E-M1mkii firmware 2.0

BrentC

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
290
Location
Brampton, Ontario
I have been running with FW2.1 since it became available. In my estimation the performance increase in C-AF is significant. I don't have hard numbers but I would say that the number of keepers where I can actually keep the single focus point on target is nearing 100%. Most if not all shots that are out of focus are completely my fault. I am shooting with the Oly 12-100 and Pany 100-400 (both C-AF calibrated) most of the time now so YMMV.

Luke
I'm curious how off were they?
 

Armanius

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,931
Location
Houston
Real Name
Muttley
He went through the AF Fine Tune process for his lenses, to ensure that the PDAF was properly calibrated for each lens.
I thought that was only necessary for legacy 4/3 lenses that use phase detection exclusively.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
216
I'm curious how off were they?
+2 for the oly 12-100 and +3 for the pany 100-400. Both back focused a bit and this seems to address the issue at least as far as my shooting is concerned. I loosely followed the process per the sticky in this forum. I found a pdf with a free target that i could print and glue on to foam board. I then did several shots at 0,+1,+2,+3 and chose the setting that most appealed to me after looking at it on the PC. This itself increased my keeper rate even before fw2.0. I often shoot objects moving towards me (planes, dogs) so i think this is why i found the camera back focusing so often ( the camera focused correctly but target moved). Thankfully oly gave us a setting to adjust for this.
 
Last edited:

50orsohours

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
2,420
Location
Portland Oregon
The first local drift event of the year is 3 weekends, and I plan on bringing my E-M1 II, 12-100 PRO, and 100-300 II to shoot against my D500, 70-200 2.8 VR II, and 300 2.8 VR

The real test here is that unlike all of the examples we’ve seen thus far, I’ll be shooting with slow shutter speeds (<1/100). That will give us a good idea of what’s going on with the Olympus as to whether it was the C-AF that was leading to a low number of keepers, or if it’s something with the IBIS that doesn’t like panning (where the fixed sensor in the D500 doesn’t have that issue).

I’m looking forward to the seeing how the E-M1 II does.
Well, the comparison between the Panasonic 100-300 and the Nikon 300mm is doomed before you even start. You are comparing a mule against a gray hound. I already know the outcome between those 2 lenses. Can’t you rent an Oly 300mm f4 for that weekend? I don’t mean to spend your money, but testing CAF with that zoom is like testing the hi res mode with the Oly 17mm 2.8
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,165
Well, the comparison between the Panasonic 100-300 and the Nikon 300mm is doomed before you even start. You are comparing a mule against a gray hound. I already know the outcome between those 2 lenses. Can’t you rent an Oly 300mm f4 for that weekend? I don’t mean to spend your money, but testing CAF with that zoom is like testing the hi res mode with the Oly 17mm 2.8
Better yet mount the old Nikon 80-400D on a single digit Nikon body: The same kind of massacre is going to occur.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,569
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Well, the comparison between the Panasonic 100-300 and the Nikon 300mm is doomed before you even start. You are comparing a mule against a gray hound. I already know the outcome between those 2 lenses. Can’t you rent an Oly 300mm f4 for that weekend? I don’t mean to spend your money, but testing CAF with that zoom is like testing the hi res mode with the Oly 17mm 2.8
It is the 100-300 Mk II that we're talking about, which supposedly supports the latest and greatest 240 FPS refresh AF and fast aperture mechanisms.

I think a whole raft of people are actually interested in what a modern non-pro super-telephoto lens is like in the hands of a reasonably skilled photographer. Yes we know the 300 Pro will be better but there are a raft of us who could never justify buying a 300 Pro, and besides there are enough people using the E-M1 Mk II with the 300 Pro already... I'm sure they can all do their testing and present findings.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,165
It is the 100-300 Mk II that we're talking about, which supposedly supports the latest and greatest 240 FPS refresh AF and fast aperture mechanisms.

I think a whole raft of people are actually interested in what a modern non-pro super-telephoto lens is like in the hands of a reasonably skilled photographer. Yes we know the 300 Pro will be better but there are a raft of us who could never justify buying a 300 Pro, and besides there are enough people using the E-M1 Mk II with the 300 Pro already... I'm sure they can all do their testing and present findings.
That's a Panasonic thing, the E-M1II in high framerate only drives the EVF at 120fps. Panasonic uses the higher framerate sampling capability for CDAF.

Apples and Oranges here, it'd be more accurate to put a Sigma 150-600C or S on the D500 and call it a day, down to the Sigma part instead of the Nikon 200-500 since there's optimization differences with the (Panasonic, I and II) 100-300 vs the (Olympus, which is an older lens) 75-300.
 
Last edited:

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,569
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
That's a Panasonic thing, the E-M1II in high framerate only drives the EVF at 120fps. Panasonic uses the higher framerate sampling capability for CDAF.

Apples and Oranges here, it'd be more accurate to put a Sigma 150-600C or S on the D500 and call it a day, down to the Sigma part instead of the Nikon 200-500 since there's optimization differences with the 100-300 vs the 75-300.
Well, personally I couldn't care less about how it compares to a D500 and an equivalent reach lens because I could never justify the latter. I'm more interested in what the E-M1 II and 100-300 II can do in the hands of a skilled user.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,165
Well, personally I couldn't care less about how it compares to a D500 and an equivalent reach lens because I could never justify the latter. I'm more interested in what the E-M1 II and 100-300 II can do in the hands of a skilled user.
There's differences in the 100-300 II (which is closer to a 150-600 or 200-500 in placement) vs a mid level tele-prime. It'd be a better thing to look at if Olympus made some kind of prime that sat between the spot of the 40-150 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. It'd be even a better comparison if Ian shot the 100-300 II on the G9, which is fully capable of pushing that lens due to it being mounted on a Panasonic body and having all the optimizations (Both for the lens and the body) for Panasonic usage.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Well, the comparison between the Panasonic 100-300 and the Nikon 300mm is doomed before you even start. You are comparing a mule against a gray hound. I already know the outcome between those 2 lenses. Can’t you rent an Oly 300mm f4 for that weekend? I don’t mean to spend your money, but testing CAF with that zoom is like testing the hi res mode with the Oly 17mm 2.8
Obviously the Nikon 300/2.8 is a superior lens. But the goal isn't to test the lenses (although it will be interesting to see the difference between the two). The goal is to test the cameras to see how the C-AF performance behaves, which the 100-300 will do just fine, since it has the updated AF motors that drive at 240fps.

As for renting gear, the 300 PRO is a 600mm lens, whereas the 300/2.8 on a D500 is a 450mm lens, so that's not really a good match up. Plus, where I'll be, 600mm of reach is FAR too much, so much so that it would make shooting difficult. The better option would be the PanaLeica 200/2.8, but a 3 day rental of that lens is $133 with shipping, which is a stupid amount of money to pay considering I only need it for a single day. But, if you're really curious, feel free to PayPal me $133 bucks and I'll rent the lens and let you know how it did :thumbup:
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,569
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
There is an aspect where the 100-300 II will limit AF speed - it's only f/4-5.6. AF tends to slow down if you can't get enough light. In broad daylight it's probably not a limiting factor I suppose, but I find that in the shade f/5.6 is getting a bit slow.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Well, personally I couldn't care less about how it compares to a D500 and an equivalent reach lens because I could never justify the latter. I'm more interested in what the E-M1 II and 100-300 II can do in the hands of a skilled user.
I too am interested in seeing how the 100-300 II performs in a real-world test. Everybody always likes to shit on this lens, but I think that most of the people are just bandwagoning on-top of what others have said. I have the lens, along with a top-of-the-line m43 body with the latest FW, so we'll be able to see how the lens really performs.

I just hope it's not freezing-ass cold that day...

There's differences in the 100-300 II (which is closer to a 150-600 or 200-500 in placement) vs a mid level tele-prime. It'd be a better thing to look at if Olympus made some kind of prime that sat between the spot of the 40-150 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. It'd be even a better comparison if Ian shot the 100-300 II on the G9, which is fully capable of pushing that lens due to it being mounted on a Panasonic body and having all the optimizations (Both for the lens and the body) for Panasonic usage.
Yes, the 150-600/200-500 would be a more realistic comparison to the 100-300 II (although both of the former lenses provide FAR more than 600mm eqv. of reach on a D500). When deciding what telephoto lens I was going to get for my D500, I was pretty close to buying a 200-500, but ended up getting a crazy deal on a 300/2.8 VR and couldn't pass it up, so that's what I have to shoot with (along with a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II). Also, the 300/2.8 is no mid-level tele-prime. It's right up there with Nikon exotics like the 200/2, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. The mid-level equivalent would be either of the 300/4 lenses.

I do with that Olympus would come out with something like a 100-250 f/4 PRO (kind of like the old 90-250 2.8 SHG, but a stop slower). That, paired with the 12-100 PRO would be a fantastic combo (provided it's tack sharp wide open like the 12-100 is). But such a lens does not exist, and the 100-300 II is a good compromise between reach and speed (what other lenses are out there that are 200-600 and f/4-5.6 ?). As for shooting it on a G9, I've spoken with one of the forum members here about borrowing a G9 and 40-150 PRO for one of the races later this summer, to compare it against the E-M1 II (now with FW 2.0) as well as the D500. Hopefully those plans come to fruition, as I'm interested to see the results, but not interested enough to plunk down ~$200 of my own money on a rental for a weekend to see.
 

paul macro

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
81
I am renting a 200mm f2.8 pl for 6 days under £100 in fact hire camera for a limited time where giving 3 days free for hire over easter the expensive part is the deposit ill give you results if you want trying on em1.2 and g9 sorry no nikon d500 to compare against
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I am renting a 200mm f2.8 pl for 6 days under £100 in fact hire camera for a limited time where giving 3 days free for hire over easter the expensive part is the deposit ill give you results if you want trying on em1.2 and g9 sorry no nikon d500 to compare against
Thanks Paul. It will be nice to see the results between these two cameras. Make sure to update your E-M1 II to 2.1, I think there were further improvements made for the PL 200/2.8.

What subjects are you going to be shooting?
 

Bengeo

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
51
Location
Herts, UK
Real Name
Andy
+2 for the oly 12-100 and +3 for the pany 100-400. Both back focused a bit and this seems to address the issue at least as far as my shooting is concerned.
I'm confused now. Normally you use minus settings to correct back focus. My 300/4 + converter was front focusing and I added +5 to correct this. By front focus I mean it was focusing a few inches in front of the intended target.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
216
I'm confused now. Normally you use minus settings to correct back focus. My 300/4 + converter was front focusing and I added +5 to correct this. By front focus I mean it was focusing a few inches in front of the intended target.
For me the camera has been focusing behind the intended target (for example on the hind legs of the dog when the target was on the head) and in the calibration process the focus was on #2 behind the zero on the diagonal rule, by adding +2 the camera showed 0 in focus. It seemed counter-intuitive to me but i just left it like that because I got the desired effect. I can rerun the process and see if i goofed something up.

Also confused
Luke
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom