• 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.

Micro Four-Thirds (1 Viewer)

DanC.Licks said:
My telescope expert friend lent me his new Canon 100-400 II to test, so I have spent the afternoon doing three way comparisons, resolution and AF. The IQ from the 100-400 is slightly better than the other two, but in reality, all three are about the same in terms of sharpness. The 400/5.6 has a little less contrast due to higher CA, but it is not so bad. The shots from the 100-400 though, have more punch and overall clarity than the other two. BUT... it is PAINFULLY slow to AF on the E-M1. AF is best by a good bit with the Sigma, but the 400 is not that far behind.
So, Carlos, in a way you are right. At the moment it looks like the best thing to do would be to get an E-M1 II and see how it goes. My guess is there would be more to gain there than from the Sigma. I can always get my friend's 100-400 to re-test if I do get a Mark II. If it really is superior focusing the Canon 100-400 that would be a serious consideration.
The build of the Sigma is far above the Canons. Really solid! Just not that much of an advantage for me.... we'll see. I am in no rush.
Click to expand...

I can't see why one would buy a Canon 100-400mm II to use with an E-M1. IMO, it would be much better to purchase a Pana/Leica 100-400mm. It is smaller, lighter, less expensive and doesn't require an adapter. AF is instantaneous. Also, I doubt there is much difference in terms of sharpness.

I'm really pleased with mine. It is one of the best purchases I have made in terms of camera equipment. I'm really looking forward to use it with the E-M1 II.
 

Attachments

  • 001-160930ab246kf.jpg
    001-160930ab246kf.jpg
    405.2 KB · Views: 75
Simple, because the Canon can take both the 1.4x and the 2x TCs, and from what I have been able to gather, the Canon is sharper on the long end where the Pana is "weakest".
I would love to get hold of a Pana though to try out and test. Certainly more portable than the Sigma!
 
Now this is a problem.... ;)
It seems I forgot to calibrate the Canon 100-400 II on the Metabones. It will calibrate itself in time, but if you do it right off it works right off the bat. I noticed this morning that it suddenly got much faster. That must be the reason.
So... the 100-400 is now focusing just as fast as the 400. If it gets lost it takes much longer due to the vastly increased minimum focus distance, 0.35meter vs. 3.5 meters with the 400/5.6. The 400 has an 8m-infinity limiter, the zoom has 3m-infinity. The Sigma is nice in that it has two, 10-infinity and 2.6-10 meters. Good idea. But once you are in the general area, it is pretty snappy.
 
DanC.Licks said:
Simple, because the Canon can take both the 1.4x and the 2x TCs, and from what I have been able to gather, the Canon is sharper on the long end where the Pana is "weakest".
I would love to get hold of a Pana though to try out and test. Certainly more portable than the Sigma!
Click to expand...

Please don't forget to put a scope in comparison now and then - after all we want to be on forum-topic ;-)

(for example, how is your 600mm scope/or the carbon one, compared to the 100-300 canon?)
Besides Paul, who has scopes/optics as a side hobby, I may be one of the few left to shoot birds solely with a scope(s). Now that the metabones route has opened up more roads to long (affordable) teles.
 
I know how the scope performs in comparison to the 400 prime and the Sigma, and in terms of sharpness, it is about equal to the both. The Sigma is the only one that could "replace" the scope. The scope wins hands down on all the resolution tests, no question. It is simply a question of mobility and practicality.

AF search speed comparison: (pointed at the sky, the time it takes the lenses to go from infinity to about 3 meters and back)
Canon 400:1.9 seconds
Canon 100-400 at 400mm: 5.1 seconds (!)
Sigma at 400mm: 3.3 seconds

In terms of focusing noise, the 400 is about 9db louder than the 100-400, which is about 1db louder than the Sigma. 3db is double the volume level.
 
Dan,

Have you tried Advanced mode vs Green mode when using for example the Sigma? It seems these modes are mostly made for Sony cameras but may apply to other marks too...

http://www.metabones.com/article/of/Metabones_Explains_the_Significance_of_Its_Native_AF

http://metabones.com/article/of/green-power-save-mode

When calibrating, http://www.metabones.com/article/of/maximum-aperture

It mentions to point camera to a surface, like a white wall i think, to let it focus back and forth. Then it says for zooms to slowly zoom out and in, should this be done while pressing the button half-way down to let it try to focus on the white wall meanwhile?
 
It seems the green mode only applies to Sony cameras.
The crux with C-AF is:
"In addition, we have made "native" AF-C slightly better and added C-AF support for Olympus OM-D E-M1, although an AF-C performance bottleneck remains in the lens' inability to execute a series of fine maneuvers with minimal latency as commanded by the camera body". That is why it only works at snail races. ;-) Every bit of instruction from the camera has to be translated from Olese to Canonese by the addapter. Takes time....
You have to hold the button down while focusing, but not while zooming. It is just a way of showing the adapter what the focus and zoom ranges are. As I said before, it does it by its self after a few uses, but doing it right off is better.
 
Last edited:
There might be something buggy in the Metabones firmware. Since the Canon 100-400 II was SO slow to go from one end of the focus range to the other, I did some testing with firmware v2.5 and v2.1 (for me the most stable so far). I set up the camera and lenses as described in the instructions for calibrating lenses on the Smart Adapter. I tested the speed both before (right after loading the firmware) and after calibration. The 100-400 II focus limiter was set to 3m-infinity so all three lenses tested covered roughly the same range. Here are the figures:
Focus time from infinity to 3m and back in seconds:
v2.1
before calibration
Sigma 150-600 S at 400: 1.2
Canon 100-400 II: 1.6
Canon 400/5.6: 1.9

after
Sigma: 1.2
Canon 100-400 II: 6 (!)
Canon 400/5.6: 1.9

v2.5
before calibration
Sigma at 400: 3.3
Canon 100-400 II: 5.2
Canon 400/5.6: 1.8

after
Sigma at 400: 3.3
Canon 100-400 II: 6.1
Canon 400/5.6: 1.8

I repeated the test several times going back and forth between v2.1 and v2.5.
The 100-400 II is a wonderful lens and I would really like to have one, but with those focus speeds I can't even consider it. I would expect it to be as in v2.1 before calibration, seeing that it is a newer lens than the trusty old 400.

I have gone back to v2.1 for now as the speed of the Sigma is SO much better.

Later:
Now the Sigma has slowed down again, 4.6 seconds on v2.5 and 3.6 seconds on v2.1.:-C
 
Last edited:
OK so I went out and did a casual test with the E-M5/MB/400 5.6.

Weather was just "perfect", overcast so most shots were taken at around 1/50... 1/100 s which would be about right to test shutter shock.

Test based on 100+ shots revealed the following:
Focus acquisition speed was not surprisingly slower compared to when using E-M1. Not a disaster, though.
The setup has focusing issues with many frames suffering from out of focus (front). Just be certain about this I engaged the focusing magnifier in AF-S mode and it was obvious that, after AF was confirmed, manual focus adjustment was often required to get the area targeted by the AF point in focus. This reminds me of the issues I have experienced when using the E-M5 with the 50-200SWD, even in good light.
Shutter shock is sometimes noticeable. Can be difficult to distinguish from shake blur so tested with the lens on tripod as well.

I guess i'd be better keep on using the E-M5 with the scope or with m4/3 lenses.

Next will be to conduct a controlled test with the E-M1 to hopefully better understand what is going on and if something can be done in the camera settings to remedy or mitigate the spread.
 
You might also consider trying the lens adjust feature. I tried it but it didn't change anything one way or the other, but I will try again once I have made myself a better focusing target. All three of the lenses I have here at the moment are bang on. It shouldn't be necessary, but sometimes it is, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the camera software. It is meant for just such cases where a lens consistently either front or back focuses.

I fear that the speed thing is "normal behavior", which would be a bummer. Maybe when the lens is actually trying to find focus it slows down whereas during the calibration process it is just running back and forth. From what I have read, on a Canon the 100-400 takes about the same time back and forth as it does during calibration.
 
Last edited:
DanC.Licks said:
Simple, because the Canon can take both the 1.4x and the 2x TCs, and from what I have been able to gather, the Canon is sharper on the long end where the Pana is "weakest".
I would love to get hold of a Pana though to try out and test. Certainly more portable than the Sigma!
Click to expand...

I don't have a Canon 100-400mm II to compare but the Pana-Leica is much sharper at long range than the Pana 100-300mm. It is also sharper than the Metabones-Canon 400mm (with and without TC). Cropping long distance shots is much easier with this lens and should even be easier with the 20mp E-M1 II, which should arrive in the next few days... Yeah !
 
That is true, you didn't suggest it, but it is in fact a bit off topic.
For me the scope is my benchmark. It is so much sharper than any camera lens I have ever seen, (which is to be expected), so everything I look at I compare to the scope to see where things really stand.
My friend tested his Canon 100-400 II at 400mm and got a Strehl ratio of 0.82 (82%), which is amazing for a zoom lens. It was even a tad better at 300mm, 0.83. My scope is 0.97-0.98. 1 is optically perfect. No astrophotographer in his right mind would buy a scope that measures 0.82! That is ALDI quality. My tests with the Sigma at 400 mm show it on a par with the Canon, and the drop off at 600mm is minimal. You can see in post #830 the difference between 82% and 97%.
But, as they say, horses for courses!
 
Today I got the prints I ordered and I made myself a better focus test target/scale and tested all three of the long lenses I have here that connect through the Metabones adapter, and as I suspected, all three are spot on at all focal lengths.
That is the nature of the on-chip focus points. When I think about the problems some DSLR people have with lens calibration etc, makes me really glad I have stuck with Olympus. The 7DII in the beginning was notorious! The Sigma provides four different focal length adjustment possibilities at four different distance ranges in the LENS firmware. Brilliant!.... if you need it. ;)
Today's tests were done at 8 meters. Tomorrow I will make a larger target to test at about 25 meters, but I am not expecting any different results.
Of course, in real life there are MANY things that can fool any AF system, bad light, lack of textures, objects at different distances in close proximity, atmospheric conditions etc, and the further away you are from the target, the more difficult it becomes for the system to work properly, one, because the bad conditions get exaggerated with distance, and two, because the slightest change in the AF mechanism makes a much larger difference, like meters in stead of millimeters.
Testing the system with a dedicated focus target shows whether the system is working or not. Also to keep in mind is the fact that less sharp and/or lower contrast lenses provide the AF system with lower quality information to work with. Even more important is the apperture. Big, fast lenses focus faster because they gather more light, simple as that. One reason the Sigma at 600mm focuses so much faster and better than the Canons + TC is that it is f6.3 and they are f8. Those 2/3 of a stop can make a BIG difference. A 600/4 Canon would be even better... but who gonna pay?

More tomorrow...
B :)
 
Ah, yes... forgot. The in camera lens specific focus adjustment does in fact work, but even + or - 1 was enough to throw the focus noticeably out. They say (page 110) that normally there is no need to change the settings, but they have included it in the firmware just in case. The Sigma fine tune does not work with the E-M1 though. Doesn't surprise me... so I bought the dock for nothing. Oh well...:-C
No need anyway...o:D
 
What I have done is to put together data for scopes and lenses I have in my possession to give an overview how "useable" they are considering the following:
  • Size of subject
  • Distance to subject
  • Depth of field


To calculate at what distance a scope/lens is useful you specify two parameters:
  • Minimum required frame fill, below which subject will be too small/have too little details meaning file will likely end up in recycle bin. Say for instance 10%.
  • Desired frame fill for which a nice photo with enough detail can be produced. Say 25%.
(Feel free to specify whatever fit your needs)

For the DOF you can specify two parameters:
  • Minimum required DOF. Pictures taken with less DOF than this are at risk having critical elements (usually the eye) out of focus. As an example focus is on the shoulder of the bird but the eye is blurred. To be on the safe side you probably want 2 cm DOF as minimum.
  • Desired DOF: With this DOF chance is high that all critical elements get in focus. Example you want to get the whole head of a front facing bird in focus, from tip of beak to the eyes which would call for 5 cm.
(These values can be enter to fit your requirements)

For the DOF calculations I used the popular DOF calculator readily available for download as Android app and also as web based interface.

The sheet assumes 4/3 sensor size and 4608 * 3456 pixels. You could modify it so it fits other sensor sizes and pixel densities.

Basically the table provides answer to the question: at what ranges is my scope/lens most useful? The coloring is made automatically on a scale green to red over shades of yellow. Basically: the greener, the more usesable.

The table contains data for the following
  • TS102 700mm F/6.8
  • TLAPO804 480mm F/6 (replaced by closest in DOF calcuilator which is 500mm F/6.3)
  • 400 F/5.6
  • 400 F/5.6 + 1.4 extender (560 F/8)
  • 300 F/4

You could easily modify or add more lenses/scopes.

Let me know what you think or need more clarifications.
 

Attachments

  • Scopes and lenses.xlsx
    20.6 KB · Views: 87
My new focus test target....
PC142791.jpg
... with a little interference. ;)
Couldn't get to setting up a target outside, but the neighbors chimney is actually an excellent target, good contrast, fine detail, well set off from the background, and a good distance away, just under 40 meters. Here just before dark a few days ago,
PB306880.jpg
Sigma at 459mm, 1/8 second, ISO 1600, hand held.

Checked all three lenses and all scored 10 out of 10 at all focal lengths. Focus was on the top that is wrapped in chicken wire. Any front or back focus would show up immediately.
So I can rule out any AF problems with the system as such. Any discrepancies MUST then be due to other factors.
 
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.

Similar threads

S
Yet another bridge camera thread...
Replies
4
Views
422
seawatcher
S
S
Using iPad as monitor for DSLR Digiscoping
Replies
0
Views
558
SwannyVancouver
S
MelospizaMelodiaFan
Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Missy_MT_AK
M
O
Canon EOS 80D always slightly "fuzzy"
Replies
14
Views
2K
nikitasius
N
C
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
Canip
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top