bobbytan wrote:
Not totally useless IMO. It does show that the camera is able to track and nail focus with the 40-150 PRO lens.
Does it really show that? That may be the case but I'm only seeing one or two shots per sequence. If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure. I assume the performance is much better than that but that video gives no such evidence.
whumber wrote:
Does it really show that? That may be the case but I'm only seeing one or two shots per sequence. If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure. I assume the performance is much better than that but that video gives no such evidence.
Do you guys really believe what you write? I mean do you really believe that after 3 years of work, with this new focusing system implemented, Olympus would be ok with getting 2 shots in focus out of 60?
savingspaces wrote:
Do you guys really believe what you write? I mean do you really believe that after 3 years of work, with this new focusing system implemented, Olympus would be ok with getting 2 shots in focus out of 60?
Come on man.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? All I said was that the video shows no evidence that the E-M1 "was able to track and nail focus", not that it isn't capable of such.
whumber wrote:
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? All I said was that the video shows no evidence that the E-M1 "was able to track and nail focus", not that it isn't capable of such.
Consider the source.
A one minute and forty-seven second review is a joke. And what it showed was a joke.
Imagemaster wrote:
Conclusion comment does not sound great:
His own words say it quite clearly - he felt that few hours shooting at the end of a day didn't make him an expert on the camera - and when one reads the endless debates on C & N forums about how to set up and optimise their AF for particular scenarios, well, I thank him for being honest. Frankly the idea someone just picks up a camera and automatically has the correct technique for framing and following action or BIF is rather shallow understanding of what is involved.
whumber wrote:
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? All I said was that the video shows no evidence that the E-M1 "was able to track and nail focus", not that it isn't capable of such.
Do you bother to re read what you write?
If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure
Wolfie5 wrote:
His own words say it quite clearly - he felt that few hours shooting at the end of a day didn't make him an expert on the camera - and when one reads the endless debates on C & N forums about how to set up and optimise their AF for particular scenarios, well, I thank him for being honest. Frankly the idea someone just picks up a camera and automatically has the correct technique for framing and following action or BIF is rather shallow understanding of what is involved.
What is your point, and why didn't you quote the conclusion I was referring to?
Imagemaster wrote:
The continuous autofocus gave me a positive impression as well but I need more time with the camera to understand how good it is. I think it is on the same level as other mirrorless such as the Fuji X-T2 and a6300/a6500 except for video where the focus is slower.
That the focus is on the same level as those other cameras does not sound great to me. So what?
And where did you get the idea that it was "someone just picking up a camera ......." ?
Mathieu Gasquet is a professional photographer with French and Italian origins. Besides running his own video and photography studio 3Dit Lab, he is also the official photographer for the National Cinema Museum in Turin.
savingspaces wrote:
Do you bother to re read what you write?
Yes, congratulations, if you take out the surrounding sentences you can certainly make it look like I said something completely different. You may have a career ahead of you in politics.
whumber wrote:
Yes, congratulations, if you take out the surrounding sentences you can certainly make it look like I said something completely different. You may have a career ahead of you in politics.
What I asked you is directly related to what you wrote.
Do you still think that a company like Olympus would spend 3 years to get 1 or 2 shots in focus out of a bunch?
I can see why you would not want to take responsibility for what you wrote, but sorry, I just had to ask. I am not sure what else you could have meant by it.
"""If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure"""
whumber wrote:
Yes, congratulations, if you take out the surrounding sentences you can certainly make it look like I said something completely different. You may have a career ahead of you in politics.
savingspaces wrote:
What I asked you is directly related to what you wrote.
Do you still think that a company like Olympus would spend 3 years to get 1 or 2 shots in focus out of a bunch?
I can see why you would not want to take responsibility for what you wrote, but sorry, I just had to ask. I am not sure what else you could have meant by it.
"""If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure"""
Good lord man, is your reading comprehension that poor or are you just being dishonest?
What I actually wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
Not totally useless IMO. It does show that the camera is able to track and nail focus with the 40-150 PRO lens.
whumber wrote:
Does it really show that? That may be the case but I'm only seeing one or two shots per sequence. If the camera was only able to get 1 or 2 shots in focus from those sequences that would make it a pretty epic failure. I assume the performance is much better than that but that video gives no such evidence.
If you really think the full quote there suggests that I believe the camera is actually on capable of hitting 1 or 2 shots in a long sequence then you're simply wildly misreading what I wrote. The point remains that bobbytan claimed the video showed that the camera is able to "track and nail focus". The video only shows one or two shots from each sequence rather than strings of in focus shots. If tracking and nailing focus meant one or two shots in focus from a long sequence then that would be an epic failure.
Does that mean that there are actually only one or two shots in focus from a given sequence? No.
Does the video provide much evidence that the camera tracks well? No.
If you're still not able to understand then I doubt anything else I say is going to help.
savingspaces wrote:
Do you guys really believe what you write? I mean do you really believe that after 3 years of work, with this new focusing system implemented, Olympus would be ok with getting 2 shots in focus out of 60?
Come on man.
Hey Canon was happy after 4-5 years when the 7D2 could get maybe 2-3 frames in focus out of 60......
I think we need a cool down and reality check here. What we do know is this:
1) The camera is certainly the fastest regarding pure speed. No other camera comes close. None.
2) Olympus lied about the image quality being the best. We could say, "exaggerated," but they knew what they were saying so let's call it for what it is, a lie. Having said that, we do know that it is a step up from the previous model, albeit a small one. But I'll be happy with it just same, after all, there must be some trade-offs to gain the kind of sensor speeds we are getting.
3) A special invite for selected photographers in Iceland ran the camera through its paces for landscape work. It appears it passed with flying colors in that application.
4) No extensive review exists to test the autofocus claims in say, the challenging environment of sports or action. We do have a reasonable review of the AF performance thanks to DPReview, but other than that, precious little testing in that area. These missing reviewers can't be an oversight. It has to be a deliberate move by Olympus.
5) It's a lot more expensive than the M1. Some of that is to be expected; the M1 has been out for some time. But I think it is wise to hold their butts to a flame over it just so that they don't think big price hikes are ok.
IMO, it is not realistic to expect top tier autofocus performance in the camera, so comparisons or expectations of Nikon D500 performance are unlikely. Sure, would be great if it did, though. Otherwise, we'd have seen the camera given to a different set of reviewers by now. So I think it is likely that it is a substantial improvement over the M1, though we can expect a much lower success rate than the top camera. It is probably more than satisfactory once we factor in the volume of images.
So, for now, we have to be content with little snippets of information as they present.
Could be that Olympus was not finished tweaking the AF and/or other features, so they did not want the test photographers to focus on that aspect. Of course they still wanted to get all the other hype out there to build up pre-sales. Remember, those were post-production models being tested. It was also my understanding that the reviewers were going to get more recent test cameras so they could follow up with a second review. Don't see much of a timeline for this happening before launch though, but what do I know?
Iwas joeking wrote:
I think we need a cool down and reality check here. What we do know is this:
1) The camera is certainly the fastest regarding pure speed. No other camera comes close. None.
2) Olympus lied about the image quality being the best. We could say, "exaggerated," but they knew what they were saying so let's call it for what it is, a lie. Having said that, we do know that it is a step up from the previous model, albeit a small one. But I'll be happy with it just same, after all, there must be some trade-offs to gain the kind of sensor speeds we are getting.
3) A special invite for selected photographers in Iceland ran the camera through its paces for landscape work. It appears it passed with flying colors in that application.
4) No extensive review exists to test the autofocus claims in say, the challenging environment of sports or action. We do have a reasonable review of the AF performance thanks to DPReview, but other than that, precious little testing in that area. These missing reviewers can't be an oversight. It has to be a deliberate move by Olympus.
5) It's a lot more expensive than the M1. Some of that is to be expected; the M1 has been out for some time. But I think it is wise to hold their butts to a flame over it just so that they don't think big price hikes are ok.
IMO, it is not realistic to expect top tier autofocus performance in the camera, so comparisons or expectations of Nikon D500 performance are unlikely. Sure, would be great if it did, though. Otherwise, we'd have seen the camera given to a different set of reviewers by now. So I think it is likely that it is a substantial improvement over the M1, though we can expect a much lower success rate than the top camera. It is probably more than satisfactory once we factor in the volume of images.
So, for now, we have to be content with little snippets of information as they present. ...Show more →
Even if it doesn't match the current top of the line camera in terms of AF performance, setting the standard for mirrorless AF performance is something that should be applauded. Exceeding what the X-T2 or the A6500 can do, if true, is an accomplishment. I have seen enough examples off the E-M1 II Facebook group to see that I'll be satisfied with both the IQ and AF performance. But again that's just me. Can't comment on others.
. 