mm f1.7 mkii Pana focuses less well on my EM1.2 but not as bad as you make out. In low light, CAF is a struggle and SAF has its limits, especially if without an AF assist light, but I get the job done. It is my "emergency" social pic out and about lens quietly stashed in a small bag to complement my 12-100mm walkabout lens It surprises me how many say it does not work at all on Oly bodies...

TwoMetreBill wrote:

DFD is a gimmick that delivers very poor results. For stills you will be lucky if 75-80% of your shots will be in focus. If you are serious about video, you will be focusing manually anyway. No matter what you pay, all video systems hunt on AF. This is true even for 6-figure video gear.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you're the king of FUD on this forum, that's a ridiculous statement with nothing to support it.

Switch from Olympus to Panasonic for AF and you will regret it. True that Panasonic is superior for serious video. Serious means manual focusing, post processing with high end software, shooting on a tripod...