Micro Four-Thirds (1 Viewer)

[JGobeil]

The list is not up to date because of the new firmware. Many lenses now work that might not have worked before. Also, the list is of lenses they themselves have tested. Just got a mail from my friend in Germany. Says it works a treat! Maybe there are things it can't do, like AF in video on the E-M1, but I will be happy if it just really works well in S-AF.
Who knows, maybe they will crack the C-AF nut sometime and provide updated firmware.

Not interested if it can't do C-AF properly and if the lens and camera are not supported by Metabones. Can't afford to spend 1500$ just to have a look...

The Oly 300mm will be available next spring for about ??2000$?? and I'll be able to sell my 100-300mm for the price of the 1.4X TC. That will give me a 420mm f/5.6 pro lens fully supported, lighter and with the latest technology, 40% more reach, better image quality and same f/5.6.

 

[DanC.Licks]

A lot of people are curious about the 300/4, including myself. But 300mm is too short for me. I keep wanting more when I have the 1.4x on the 400!
In my opinion, no Oly can do C-AF "properly", not like the big boys.

 

[JGobeil]

A lot of people are curious about the 300/4, including myself. But 300mm is too short for me. I keep wanting more when I have the 1.4x on the 400!
In my opinion, no Oly can do C-AF "properly", not like the big boys.

Dan, please allow me not to share your opinion about C-AF and Oly. It used to be the case but Firmware V.3.0 for the EM-1 has changed the situation sharply. Many people report excellent results that compare with the best APS-C DSLRs and I am one of them.

Case in point: I was at Bonaventure Island last August to photograph Northern Gannets. I brought home about 500 BIF photos taken with the EM-1 in C-AF mode and at least 75% are focused correctly. Attached are 5 examples. These were taken with the Panasonic 100-300mm which is a consumer grade lens; I can only imagine what the results would have been with a Pro lens like the coming 300mm.

You are right about wanting more than 300mm. We birders always want more reach and we'll never have enough. However, 300mm with a 1.4X TC on a 2X crop camera is getting quite serious, at a decent price.

Regards
Jules

C-AF - ISO 800 - 1/4000 and 1/5000 sec - f/8.0

 

[DanC.Licks]

Nice series, but this is an ideal situation for C-AF; bright light, contrast, relatively predictable, slow moving birds. True, V3.0 has brought improvements in C-AF with some lenses. I have the Oly 75-300 II, and it works OK, somewhat better than before, if you are able to get the subject in the frame of focus points in the first place. I find it pretty frustrating when it keeps trying to find things close up when I am trying to focus on things further away. I have gotten plenty of nice shots with it, but the AF isn't anywhere near the Canon I looked at. Optically, the 50-200, even with the EC-14, is a cut above the 75-300, but AF is still a real problem unless everything is right in terms of light and subject mater.
It will be very interesting indeed to see how the 300/4 does. Not sure what the delay is all about but I heard something about IS issues for use on mFT bodies without IBIS. Have you heard anything?
A while ago the net was a-buzz with talk about Olympus' patent for a mFT 500/4. Doubt they will ever make one, but that would be one "serious" bird lens!

 

[Tord]

Having both the E5 and the E-M1, my view is that the E5 is more accurate when it comes to focusing.

I recently read about using the E-M1 in portrait orientation in order to improve the PD-AF performance instance when used with 4/3 lenses. I tried this and have to agree that the AF easier acquires focus on relatively small subjects. The ergonomy with the grip is odd yet acceptable, once you learn and remember where the viewfinder is located (bottom left) and the location of the wheels and b-F1/b-F2 buttons. For subjects that fill more of the frame the difference is less clear, but then you would use the landscape orientation anyway to reduce risk of subjects out of frame.

I am also inclined to agree that the tracking performance is improved.

I think it has to do with the lack of cross-type AF points. Since the AF points detect vertical features only and the silhoutte of a bird against sky has mostly horizontal features, it makes sense to rotate the camera.

Below are some samples of a quite challenging subject, flying by at 10m/s or faster. With a few seconds notice, prefocusing at ~25 meters, allowing time enough to point and frame, the AF acquired correct focus in 4 sequences out of 5. The sequence it failed I spotted the Sparrowhawk, emerging from the reeds, too late.

EM-1 + 300/2.8 + EC14, 9FPS, 27 AF points, portrait orientation
Cropped to ~2300 pixels wide.

 

[DanC.Licks]

First two are pretty much on, the third is out, and the fourth is borderline.
One problem I see with "big" (FT, Canon, etc) lenses on the E-M1 is the amount of power they need to move that heavy glass to focus. The tiny 75-300 has no weight at all and has a clear advantage over the bigger lenses in that respect.
I still think an SLR with a dedicated PD AF system is going to out perform mFT when it comes to pure AF speed and accuracy. That is why the "pros" still use them, and, I might add, lug the suckers around.

I have also tried the crooked camera trick. 45° seems to help sometimes, but it is a pain to have to do that. One more thing to think about, and if the camera is on a tripod.... forget it.

 

[JGobeil]

... I have the Oly 75-300 II, and it works OK, somewhat better than before,...

Well... there is a bigger difference with my 100-300mm. Before Firmware 3.0 it didn't work, now it works fine. And not only in ideal situations.

 

[JGobeil]

This new thread in dPreview is very interesting regarding C-AF and Oly cameras. Don't miss Colin K. Work's posts.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3910273

 

[DanC.Licks]

Interesting, especially his observations on relying on S-AF. I use S-AF almost all the time, even with the 75-300. C-AF wanders too much. I find "tapping", that is, shooting a lot of S-AF shots in quick succession more reliable, that is if the lens doesn't go searching. The problem there is burst mode. There are times when 7-10 fps is very useful, so which AF to use? Academic so far as I seldom if ever have needed it with the 75-300.
It will be really interesting to see whether the 300/4 brings any improvement here.

 

[JGobeil]

Interesting, especially his observations on relying on S-AF. I use S-AF almost all the time, even with the 75-300. C-AF wanders too much. I find "tapping", that is, shooting a lot of S-AF shots in quick succession more reliable, that is if the lens doesn't go searching. The problem there is burst mode. There are times when 7-10 fps is very useful, so which AF to use? Academic so far as I seldom if ever have needed it with the 75-300.
It will be really interesting to see whether the 300/4 brings any improvement here.

Upon reading your comments, it seems that the 75-300 and the 100-300 behave differently. I can't do BIF in S-AF mode - it just doesn't work !

 

[DanC.Licks]

I can't do BIF AT ALL with the 75-300. It never finds the bird. Always looks for something closer.

Edit, well... it does work on things like hovering gulls and slow moving things that are floating against the wind. But anything really passing by... forget it!

 

[DanC.Licks]

Got the adapter today. First tests in pretty bad light this morning with the Canon 400/5.6. S-AF, IS-1 on, Focus Priority on. Impressions:
1. I just went out and shot anything that moved. o Took over 700 shots on one battery, and it still isn't empty. So it is NOT a juice hog as I had feared.
2. AF works VERY WELL, not blazing fast, but it is very accurate. The 50-200 + EC-14 is still faster, but it is f4.9 vs f5.6, and that makes a big difference. It gets better as light improves as would be expected. Don't know about BiF yet. Need to try it in better light and when there is something flying around.
3. The 1.4x Extender III does not work, which is a disappointment, but it could in the future. The Mark II version works, from what I have heard.

All in all, I am so far quite pleased with how it performs. B
Definitely a BIG addition to the mFT arsenal! More to follow as I spend more time with it.

From this morning: All ISO 800, 1/50 to 1/125 at about f/9, hand held.

15 Meters away.

Through our double glass (dirty) window.

Focus on feet.

 

[Tord]

Got the adapter today. First tests in pretty bad light this morning with the Canon 400/5.6. S-AF, IS-1 on, Focus Priority on. Impressions:
1. I just went out and shot anything that moved. o Took over 700 shots on one battery, and it still isn't empty. So it is NOT a juice hog as I had feared.
2. AF works VERY WELL, not blazing fast, but it is very accurate. The 50-200 + EC-14 is still faster, but it is f4.9 vs f5.6, and that makes a big difference. It gets better as light improves as would be expected. Don't know about BiF yet. Need to try it in better light and when there is something flying around.
3. The 1.4x Extender III does not work, which is a disappointment, but it could in the future. The Mark II version works, from what I have heard.

All in all, I am so far quite pleased with how it performs. B
Definitely a BIG addition to the mFT arsenal! More to follow as I spend more time with it.

From this morning: All ISO 800, 1/50 to 1/125 at about f/9, hand held.
View attachment 561962
15 Meters away.
View attachment 561963
Through our double glass (dirty) window.
View attachment 561965
Focus on feet.

Looking good indeed. Would be interesting to compare with the 50-200SWD + EC20 stopped down to F/9 (which is the sweet spot).

May I ask where you sourced the adapter from= (and which one, as there are at least two adapters for Canon lenses).

Maybe this post should be moved to the Photography/m43 section instead I'm sure others would be interested to read about this setup (that has little to do with Astroscopes).

 

[DanC.Licks]

Good idea. Still.... I used to be able to "justify" the 400 here because it was like a small scope... until now. Doubt I will ever use it MF again!
I got it from an online sales place in Switzerland that only ships within Switzerland, so a friend sent it on to me. There are a number of places in Germany that ship everywhere. There is only one model available in Europe, the MB_EF-m43-BM1. There is really no significant difference between the two. Firmware update was a snap. Needs the new firmware to AF.
I used to have the EC-20 and used it on my 50-200, but I can assure you, the Canon will blow it out of the water! The EC-14 is really good, but I found the EC-20 poor.
I got the Extender III to work also by taping over the first three pins in the Extender. Well known trick. Focuses very well. Now if I could only get my 90/600 to AF.... :smoke:

 

[Tord]

Hi Dan

The adapter is available here. Found several sources, all at a price point 5k SEK. Canon 400/5.6 price for new ~12k. Price for a used one in excellent condition is starting at ~6k. Say 1.2 k€ for both.

Regarding the 50-200SWD + EC20: It is capable of delivering good results, but requires stopping down to F/9 which means it is useful in favorable light conditions only.

So the Canon+Metabones should be compared to the upcoming 300/F4 + MC14 (420/F5.6). Price tag to be announced.

 

[DanC.Licks]

That is the way I see it. I found the EC-20 to be too soft to be of much benefit, where the EC-14 it top notch.
A 400mm prime is always going to beat a zoom at the same focal length, especially with a TC attached. Certainly the Canon 400 is better at 400 than their own new 100-400.
Supposedly Panasonic/Leica are working on a 100-400 zoom. Could be interesting, but again, it is a zoom.
Another gloomy day this morning, but I gave the 400+1.4x TC a go.






AF was not much slower than without the TC. Also, I forgot to turn off the half press IS on feature yesterday. Great for MF, but it slows down the AF and shortens the battery life even further. Still, without that, I might have been able to get over 800 shots on one battery yesterday!
Can't wait to try it out in good light!

 

[DanC.Licks]

Couple more...
The pin point AF is great in such situations:

and I really like being able to stop the lens down to get a bit more dof...

 

[JGobeil]

Couple more...
The pin point AF is great in such situations:
View attachment 562087
and I really like being able to stop the lens down to get a bit more dof...
View attachment 562088

I'm impressed... :t:

 

[Tord]

That is the way I see it. I found the EC-20 to be too soft to be of much benefit, where the EC-14 it top notch.
A 400mm prime is always going to beat a zoom at the same focal length, especially with a TC attached. Certainly the Canon 400 is better at 400 than their own new 100-400.
Supposedly Panasonic/Leica are working on a 100-400 zoom. Could be interesting, but again, it is a zoom.
Another gloomy day this morning, but I gave the 400+1.4x TC a go.
View attachment 562084

View attachment 562085

View attachment 562086

AF was not much slower than without the TC. Also, I forgot to turn off the half press IS on feature yesterday. Great for MF, but it slows down the AF and shortens the battery life even further. Still, without that, I might have been able to get over 800 shots on one battery yesterday!
Can't wait to try it out in good light!

Dan,
Pretty good I must say.

Would the setup work with the m4/3 MC14 (not 4/3 EC14) between camera body and Metabones? (As an alternative to Canon TC)

 

[DanC.Licks]

I should think it would. Don't see why not. It might be worth a mail to Metabones to ask, but I doubt they would answer. At any rate, it would be good to try before buying.
Who knows what the EXIF data would say, but who cares? According to exiftool-(k) I am shooting with a Leica D Vario Elmar 14-150mm f3.5-5.6. LR says it is a Metabones 400/5.6.

The only possible problem I could see is that the protruding elements might not fit inside the adapter, but it looks like it would fit. The opening is about 28mm in diameter.

Interesting thought....