The Camera Store posted a great AF Comparison video between the X-T1, E-M1, A6000, GH4, and D4S

I'll take your word for it, since I can't see a link or anything.

 

Yup. Agreed. I'm wondering how the E-M1 would've faired if the reviewer's were using the Oly 12-40 on BOTH the GH4 & E-M1... (as opposed to the Pany 12-35 they used in the review tests). Right?!?

 

Providing an actual link is always helpful, as I don't have embedded video enabled.

 

First off, I was really impressed that the reviewer actually called the Nikon a 'traditional SLR' not 'traditional Dee-SLR' as every other reviewer does. I don't know why, but this constant reference to 'D' as in digital annoys me as film, for the average pundit, is long dead. I wouldn't even use DSLR anymore, but in photo forums and the like, readers would still think of a film camera if I mentioned SLR.

OK, minor diversion over, what amazed me was that the E-M1 C-AF came out the best, I would never that expected that in a million years. Then what surprised me was that the S-AF of the E-M1 was so comparatively slow in this test. This is completely opposite to anything that I would have expected, and floors me as to how this came about. With my 4/3 lenses, I find the E-M1 incredibly fast and was always of the understanding that with m4/3 lenses, it would be much faster. Very strange indeed.

 

I wonder if the latest firmware update would change some of the outcomes for the E-M1?

 

I'm curious if the high EVF refresh rate mode was enabled on the E-M1. The E-M5 gains snappier S-AF from my experience when the high refresh rate option is enabled, but it seems to have issues with AF reliability, whereas leaving the EVF on the normal refresh rate gives me AF (significantly) slower than the GX1's S-AF but the hit rate is practically very high on everything short of extremely dim indoor lighting. Switching to the high refresh rate means that certain low illumination things are a no go.

 

I have the GH4 and the EM-1, and also find that the S-AF on the GH4 is significantly better (faster and more accurate) than the EM-1. I was surprised at the difference - I didn't expect that. The GH4 AF is quite amazing, and I really like the focus peaking (a joke on the EM-1) and other manual focusing aid implementation. Just wish the GH4 had IBIS! I haven't really used the C-AF on either - I should, but I've been conditioned by previous mirrorless cameras I've owned (except for the Nikon V1) not to expect much, so I haven't really gotten around to trying it.

 

well Panasonic and Sony should run an advertising campaign where they show their cameras in an actual sporting scenario

 

Having used a number of Canon DSLRs over the years, I think this is a good point. Sure, a 1D mk IV will be much better at action AF performance than CAF on u43, but the same will not be true of a Rebel/xxxD camera at all. Even the xxD range have limitations. I'm not saying that u43 cameras don't have some way to go before they can be considered good sport//BIF cameras, just that DSLRs are only significantly better once you're very high in the model range.

 

Interesting test, and good video!

As a current GH4 owner (and former E-M1 owner), my experience more or less (if you'll excuse the turn of phrase) "mirrors" that of the TCSTV guys. The GH4 is ever-so-slightly quicker, and ever-so-slightly better in some situations at locking continuous focus. It's close enough, though, that if I were only a stills shooter, I would be inclined to save the ~$400 and buy the E-M1. I think Olympus has the two best bang-for-buck cameras on the market in the E-M1 and the E-M10, and I don't really think the marginal improvement in S-AF speed of the GH4 over those two models warrants the difference in price.

If you shoot serious video, I think the choice is clear, as you're getting the best of both worlds. If you really only care about still though ... the E-M10/1/A6000 warrants a serious look.

 

Its very interesting. I thought mirrorless were further away from SLRs than that. I just thought that while the AF for moving targets was decent, even a recent budget SLR would do considerably better than my E-M5.

 

What's the difference in price between the E-M1 and the GH4? In the UK they're about the same price.

 

Where I am (Austin, TX, United States), the GH4 runs ~$1800 after tax. The E-M1 can be had new for ~$1350 after tax (GH4 retail $1700 and E-M1 $1250).

 

I keep hearing this, and it's too bad, because it seems like a lovely lens otherwise. The non-optical components of Fuji lens performance are what holds me back from buying into the system I think (that, and some reports of poor quality control).

And yes, some of your points are things I failed to consider. The battery life advantage of the GH4 really can't be overlooked - it's nice to know you've got enough juice to cover extra-long walks, or nights out when you forget a spare. Carrying a spare is a trivial thing (especially if you're carrying a bag with extra lenses/accessories), but some days I just like to take off with my GH4 and a prime and not worry about the gear. It's nice to know you've got some cushion with your battery.

I think my overall view on it is that while there's nothing the E-M1 really does better than the GH4 (save IBIS, which I don't find practically all that useful anyway), the advantages of the GH4 aren't worth an extra $400-$500 for a stills-only shooter. If you've got the money, buy the GH4, but if you've got budget constraints - say, if you've only got $2000 to spend - I'd prefer the E-M1 and a couple Oly primes over the GH4 and one of the (still very nice) $200 Sigma A lenses.