• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

FT-lenses on E-M1 Mk II (1 Viewer)

Binoseeker

Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
According to this site FT lenses should work on E-M1 Mk II:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_om_d_e_m1_mark_ii_review/


Focusing is one area where the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II offers a clear improvement over the original E-M1. The on-sensor phase-detection system has been completely overhauled and now includes 121 cross-type AF points covering almost the entire frame, rather than the E-M1's 37 phase-detection points, which enables better continuous AF performance especially with low-contrast subjects in low-contrast light, as well as fast focusing with “regular” Four Thirds lenses, mounted via an adapter. Low-light auto focus continues to be excellent – the system managed to focus down to -2EV (as long as there was something to focus on) even without the use of the focus assist lamp. This is seriously low light, about the same as a landscape lit only by moonlight and nothing else.

Anyone tried this in practice?

Anders
 
I have seen that too. From what I have heard the adapted Canon lenses (Metabones) focus about the same speed as FT lenses, though that is hard to compare.
By the way, the searching speed of my new 400/5.6 is the same with v2.1 and v2.6, 1.9 seconds from infinity to 3.5meters and back. Going to try 2.6 now for a while with the new lens.
 
I tried the FT lens Olympus Digital 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 ED, with Panasonic adapter DMW-MA1, on the E-M1 Mk II today. It didn´t work great at all...as bad as on the Mk I. Maybe it will work better with the Olympus FT-MFT adapter.
 
Dan, maybe there is a certain setting in the MkII to be used with FT-lenses?
I didn´t have time to check the meny in detail.
 
I would like one too :)
The mk ll would have been much more environmentally friendly if FT-lenses could have been used with good performance. Maybe in the next firmware update.....ok i will check out that URL when i get home.
 
I expect there to be improvements there. The E-M1 Mark I is not the same camera now as it was when I bought it three years ago. It is amazing how much it improved with firmware updates.
In good light, I see little difference between the two with my FT lenses. When the light gets bad, the Mark I does better than the II. But my mFT 75-300 is a rocket on the Mark II. The searching speed of the Canon is about the same on both, but it locks on much quicker with the Mark II. BiF is no comparison. The 121 cross type AF points are a big help there.
The problem with FT lenses is that they only use the phase detect cross type sensors, and they have less actual area than the contrast detect AF squares. The new mFT lenses take advantage of both systems at the same time.
The focus accuracy with the 400 and the Oly FT lenses is bang on every time on the test chart.
 
I thougt the AF intelligence was only in the camera, which then just commanded the AF motor in the lens to focus.... well, if they have put some AF intelligence in the lens also, then I understand there is issues making FT lenses work good on mFT cameras.....

Here is some info from wiki:
Contrast detection places different constraints on lens design when compared with phase detection. While phase detection requires the lens to move its focus point quickly and directly to a new position, contrast detection autofocus instead employs lenses which can quickly sweep through the focal range, stopping precisely at the point where maximum contrast is detected. This means that lenses designed for phase detection often perform poorly on camera bodies which use contrast detection.
 
Last edited:
I thougt the AF intelligence was only in the camera, which then just commanded the AF motor in the lens to focus.... well, if they have put some AF intelligence in the lens also, then I understand there is issues making FT lenses work good on mFT cameras.....

Here is some info from wiki:
Contrast detection places different constraints on lens design when compared with phase detection. While phase detection requires the lens to move its focus point quickly and directly to a new position, contrast detection autofocus instead employs lenses which can quickly sweep through the focal range, stopping precisely at the point where maximum contrast is detected. This means that lenses designed for phase detection often perform poorly on camera bodies which use contrast detection.

Another version I have seen is that the moving lens elements of a lens designed for contrast detection has to be light to allow the back-and-forth optimization of focus inherent in contrast detection. That would not be true for the FT lenses. Even with phase detection, such lower mass lens elements could be expected to react faster?

Niels
 
Both true.
The brilliance of the new lenses with the Mark II is the way whey use both systems simultaneously. Best of both worlds: speed AND accuracy.
 
There are so many wonderful things about this camera, and I am just getting started. Today I figured out how to set and use the focus limiter, a great help with "slow" lenses, like the Canon/Metabones. I have set three ranges, 8m-infinity, 15m-infinity, and 3-10m. For my BiF custom set, for instance, I have it set to 15-inf, default is on, so if I see something coming, chances are it will be within this range, and all I have to do is quick turn the dial to C3 go. It cuts the searching time down a LOT.
The three ranges can be selected by holding the on-off button (I have it set to the dof preview button) and turning a dial. Works very well and I don't have to fumble around for the switch on the lens under the lens coat. Besides, it is either 3.5m-inf or 8m-inf, so now I have 4 ranges rather than just two. Brilliant.
The ONE thing I am not happy with is that it is more difficult to pinpoint focus, like on a birds eye in the branches. The Mark I is still better there. The single AF point is a little too big, and the bummer is that with lenses that only use phase detect, the box is not as selective as on the Mark I. On the Mark I, the focus is on exactly what is within the box, on the II the area covered is a good bit larger than the box. Let's hope for a solution to this!
 
I tried out Mark II this Saturday in a London park, and had the same problem with a bird hidden behind branches (admittedly, it was a LOT of branches). I ended up using manual focus. Focus peaking helps a lot.
 
I find that using MF to help the AF works pretty well. The camera "thinks" maybe too much. It wants to tell us what we want in focus, so if we get nearer to what WE want, it cooperates a bit more. My bet is that the Oly pro lenses, like the 300/4, will be very selective as they use both PDAF and CDAF.
 
So if I use MF to bring the focus close to the bird, and then switch to AF and half-press the shutter, it should be easier to focus on the bird?
 
That is what I have always done. With FT lenses I always used S-AF/MF, and with the Canon I just use S-AF as the manual focus is mechanical and not focus by wire. It is easy to become too dependent on AF, but fact is, no camera can think for you. The camera sees all those nice high contrast branch edges and thinks the fuzzy LBJ is just uninteresting background. Here are a few test shots from when I was learning how to use the Metabones/Canon:
22316878363_77a450afa9_b.jpg 22949145421_813081d3ac_b.jpg 23453253540_1f65b66a91_b.jpg
I was able to put the focus box right on the bird, avoiding the branches, and it locked on fine. If I try it with the Mark II, chances are it will jump foreward and lock onto the branches. So the only thing to do is try and get it more or less in focus and the camera finds the bird attractive after all and locks on. I need to practice it more, but there aren't many LBJs around yet. Too early...
Slight advantage there for the Mark I. Where the Mark II excells though is with BiF.
 
Last edited:
For comparison, using an older panasonic camera I have mostly gone the opposite way: use AF to get close and then MF to move from the branch to the bird. The Camera has a setting so that I half-press for the AF, and turn the MF wheel on the lens while holding the half-press to do the rest.

Niels
 
Niels,
I do that too sometimes. Depends on the situation. At any rate, combining AF with MF is faster and can be more selective. I don't really think about it much. I have used MF so much over the years that I instinctvely have my fingers on the focus ring all the time. It works great with the Canon 400 as I rest the lens foot in the palm of my hand and the focus ring is right under my finger tips. Only thing is I keep forgetting which way to turn the ring!
;):smoke:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top