OK how good is the CAF on the EM1MK11 firmware 3.1

Bidkev

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,130
Location
Brisbane Australia from Blackpool UK 23yrs ago
You know, maximum detail at full res isn't necessarily the primary figure of merit, especially for shots of motion.
I fully agree but what is meant by "merit"? The photographers personal achievement? Measured against what? The ability to sell large wall art? The ability to get faves on flickr? The ability to be personally satisfied that one has arrived at an image that satisfies on a personal level? Could that image have been arrived at with "lesser" gear? How many BIF images, when you click on them in flickr or elsewhere, actually go to full res? Invariably the birds (those worth chasing) are so high in the sky, that images of them portrayed, can only be done online at low res which "hides a multitude of sins." I'm not knocking "Biffers" here. I truly appreciate their pursuit of their goal............all I'm saying that in the real world of "affordability," does the expense of arriving at their images, have any justification other than personal satisfaction.

If personal achievement is the goal and you ain't devoid of a few bucks, then by all means go for whatever it is that you seek for personal gratification, but if that gratification has to be arrived at by an investment in "pro" gear, whilst you are still turning out images that compare equally or less favourably than those with "lesser" gear, then you have to question the gear or yourself. Human nature being what it is, you will question the tools at your disposal as opposed to how you can get the best from those tools that you have to hand
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,938
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
I fully agree but what is meant by "merit"? The photographers personal achievement? Measured against what? The ability to sell large wall art? The ability to get faves on flickr? The ability to be personally satisfied that one has arrived at an image that satisfies on a personal level? Could that image have been arrived at with "lesser" gear? How many BIF images, when you click on them in flickr or elsewhere, actually go to full res? Invariably the birds (those worth chasing) are so high in the sky, that images of them portrayed, can only be done online at low res which "hides a multitude of sins." I'm not knocking "Biffers" here. I truly appreciate their pursuit of their goal............all I'm saying that in the real world of "affordability," does the expense of arriving at their images, have any justification other than personal satisfaction.

If personal achievement is the goal and you ain't devoid of a few bucks, then by all means go for whatever it is that you seek for personal gratification, but if that gratification has to be arrived at by an investment in "pro" gear, whilst you are still turning out images that compare equally or less favourably than those with "lesser" gear, then you have to question the gear or yourself. Human nature being what it is, you will question the tools at your disposal as opposed to how you can get the best from those tools that you have to hand
This seems a contradictory argument. On the one hand, you’re asking whether or not some of these images could’ve been captured on lesser gear, and whether that should be a possible measure of artistic merit. On the other hand you’re disparaging the fact these beautiful pictures are on Instagram.

I’ve never seen anything like some of the images on Chen Kuang Chen’s page (that might not be the correct English spelling of his Taiwanese name). He’s won international awards for his photography. The fact that they are on Instagram (maybe they are elsewhere too, I don’t know), or what kind of gear he uses, are really besides the point.
 
Last edited:

panamike

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
4,672
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Impressive but....................personally I've given up on BIFs altogether unless it's a grabbed shot with the gear I possess, gear that hasn't been bought with BIF in mind

If your photographic leaning is towards capturing "flight" then by all means chase the (expensive) gear that will achieve your aim, but personally, "flight" images rarely represent to me the features of a bird, but merely represent their beauty in flight, but if achieved with that goal in mind, then all is good. But quite often I think that the only thing that BIF achieves is the ability of the photographer/gear to capture it, albeit invariably with lack of the birds features.............a challenge that the photographer sets themselves, perhaps with disregard to the cost? The best Bifs that I have seen are invariably of slow moving, or hovering birds, such as puffins, pigeons, egrets, herons, hovering birds of prey etc .............and lets be honest here, a good photographer with his (lower budget) gear should be able to capture them

I'm not knocking BIF................I've been there...........that compulsion to "nail something," but for me, it's short lived once achieved, but whatever "floats your boat" go for it if it means that much to you, but I sometimes wonder if the challenge, both technically, and especially financially, is worth chasing when all you achieve are images that could be got with lower end gear and better technique...............of course, higher end gear is a boon when it comes to fast moving sport, but slow moving Bif?

Personally, I don't think that it is, but then again, I could be just jealous because I can't afford to purchase the gear that would give me the results that others aspire to, but on 2nd thoughts, I don't aspire to them................they're too costly and I think that (better quality) shots of a still bird hold more "representative' and technical value, but as to "artistic"? That can be left to others (owning or aspiring to own), to ascertain.
I think you missed the point and in doing so took the thread totally off topic.
 

Bidkev

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,130
Location
Brisbane Australia from Blackpool UK 23yrs ago
This seems a contradictory argument. On the one hand, you’re asking whether or not some of these images could’ve been captured on lesser gear, and whether that should be a possible measure of artistic merit. On the other hand you’re disparaging the fact these beautiful pictures are on Instagram.

I’ve never seen anything like some of the images on Chen Kuang Chen’s page (that might not be the correct English spelling of his Taiwanese name). He’s won international awards for his photography. The fact that they are on Instagram (maybe they are elsewhere too, I don’t know), or what kind of gear he uses, are really besides the point.
My comment wasn't aimed at any particular photographer or their images but was more about my personal musings as to buying/switching gear in order to achieve a particular aim and as to whether that aim was limited by cost/gear. It was late, I'd had a few, and also taken my meds. Lesson learned. My apologies.
 

panamike

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
4,672
Location
Lincolnshire UK
It was too hot for most birds this morning so i spent a bit of time redoing my test of a small subject against a busy background, ime not saying the cropped image is all that good but its not bad.

Full image

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Cropped and a bit of PP

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

lucanus81

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
21
One other use case I have (that I don't really post here much) is getting pictures and video of my three year old running around outside. It takes way more concentration to get anything without decent C-AF, and I'd rather not focus so much on the camera in such a situation.
This is exactly my use case. Would you mind share with me how you set up your C-AF?
In my case, with my son running around home/outside (he’s two years old) I am still not getting a good percentage of keepers. Maybe I am at 20-30% sharp images.
I have tried both C-AF and C-AF+ TR, sensitivity set to +2, single point AF (the big one, not the small one), f2.8, and SS 400.
I have tried the 5 points, still nothing really changed. :(
I was using Low sequential with max frames set to 8.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,117
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
This is exactly my use case. Would you mind share with me how you set up your C-AF?
In my case, with my son running around home/outside (he’s two years old) I am still not getting a good percentage of keepers. Maybe I am at 20-30% sharp images.
I have tried both C-AF and C-AF+ TR, sensitivity set to +2, single point AF (the big one, not the small one), f2.8, and SS 400.
I have tried the 5 points, still nothing really changed. :(
I was using Low sequential with max frames set to 8.
I haven't actually tried this use case since getting my E-M1 Mk2 yet. I was getting maybe 20% with my old E-M1 with plain C-AF. But then my expectations for such shots are a little lower when it comes to absolute sharpness.

I find it's a bit easier with a longer lens and some distance so the relative closing distance is not as high. What focal length and lens are you using?
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,868
Location
UK
This is exactly my use case. Would you mind share with me how you set up your C-AF?
In my case, with my son running around home/outside (he’s two years old) I am still not getting a good percentage of keepers. Maybe I am at 20-30% sharp images.
I have tried both C-AF and C-AF+ TR, sensitivity set to +2, single point AF (the big one, not the small one), f2.8, and SS 400.
I have tried the 5 points, still nothing really changed. :(
I was using Low sequential with max frames set to 8.
Change to f/5.6. He is three dimensional.
 

lucanus81

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
21
I haven't actually tried this use case since getting my E-M1 Mk2 yet. I was getting maybe 20% with my old E-M1 with plain C-AF. But then my expectations for such shots are a little lower when it comes to absolute sharpness.

I find it's a bit easier with a longer lens and some distance so the relative closing distance is not as high. What focal length and lens are you using?
I am using the 12-40f2.8 at 35mm” with a distance of probably a meter, maybe 1,5.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,723
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross

macro

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
505
Location
New Zealand
I do sort of agree with one sentiment though - how many shots of a mallard landing do we really need? :hmmm:
That would be the same as me saying ........... how many shots of buildings, people and cats do we really need? :doh: The answer is, I don't actually need any :) They get in the way of the damn ducks !!

All the best down there.

Danny.
 
Last edited:

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,117
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
I am using the 12-40f2.8 at 35mm” with a distance of probably a meter, maybe 1,5.
That's really close and very tight. Tough challenge as the relative movement is huge. I would back off and crop.

Indoors is also likely a bit dark for best PDAF performance with an f/2.8 light gathering lens, so the C-AF will struggle more.

For that sort of shooting outside I would be further away with the 35-100 f/2.8.

For indoors at close range I'd be using a wide or normal fast prime stopped down for DoF. You still get the benefits of fast aperture for AF.
 

Retief

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
131
Location
Marysville, WA
Real Name
Bill Dewey
Center Priority and Center Start are a couple of menu items I have been confused about. Spent some time with our local Olympus rep that past few days and found out one really annoying thing about Center Start. Turns out that Center Start always starts from the center AF point, that seems logical right? It is, unless you move your focus points around as a lot of us do for framing. The Center Start "Center" does not follow the focus area, but always starts at the "physical" center point. Our rep has already brought this to the attention of Olympus, keeping my fingers crossed for a change. I think this is why I have, at times, had focus issues, including focus hunting. Thought I would mention this as Center Priority and Center Start were mentioned in this thread.

I am really happy to see these results as I want to get a 3rd backup body and I think this would be a good option.
 

horsth

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
24
Location
Rüsselsheim, Germany
Center Priority and Center Start are a couple of menu items I have been confused about. Spent some time with our local Olympus rep that past few days and found out one really annoying thing about Center Start. Turns out that Center Start always starts from the center AF point, that seems logical right? It is, unless you move your focus points around as a lot of us do for framing. The Center Start "Center" does not follow the focus area, but always starts at the "physical" center point. Our rep has already brought this to the attention of Olympus, keeping my fingers crossed for a change. I think this is why I have, at times, had focus issues, including focus hunting. Thought I would mention this as Center Priority and Center Start were mentioned in this thread.

I am really happy to see these results as I want to get a 3rd backup body and I think this would be a good option.
You seem to have a special edition of fw3.0 . With either of my Cameras (E-M1mk2 and E-M1X) the "Center Start" does follow the focus area as it should. I just tested again.
Cheers Horst
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,723
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
Center Priority and Center Start are a couple of menu items I have been confused about. Spent some time with our local Olympus rep that past few days and found out one really annoying thing about Center Start. Turns out that Center Start always starts from the center AF point, that seems logical right? It is, unless you move your focus points around as a lot of us do for framing. The Center Start "Center" does not follow the focus area, but always starts at the "physical" center point. Our rep has already brought this to the attention of Olympus, keeping my fingers crossed for a change. I think this is why I have, at times, had focus issues, including focus hunting. Thought I would mention this as Center Priority and Center Start were mentioned in this thread.

I am really happy to see these results as I want to get a 3rd backup body and I think this would be a good option.
Have you updated the FW to 3.1? It works fine for my E-M1 II.
 

Gy Rob

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
16
I mostly shoot birds and the AF was pretty darn good to start with the new FW has made it a little better perhaps a tad below my EM1X ,It's impossible to replicate the same BIF shots I'm sure I'm the weakest link so a good day ( ME BEING GOOD ) with the mkII can beat the 1x or make it a draw it's not a night and day difference .

Rob.
 
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