ijm5012
Mu-43 Legend
Some of you may recall a thread I created a few months ago comparing the E-M1 II (FW 2.0) to the D500 for shooting autocross (thread linked here). While autocross doesn't feature cars that are going terribly fast, there is a lot of sudden acceleration and deceleration, which can be a challenge for the AF system. My take away from that test was that the E-M1 II's performance looked promising, although I would have to follow it up with some test of faster subjects. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to do so this past weekend by shooting a 4-hour endurance motorcycle race.
I again brought my Nikon gear (D500, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 17-55), as well as some of my m43 gear (E-M1 II, 40-150 PRO, 100-300 II). The images below are meant to showcase not only how the E-M1 II performs, but also how it performs against what is probably the best sports camera you can get for less than $5k.
The D500 was set up with C-AF, 10fps, and either D25 or Group AF mode. The E-M1 II was set up with C-AF, 10fps, and either 5-point or single-point AF mode.
This first shot is a good challenge for the AF system, because the bikes come up over the crest of a blind hill, so the AF system must quickly grab focus on the subject. I will say that I pre-focused on the crest of the hill, so that when the bikes appeared, the AF system didn't have to travel very far to find and grab focus. Still, the E-M1 II and 100-300 II did very well.
E-M1 II + 100-300 II @ 300mm f/5.6 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
If we look at a similar shot from the D500, we can see that it's not much different (don't mind any differences in processing). The D500 quickly grabbed focus as the bikes appeared in the frame. This was shot with the 300mm f/2.8 VR + 1.4x TC @ f/4.5. One thing that is noticeable, and that I like, is the softer oof areas with the Nikon gear. Not only was this shot 2/3 of a stop brighter, but the sensor also gives additional DoF control as well, helping soften the oof areas.
D500 + 300/2.8 + 1.4x TC @ f/4.5 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
OK, so we've established that the E-M1 II (and the cheap 100-300 II) can do very well when it comes to grabbing focus on suddenly appearing targets. But what about panning? The below shot was taken with the E-M1 II & 100-300 II @ 200mm f/5 1/125s, and the details on the bike and text on the stickers are tack sharp.
E-M1 II + 100-300 II @ 200mm 1/125s by Ian Menego, on Flickr
When I compare the image taken with the E-M1 II to that taken with the D500 + 70-200 as shown below, again, I'm not seeing much in it in terms of differences. The D500 shot is nice and sharp (as was the E-M1 II photo), however in this instance DoF isn't a factor because we're relying on the camera motion to blur the background, rather than the DoF.
D500 + 70-200 @ 200mm 1/100s by Ian Menego, on Flickr
This next shot was another tricky shot. As I wanted to capture the riders coming through the turn with their knee out/down. What made it tricky was that the riders entered from frame right, appearing suddenly, and then accelerated down the hill. Again, the AF needed to be very quick in acquiring focus on the riders. Yet again, the E-M1 II didn't disappoint. This shot was taken at 300mm, f/5.6 wide open.
E-M1 II + 100-300 II @ 300mm f/5.6 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
When I compare the E-M1 II image to that taken with the D500 (shown below), the E-M1 II holds up very well IMO. Both shots are nice and sharp, however in this scenario the D500's better DoF control allows for a more pleasing image IMO, as it was taken at 420mm and f/4, giving it ~2 stops better DoF control over the Olympus, and this shows in the greenery as well as the guardrail in the background. However, this lens retails for $5,500, whereas the 100-300 II retails for nearly 1/10th the cost at $650.
D500 + 300/2.8 1.4x @ 420mm f/4 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
The final image comparison I'll show is a similar scenario as above, where the bikes suddenly entered the frame. The E-M1 II performed great yet again, grabbing focus very quickly with the cheap yet surprisingly good 100-300 II. This shot was taken at 200mm f/5.
E-M1 II + 100-300 II @ 200mm f/5 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
The Nikon image was taken with the bare 300/2.8 wide open, and I will say that when viewing the two images at 100%, the Nikon shot is sharper. However, the lens costs 8.5x as much as the Panasonic lens, so one would certainly hope it would be sharper. Yet again, I like the softer background/guardrail in the Nikon image, but from a technical/functional standpoint, there's not much difference between the Nikon and Olympus image.
D500 + 300/2.8 @ 2.8 by Ian Menego, on Flickr
So, what are my thoughts? The E-M1 II is an extremely capable camera for shooting sports in good, mid-day lighting (haven't tested it under darker conditions yet). As far as the camera bodies go, the E-M1 II's performance appears to be very close to that of the D500. I will say that I shot approximately 1,700 images with both cameras, and came away with nearly double the keepers from the Nikon (300 keepers, ~20%) as I did the Olympus (150 keepers, ~10%). However, a lot of the throw-away shots, for both cameras, were due to either having duplicate images, or images that were just soft because of panning (which always kills your keeper rate). While I did tend to like the images from the Nikon more just for the DoF control, I would have no hesitation recommending the E-M1 II for this type of photography. What would probably make the biggest difference would be more comparable telephoto glass for the Olympus. This would either be the PL 200/2.8 or Olympus 300/4 PRO, and I may look at renting one of those lenses in the future.
The main takeaway though, at least for me, is that the E-M1 II appears to finally be living up to its promises about improved performance. I was very impressed when looking back through the images I captured, especially compared to the Nikon and how much that camera is praised (for good reason). Anyways, no more comparison photos. Here are some additional images taken with the E-M1 II from the event.
I again brought my Nikon gear (D500, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 17-55), as well as some of my m43 gear (E-M1 II, 40-150 PRO, 100-300 II). The images below are meant to showcase not only how the E-M1 II performs, but also how it performs against what is probably the best sports camera you can get for less than $5k.
The D500 was set up with C-AF, 10fps, and either D25 or Group AF mode. The E-M1 II was set up with C-AF, 10fps, and either 5-point or single-point AF mode.
This first shot is a good challenge for the AF system, because the bikes come up over the crest of a blind hill, so the AF system must quickly grab focus on the subject. I will say that I pre-focused on the crest of the hill, so that when the bikes appeared, the AF system didn't have to travel very far to find and grab focus. Still, the E-M1 II and 100-300 II did very well.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
If we look at a similar shot from the D500, we can see that it's not much different (don't mind any differences in processing). The D500 quickly grabbed focus as the bikes appeared in the frame. This was shot with the 300mm f/2.8 VR + 1.4x TC @ f/4.5. One thing that is noticeable, and that I like, is the softer oof areas with the Nikon gear. Not only was this shot 2/3 of a stop brighter, but the sensor also gives additional DoF control as well, helping soften the oof areas.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
OK, so we've established that the E-M1 II (and the cheap 100-300 II) can do very well when it comes to grabbing focus on suddenly appearing targets. But what about panning? The below shot was taken with the E-M1 II & 100-300 II @ 200mm f/5 1/125s, and the details on the bike and text on the stickers are tack sharp.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
When I compare the image taken with the E-M1 II to that taken with the D500 + 70-200 as shown below, again, I'm not seeing much in it in terms of differences. The D500 shot is nice and sharp (as was the E-M1 II photo), however in this instance DoF isn't a factor because we're relying on the camera motion to blur the background, rather than the DoF.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
This next shot was another tricky shot. As I wanted to capture the riders coming through the turn with their knee out/down. What made it tricky was that the riders entered from frame right, appearing suddenly, and then accelerated down the hill. Again, the AF needed to be very quick in acquiring focus on the riders. Yet again, the E-M1 II didn't disappoint. This shot was taken at 300mm, f/5.6 wide open.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
When I compare the E-M1 II image to that taken with the D500 (shown below), the E-M1 II holds up very well IMO. Both shots are nice and sharp, however in this scenario the D500's better DoF control allows for a more pleasing image IMO, as it was taken at 420mm and f/4, giving it ~2 stops better DoF control over the Olympus, and this shows in the greenery as well as the guardrail in the background. However, this lens retails for $5,500, whereas the 100-300 II retails for nearly 1/10th the cost at $650.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The final image comparison I'll show is a similar scenario as above, where the bikes suddenly entered the frame. The E-M1 II performed great yet again, grabbing focus very quickly with the cheap yet surprisingly good 100-300 II. This shot was taken at 200mm f/5.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The Nikon image was taken with the bare 300/2.8 wide open, and I will say that when viewing the two images at 100%, the Nikon shot is sharper. However, the lens costs 8.5x as much as the Panasonic lens, so one would certainly hope it would be sharper. Yet again, I like the softer background/guardrail in the Nikon image, but from a technical/functional standpoint, there's not much difference between the Nikon and Olympus image.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
So, what are my thoughts? The E-M1 II is an extremely capable camera for shooting sports in good, mid-day lighting (haven't tested it under darker conditions yet). As far as the camera bodies go, the E-M1 II's performance appears to be very close to that of the D500. I will say that I shot approximately 1,700 images with both cameras, and came away with nearly double the keepers from the Nikon (300 keepers, ~20%) as I did the Olympus (150 keepers, ~10%). However, a lot of the throw-away shots, for both cameras, were due to either having duplicate images, or images that were just soft because of panning (which always kills your keeper rate). While I did tend to like the images from the Nikon more just for the DoF control, I would have no hesitation recommending the E-M1 II for this type of photography. What would probably make the biggest difference would be more comparable telephoto glass for the Olympus. This would either be the PL 200/2.8 or Olympus 300/4 PRO, and I may look at renting one of those lenses in the future.
The main takeaway though, at least for me, is that the E-M1 II appears to finally be living up to its promises about improved performance. I was very impressed when looking back through the images I captured, especially compared to the Nikon and how much that camera is praised (for good reason). Anyways, no more comparison photos. Here are some additional images taken with the E-M1 II from the event.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
