New E-M1 with Non-SWD lenses...

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by stetr24, Sep 14, 2013.

  1. stetr24

    stetr24 Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Dec 30, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Trevor Stevens
    Hi all,

    I've been reading up on this new E-M1 and I love that, with the MMF-3, I can still use all my 4/3rd lenses with MUCH faster AF speeds, but I'm curious...

    All the tests I've seen on the web with 4/3rd lenses adapted to the E-M1, they were all SWD lenses. How do you suppose the Non-SWD 14-54mm and 50-200mm lenses will do? I really don't want to have to part with my glorious 14-54 and 50-200mm lenses until I have the funds to get both the 12-40 and 40-150mm PRO lenses :yahoo:.

    Does anyone have any input how the Non-SWD lenses perform on the E-M1?

    Thank you!
     
  2. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Steven
    I am not sure what's SWD but I tried the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 yesterday with the E-M1 and I think its pretty fast to focus.

    Sent from my GT-N7100 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  3. stetr24

    stetr24 Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Dec 30, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Trevor Stevens
    For those who don't know...

    SWD (Supersonic Wave Drive) is OLYMPUS™s original high speed Auto Focus driving technology.

    Supersonic Wave Drive (SWD) is a high output, small form factor ultrasonic motor technology developed by OLYMPUS. SWD enabled lenses promise easy, fast and accurate focusing. Simultaneously, this technology is used in the camera body as an effective camera shake compensation motor.

    image_swd01.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. stetr24

    stetr24 Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Dec 30, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Trevor Stevens
    And Steven, thank you! Would you say that your 50-200mm focused just as fast, if not faster than on an E-5?
     
  5. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Steven
    I haven't had the chance to try the E-5 but a guy who was doing some exhibitions on a bike was there and while he was moving around the lens can definitely follow him.

    here's one shot taken with the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5... taken at ISO 12800 though
     
  6. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    There are two versions of the 50-200mm lens. The non-SWD version, and the SWD version. On 4/3, the SWD version offered significantly faster autofocusing.

    Do you know which one you tested on the E-M1? They look quite similar.

    The reason that this question matters, quite frankly, is that the non-SWD version presently sells for around $300-350 less than the SWD version, and they are optically virtually identical. The ONLY reason to buy the SWD version is if it focuses faster, and it certainly DOES focus noticeably faster on 4/3 bodies. Many of us would really like to know if it also focuses noticeably faster on the E-M1.

    Also, there was a post yesterday by dhazeghi claiming that the ONLY difference in the 14-54 Mk II vs. the Mk I was that the Mk II was designed to work with CD-AF, as well as Phase Detect AF. I.e. NOT that it had an SWD motor. I don't know this to be the case - but that post claimed that the Mk I 14-54 would focus just as fast on the E-M1 as the Mk II would. It's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer, although I wish I did. In any case, Olympus never claimed that the 14-54 mk II lens has an SWD motor.
     
  7. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The 50-200 SWD version is noticeably "fat" and has a blue ring on the lens barrel.

    [​IMG]

    The regular version is roughly constant thickness down the length and does not have a blue ring.

    [​IMG]

    Given what I have seen with the 150 which is not SWD I expect the non SWD lenses to be pretty good.

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-gu8JVKeTM"]150 f2 focus with E-M1[/ame]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. stetr24

    stetr24 Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Dec 30, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Trevor Stevens
    Thanks for posting that video Larry! That test shows that the non-SWD lenses focus just as fast as my E-5, so that's good news! The 50-200mm is known to hunt a little when focusing from back to front, but I'm used to that.

    And like mentioned before, I WILL be getting the new PRO lenses, but I need to wait :dash2:.
     
  9. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
  10. stetr24

    stetr24 Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Dec 30, 2012
    Seattle, WA
    Trevor Stevens
    Indeed, not bad! These kind of comments were exactly what I was looking for...

    "After 15 minutes or longer shooting time kicked in, I actually forgot about the difference in speed, and shooting away, getting shots after shots, and I realized that the focusing speed was fast enough for what I needed to shoot. I have never wished the speed was faster."

    The 14-54 and 50-200mm will work well enough for me for a little while, but the 12-40 and 40-150mm PRO lenses will soon be in my grasp!
     
  11. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Hmm... The non-SWD 50-200 seems fairly noisy, and not especially fast, although certainly light years ahead of where it is on the E-M5. Would be ironic if the E-M1 were to do better with SWD motors than standard micro motors, considering all previous m4/3 bodies were the opposite.
     
  12. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Without intending to I acquired an e-510 body (I found a local deal on a 12-60 and the body came with it).

    I did some testing with the 50-200, 14-54ii and the 12-60 SWD.

    In good light all the lenses performed very well on the e510 with the 12-60 being somewhat faster and quieter.

    In bad light none of them were great on the e510 and the e-m5 was on par with the same lens. The 14-54ii did appear do some hybrid focusing at times with the e510. Ie move to the focus point directly then optimise it.

    I also tested a 4/3 40-150 primarily with an e-pl2, part of the lens + stuff deal. With the v1 firmware it was a dog doing cdaf. With the 1.3 firmware it was 2-3 times quicker. It makes me wonder what they could do with the 50-200 and the e-m5.
     
  13. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    The E-510 cannot power the SWD lenses like the higher-end E-3, E-30, and E-5 bodies do, and can therefore not take full advantage of their autofocus speed. Your SWD lenses can do better than what you're able to see on the E-510 (which was a lovely little camera, I must add).
     
  14. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Hey Ned, I had heard that the e3+ was better with the SWD lenses.

    The light level was a greater factor than I expected. I would like to see some comparison tests done outside with good light. I suspect the E-M1 will be better under those conditions and the SWD and non SWD lenses will be closer in performance.
     
  15. Bangonthedoortwice

    Bangonthedoortwice Mu-43 Regular

    80
    Oct 14, 2012
    Merseyside
  16. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Congratulations!

    The E-510 is pretty awful in low light, although if you can believe it, the E-620 is worse. But what you describe as hybrid focusing I think is just hunting. CDAF didn't even arrive until the following generation (E-520). When the PDAF system is confused it will often rack back and forth.

    Yes, or more obviously the 14-54mk1. The hardware (AF motor, focusing mechanism) is basically the same as the mk2, yet the mk2 is drastically faster.

    The problem is there was never really a camera that did full justice to all the SWD lenses. The lower-end bodies weren't much faster than with the non-SWD lenses due to the less sophisticated AF module (I guess that's what you mean by power? They did use the same batteries as the higher-end camera after all). But the higher-end bodies didn't necessarily do well either. The E-3 was prone to misfocus and could not be adjusted. The E-30 and E-5 were better, but AF with the 14-35/2 SWD was still slower in most cases than the 14-54, and in low light, neither body was really very competent. I once tested the E-5 and 12-60 SWD indoors against a D700 and Tamron 24-135 and it amazing to watch the E-5 rack back and forth half a dozen times without every actually getting accurate focus, while the D700 nailed it every single time within a second or two (and this with a slow lens using a micro motor).