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

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Every camera can misfocus, that I agree with. Even the G9II bird in branches photo someone else shared demonstrates the camera is focused on the berries and branch, not the bird. In Duade Paton's example, the G9II would not focus at all on birds with a bright background. He had to point the camera somewhere else, push focus a few times then recompose on the subject.

Is there a reason he refuses to use CAF?  I can reproduce this SAF issue with plain wallpaper in a badly lit room at night or car bodywork in the dark using the small target.  CAF really does work much better.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Every camera can misfocus, that I agree with. Even the G9II bird in branches photo someone else shared demonstrates the camera is focused on the berries and branch, not the bird. In Duade Paton's example, the G9II would not focus at all on birds with a bright background. He had to point the camera somewhere else, push focus a few times then recompose on the subject.

Is there a reason he refuses to use CAF? I can reproduce this SAF issue with plain wallpaper in a badly lit room at night or car bodywork in the dark using the small target. CAF really does work much better.

Andrew

I can only speak from Panasonic experience.  lumix cameras, in very low light, will automatically switch from AFC/CAF to AFS/SAF.  They did this with all CDAF cameras and have continued it with the PDAF on G9ii.

I am assuming this is due to being able to get AF doing this.  Part of this may be the routines needed to do constant AF vs static…and on the G9ii, that CDAF requires less light to achieve AF vs PDAF.

jrsforums wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Every camera can misfocus, that I agree with. Even the G9II bird in branches photo someone else shared demonstrates the camera is focused on the berries and branch, not the bird. In Duade Paton's example, the G9II would not focus at all on birds with a bright background. He had to point the camera somewhere else, push focus a few times then recompose on the subject.

Is there a reason he refuses to use CAF? I can reproduce this SAF issue with plain wallpaper in a badly lit room at night or car bodywork in the dark using the small target. CAF really does work much better.

Andrew

I can only speak from Panasonic experience. lumix cameras, in very low light, will automatically switch from AFC/CAF to AFS/SAF. They did this with all CDAF cameras and have continued it with the PDAF on G9ii.

I am assuming this is due to being able to get AF doing this. Part of this may be the routines needed to do constant AF vs static…and on the G9ii, that CDAF requires less light to achieve AF vs PDAF.

Having switched from EM1.2 to OM1, the AF systems are very different.  The OM1 sensor does PDAF very differently from typical PDAF systems, including all other Olympus bodies.
SAF fails in situations where there is no visible contrast in what is a tiny target.  Not sure how CDAF would help.

Basically I have no idea how the OM1 AF system works.  For example, the EM1.2 needed micro adjustments for adapted Four Thirds lenses.  The OM1 does not.

Andrew

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean.  Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement.  Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT.  I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

DLBlack wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Those of us with an OM1 who tested for ourselves to understand how this finding affected our use discovered how much better CAF works in low light.

Someone who complains about low light SAF (and it is very low contrast in low light that causes the problem) without saying but CAF is better is bound to make you wonder.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Those of us with an OM1 who tested for ourselves to understand how this finding affected our use discovered how much better CAF works in low light.

Someone who complains about low light SAF (and it is very low contrast in low light that causes the problem) without saying but CAF is better is bound to make you wonder.

Andrew

I cannot comment on OLY cameras as I have not had these models.  I do have questions that maybe you can answer.

maybe OM-1 CAF is better than OM-1 SAF in low light, but is that a function of the OM-1?  That is, is the OM-1 SAF worse than the EM-1 Robin is using?  Is OM-1 CAF better or worse than EM-1 SAF?

jrsforums wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Those of us with an OM1 who tested for ourselves to understand how this finding affected our use discovered how much better CAF works in low light.

Someone who complains about low light SAF (and it is very low contrast in low light that causes the problem) without saying but CAF is better is bound to make you wonder.

Andrew

I cannot comment on OLY cameras as I have not had these models. I do have questions that maybe you can answer.

maybe OM-1 CAF is better than OM-1 SAF in low light, but is that a function of the OM-1? That is, is the OM-1 SAF worse than the EM-1 Robin is using? Is OM-1 CAF better or worse than EM-1 SAF?

I still have an EM1.1 but traded in my EM1.2 for the OM1.  Never had an EM1.3.

Robin is using an EM1.2.

I can’t compare the EM1.2 and OM1 directly but the AF systems are quite different.  On the OM1, you can have a tiny AF target and it will focus accurately in SAF with a low chance of choosing the background or foreground.

If OM1 SAF is worse in low light than the EM1.2, then it’s only in extreme (very extreme) conditions).  OM1 CAF is definitely better than SAF in low light low contrast situations.  My impression is that OM1 CAF is better than EM1.2 SAF in low light, but I can’t test that.

I now shoot mostly in CAF with the OM1 and Sony A7Riv because it works better.  EM1.2 CAF was not noticeably better than SAF, so I suspect the AF system was rewritten to use the completely different PDAF array, faster readout and better processing.

Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Those of us with an OM1 who tested for ourselves to understand how this finding affected our use discovered how much better CAF works in low light.

Someone who complains about low light SAF (and it is very low contrast in low light that causes the problem) without saying but CAF is better is bound to make you wonder.

Andrew

I cannot comment on OLY cameras as I have not had these models. I do have questions that maybe you can answer.

maybe OM-1 CAF is better than OM-1 SAF in low light, but is that a function of the OM-1? That is, is the OM-1 SAF worse than the EM-1 Robin is using? Is OM-1 CAF better or worse than EM-1 SAF?

I still have an EM1.1 but traded in my EM1.2 for the OM1. Never had an EM1.3.

Robin is using an EM1.2.

I can’t compare the EM1.2 and OM1 directly but the AF systems are quite different. On the OM1, you can have a tiny AF target and it will focus accurately in SAF with a low chance of choosing the background or foreground.

If OM1 SAF is worse in low light than the EM1.2, then it’s only in extreme (very extreme) conditions). OM1 CAF is definitely better than SAF in low light low contrast situations. My impression is that OM1 CAF is better than EM1.2 SAF in low light, but I can’t test that.

I now shoot mostly in CAF with the OM1 and Sony A7Riv because it works better. EM1.2 CAF was not noticeably better than SAF, so I suspect the AF system was rewritten to use the completely different PDAF array, faster readout and better processing.

Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

Andrew

E-M1.3:

SAF will focus better than CAF when there is not distinct detail in the focus box and will focus better in Low Illumination.  I should indicate that CAF often focuses correctly in these situations, but will fail to give focus confirmation.  However, CAF focus box is far smaller than the SAF focus box and CAF focus is more precise with detail in front of the target.  SAF is more likely to jump to detail outside of the focus box.

OM1:

CAF will focus much better is Low illumination where SAF will simply fail to focus.  However, the focus box in SAF is smaller than the CAF focus box and SAF is more precise with detail in front of the target in good light.  CAF is much more likely to jump to the detail outside of the focus box.

drj3 wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

jrsforums wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

BleeKar wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

lokatz wrote:

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.

See these:

Robin Wong has replaced OM-1 with E-M1 II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172708

3 more videos about the AF problems

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67172978

All three videos are from the same person. The person Olympus parted ways with last year.

Rob Trek: OM-1 vs E-M5 III S-AF in Low Light

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67174528

Great video and shows the issue only occurs on white walls below 1EV and only in S-AF. Using C-AF or magnified view avoids the issue all together.

Or shooting events (and other low contrast situations) like Robin Wong does. Fortunately his E-M1 II can still focus in those low contrast situations that his OM-1 cannot.

Shooting events in S-AF you mean. Not an issue with C-AF which also accounts for subject movement. Unless the event is "statuary at midnight".

I admittedly only skimmed Wong’s YT. I got the impression that he would have used C-Af, if it would work, but didn’t…nor did s-AF.

It has been a while since I watched his videos on this subject. I believe he only tried Z;AF since this is what he always used.

I did run into this issue once While wedding dress in a low ambient light))and quickly changed to C-AF and it nailed the focus very quickly. Most of the time I use C-AF with back button focusin even on stationary subjects.
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Those of us with an OM1 who tested for ourselves to understand how this finding affected our use discovered how much better CAF works in low light.

Someone who complains about low light SAF (and it is very low contrast in low light that causes the problem) without saying but CAF is better is bound to make you wonder.

Andrew

I cannot comment on OLY cameras as I have not had these models. I do have questions that maybe you can answer.

maybe OM-1 CAF is better than OM-1 SAF in low light, but is that a function of the OM-1? That is, is the OM-1 SAF worse than the EM-1 Robin is using? Is OM-1 CAF better or worse than EM-1 SAF?

I still have an EM1.1 but traded in my EM1.2 for the OM1. Never had an EM1.3.

Robin is using an EM1.2.

I can’t compare the EM1.2 and OM1 directly but the AF systems are quite different. On the OM1, you can have a tiny AF target and it will focus accurately in SAF with a low chance of choosing the background or foreground.

If OM1 SAF is worse in low light than the EM1.2, then it’s only in extreme (very extreme) conditions). OM1 CAF is definitely better than SAF in low light low contrast situations. My impression is that OM1 CAF is better than EM1.2 SAF in low light, but I can’t test that.

I now shoot mostly in CAF with the OM1 and Sony A7Riv because it works better. EM1.2 CAF was not noticeably better than SAF, so I suspect the AF system was rewritten to use the completely different PDAF array, faster readout and better processing.

Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

Andrew

E-M1.3:

SAF will focus better than CAF when there is not distinct detail in the focus box and will focus better in Low Illumination. I should indicate that CAF often focuses correctly in these situations, but will fail to give focus confirmation. However, CAF focus box is far smaller than the SAF focus box and CAF focus is more precise with detail in front of the target. SAF is more likely to jump to detail outside of the focus box.

OM1:

CAF will focus much better is Low illumination where SAF will simply fail to focus. However, the focus box in SAF is smaller than the CAF focus box and SAF is more precise with detail in front of the target in good light. CAF is much more likely to jump to the detail outside of the focus box.

That is my experience of the OM1 and recollection of the EM1.2.

Nice summary.

Andrew

Lokatz

Sorry for late reply

Can you confirm if your drone shots were in single mode or burst?

I am evaluation that this camera reads at best case 1/75 of a second and then it needs to do some changes to go higher

I would like to see a full pan of a vertical line a door or similar to see what it does in burst mode and single mode in electronic shutter

If you have time that would help

Interceptor121 wrote:

Lokatz

Sorry for late reply

Can you confirm if your drone shots were in single mode or burst?

I am evaluation that this camera reads at best case 1/75 of a second and then it needs to do some changes to go higher

I would like to see a full pan of a vertical line a door or similar to see what it does in burst mode and single mode in electronic shutter

If you have time that would help

They were taken in Single mode.

lokatz wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Lokatz

Sorry for late reply

Can you confirm if your drone shots were in single mode or burst?

I am evaluation that this camera reads at best case 1/75 of a second and then it needs to do some changes to go higher

I would like to see a full pan of a vertical line a door or similar to see what it does in burst mode and single mode in electronic shutter

If you have time that would help

They were taken in Single mode.

ES? Could you shoot a door or something in single and burst to see what happens?

There is some interesting data in video mode from cineD that raises some questions

Interceptor121 wrote:

lokatz wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Lokatz

Sorry for late reply

Can you confirm if your drone shots were in single mode or burst?

I am evaluation that this camera reads at best case 1/75 of a second and then it needs to do some changes to go higher

I would like to see a full pan of a vertical line a door or similar to see what it does in burst mode and single mode in electronic shutter

If you have time that would help

They were taken in Single mode.

ES? Could you shoot a door or something in single and burst to see what happens?

There is some interesting data in video mode from cineD that raises some questions

This post helps to show rolling shutter and how it compares to other m43 sensors

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67403177

Interceptor121 wrote:

ES? Could you shoot a door or something in single and burst to see what happens?

There is some interesting data in video mode from cineD that raises some questions

To be honest, I am still not clear on what exactly you want me to conduct here, but I need to ask you to find someone else for it anyway.  To see the effects of rolling shutter, I need to shoot at high speeds.  Where I live, the light is simply not going to be good enough for that for several months, and I don't have proper lighting that could get me there, either. Not a studio photographer. 

lokatz wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

ES? Could you shoot a door or something in single and burst to see what happens?

There is some interesting data in video mode from cineD that raises some questions

To be honest, I am still not clear on what exactly you want me to conduct here, but I need to ask you to find someone else for it anyway. To see the effects of rolling shutter, I need to shoot at high speeds. Where I live, the light is simply not going to be good enough for that for several months, and I don't have proper lighting that could get me there, either. Not a studio photographer.

No just shoot a computer monitor white screen with black frame and pan the camera right and left while doing it

Or a backlit door

Readout and fast shutter speed are not related but you do need sufficient speed to avoid motion blur