EM-5 vs. Fuji XE-2 or XT-1?

[pellicle]

Hi

For high speed anything, a real DSLR is still king, both in viewfinder and AF performance. .

I would second this, as if you want AF performance a used 20D and an EF300f4 will be a reasonable combo that isn't expensive. You'll get 5pfs and spend around $1000 entirely.

food for thougt

 

[OzRay]

For high speed anything, a real DSLR is still king, both in viewfinder and AF performance. A smaller DSLR like a D5200 is as light as an EM-5 anyway, but the lenses are quite a bit bigger.

I agree with the AF performance, but cannot agree with the viewfinder performance. Modern EVFs provide a larger, brighter, and far more informative and adaptive view for the photographer than can any OVF. The AF performance shortfall will be overcome, as with anything, and the traditional DSLRs will fall by the wayside like film SLRs.

 

[mattia]

Depends on the lighting of the scene, and on the optical viewfinder. I find APS-C and (god forfend) 43 optical VF's annoying and small, but looking through a FF camera optical VF is a perfectly pleasant experience. The EVF is more informative, however.

 

[OzRay]

I haven't looked through a FF DSLR viewfinder for a long time, but looking through my Pentax MX (50mm f2 lens) and Minolta SRT303 (50mm f1.4) film camera viewfinders, they are pretty woeful compared to the E-M1, certainly not better than the E-3, whether bright daylight, indoors or late night.

 

[yakky]

My understanding was that with m4/3 lenses, the contrast detect AF worked fine, at least in S-AF mode. No Olympus camera yet, has an effective C-AF mode.

Agree, S-AF on the modern Oly bodies and lenses is faster than most DSLRs. C-AF can't keep up because contrast detection requires the lens to yo-yo. Then there is predictive AF, that concept seems to be missing from most ILCs.

 

[DynaSport]

Having shot HS football, basketball, and volleyball with a 20D, I can say that C-AF on that model is far from perfect. Better than my G5, but still lots of missed focus shots for me. I think much of if was slight front or back focus. I even had issues using C-AF on slow walking people in some engagement/wedding shots. So, while the experience for me was definitely better using a dslr over my G5, it was not nearly as good as I wanted. I longed for 1D model which has much better AF performance. But I couldn't handle the expense and I worried that the size would limit my willingness to haul it around unless I was doing serious photography, which is overall a small percentage of my photography. So, I stayed with the 20D and understood I'd have quite a few slightly OOF shots. I have been very frustrated with trying to take pictures of fast moving objects with my G5 though and I have modified my technique in an attempt to get more shots I am happy with. It has gotten better, but I am still practicing/experimenting.

My opinion at this point is that C-AF is not worthwhile. Switch to S-AF and don't prefocus as that locks focus and as the object moves you lose focus. Shoot short bursts, release and get desired composition again (as the EVF will frustrate you as it will lag a bit) and then do it again. Using this method I can usually get some decent shots, but it is far different from my dslr technique of obtaining focus (using a separate button to obtain focus) and following action in the OVF and then firing off shots when the action is what I want. I do prefer that technique, it just doesn't work with my G5 for me.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I agree with the AF performance, but cannot agree with the viewfinder performance. Modern EVFs provide a larger, brighter, and far more informative and adaptive view for the photographer than can any OVF. The AF performance shortfall will be overcome, as with anything, and the traditional DSLRs will fall by the wayside like film SLRs.

I'm sure it will be overcome in the future, but that doesn't help someone who is needing a capable device now.

 

[dhazeghi]

For tracking AF on a budget, a used Nikon D300 or Canon 40D is a pretty decent option. Just don't set your expectations too high - while they're far better than any m4/3 (or 4/3) - none is perfect.

 

[hookgrip]

For tracking AF on a budget, a used Nikon D300 or Canon 40D is a pretty decent option. Just don't set your expectations too high - while they're far better than any m4/3 (or 4/3) - none is perfect.

I've used a D300 for shooting sports before and it is far superior to any micro 4/3 camera for AF tracking. The D300 has the same 51 point AF system as the D3, D4, D700.

The 40D is better than micro 4/3's CDAF for tracking, but it's not as good as a D300.

Of course, the other half of the equation is what lenses you use. A D300 will really only shine when you pair it with a ultrasonic motor lens.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I've used a D300 for shooting sports before and it is far superior to any micro 4/3 camera for AF tracking. The D300 has the same 51 point AF system as the D3, D4, D700.

The 40D is better than micro 4/3's CDAF for tracking, but it's not as good as a D300.

Of course, the other half of the equation is what lenses you use. A D300 will really only shine when you pair it with a ultrasonic motor lens.

Not true. I use a D300 with a Nikon 300/4 and 80-200/2.8 - both screw drive lenses and are blazingly fast and track better than any mirrorless counterpart. Each of these lenses can be found for between $500 and $800 on the used market and are worth every cent.

 

[iau]

I agree with the AF performance, but cannot agree with the viewfinder performance. Modern EVFs provide a larger, brighter, and far more informative and adaptive view for the photographer than can any OVF. The AF performance shortfall will be overcome, as with anything, and the traditional DSLRs will fall by the wayside like film SLRs.

I think the "problem" with EVF is dynamic range when shooting outside in bright light/high contrast light. I have the X-T1 and the EVF is absolutely stunning under most condition. There is no delay in movements. Sometimes it's even hard to see the difference from an optical VF, but in certain harsh light it is difficult to see the details. A bird may become just a dark shadow or it's difficult to focus on the eyes of a person. I have had both problems myself.

 

[OzRay]

I think the "problem" with EVF is dynamic range when shooting outside in bright light/high contrast light. I have the X-T1 and the EVF is absolutely stunning under most condition. There is no delay in movements. Sometimes it's even hard to see the difference from an optical VF, but in certain harsh light it is difficult to see the details. A bird may become just a dark shadow or it's difficult to focus on the eyes of a person. I have had both problems myself.

In harsh light, I just adjust the exposure level and the viewfinder shows exactly what I'm getting and that allows me better focus. The early EVFs were not that god under these conditions, but I'm amazed at how effective the EVF is in E-M1. I have yet to find one situation where I'd wished for an OVF. I would also suggest that this will only improve and even the blacking out of the EVF may be a thing of the past, perhaps when technology such as global shutters, or some derivative, become mainstream in DSLRs.

 

[val]

the only logical upgrade is to the X-T1 especially for sports.

nothing against the X-E2 but they did improve AF tracking in the X-T1

Also, look at the GH4 since it's new AF sounds perfect for sport and the EVF doesn't black out

I stepped on the trigger of the diminutive camera and it started its job of capturing 7 frames per second, the viewfinder staying live, no images blocking my ability to keep the camera on my subject. “WOW” I said to myself. That was the first indication this camera is a different beast than the GH3′s I’ve been shooting.

http://www.naturalexposures.com/panasonic-lumix-gh4/

Obviously this is heavily dependent on lens choice also but this is one area where the GH4 punches above its weight offering a 49 point AF system against the Canons 61 point AF system.

The GH4 has a larger AF focusing area along with a new system called DFD (Depth From Defocus) which gives the camera an incredible focus speed, honestly it makes the 1Dx with its 24-70mm feel like a slug by comparison, focusing is almost instantaneous when you press the shutter. The GH4 really gives you confidence in its focusing, it moves with authority and knows exactly where to focus. I always encounter slight hunting on Canon DSLR's at the very least.

Things are a little different when you throw focus tracking into the mix, the 1Dx offers a wide range of options to customize the autofocus for tracking in different scenarios etc. In my limited testing though I found the GH4 actually a little snappier moving to focus but it does work differently. By this I mean you will track a subject and the camera will go through a quick period of being out of focus then it suddenly snaps into focus again.

http://www.terranmedia.com.au/blog/2014/5/3/panasonic-gh4-vs-canon-1dx

 

[sabesh]

Something to note: The X-T1's EVF is noisy in low light, due to fast refresh rate.

 

[mbbinvt]

The E-M1 has a shutter delay (anti-shock), as well as a release lag time, option after pressing the shutter button, I assume the E-M5 is similar, so perhaps the delay is set for too long.

Hi OzRay,
Good thought. I checked out my settings, and unfortunately the anti-shock was set to off, so presumably that wasn't the problem. (Tell me if I'm wrong about that, though. I have to admit that I never knew the EM-5 had an anti-shock setting until you mentioned it!)

 

[OzRay]

I just set mine to '0' when the firmware update came through, by default it was set to '2'. Try another setting and see what happens. it may sound counter-intuitive, but I also can't see why there is now a zero setting on the E-M1, when Olympus could have just said turn the delay off.

 

[mbbinvt]

Cheaper sports lenses?

Not true. I use a D300 with a Nikon 300/4 and 80-200/2.8 - both screw drive lenses and are blazingly fast and track better than any mirrorless counterpart. Each of these lenses can be found for between $500 and $800 on the used market and are worth every cent.

I appreciate your input about the D300. I see I could get one on ebay for a little over $100. Any suggestions for cheaper, but still decent sports lenses? Ideally, I would find a zoom so I wouldn't have to buy or carry two lenses. I'm hoping not to spend more than, say, $200-$300 for the zoom. If I go this route, I'm thinking I would just create a sports-only setup and use my m4/3 and Fuji gear for all other purposes.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[mbbinvt]

Nikon V1 an option?

I know this is a long shot, but any chance a V1 would work for shooting high school soccer? I assume people would have mentioned it as an option if it really were one, but figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

 

[Ned]

I know this is a long shot, but any chance a V1 would work for shooting high school soccer? I assume people would have mentioned it as an option if it really were one, but figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

That's not even the same class of camera, so that's a difficult question to answer. What "will work" certainly depends on your own self... but the V1 would be a huge step down in every way from any other options mentioned.

 

[DynaSport]

I know this is a long shot, but any chance a V1 would work for shooting high school soccer? I assume people would have mentioned it as an option if it really were one, but figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

From what I have read, the V1 has very fast focus speed and better tracking than any m4/3 camera. There aren't really any fast aperture telephoto lenses and the chip is even smaller that m4/3 so high ISO will likely be noisy and and small DOF will be harder to achieve if that is important to you. But I have looked into the Nikon 1 system myself and have been pleasantly surprised by some of the photos I have seen from them. I wouldn't totally discount the camera. A member here writes for a motorcycle magazine that I read and he has published several photos in that magazine taken with the Nikon 1 system and I believe he uses the V 1, but I'm not positive.

It's funny to me how we get upset when FF users put down m4/3 because it has a small sensor, but many m4/3 users look down on the Nikon 1 system because it has an even smaller sensor. I do believe that larger sensors have advantages over smaller sensors, but they also have some drawbacks that come with them as well. I think Nikon did a great job on the hybrid AF system on the 1.