Micro Four-Thirds (13 Viewers)

[Tord]

Taken early in the evening on the Isle of Harris this spring. All with the E-M1 and the Canon 400/5.6 with the Metabones adapter. Very dull light.
View attachment 594669 View attachment 594670 View attachment 594671 View attachment 594672 View attachment 594673

The E-M1 sensor struggles in situations like this due to its somewhat restricted DR, so I usually shoot + .7 to +1 EV against the sky (+1 when it is all gray) in hopes of getting enough light under the wings without blowing the highs and destroying the contours of the wings. The AF seldom misses!

Nice poses. Are these from one and same sequence? Shoot a burst, or single shots while re-engaging the AF for each frame?

 

[DanC.Licks]

Our population is definitely on the rise. Aside from the four "we" were able to produce, our neighbors have also helped out. Up until this spring, I was barely able to get a single half way decent shot of one. Now they seem to be more used to us and are far less shy.

 

[Tord]

One more, the last shot of the young one before it left the nest. The mother was perched up on the post above the box.

View attachment 591634

These were all done with the electronic shutter, but I am not happy with the distortion it causes if there is even the slightest movement with the 400. Doesn't really show here, but there were a number of shots that looked simply funny out of shape. I was hand holding, but supporting the end of the lens on the opening of the hide.
Hard to know whether the sound of the normal shutter would have alarmed them or not. My plan was to first get a bunch with the silent mode, and later try with the normal mode. Didn't get the chance...

The silent shutter is great however quite often I get photos where a part of the frame is blurred, looking like smeared. Maybe caused by moving the camera?

 

[DanC.Licks]

The terns were all within the space of about 90 seconds and might even be all the same bird.
In such cases I now use my "gun sight", which is a HUGE help for BiF, and shoot short bursts of three or four frames at 10fps. C-AF is still not an option. But those were without my sight, so they were single and silent. Tracking through the viewfinder is just so difficult in burst mode with an EVF. There an OVF wins every time!
Silent shutter is not without its problems, especially with long lenses where the slightest movement will cause lots of distortion. From what I have seen of the proposed specs of the E-M1 Mark II, they have been able to reduce "rolling shutter" to the point where it is no longer an issue. Still not a global type shutter, but improved. With the E-M1, it takes about 1/15 sec to "read" the sensor (scrolls from top to bottom), and a lot can happen in that amount of time. So maybe the have been able to greatly shorten the read time...
Though I often find distortion a problem with silent shutter, I haven't seen any "smearing" that you describe. Any samples?

 

[JGobeil]

Nice shots Dan. You write that C-AF is still not an option. Metabones 2.4 is said to support it. Have you tried it ?

 

[DanC.Licks]

Not only is 2.4 C-AF too slow to be of any use, but the S-AF is slower and more erratic, at least with the 400/5.6. 2.1 is still the best so far.

 

[Tord]

The terns were all within the space of about 90 seconds and might even be all the same bird.
In such cases I now use my "gun sight", which is a HUGE help for BiF, and shoot short bursts of three or four frames at 10fps. C-AF is still not an option. But those were without my sight, so they were single and silent. Tracking through the viewfinder is just so difficult in burst mode with an EVF. There an OVF wins every time!
Silent shutter is not without its problems, especially with long lenses where the slightest movement will cause lots of distortion. From what I have seen of the proposed specs of the E-M1 Mark II, they have been able to reduce "rolling shutter" to the point where it is no longer an issue. Still not a global type shutter, but improved. With the E-M1, it takes about 1/15 sec to "read" the sensor (scrolls from top to bottom), and a lot can happen in that amount of time. So maybe the have been able to greatly shorten the read time...
Though I often find distortion a problem with silent shutter, I haven't seen any "smearing" that you describe. Any samples?

Hi Dan,

• Where did you find about the proposed specs for the E-M1 Mk 2?
• I will dig out some samples of "smeared" photos, need to trawl through the recycle bin first. Stay tuned.

 

[Tord]

Not only is 2.4 C-AF too slow to be of any use, but the S-AF is slower and more erratic, at least with the 400/5.6. 2.1 is still the best so far.

I wouldn't call the CAF useless, although I agree it has limitations. And I haven't noticed any performance degradation for SAF between 2.1 and 2.4. Amount of shots that have OOF issues is roughly the same.

These are with the 2.4 and CAF. Birds were steadily cruising, following the shore at more or less constant speed against the fresh breeze. Attemting to capture the action, tracking them when diving was beyond the limits of what the setup can handle though.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=266310&page=8
Post #179

 

[DanC.Licks]

2.4 simply refuses to focus in less contrasty situations where 2.1 has no problem at all. C-AF is "useless" if it is too slow to follow something moving toward or away from you rather than sideways, and 2.4 fails at that. I get much better results with S-AF and short (3-5 shot) bursts at 10 fps.
Maybe it works with other lenses, don't know.

 

[Tord]

2.4 simply refuses to focus in less contrasty situations where 2.1 has no problem at all.

Interesting... I haven't noticed any degradation in performance myself.

 

[DanC.Licks]

In normal shooting you wouldn't notice it, but when the light gets worse or if the subject has fewer clear contours, it has trouble locking on, and sometimes gives up all together. Also, it slows burst mode down to a crawl, like 2 fps. But to be honest, I don't expect that nut to be satisfactorily cracked. Here from their home page:
"AF-C and video autofocus may have unsatisfactory AF performance and/or accuracy. This is a limitation inherent in DSLR lenses, which lack the low latency required for making many fine movements in rapid succession during AF-C and video focusing."
and:
"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"

If fast C-AF and burst is really desired, there is no way past the D500 or the 7D II.

 

[njlarsen]

Or perhaps wait for the EM1-ii to see what the hype about improved AF really is all about.

Niels

 

[DanC.Licks]

My guess is improvements will be with mFT lenses and not legacy lenses, FT or otherwise. mFT still has a lot of catching up to do to really compete with DSLRs in terms of focus speed and tracking accuracy. The advantages of a dedicated focus sensor over on chip phase detect cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the focus accuracy that often plagues DSLRs is something we don't really have to worry about. Every time I read about the headaches some people have with the Canon 7D II, for instance, trying to get the micro focus adjustment right, I just smile and thank Metabones!

 

[JGobeil]

In normal shooting you wouldn't notice it, but when the light gets worse or if the subject has fewer clear contours, it has trouble locking on, and sometimes gives up all together. Also, it slows burst mode down to a crawl, like 2 fps. But to be honest, I don't expect that nut to be satisfactorily cracked. Here from their home page:
"AF-C and video autofocus may have unsatisfactory AF performance and/or accuracy. This is a limitation inherent in DSLR lenses, which lack the low latency required for making many fine movements in rapid succession during AF-C and video focusing."
and:
"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"

If fast C-AF and burst is really desired, there is no way past the D500 or the 7D II.

I found that the E-M1 is not that bad in C-AF mode. On a trip to Ile aux Perroquets on Lower North Shore Quebec to photograph Puffins, I took 3 500 shots on a single day, mostly BIF, and I found how to use C-AF properly with the Panasonic 100-400mm.

The trick is not to try tracking the bird while focusing. I follow the bird, trying to keep it in the EVF, and QUICKLY push the shutter to take a high speed burst. Half pressing the shutter while following the bird does not work and the camera is unable to focus most of the time. I set the burst speed at 9-H.

The difficult part is to get the bird in the EVF. Puffins are small (32 cm) and they fly at speeds between 75-90 kmh.

 

[Tord]

Though I often find distortion a problem with silent shutter, I haven't seen any "smearing" that you describe. Any samples?

Here you go. Two shots with < 1s in between. Look at the trunk.

 

[cango]

in what conditions (shutterspeeds?) does that smearing occur? besides using silent shutter.

 

[Tord]

in what conditions (shutterspeeds?) does that smearing occur? besides using silent shutter.

Hi Carlos

I have seen it occur at different speeds, silent shutter only. With the 400/5.6 I usually shoot in the range 1/250s ... 1/1600 to give an idea. The smearing may occur at any of these speeds. It can impact different areas of the frame, smaller or larger areas.

 

[cango]

Hi Carlos

I have seen it occur at different speeds, silent shutter only. With the 400/5.6 I usually shoot in the range 1/250s ... 1/1600 to give an idea. The smearing may occur at any of these speeds. It can impact different areas of the frame, smaller or larger areas.

is it known what cause it?

 

[Tord]

is it known what cause it?

I have no idea.
Quite often the whole frame is sharp and focus is spot on.
Sometimes areas are blurred/smeared like in the sample I shared, the blurred area appears at random locations.

What I have learned based on experience is to always shoot a burst in order to avoid these issues.

 

[Tord]

Here is another example of a photo with "smeared" parts. And no, it is not shake or motion blur.