Imagemaster wrote:
That doesn't sound too great, does it?
No, it does not. A friend who shot the Rio Olympics with a D5 said he most often got a 100% hit rate with skin on faces tack sharp. Now this guy is a seasoned pro, which I am far from being, but with my old 1DX I often hit upwards of 90% shooting sports (never shot BIF); the camera was *that* good. I'm wondering if this 70% report and the avoidance of true flagship comparisons mean Olympus is still one camera generation away or more from matching true top-of-the-line AF tracking. We'll see, eh?
Based on the recent escalating prices it looks like the camera market is going super nova in a last-ditch attempt to become profitable. I don't think this is going to end well.
Jack Kelley wrote:
No, it does not. A friend who shot the Rio Olympics with a D5 said he most often got a 100% hit rate with skin on faces tack sharp. Now this guy is a seasoned pro, which I am far from being, but with my old 1DX I often hit upwards of 90% shooting sports (never shot BIF); the camera was *that* good. I'm wondering if this 70% report and the avoidance of true flagship comparisons mean Olympus is still one camera generation away or more from matching true top-of-the-line AF tracking. We'll see, eh?
I could be wrong , but there is no way on earth the new Olympus is going to match the flagship cameras by Canon and Nikon. If we can get middle tier performance(ie. 7Dm2), I would consider that an amazing achievement.
Honestly I do not expect the E-II to suddenly be as good as or better than a DSLR. A 70% hit rate is pretty good in my books. With my E-M1 my hit rate is under 10%. Then again, I am not a fast-action shooter and my technique and settings may be less than ideal for this type of shooting.
Jack Kelley wrote:
No, it does not. A friend who shot the Rio Olympics with a D5 said he most often got a 100% hit rate with skin on faces tack sharp. Now this guy is a seasoned pro, which I am far from being, but with my old 1DX I often hit upwards of 90% shooting sports (never shot BIF); the camera was *that* good. I'm wondering if this 70% report and the avoidance of true flagship comparisons mean Olympus is still one camera generation away or more from matching true top-of-the-line AF tracking. We'll see, eh?
Iwas joeking wrote:
I could be wrong , but there is no way on earth the new Olympus is going to match the flagship cameras by Canon and Nikon. If we can get middle tier performance(ie. 7Dm2), I would consider that an amazing achievement.
What entry-level DSLR does 10 fps in C-AF and 12 fps in S-AF? The only DSLR that does that specific combination is the D4 and they even refer specifically to "DSLR Flagship". That figure comparing framerates is definitely incredibly dishonest.
Jack Kelley wrote:
No, it does not. A friend who shot the Rio Olympics with a D5 said he most often got a 100% hit rate with skin on faces tack sharp. Now this guy is a seasoned pro, which I am far from being, but with my old 1DX I often hit upwards of 90% shooting sports (never shot BIF); the camera was *that* good. I'm wondering if this 70% report and the avoidance of true flagship comparisons mean Olympus is still one camera generation away or more from matching true top-of-the-line AF tracking. We'll see, eh?
Hit rate is going to vary a lot based on what kind of situation you're talking about. I haven't had the opportunity to use a D5 yet, but I would have been happy to get 70% dead on with my 1DX | 200 f/2 shooting table tennis under terrible lighting. On the other hand I would have been annoyed if my 5D3 | 70-200ii was hitting 70% shooting cycling under good light. As an aside, I sold all my Canon gear when I bought my house recently and have m43 as my only system. I went ahead and pre-ordered the E-M1.2 this morning so I would definitely like the AF performance to be out of this world, but I've learned to take Olympus' marketing promises (and the "reviews" of certain Olympus spokespeople) with an enormous grain of salt.
I guess my line of thinking here is if they're charging a D500-level price, and touting speed, then I'd expect D500-level speed. Is that unreasonable? On the other hand, it does admittedly appear to be a high water mark for mirrorless, and mirrorless often does come at a slight premium...
What entry-level DSLR does 10 fps in C-AF and 12 fps in S-AF? The only DSLR that does that specific combination is the D4 and they even refer specifically to "DSLR Flagship". That figure comparing framerates is definitely incredibly dishonest.
Was thinking less of my own expectations than of the Olympus marketing aimed at BIF and sports shooters by touting AF and speed with frequent use of the word "professional." That said, I'm not sure how thrilled I'd be with a 70% hit rate for the little fast-action shooting I still want to do -- primarily daylight horse racing. True it would represent a huge improvement over the E-M1, a camera I'm mostly very happy with. But I do not bother taking my 300mm f/4 to Santa Anita because calling my E-M1 a tracking dog would be an insult to puppies everywhere. I'm looking forward to trying the E-M2 there, and I'd love to attempt some BIF. Until I do, it's hard to say whether big improvement over the E-M1 will satisfy, or fall a little short on the personal joy meter.
bobbytan wrote:
Honestly I do not expect the E-II to suddenly be as good as or better than a DSLR. A 70% hit rate is pretty good in my books. With my E-M1 my hit rate is under 10%. Then again, I am not a fast-action shooter and my technique and settings may be less than ideal for this type of shooting.
Imagemaster wrote:
And both of those are capable of a 100% hit rate when shooting an
Pretty sad if the $2,000 Oly is not capable of that.
Not defending the em1 II, but does everyone get 100% results with those cameras? Not based on what I have read from some users. Same with a very fast car. A pro will get superior track times. Doesn't mean we get anywhere near the same times.
With so many landscape shots available from Iceland team, and nothing to prove its AF-C prowness till now, I seriously doubt Olympus's AF-C tracking claims. If they were trying to prove that EM1.2 is all weather camera by sending team to iceland, I feel it did not serve any purpose as we already know that prior model is equally good in that aspect. If only they had given camera to some sports or wildlife shooters and proved their claims, it would have worked out very well.
Imagemaster wrote:
And both of those are capable of a 100% hit rate when shooting an
Pretty sad if the $2,000 Oly is not capable of that.
I wouldn't really put too much stock into Ming's assessment of the hit rate, he could certainly be correct but he himself admits that he has almost no experience shooting in AF-C. Remember when Gary Fong posted that review showing that the 7D2 has less than a 20% hit rate with a high contrast target slowly approaching the camera?
savingspaces wrote:
Not defending the em1 II, but does everyone get 100% results with those cameras? Not based on what I have read from some users. Same with a very fast car. A pro will get superior track times. Doesn't mean we get anywhere near the same times.
Well shooting a toddler is not exactly a hard subject to track for either a camera or average photographer. And a fast car is not much harder. A large subject travelling on a predetermined path is not exactly a hard subject to track.
It is subjects that are small and quickly changing direction that are the hardest subjects to track, e.g. a falcon.
It is hardly difficult to track a jet plane travelling in a straight line at 500mph.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well shooting a toddler is not exactly a hard subject to track for either a camera or average photographer. And a fast car is not much harder. A large subject travelling on a predetermined path is not exactly a hard subject to track.
It is subjects that are small and quickly changing direction that are the hardest subjects to track, e.g. a falcon.
It is hardly difficult to track a jet plane travelling in a straight line at 500mph.
