What's happening, Olympus? And the E-M5 III ?

Cropping is not same thing as panning or reframing,

You can only crop the center part, but not the other parts.

MShot wrote:

Throw a 16MP image on a 65" 4K TV, step back far enough to see it, and it looks exactly the same as it does on a 1080 line TV. So will 8K video vs. 1080 line video on the same TV.

If someone gets 16mpix look worse than ie 50Mpix on 4K TV at any viewing distance, then there is something wrong in that person skills.

I could understand 3Mpix vs 16/50Mpix...

Have you seen any improvement in focus accuracy between CAF and SAF?

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Its certainly true that the E-M1 mk 2 is overkill for many folks. But if all you need is PDAF for tracking AF, you could certainly get an original version EM.

Tracking doesn't require a PDAF but works as great with a CDAF.

People confuse tracking and continuous autofocus, that are totally different technologies.

Tracking is about automatic AF point selection, continuous Auto focus is about continuous focussing by using selected AF points.

Tracking has as well other sub modes like face detection, that first gets detected and then tracked and it's selecting the AF points used for focusing.
Same is with scene detection, to automatically select where to focus as well.

Autofocus had nothing to do with tracking, scene or face detection. Autofocus system only task is to measure distance from used AF point and move lens focus group so it is in focus.

Photographer can select manually what AF point to be used for focusing and track the subject manually by pointing camera at it trying to keep selected AF points on subject.

Tracking and Continuous AF are highly interrelated. When shooting continuous bursts, at speeds of several FPS, of a moving subject that is moving across the frame during the duration of the burst, both technologies are in play, and the speed of the processor, as well as the specific predictive tracking algorithms are involved. And It ONLY works when you are in C-AF mode.

S-AF is just what it says it is - it will focus the FIRST frame only, and it will only focus on the subject when the subject is in a pre-selected focus point.

C-AF will continue to focus the lens while shooting is occuring, and the tracking algorithms will attempt to predict how that focus point is moving across the frame and use different focus points as the subsequent shots of the burst are being taken. Plain and simply, during burst shooting, this won't work using S-AF mode.

...and you are still confusing yourself...

These combination of technologies are fundamental for pro sports and wildlife photographers trying to record a sequence during a play at, say, a football game, or a cheetah taking down an antelope.

Sorry but no.

Most scenes in photography are about subjects that are slow or stationary to distance of camera or doesn't move out of the DOF.

A baseball player swinging a bat? Stationary.

A baseball player diving to home? Stationary.

A baseball player throwing a ball? Stationary.

A football goalie?
Stationary.

A football player in penalty kick or throw?
Stationary.

A football player at the moment of kick?
Stationary.

A sprinter on finish or start line?
Stationary.

A Hockey goalie?
Stationary.

A Basketball players?
Mostly stationary.

A jawelin thrower?
Stationary.

A three jumper?
Stationary.

A discus thrower?
Stationary

A skeet shooter?
Stationary

A archery?
Stationary

Ski jumping?
Stationary.

Do you know what stationary means? When the athlete or the subject will be in predictable position that is a key position or stance, they are stationary. When they are in the DOF, they are stationary.

Lots of sports photographers does use pre-set cameras with wireless synced triggers. When their one camera release shutter, all releases shutters. All except the one in hand are in MF.

The same thing is done with birds, when they land on branch, they get to observation position, they go in or out nests, they dive under water, they are catching a prey etc.

Most of the angles that are interesting are either in specific position or in a such angle that their movement is perpendicular to line of sight.

There are fewer situations where C-AF is required with a high sequence speed.

And even E-M1 II can do 60 raw photos per second to any moving subject. You totally are going to capture the wanted moment with that, and as photographers reaction times are not better than others, Olympus offered pro-capture to eliminate reaction time delay.

There are three main features available.

Autofocus
Sequential release
Tracking

And one can be great sports or wildlife photographer without any of those, or using just one or two, or all of them.

If the subject movement is stationary, you don't need autofocus between each frame.
If the subject pose is not super fast, you don't need sequential shutter release.
If you can keep subject inside your DOF, you don't need tracking.

C-AF is just one feature among many other, but totally overrated feature as must have, for most situations and for most people.

PDAF is as well one of them most overstated features camera should have.

Same is with sequential release speeds, tracking, high ISO, tripods, ND filters, 4K video, unlimited video recording, log video, high Mpix sensors etc.

Sometimes you want to pan with the shutter half pressed. The subject may not be exactly when/where you want to take the photo. You have to maintain focus and wait until it is. You follow the subject waiting for the right moment if you are not shooting a burst. CAF can be useful, especially if you don't want to take 10,000 images to choose a few.

If the subject is moving in a predictable way you can keep it in the DOF. Focus is adjusted if the distance changes, and that's where CAF could help if its fast enough. Otherwise you have to choose the precise time for SAF. If the subject is moving predictably you can. Not so much if it isn't.

Tracking is not needed and not useful if you can fill the frame with the subject. In that case tracking doesn't help when the subject moves out of the composition anyway. CAF is all you need.

If I want to photograph a bird at a feeder I use MF, take a test image to make sure I focused in the right place, then hope I have enough light to stop the lens down enough to have a deep enough DOF - when I want deep DOF. I don't always. Easier with a 2X view crop sensor. If you have to stop your FF sensor down 2 more stops to get the DOF you need, you lose the light gathering advantage.

I can see how MF could work in baseball at the pitcher's mound or any of the bases, not in the infield or outfield with a fielder running for a ball, but SAF can work for that. A sequence shot on CAF would assure a good composition. Tracking would help if the plan is to shoot a short FL, let the camera track the player, then crop later. In this case, the DOF would cover a small part of the composition and focus would need to move with it unless you are so far away you can use infinity. This is where I think tracking would be helpful. It will move focus around the composition and keep it on the players as they run. I like panning to following the player. I don't need the camera to do it but I can see how some people would.

Making photos for the websites and magazines, sports photographers need sharp, noise free images but not super high resolution ones. If they can start with 24MP, throw the camera up there and take a lot of photos at a high frame rate with the camera tracking the player it makes their work easy except that they have to carry a heavy kit. They can crop 50-100% and still have enough resolution for anything but a big print. If the AF system is accurate, even a 50-100% crop of a 24MP image can produce a good 12X18.

I get out there with Canon professionals. I had one tell me its impossible to shoot sports with a mirrorless camera, that the AF system is just too slow. He carried a top of the line SONY he said he loves for studio work but can't use for sports photography. This was summer of 2016 when the first 40MP+ SONY A7 was available. He had one. He used the SONY in pit and paddock and one of two Canons trackside. He carried all three and a big bag. I shot SAF with a CDAF camera and produced more photos than I wanted. This year I have an EM-1. In August I'll find out if a faster camera with PDAF I can try with CAF and tracking would improve the IQ. Is CAF and PDAF necessary for sports photography? Depends on how you use it. I don't feel like I have to have it. Some the best sports photos I've seen were taken with MF, even moving subjects where the photographer knew where the subject was going to be and he pre-focused. There are even some superb MF BIF photos posted on DPR. I admit I'm awed by it. I don't have the skills to do it, but I know its possible.

The further away from the subject you are, the easier it is for the camera to maintain focus. If you are standing on the side line at a football game or on the foul line at a baseball game and close to the play its pretty hard. If you can do it, you can get great photos with the subjects at eye level. If you are up in the stands, much further away, its easier for the camera to maintain focus on moving subjects since the distance between camera and the subject is not changing as fast, even with erratic movement. If you can have a big enough DOF, the camera can still maintain focus on an erratically moving subject. If you are far enough away you can shoot on infinity and crop if you aren't trying to make a 30X40 print.

Oh for goodness sake, AF modes are designed for different subjects. S-AF for some and C-AF for others. Add Tracking for yet others. Anyone who “always” shoots S-AF is missing the point of the various modes. But there is also no one rule either.

Through trial and error I’ve identified what works best for ME with MY cameras. EG, I’ve noticed many people say they took a long time to get accurate focus with the PL100-400. With my EM1.2 I very quickly learned that C-AF + tracking and small focus area got me good accurate focus for birding. Kids on different lenses may be the same or different. Reaction times no doubt also play a part.

But whatever, it’s different strokes, folks!