• 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 (4 Viewers)

Dan,

Thanks for spending time on this. What I am experiencing is not shutter shock (even though it can sometimes be seen when shooting at critical speeds, but then the whole image is blurred). Focus varies between frames. The ones with best focus are usually the later one(s) in the series, but not always. I remember Jules writing in a post about the OOF issues increasing with distance and am inclined to agree with that.

Here is an update on this subject.

I have been working with my photo collection and when doing so I took the opportunity to review a few thousand of photos taken with the E-M1 and 4/3 lenses, mainly the 50-200 SWD. When inspecting the photos in detail I noticed that the issue with inconsistent focus results is visible. It's not as pronounced as with the Canon/Metabones though as many of the photos passed the initial qualification/were not deleted, but still it is there. From close-ups to landscape photos through birds, mammals and portraits.
 
Here is an update on this subject.

When inspecting the photos in detail I noticed that the issue with inconsistent focus results is visible.

doesn't the e-m1 have some lens focus adjust settings - have you tried them on the 50-200? you surely have already but I thought I should mention it.
 
doesn't the e-m1 have some lens focus adjust settings - have you tried them on the 50-200? you surely have already but I thought I should mention it.

Hi Carlos,

A few years back I started to calibrate my E-5 with my 4/3 lenses using a focus calibration chart but found it waste of time as the focus was correct, within +/-1.

After that I purchased a E-M1 mainly as backup for my E-5 and took for granted it would perform well with 4/3 lenses based on the statements from Olympus and reading about happy users on forums.

However the issue is that I get inconsistent results with the E-M1. Some frames suffer from back focus, some suffer from front focus, quite a few are spot on. That happens even when shooting a burst on a static subject (AF-S, single focus point, Release Shutter prio Off, L-fps). The focus point changes in between frames even when the camera/lens is supported (tripod/beanbag). This is easily seen when photographing a bird peched on a branch pointing towards you.

The issue is present on all 4/3 lenses I have. The 12-60 SWD sometimes (<10%) shows inconsistent behavior, mostly visible when shooting landscapes without stopping down (but you have to inspect carefully). The 50-200SWD produces 50% or better spot on photos. The 300/2.8 shows quite inconsistent results (<25% spot on) though I haven't used that combo very much and don't have so many samples as basis for assessment. The 400/5.6 delivers somewhat better results (35% spot on?), however some photos are really horrible from a focus standpoint.

None of these inconsistencies have been noticed when using m4/3 lenses.

Could it be that my copy of the E-M1 is crap?
 
Have you tried making one test with IBIS off and the other with ibis on? Could it be that the ibis moved the sensor but the focus was not adjusted to fit and therefore you see these inconsistencies (I believe you previously told that you have tested on stationary targets, not moving birds).

Niels
 
IBIS, when set to half press=on, can actually cause focus problems. BiF against the sky... no problem, but add a bit of background and the IS wants to stabilize something that is not important, and the AF zeros in on that rather than on the bird. It is nice to see a stabilized image in the viewfinder, but I leave mine off now. Saves juice too.
I have tested IBIS a lot and when it is needed, it is great, but should be avoided if possible, just like any in-lens IS systems. Not saying that this is the cause of Tord's E-M1 problems, but it could be a factor. Maybe he really just has a lemon. I certainly have not had the problems he has had, and have failed in my attempts to reproduce them. The whole sensor mount is so delicate in the Oly mFT bodies, I does not surprise me that it is susceptible to shutter shock and perhaps mal-focus problems like Tord's. I am sure a single micron change in the focal plane could result in millimeters of difference on something a few meters away. The pitch and yaw IS adjustments in the 5-axis system do just that; they compensate movement by changing the focal plane. (http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em1/feature3.html) So maybe the problem is sensor movement and not in the actual focus at all as it locks as soon as the shutter is pressed in S-AF/sequential.
The on-chip PDAF in the E-M1 was an entirely new development when it came out and allows focus accuracy beyond what DSLRs can produce. Is seems they have really improved on it's lacking speed in the Mark II. There they have also tried something interesting by making the whole sensor/shutter a single fixed unit that floats in the magnetic field, so it is more isolated from the body and thus eliminates shutter shock. I have seen hand held shots with from 3 to 5 second exposures. Amazing.
In general though, AF in the real world is very different than AF on a dedicated focus test chart. What the AF decides it likes may be different from what WE like. By the way, I have read about people having pretty good luck on birds with face detect with eye priority on. Interesting idea. Never tried it.
 
Have you tried making one test with IBIS off and the other with ibis on? Could it be that the ibis moved the sensor but the focus was not adjusted to fit and therefore you see these inconsistencies (I believe you previously told that you have tested on stationary targets, not moving birds).

Niels
Hi Niels and Dan,

You ar right in that a buggy/flawed IBIS could be a plausible explanation as it is operational throughout the whole sequence and does impact the sensor's location/angle. I will test next time there is light enough allowing for shutter times short enough to eliminate or at least strongly reduce risk of shake blur.

I wish I had sequences of pictures taken with the scope too as this would eliminate any adjustments of focus but unfortunately I have been using the EM-5 with the scope, not the E-M1 for various reasons.

When it comes to moving objects (BIF) with the E-M1 then it is another story. If the background is clean then I usually get one, sometimes several, frames in focus. Keeper rate is bit of luck though depending on the trajectory of the bird and how well you manage to track the bird in order to keep the AF target point that the camera used when acquiring focus still pointing at the bird throuhgout the sequence. (CAF, non-tracking, Release Priority Off).

Lastly I will also try another E-M1 copy and assess a perceived difference in keeper rate. (Side-by side field test would be less practical).
 
There is ALWAYS a bit of luck involved in BiF shots, though we are definitely at a severe speed handicap compared to DSLRs. I have a friend in New Zealand who just bought a Nikon D500 and a 300/4 + 1.4x TC to go with it. He is very impressed with his action keeper rate. Also used to use a 1D III and various Olympus bodies. Doesn't regret moving to Nikon.
C-AF with non-nativ lenses (FT, Metabones etc) on our mFT bodies is never going to be near what they are getting now with the new Pro series Oly lenses. The tests I have done with C-AF yield far fewer in focus shots than with S-AF. For BiF, short bursts at 10/fps (3 or 4 shots) works best. When the lens is so near to focus, it snaps on quickly. C-AF is too slow getting there and much too slow to react. It is the same old latency issue I mentioned earlier.
 
There is a very simple way to test whether a lens or a scope is well aligned or whether it has any other optical problems, or just to see what the overall quality/sharpness is. All you need is a more or less clear night and a tripod. Point the camera at the North Star, or to be more precice, at the North Celestial Pole, which is just a tad in the direction of the handle of the Big Dipper.
32165668476_292dee9931_b.jpg
Usually it is more than good enough just to center on Polaris. There is so little movement in the stars around Polaris that the test is useful. On any other patch of the sky, you would have to have a good mount and guidence system to freeze the stars. Set the ISO to 800-1600 and the exposure to 20-30 seconds.
What to look for:
Naturally the first thing to check is the center of the frame. Here is the Sigma at 600mm:
32165605246_dbaff23e7a_b.jpg
full size here:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/615/32165605246_c53601d96b_o.jpg
and here is my triplet:
32085393501_611ed871fa_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/354/32085393501_f92559c30e_o.jpg
What immediately jumps out here is how the scope can resolve Polaris-Ab (the tiny star right next to Polaris) where the Sigma cannot. The other stars are more clearly defined and look "smaller" than the Sigma, but the Sigma is by no means bad. The stars stay pretty round as you move away from the center. There will always be a tiny bit of elongation as you move out from the center due to the rotation of the earth. Just have to take it into consideration. Keep in mind, these were done with a 4/3 camera. FF would show more. Also, it has remarkably little CA, which is for a big zoom, impressive!
Now back to 400mm, first the Sigma
31828703300_e4019e060c_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/399/31828703300_7de535be97_o.jpg
Here you see the deformation in the stars shapes more clearly as the lens performs better! At 600, the general loss in resolution seems to cover over the deformation.
And in comparison, the Canon 400/5.6
31362508904_ef0455b257_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/767/31362508904_e6cb003772_o.jpg
Here the image is clearer, but at the same time, the problems with this lens become all too evident, namely CA! Notice the stars in the upper area. The elongation is clearly visible due to the sharpness of the lens, but the stars look like little Italian flags! ;) Seems to be a little out of alignment also.
So what does this all tell me? A lot! A lens that can't perform well on the stars is not going to resolve fine feather detail eather. There are among the manufacturers (ALL of them) sometimes big differences between one lens and another. It is a simple way to find out where you stand, and whether a newly bought lens should be sent back. *
Here is an articly by my friend Tommy, who has sent MANY a lens back because it didn't pass this (and other) test.
http://interferometrie.blogspot.co.at/
See July 5th.
The original lens block in my scope went right back to China! The second one was good.
* Oddly enough Canon seems to figured something out in this respect, and there seems to be very little variance in the 100-400 II. From what I have seen of it, it out shines both the Sigma and my 400/5.6.
 
Nice test Dan, I may add that the moon is easier to focus on, and then move the setup to the target afterwards...helped alot photographing Comet Lovejoy
 
True. But to be on the safe side, once everything was locked into position I repeated each shot 5 times, re-focusing in between, using 10x magnification. Besides, there was no moon to focus on.;)
 
I picked up a new (2015) 400/5.6 from a friend of mine and have given the AF a good testing. Just like the "old" (2012) one. Bang on every time, and the focus speed is the same. Optically identical. So I will keep the new one and sell the old one, and the Sigma S too. Going to just stick with what I have for now. At my age it is hard to justify spending huge sums of money on camera equipment.
Still using v2.1 on the Metabones. Ran v2.6 for a while, but went back.

By the way, the in-camera AF fine tuning feature does not seem to work through the Metabones adapter. Tried it for fun, but nothing. Not necessary anyway.
 
Last edited:
Finally got around to do some testing with my new 400, and I am pleased to say it is noticeably sharper than the old one, not only in the center but also away from the center. Also has much less CA.
P1244843.jpg P1244855.jpg

Both the old 400 and the Sigma have been sold. So in the end it cost me all of €50 to upgrade from my trusty 3 year old 400 to a newer and better one. Not bad, eh? B :)B :)

Also bought a sheet of camo-neoprene to make a lens coat. Super easy.
IMG_0379.jpg

The black band over the focus ring is from a scrap of natural rubber foil from our neighbors biotope. Great grip.
 
Last edited:
Finally got around to do some testing with my new 400, and I am pleased to say it is noticeably sharper than the old one, not only in the center but also away from the center. Also has much less CA.
View attachment 614979 View attachment 614980

Both the old 400 and the Sigma have been sold. So in the end it cost me all of €50 to upgrade from my trusty 3 year old 400 to a newer and better one. Not bad, eh? B :)B :)

Also bought a sheet of camo-neoprene to make a lens coat. Super easy.
View attachment 615007

The black band over the focus ring is from a scrap of natural rubber foil from our neighbors biotope. Great grip.

Good for you Dan ! Why did you sell the Sigma ? It seemed to be quite a lens from the samples you have shown. Autofocus at 600mm + 1.4X TX seems nice to me...
 
Hi Jules,
One reason is that it lacked sharpness at 600mm and even more so with a TC. I get sharper shots with the new 400 + TC than with the Sigma at 600(560)mm, and it can't come close to the scope. Up to 400mm or maybe 500mm it is really good for sure, but the rather weak performance with a TC meant that it did not have enough of an advantage over the 400+TC or my scope. The other reason is that it is just too heavy for me as a walk-around. I would have been almost entirely tripod/gimbal bound, which nullifies the zoom.
I actually really like the Sigma. For what it is it is beautifully built and really good, but I just felt it is not suited to what I want and can deal with.
My friend's Canon 100-400 II that I tested was superior to both the Sigma, and my old Canon. But the new one beats the zoom at 400mm with the exception of CA away from the center. The zoom beats the 400 in that respect, but not by a whole lot.
I would have gone the Canon zoom route if it were not for the super slow AF searching with the Metabones adapter, (plus twice the cost). If Metabones can straighten that out with a firmware update I can give it another try any time I like. But for now, I am sticking with the new 400 and the two Mark III TCs on my E-M1. No E-M1 II yet.... still not totally convinced it would be enough of an advantage for me as I still intend to stick with the Canon lens + TCs, and it is still pretty expensive.
 
Hi Jules,
One reason is that it lacked sharpness at 600mm and even more so with a TC. I get sharper shots with the new 400 + TC than with the Sigma at 600(560)mm, and it can't come close to the scope. Up to 400mm or maybe 500mm it is really good for sure, but the rather weak performance with a TC meant that it did not have enough of an advantage over the 400+TC or my scope. The other reason is that it is just too heavy for me as a walk-around. I would have been almost entirely tripod/gimbal bound, which nullifies the zoom.
I actually really like the Sigma. For what it is it is beautifully built and really good, but I just felt it is not suited to what I want and can deal with.
My friend's Canon 100-400 II that I tested was superior to both the Sigma, and my old Canon. But the new one beats the zoom at 400mm with the exception of CA away from the center. The zoom beats the 400 in that respect, but not by a whole lot.
I would have gone the Canon zoom route if it were not for the super slow AF searching with the Metabones adapter, (plus twice the cost). If Metabones can straighten that out with a firmware update I can give it another try any time I like. But for now, I am sticking with the new 400 and the two Mark III TCs on my E-M1. No E-M1 II yet.... still not totally convinced it would be enough of an advantage for me as I still intend to stick with the Canon lens + TCs, and it is still pretty expensive.

Thanks for the answer. I see that you have done your homework... I'm glad ti works for you and I wish you success ans pleasure with it.
Regards
J
 
Thanks, Jules.
It is all about finding a balance between technical and optical quality and mobility. There is no "ideal" camera/lens, there are only "best possible solutions" for each individual according to his/her needs. For some, it is a 1Dx and a monster Canon 600/4, for others it is an E-M1 and a Panaleica 100-400, and for others, like my telescope freak who is a real stickler for optical excellence, it is a Nikon P900. For hiking all day through the jungle in Guatemala, that is the camera he wants to carry. For others like my son, it is a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge! Amazing what it can do...
For me, the older I get, the more important mobility becomes. To think a few years ago I came very close to buying a Canon 5DIII and a 500/4. Whew.... that was close! ;)
 
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