A bit of history. I am a professional NFL photographer and have been using Sony gear for the past 4 seasons. I use 3 Sony A1's my three lens are the 24-105 f4, the 70-200 2.8 and the 400 2.8. All great gear. From what you talented folks have been posting I bought a 150- 400 4.5 and an OM1 mark 2 as a birding/wildlife lens. I love it and tried it this past weekend for 1 half and left my 400 2.8 in the photo room. I used the small focus area. S-IS, silent sequential set to 20 frames. What I am seeing is the focus point is jumping from the player I want to shoot and will jump off to fans, or other players. I use the same focus point on my Sony and also set a back button to LOCK the focus. Can I do this w OM? Can I assign another button instead of the AEL button to lock an image? Appreciate the help. Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5.
amlsml wrote:
A bit of history. I am a professional NFL photographer and have been using Sony gear for the past 4 seasons. I use 3 Sony A1's my three lens are the 24-105 f4, the 70-200 2.8 and the 400 2.8. All great gear. From what you talented folks have been posting I bought a 150- 400 4.5 and an OM1 mark 2 as a birding/wildlife lens. I love it and tried it this past weekend for 1 half and left my 400 2.8 in the photo room. I used the small focus area. S-IS, silent sequential set to 20 frames. What I am seeing is the focus point is jumping from the player I want to shoot and will jump off to fans, or other players. I use the same focus point on my Sony and also set a back button to LOCK the focus. Can I do this w OM? Can I assign another button instead of the AEL button to lock an image? Appreciate the help. Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5.
Are you by any chance using a small focus point with C-AF+TR on your OM1 Mk2?
By the way your final statement is incorrect "Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5." The equivalent FF apertures are f/5.6 and f/9, respectively, in terms of both the DOF and light-gathering. Your misunderstanding is typical on this forum and elsewhere on the Internet. Send me a PM, if you have questions about equivalence.
amlsml wrote:
A bit of history. I am a professional NFL photographer and have been using Sony gear for the past 4 seasons. I use 3 Sony A1's my three lens are the 24-105 f4, the 70-200 2.8 and the 400 2.8. All great gear. From what you talented folks have been posting I bought a 150- 400 4.5 and an OM1 mark 2 as a birding/wildlife lens. I love it and tried it this past weekend for 1 half and left my 400 2.8 in the photo room. I used the small focus area. S-IS, silent sequential set to 20 frames. What I am seeing is the focus point is jumping from the player I want to shoot and will jump off to fans, or other players. I use the same focus point on my Sony and also set a back button to LOCK the focus. Can I do this w OM? Can I assign another button instead of the AEL button to lock an image? Appreciate the help. Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5.
The following is a copy-paste extract from "The Complete Guide To The OM System
OM-1 Mark II. EXPERT INSIGHTS FOR EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHERS
by Tony Phillips
I hope Tony is correct about the C-AF "sensitivity." He is giving these two instructive examples of usage:
"The Cyclist: You’re panning on a cyclist. Now and again, a tree, street sign,
parked car, etc, comes between the cyclist and you. What do you want the
camera to do?
Full tenacity mode! Of course. You want to stay locked on the cyclist – and
NOT jump to those intermittently intervening obstacles. So, +2!
Trackside: How about this. You’re waiting for a race car to pop out the end
of the main straight at full speed. And it does. Now, what do you want your
camera to do? Stay locked on the bollards it was cheerfully focused on before
the annoying car came along? Or switch to the car?
The car, right. So tenacity mode cranked down to -1, or -2.
Why “-1”? Well, what about those darned trackside posts that seem to be
everywhere – holding up lights and whatnot? Switch from the car to those?
Nope. So -1 it is."
ruthenium wrote:
Are you by any chance using a small focus point with C-AF+TR on your OM1 Mk2?
By the way your final statement is incorrect "Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5." The equivalent FF apertures are f/5.6 and f/9, respectively, in terms of both the DOF and light-gathering. Your misunderstanding is typical on this forum and elsewhere on the Internet. Send me a PM, if you have questions about equivalence.
Well, maybe...
Yes, an f/2.8 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera is indeed f/2.8 in terms of light intensity per unit area (exposure). The f-number (e.g., f/2.8) represents the lens's aperture, which determines the amount of light reaching the sensor per unit area, regardless of the sensor size. Therefore, an f/2.8 lens on an M43 camera provides the same exposure as an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera for a given ISO and shutter speed.
However, due to the M43 sensor's smaller size (with a crop factor of 2x compared to full-frame), the total light gathered is less, and the depth of field (DOF) is deeper for the same field of view compared to a full-frame camera. This affects the overall image characteristics, such as noise performance and background blur, but not the exposure itself.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Well, maybe...
Yes, an f/2.8 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera is indeed f/2.8 in terms of light intensity per unit area (exposure). The f-number (e.g., f/2.8) represents the lens's aperture, which determines the amount of light reaching the sensor per unit area, regardless of the sensor size. Therefore, an f/2.8 lens on an M43 camera provides the same exposure as an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera for a given ISO and shutter speed.
However, due to the M43 sensor's smaller size (with a crop factor of 2x compared to full-frame), the total light gathered is less, and the depth of field (DOF) is deeper for the same field of view compared to a full-frame camera. This affects the overall image characteristics, such as noise performance and background blur, but not the exposure itself.
Indeed, "the total light gathered is less" by 2 stops. To obtain the same amount of light as an equivalent in focal length (FL) f2.8 full-frame lens, the micro-four-thirds f2.8 lens should be open to light four times longer. That is, the shutter speed on the micro-four-thirds camera should be four times longer. In other words, an f2.8 micro-four-thirds lens is four times slower than an equivalent in FL full-frame f2.8 lens.
An f2.8 micro-four-thirds lens allows the same amount of light to pass toward the sensor at any given time as an equivalent full-frame f5.6 lens. Naturally, these lenses have the same size of the lens entrance pupil.
Basically, the important parameter for cross-system comparisons is the actual physical size of a lens entrance pupil, not the f-number. Within the same system, e.g. between micro-four-thirds lenses, we can use the f-number to tell if a lens is "slow" or "fast."
I don't see a reason to think about the exposure, instead of the total amount of light on a sensor. If the exposure had been important, then the sensors of increasingly smaller sizes would have been better than the larger sensors, because the smaller a sensor is - the greater is the exposure on this sensor.
ruthenium wrote:
Are you by any chance using a small focus point with C-AF+TR on your OM1 Mk2?
By the way your final statement is incorrect "Considering the 50-200 2.8 as a complement to the 150-400 4.5. so full frame equivalent. 100-400 2.8 and 300-800 4.5." The equivalent FF apertures are f/5.6 and f/9, respectively, in terms of both the DOF and light-gathering. Your misunderstanding is typical on this forum and elsewhere on the Internet. Send me a PM, if you have questions about equivalence.
I suspect that being a professional photographer, the OP understands what you are saying. As a former professional photographer, I suspect, like me, he doesn't care. Since his interest is birds/wildlife and action sports photography, he probably is mainly interested in maximum shutter speed at any given ISO setting and aperture, sharp focus, and FOV with a given lens. If his concern is minimum DOF and minimum noise at any given ISO setting and aperture, then I suspect he will revert to FF -- unless size, weight, and cost are also considerations.
I don't misunderstand equivalence -- it simply has no relevance to me -- although, it may to the OP.
gmccroskery wrote:
I suspect that being a professional photographer, the OP understands what you are saying. As a former professional photographer, I suspect, like me, he doesn't care. Since his interest is birds/wildlife and action sports photography, he probably is mainly interested in maximum shutter speed at any given ISO setting and aperture, sharp focus, and FOV with a given lens. If his concern is minimum DOF and minimum noise at any given ISO setting and aperture, then I suspect he will revert to FF -- unless size, weight, and cost are also considerations.
I don't misunderstand equivalence -- it simply has no relevance to me -- although, it may to the OP....Show more →
What is important and distinct about your views is that you don't care about equivalence AND you don't make incorrect or misleading claims.
Equivalence, or inequivalence, doesn't make a camera system better or worse. It is the overall user experience with different cameras that guides OUR choices.
The problem with incorrect or misleading claims is that these can make OTHERS make purchasing mistakes. For example, I recently reacted to this misleading statement about the new 50-200mm f2.8 lens:
"The ability to shoot at f/2.8 across the entire zoom range is a game-changer. Every bit of light matters, especially when you're out on an adventure. I've never used a 100-400mm equivalent that doesn't slow down at the telephoto end" in https://open.substack.com/pub/jerredz/p/om-systems-game-changing-50-200mm
Obviously this statement incorrectly implies that the 50-200mm f2.8 lens is "faster" and allows more light on the sensor than the existing full-frame 100-400 equivalents, and this is not true.
I hope I explained my concerns and I hope you also share my feeling that it is our responsibility to react to factually incorrect statements. There are situations when even if we don't care, we might be compelled to do "the right thing."
