G9II vs OM-1 compared for bird shooting - Part II

This is Part II of my five-part series that looks as follows:

Part I: Initial impressions (controls & ergonomics), High ISO comparison (noise & color)

Part II (THIS POST): Initial focus testing, Image stabilization, Rolling shutter

Part III (late this month or, more likely, 1H of December): Subject AF ID, ProCapture/Pre-burst shooting

Part IV (February): Practical experience in the field (including shots taken in Colombia, maybe elsewhere)

Part V (February): Final thoughts

As always, PLEASE use “Reply”, not “Reply with quote”, or have the decency to cut the quoted text down to the part(s) you are commenting on. It is inconsiderate to force others to scroll through screen after screen of text that contains no new information. Thank you.

.

Part II

Initial focus testing

If you are anything like me, how well the G9II focuses will be what interests you most in this new body. (“Don’t give me all that crap about noise and colors, just tell me how well it focuses”. )

After publishing Part I, I have been asked why I would switch from an OM-1 to a G9II. Well, I am not looking to replace my OM-1s, only to augment my gear. I like the OMDS camera a lot. But it is not perfect, and, as a German saying goes, “Better is Good’s enemy.” There are certain situations where I find myself longing for even better focusing performance. I am spoiled here: another body I used to shoot with and still own, though I almost exclusively use MFT gear now, is the Canon R5. It cost me more than my two OM-1s taken together, but it also delivers: when it comes to low light focus acquisition, focus acquisition in dense vegetation, and in-flight tracking against busy backgrounds, the R5 outperforms the OM-1. Not hugely so, but by enough to sometimes make me wish I could put my Oly 150-400 on the R5, which would a dream team.

This is why I bought the G9II: I’m hoping it’ll get me closer to the R5’s performance, ideally both in focusing speed and accuracy, without requiring excessive sacrifices in other areas. Well, that, plus resolution: while the 25 vs 20 MP difference is pretty small, it matters to me. This is because the subjects I love shooting most are small birds. Some of them are minute and quite shy, so they rarely let me get close. As a result, even with lens plus TC at 500mm they won’t fill the frame. When you crop a lot, even a few more pixels matter, which adds to my interest in the Panasonic.

Back to focusing. I’m afraid you may be in for a disappointment in this part, inasmuch as so far I can only report my findings as far as focus acquisition in good and in not-so-good light goes. I won’t comment on tracking nor Bird ID just yet (more on those in parts III and IV), because I haven’t had time to shoot outside and get a good read on either. Yet, I’m hoping you may still find reading on worthwhile, as some of my findings strike me as interesting.

Anyway, I’ll start with a few general observations.

For one, I LOVE the Panasonic’s picture-in-picture option (“AF-Point Scope”) when zooming: much of the image in the viewfinder remains unchanged while the center area gets enlarged, allowing me to verify focus accuracy. This way, I won’t lose sight of my overall subject while being able to clearly check whether the focus is accurate. Excellent idea and implementation. I put it on one of the two custom buttons on the front side of the camera.

EVF performance also plays a role when assessing sharpness, and I already got several questions about it, so let me at least mention it: so far, I found that the lower resolution of the Panasonic’s EVF doesn’t really bother me. With my eyesight (I wear glasses to correct far sight, though fairly thin ones), I generally didn’t find the differences between the OM-1’s 5.76MP and the G9II’s 3.86MP EVF to be pronounced. Both are OLED types and deliver a good, clear image. The Panasonic’s seems to have slightly more contrast, but that may be a setting difference. I’ll know more once I gave it plenty of real use, so please stay tuned on this one.

The OM-1 allows focus peaking when using manual override. In other words, you can keep the body in AF-C mode and still use the lens’ focusing ring to adjust the focus while getting focus peaking in the viewfinder. This is very helpful when a bird’s perch is partly hidden behind branches, for example, and the camera insists on focusing on the latter. The G9II only allows the use of Focus Peaking with MF and AF-S, but not with AF-C. Bummer.

.

Focusing tests

I ran a few tests in order to compare how quickly and reliably each body acquires focus in certain situations. Each test had the cameras shooting in P or A modes, going back and forth between two different focus targets, using a medium size AF area, with subject detection turned off. The OMDS 40-150 f/4, Panasonic Leica 100-400 (version 1) and Olympus 150-400 TC served as test vehicles as I also wanted to find out whether the focusing performance was consistent across different lenses and lens makes. In addition, I tested the two latter lenses at both, their short and long ends. I repeated each test several times.

Both tests created unusual focusing situations that do not resemble normal bird shooting scenarios. I used them to get a read on how well each body handles the particular challenges, not to get an overall idea of their focusing performance, so let’s be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

Test A. In decent light, I used a window corner (about 2m away) as the near target, and a colorfully painted house wall (about 25m away) as the far one. The latter was shot through a window that has several dirt spots. This wall has some featureless areas, presenting more of a focus challenge, but these still show quite a bit of structure once the focus is accurate.

• OMDS 40-150 f/4 @ 150mm: The G9II focused slightly faster and more reliably. The OM-1 was a bit slower and occasionally hunted before acquiring focus, or focused on the window pane rather than the distant wall.
• PL 100-400 @ 100mm: The G9II focused reliably, though this time noticeably slower than the OM-1. However, the latter occasionally focused on the window pane rather than the distant wall.
• Oly 150-400 @ 150mm: No big differences between the two bodies. The G9II seemed a bit slower than the OM-1, but this could only be my perception.
• PL 100-400 @ 400mm: The G9II focused slightly faster and more reliably. More than once, the OM-1 struggled to find the wall and got nothing in focus, whereas the G9II found its target every time.
• Oly 150-400 @ 400mm: Focusing speed was about the same between both bodies, maybe with a slight edge for the OM-1. More than once, however, the OM-1 struggled to find the wall, getting nothing in focus. The G9II found its targets every time, without exception.

No big revelations so far. The G9II did marginally better overall, but both performed well enough. Shooting through glass can create all kinds of issues, so the fluke with the OM-1 on the 150-400 @ 400mm may be just that: a fluke.

Test B. At nighttime, I used a brightly LED-lit near target that had plenty of detail and contrast, about 1.5m away (=above each lens’ MFD), and a poorly lit bookshelf, about 4m away.

• OMDS 40-150 f/4 @ 150mm: The OM-1 was slightly faster than the G9II in the bright area, but notably slower in the dark one.
• PL 100-400 @ 100mm: Same as above.
• Oly 150-400 @ 150mm: The G9II was relatively slow and occasionally hunted in the dark area but ultimately found the target every time. The OM-1 hit the bright target well and did ok in the dark area.
• PL 100-400 @ 400mm: The G9II was now faster in both areas, particularly in the dark area. Surprisingly, the OM-1 would often not acquire focus at all on brighty near target. [NOTE: changing the size of the AF area on the OM-1 did not have an impact – it kept struggling.]
• Oly 150-400 @ 400mm: G9II showed much better performance with both targets, though it occasionally failed to bring the near target into focus. The OM-1 struggled substantially with the bright near target, unable to bring it into focus most of the time. It was VERY slow, but more reliable, with the low-light target.

Here, things got more interesting. Let’s keep in mind that the focusing distances weren’t anything like what I'd have in normal shooting. How much better the Panasonic performed in low light, in both speed and accuracy, was nevertheless a surprise to me. I am curious to see whether that pattern repeats itself when shooting birds in low light. My real-world experience with the OM- 1 is that it sometimes needs too much time to get a bird in focus in low light, so I am encouraged by what I the G9II’s showing in this test. The fact that the G9II seems to focus a bit more slowly in good light doesn’t bother me much, as I don’t consider the observed differences to be significant enough.

The differences in focus accuracy were striking across the board. I want to be careful not to make the OM-1 sound like a slouch here, because it isn’t. In my experience, it does misfocus every so often, though, which so far seems less of an issue with the G9II. The true test here is obviously how both of them perform in the field.

Why the G9II would perform relatively better at the long end of both 400mm lenses than on the short one beats me. In any case, this does not give me much heartburn, partly because I use the long end most of the time anyway and partly because the differences strike me as tolerable.

Generally, the Panasonic shows a different focusing characteristic: it often “takes a moment to think” before the focus starts to change notably, while changing quickly thereafter. In contrast, the OM-1 shows a more continuous focus point transition.

On a side note, the G9II seems quite susceptible to LED flicker, at least with one of my lights. (This has already been extensively discussed on another thread.) Not a bird shooting issue, but worth mentioning. The good news is that while this flicker also impacted images shot with the OM-1 but was hard to see on its display, is very noticeable on the G9II display, which is better in this case as it gives you an immediate warning.

.

Focus / Image stabilization

START OF RANT
For bird photography, ANY image stabilization system will do. Folks who won’t let a Panasonic body get near their Olympus 150-400 lens because they do not want to lose Dual Sync IS need to brush up on their knowledge about how IS works.
END OF RANT

Make no mistake: I enjoy shooting landscapes and love the fact that I can shoot MFT handheld in poor light without giving that a second thought. It is amazing what several MFT bodies are able to do because of the system’s excellent IS. Yet, bird shooting is an area where that rarely applies. IS helps when trying to find a bird in the viewfinder. You don’t need IS to perform particularly well, however, to get a good shot of that bird. Here is why:

When shooting BiF, if your shutter speeds aren’t in a range where IS is essentially dysfunctional (> 1/1000s), you’re likely doing something wrong. Truly sharp shots require your shutter to be at least that fast and usually much faster than that to avoid motion blur.

Shooting perched birds, on the other hand, I normally start at 1/500s. I may be willing to go down to, say, a minimum of 1/100s if the light is dismal. Any lower than this, the risk of motion blur goes up disproportionately, since most birds, especially the small ones I like best, are constantly moving. If a bird is half asleep, I might be able to go even lower, but that won't give me an interesting shot anyway. I’ll usually pass.

Even with the TC engaged on my Big White Oly, for an FF equivalent FOV of 1000mm, 1/100s represents only a little more than 3 stops of image stabilization versus what the golden “reciprocity rule" ("Always shoot at shutter speeds that are at least as high as the inverse of your focal length") prescribes. Any semi-decent IS system should get you there just fine. No sync’ing between body and lens needed for that.

The main point I am making with this is that unless someone invents a subject stabilization system that will keep the animal frozen in place until I got the shot (I like that idea... ), bird photography has few scenarios where high IS performance would make any difference. Be careful not to bark up this tree too much.

Testing IS performance is difficult. Most people I know judge IS performance by how stable the image is in the viewfinder. That might give a hint but is not overly relevant: what you really want to know is how much more accurate your focus is with IS than without it.

Allow me to digress for a moment: an often misleading aspect with IS is that manufacturers tend to make it sound like until you reached the upper IS limit, you will always get perfectly sharp images. In case of these bodies, that would be something like “Shooting at 8 stops below the reciprocity rule is fine. At 9 stops, you’re going to get lots of crap shots.” With my 1000mm (FF equivalent FoV) lens, 8 stops should give me perfectly well focused pics down to as shutter speed of 1/4s, right? Well, checking the reality of this, which I have done quite a few times, makes you realize that even well within the range of IS stops that are supposed to yield good results, the percentage of excellent or good shots already drops significantly as you lower the shutter speed, while the percentage of poor or inacceptable shots inches up at the same pace. Shooting a Nikon D500 with a 500mm PF lens, for example, a combo Nikon specifies as having between 5 and 5.5 stops of image stabilization, already dropped down to only about 50% excellent or good shots within 4 stops in my own tests.

I conducted the same test here that I used years ago to get an idea of the Nikon’s performance, one I used with many other bodies and lenses in the past, so I understand it fairly well: I shot both bodies, G9II and OM-1, alternatingly with the 150-400 and its TC engaged, at a focal length of 500mm. Shutter speeds were 1/25s, well below what I normally use and about the lowest I was able to go with the available light on this fall day. The test object, a small white sheet with print on it, in this case is about 25 meters away, a distance I often shoot from in the field. (Think of it as taking pics of a Great Egret from a distance.) I took 50 shots with each combo. For good measure and to give folks who prefer to shoot with mechanical shutter at least some data (I shoot 100% electronic), I shot the Panasonic with both, MS and ES.

Let’s keep in mind that the results are impacted by

• how well the camera’s and/or lens IS works,
• how well the camera’s AF works, AND
• how well >>>I<<< work in keeping the gear steady while shooting.

Conducting this test is quite cumbersome. In order to minimize the impact my handling of the gear has on the results, I shoot like I’d do when shooting birds: solid body stance, elbow brace for added stabilization, camera firmly against the cheek, holding my breath while shooting. I always take these shots by refocusing on another target after every other shot, such that the focusing system keeps having to prove itself. This makes it pretty comparable to real life bird shooting.

Next, I sorted each of the images into one of four focus categories: excellent, good, poor, and unacceptable. (Yet another task I highly recommend to anyone who isn’t bored enough just yet… ) The differences between excellent and good are minimal and visible only at 100%. Even a ‘poor’ one still looks alright if viewed as a full image on my 27” monitor.

1/25s on the Big White Oly is now more of a challenge, inasmuch as it requires almost 5.5 steps of image stabilization. Let’s see what I got, then, out of the 50 shots in each series:

What’s this telling us? Well, for starters, don’t go overboard on these small variances. I was likely a little more casual when shooting with the OM-1, so its results came in slightly worse than the Pana’s. In my experience, these small differences are well within the variances that >>>I<<< cause, so they tell us nothing about the two bodies. All I can conclude from this data is:

• Using the Oly lens on the Pana body does not come with a price, at least not from an IS perspective.
• Both bodies focused equally well. (Not much of a challenge with the clearly visible target, really).
• IS did an excellent job at this low shutter speed. (Which, again, is below anything I’d ever use in my shooting).

(PLEASE don’t post bird shots taken at 1/10s or whatever to prove me wrong on the last point. I know this is possible. However, while you managed to get this shot, you probably had to cull 20 others.)

I would love to be able to demonstrate to you how much impact the lens IS respectively IBIS really had here, but neither body allows me to turn IBIS off while keeping lens IS on. Again, I am convinced that the strong performance we see here (~80 percent good shots with 1000mm at 1/25s is excellent) is little else than testimony to the Big White Oly’s great image stabilizer.

Ok, so how DOES the image stabilization look in the viewfinder of each body? (Hey, did I really just fill one whole block of part II without giving you any REAL information?)

1. When shooting with the Olympus 150-400 @ 500mm, the EVF image is noticeably more stable with the OM-1. The G9II's EVF is quite a bit jumpier with this lens.

2. When shooting with the PanaLeica 100-400 @ 400mm, the EVF image is now slightly more stable with the G9II. Not a big difference between the bodies here.

3. When shooting with the OMDS 40-150 @ 150mm, the EVF image is very smooth with either body.

.

Bonus section: Rolling shutter (forgot to include this in my initial plan)

With cameras spec’d to shoot at 120fps, I don’t worry much about rolling shutter. To get them to 120fps, their respective sensor readout times must be 8.3milliseconds or less, which is plenty fast for everything this side of a hummingbird. Just kidding: hummingbirds can move their wings about 40-50 times per second, so 120 fps is even fast enough for these little fellers. J

As always, however, checking is better than assuming. My standard test for this involves flying my drone in our living room and taking a few shots to see how much rolling shutter that gives me, so I did just that. Here are two shots I picked from several more, as I feel they are fairly representative:

OM-1

G9II

We see motion blur but little to no warping in the blades, which would be the tell-tale sign of rolling shutter. (If you’d like to see some REAL rolling shutter, take a look at this report I published on my website a while ago. Scroll all the way to the bottom: you see examples with the Nikon Z7ii [horrible], Canon R5 [not too bad, but not great either] and OM-1 [best]. The OM-1 shot there looks just like the one I am showing here.)

In other words: Rolling shutter is not an issue with either of the two cameras. Check.

.

Side observations

While doing my testing, I’m taking notes of other things that strike me as worth mentioning, so here are two of them:

1. The viewfinder blackout when shooting single images is much briefer on the OM-1 than it is on the G9II, which I prefer. After all, its sole purpose is to signal that the image has been taken. This may be a matter of getting used to, but I think I’ll keep finding the G9II's long blackout slightly irritating. It serves no purpose as far as I can see.

2. The thin plastic door over the G9II’s card slot feels much flimsier than the OM-1’s. When open, I always fear I might accidentally break it off.

.

Off to work on Part III. Still not feeling all that great, so I’m afraid I won’t get much outdoor shooting, if any, done this week.

Anyway, thanks for reading this, and a big thanks to everyone who commented favorably (or not) in the Part I thread!

This is really great.

The OM1 seems to use quite different AF algorithms for SAF and CAF.  In general it seems to focus better in CAF in low light.

I'm assuming you were using CAF for your focusing tests?

Thanks

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

This is really great.

Thanks!

The OM1 seems to use quite different AF algorithms for SAF and CAF. In general it seems to focus better in CAF in low light.

I'm assuming you were using CAF for your focusing tests?

Yes.  I don't even know how to switch a camera to SAF. 

An excellent second post.,thank you.

Flimsy doors on Panasonic. Agree, they feel vulnerable, so I never leave open while uploading from card/card reader to PC. Having said that, owning many Panasonics (Compacts, Bridge and M43) over circa 15 years, I’ve never had a problem. Both card doors on G9 and EM1.3 shut very securely and seem more robust than previous cameras.

windmillgolfer wrote:

An excellent second post.,thank you.

Thanks!

Flimsy doors on Panasonic. Agree, they feel vulnerable, so I never leave open while uploading from card/card reader to PC. Having said that, owning many Panasonics (Compacts, Bridge and M43) over circa 15 years, I’ve never had a problem. Both card doors on G9 and EM1.3 shut very securely and seem more robust than previous cameras.

You're probably right.  Some of these things are more ease-of-mind aspects than real issues.

Coming from three brands (Nikon, Canon, Olympus/OMDS) that all got this one right, however, I'm surprised that Panasonic designed the door the way they did.

lokatz wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

This is really great.

Thanks!

The OM1 seems to use quite different AF algorithms for SAF and CAF. In general it seems to focus better in CAF in low light.

I'm assuming you were using CAF for your focusing tests?

Yes. I don't even know how to switch a camera to SAF.

Big kudos to you for such as great report.  Interesting to know that EVF from our personal experiences do not vary too much better the two.  Your finding also erase a concern on sync IS lacking when using with G9II.

I am not really interested in changing the camera and in fact expect G9II to come out on top on many.  Hopefully, OMDS can update the next FW to make thing a bit closer.

Thanks, that's a very thorough review and will look forward to the next installments.

I have been using the OM1 with 300 f/4 and Pana 100-400 mainly for birds. I am very happy with the OM1/300 combination but the 100-400 leaves a bit to be desired for sharpness at the long end I find. I could get the versatility with the 150-400 but at quite a price which I may not be able to justify.

I note you are much in favour of the 150-400 but I wonder if you have been tempted to go back to Nikon now that the Z8 gives a body option which is comparable to the G9II in size but the additional advantage of the wide FOV at a similar pixel density (an advantage, that is, for finding small birds and keeping them in the frame when on the move). I keep thinking I could get a Z8 (and I still have my 500PF) for much less than a 150-400.

Thanks again for your time and efforts!

Alf

AlfC wrote:

Thanks, that's a very thorough review and will look forward to the next installments.

I have been using the OM1 with 300 f/4 and Pana 100-400 mainly for birds. I am very happy with the OM1/300 combination but the 100-400 leaves a bit to be desired for sharpness at the long end I find.

I came to the exact same conclusion in my initial report after getting started with MFT gear and comparing it with Nikon/Canon:

https://thisbeautifulplanet.de/bird-shooting-combos

I could get the versatility with the 150-400 but at quite a price which I may not be able to justify.

I note you are much in favour of the 150-400 but I wonder if you have been tempted to go back to Nikon now that the Z8 gives a body option which is comparable to the G9II in size but the additional advantage of the wide FOV at a similar pixel density (an advantage, that is, for finding small birds and keeping them in the frame when on the move). I keep thinking I could get a Z8 (and I still have my 500PF) for much less than a 150-400.

You're touching a sensitive point here.    My immediate (and honest, for now) answer is 'no': the Z8 is still too much of a brick for what I like.  I used to own a D850, among several other Nikon bodies, that's practically the same size and weight.  Wouldn't want to go back, now that I experienced how much lighter and smaller good bodies can be.

However, a Nikon employee told me at a conference just a few weeks ago that a smaller body with 'near Z8 AF' is in the works (Z7iii or whatever).  That could potentially tempt me more.  Nikon lately released several fantastic lenses (Z400 f/4.5, Z600 f/6.3, Z800 f/6.3) that are excellent for birders.

All dreaming aside: my ultimate answer is NO, and the sole and only reason is indeed the 150-400.  After I discovered how much easier shooting gets with a zoom, and after I realized that this Oly is THE ONLY ZOOM IN THE MARKET that combines prime-like performance with a weight and size that allow me to travel with it and shoot handheld as long as I wish, even the best of Nikon's new lenses won't get me to switch back.

Canon's new 200-800 in my view is barking up the right tree:  not at the performance level my Oly offers, but apparently a decent lens at an attractive price.

In any case, birders' choices keep getting better and better.  Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks again for your time and efforts!

Yours and others' reactions tell me this is worth doing, which is great.  Plus, it keeps me off the streets... 

lokatz wrote:

This is Part II of my five-part series that looks as follows:

Focus / Image stabilization

START OF RANT

Shooting perched birds, on the other hand, I normally start at 1/500s. I may be willing to go down to, say, a minimum of 1/100s if the light is dismal. Any lower than this, the risk of motion blur goes up disproportionately, since most birds, especially the small ones I like best, are constantly moving. If a bird is half asleep, I might be able to go even lower, but that won't give me an interesting shot anyway. I’ll usually pass.

Thanks for your post. I agree with almost everything you have said and look forward to your continued post on this topic.

However, I disagree with your perched bird post. If you shoot birds like cardinals, woodpeckers, bluebirds, finches, perched hummingbirds, then I find that the your minimum hand holding shutter speeds are the primary determinant of shutter speed, if you shoot immediately after any movement.

See post

Low Illumination Photography of Stationary Birds.: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I do agree that you need a much higher shutter speed for twitchy small birds and I too use high shutter speeds initially for those, even though I will still try dropping the shutter speed after the initial images.

For very fast moving birds in deep shade where I cannot set a shutter speed fast enough to stop movement, then I go the opposite route.  Shoot a long burst at a very slow shutter speed to try to catch the bird during the brief pause between movements.  Stabilization is very important for this situation.  Attached is an example which I already had in my gallery of a 3 second burst of a feeding Common Yellowthroat.  While the selected image is not great, it was the first I got of this bird.

Amazing work - thank you! I intend getting the G9 II late next year, so reading all of this is very valuable.

Tim

drj3 wrote:

Thanks for your post. I agree with almost everything you have said and look forward to your continued post on this topic.

However, I disagree with your perched bird post. If you shoot birds like cardinals, woodpeckers, bluebirds, finches, perched hummingbirds, then I find that the your minimum hand holding shutter speeds are the primary determinant of shutter speed, if you shoot immediately after any movement.

See post

Low Illumination Photography of Stationary Birds.: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I do agree that you need a much higher shutter speed for twitchy small birds and I too use high shutter speeds initially for those, even though I will still try dropping the shutter speed after the initial images.

For very fast moving birds in deep shade where I cannot set a shutter speed fast enough to stop movement, then I go the opposite route. Shoot a long burst at a very slow shutter speed to try to catch the bird during the brief pause between movements. Stabilization is very important for this situation. Attached is an example which I already had in my gallery of a 3 second burst of a feeding Common Yellowthroat. While the selected image is not great, it was the first I got of this bird.

Thank you for your thoughts and examples. We obviously take different approaches, and both lead to useful results. That’s great either way.

Regarding the series you shared (great bird!), I’m a bit on the fence. I hate pixel peepers, which I define as people to whom maximal sharpness matters so much that the artistic appeal of an image becomes secondary to them. Yet, I acknowledge that a great image is one that is appealing AND tack sharp.

The image you shared in full rez, as beautiful as it is, isn’t really sharp, I am afraid: except for a few feather details that are the closest to the viewer (and even those are merely ok), everything in it is slightly blurry or more than that when viewed at 100%. I know and respect that some people say “I don’t care about 100%” (I’m often tempted to say that myself when arguing with pixel peepers), but what I am saying is that in all likelihood, you DID pay a price here for that slow shutter speed.

You probably saw the test data I showed under “Image stabilization” in my Part II post, which showed the 150-400 getting 80 percent images with excellent or good sharpness at 1/25s. The ‘excellent’ number alone is about 40 percent, meaning that the majority of shots will already be less than perfect at that shutter speed. At 1/20s, that number would drop further. My question to you is why you shot this at 1/20s and ISO 200. In my opinion, ISO 800 would have given you just the same IQ, but four times the shutter speed. Myself, I probably would have picked ISO 1600 here.

You are absolutely right that shooting burst increases your odds of getting sharp shots, as long as the camera is in C-AF mode and manages to re-focus properly between shots. What that approach won’t take out of the equation, however, are other variables. We all know that when shooting outside, everything moves: you do (which, as my tests have taught me, IS rarely eliminates as fully as we might hope it does), the bird does, the perch does (because of wind and oscillations caused by the bird’s movement), the air does, etc. The lower the shutter speed, the higher the risk of any and all of this affecting your shot, even when shooting bursts.

If this is my last resort because there is no other way to get a decent shot of a rare bird, I’ll do what you promote here. I’m sure that for you, it is an exception rather your normal shooting mode, too. But my tradeoff between shutter speed and high ISOs, one we often have to make, tends to be much more flexible on the latter than on the former. Another part of my reasoning here is that NR and sharpening software have become so good over the years that I can get away with much higher ISOs today than only a few years ago.

Thanks.  Glad it is!

lokatz wrote:

drj3 wrote:

T

You probably saw the test data I showed under “Image stabilization” in my Part II post, which showed the 150-400 getting 80 percent images with excellent or good sharpness at 1/25s. The ‘excellent’ number alone is about 40 percent, meaning that the majority of shots will already be less than perfect at that shutter speed. At 1/20s, that number would drop further. My question to you is why you shot this at 1/20s and ISO 200. In my opinion, ISO 800 would have given you just the same IQ, but four times the shutter speed. Myself, I probably would have picked ISO 1600 here.

Actually, my minimum shutter speed for the MC20+300mm with something that is not completely stationary where I cannot use good holding techniques is 1/100 which is what I would like to have used with the Common Yellowthroat.  I can hold this combination at 1/50 with a high percentage with good sharpness or even down to 1/20 with a stationary target, if the target is level or above and I can carefully control breathing.  However, my ability quickly drops when the target is below level (like this bird) with the lens pointed down even with a stationary target.

In this case, I knew the bird would leave very quickly (a very small bush), so I first set 1/1250 which would have been underexposed at ISO 6400, so to quickly get some images before the bird disappeared behind the leaves, I immediately switched to A mode where unfortunately the minimum shutter speed was set to 1/20.  There were other images that were somewhat sharped than the one posted above, but only one other image where the bird's head was not partially of fully covered by leaves.

Makes perfect sense.  Thanks.

Panasonic publish AF guidebooks to help understand how to customize AF under different shooting conditions…both S & G series. They are a little bit out of date and do not include latest subject selection capabilities, however the basic concepts and algorithm design should be the same and can help understand how you can best match to your shooting needs.

https://www.panasonic.com/global/consumer/lumix/technologies/af.html

tomhongkong wrote:

Thanks for Part ii. It's very informative, although I suspect that the 'real life 'shooting in Part iii and the subject detection performance will reveal more.

I hope and expect the same.

The G9ii looks like a good alternative to the OM-1 so far with several advantages which you have picked up. Whether I will be tempted to change, I don't yet know. I certainly won't be doing anything before you have finished your series, that might give OMSystems time to show if they have a response coming.

Here's a question. One way or another I have ended up with my 'better' lenses being Panasonic (35-100, 50-200, 200, 100-400 plus the TCs) It's probably too early for you to say, but do you sense that the AF performance of these lenses would be better on the G9ii than on the OM?. Is there some optimisation of the lenses when they are on their 'native' bodies?

I don't have enough Panasonic lenses to be able to give a full answer here. My gut feel is that the answer is 'yes', based on two aspects:

1. The fact that the G9II had a consistent focus speed advantage over the OM-1 when shooting with the PL100-400 at least hints at it.

2. To me, it would make logical sense.  A general trend in camera design is that bodies include more and more features that either optimize lens characteristics or compensate for lens deficiencies. Correcting for lens distortion in-camera is one more and more makes seem to adopt.  While there isn't a whole lot that gets published about this, I bet AF optimization is another.  The manufacturer knows best how to get optimal results. AF design from an engineering standpoint must be a speed-vs-accuracy tradeoff, for example, which gives plenty of room for optimization on when to drive the lens fast and when to drive it more slowly.

Should my evaluation end with the conclusion that the OM-1 and G9II are about the same, I might well hang on to the Panasonic only for those trips where I prefer taking the PL100-400 along instead of the Oly 150-400, for weight and size reasons.

... Incidentally I don't agree with your comment about S-AF. Rather than cause a digression in your post, I will start another on when and why S-AF is advantageous.

Interested in your thoughts here.

Just to clarify: my tongue-in-cheek comment that I don't even know how to put a camera in S-AF mode was meant nothing but humorously.  I like taking landscape shots and have yet to meet a landscape that moves.     Yet, with moving subjects such as birds and other wildlife, it is a rare thing for me to even consider S-AF.  There are a few exceptions, but they are that: exceptions.

jrsforums wrote:

Panasonic publish AF guidebooks to help understand how to customize AF under different shooting conditions…both S & G series. They are a little bit out of date and do not include latest subject selection capabilities, however the basic concepts and algorithm design should be the same and can help understand how you can best match to your shooting needs.

https://www.panasonic.com/global/consumer/lumix/technologies/af.html

Thanks for sharing the link.  I'm not sure how useful this is for the G9II or, for that matter, S5II/S5IIx.  The addition of PDAF requires new algorithms and must have a considerable impact. This means that some of the recommendations probably need to look different for these bodies.