Can MFT compete with DSLR AF yet?

[texchappy]

and do I win a prize for most abbreviations in a thread title?

When I tried MFT a while ago when the OM-D E-M5 was new, trying to do wildlife and sports photography took many work arounds and compromises compared with DSLR's. In the end the OM-D was replaced with a Fuji X Pro 1 for a light camera system to carry around and a Canon T4i kit for future expansion to long lenses and current need for video.

I love the Fuji and grudgingly use the Canon. Before I start pouring money into the Canon for long lenses I have one question...

Have the newest MFT cameras/sensors have good enough AF tracking to compete with DSLR's for wildlife and sports?

 

[Frank Petronio]

No, what you need is one of the obsolete pro Canons (or Nikons) if you want real tracking of moving subjects. Neither the m4/3s or the consumer level DSLRs is going to come close.

As far as shooting static subjects, the new m4/3s are pretty darn fast. But if you get beyond all the internet hype and look at people's photos from them, none of them challenge the focus system.

A $300 Nikon D2h or D300 has amazing auto focus compared to all the new mini cameras.

 

[Takkun]

Agreed. Even my old D1 is ridiculously fast, though not as versatile, as most of thecurrent products I've handled.

 

[cosmonaut]

No sorry. My Sony a99 blows the OMD E-M5 out of the water. I used the E-M5 and 70-300mm at a football game late in the day. It was more like the golden hour as to be considered low light and it was useless as a sports camera.

 

[Keith]

Having had an OM-D I can say that compared to my D700 the AF is primitive and very hit and miss by comparison. I photographed a vintage moto-x meeting a while ago and the Nikon's ability to track a fast moving motorcycle amazed me ... it barely missed all day!

 

[Godfrey]

Not that I use AF very often, or continuous capture, or any of that stuff. But the new Olympus recently announced, the OM-D E-M1, has the potential to re-write the book on fast AF in Micro-FourThirds due to its on-sensor PDAF sensels and combination C-AF tracking (with both PDAF and CDAF) system.

My quick test of it a couple of weeks back immediately put it into a different class of responsiveness compared to any other mFT camera I've worked with, particularly with my HG Olympus SLR lenses. I'll know much more about it after tomorrow.

G

 

[roblumba]

My EM-1 vs. 1D Mark II

My EM-1 vs. 1D Mark II

I have the OM-D EM-1 and a 1D Mark II. The 1D Mark II is blazing fast and much better than the continous tracking on the EM-1. With that said, it is possible to get good action shots.

EM-1, 75 1.8, ISO 1600, 1/2500 f6.3, SOOC JPEG


But fast moving subjects will still be a challenge. I tried to track a couple of small dogs and had a heck of a time with the 75 1.8 in a small back yard. Granted, I probably could have helped the situation by getting more room between me and my subjects. The 75 1.8 equates to 150mm and I was fairly close to these dogs and the dogs were darting around. Basically, I was trying to fill the frame with their body and the action, but they were moving fast. Yeah, a very extreme test. This would have been no problem for the 1D Mark II and 70-200 2.8L, but the EM-1 focus tracking couldn't keep up.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've not tried the em1, but none of the other m4/3s cameras get close to my old, sold Canon 1Ds3. As sonofdanang said, it spoils you and I prefer manual focus to slower than 1Ds3 af these days. The current m4/3s are pretty good at stationary subjects, but even there they can hunt a bit.

If I get another af camera at some point it will likely be a second hand 1 Ds3 or similar Nikon.

Mike

 

[MCTuomey]

No, what you need is one of the obsolete pro Canons (or Nikons) if you want real tracking of moving subjects. Neither the m4/3s or the consumer level DSLRs is going to come close.
QUOTE]

For sports I use an "obsolete" 😉 Canon 1D Mk III with a couple of Canon's long teles. The m4/3s I have tried aren't anywhere near the same league in terms of focus tracking, focus lock, and frame rate. Can't imagine doing serious sport shooting with m4/3 in its current state. For that matter, fast teles are usually a necessity due to typicall marginal light in a lot of venues.

To my knowledge, I don't believe any pro shooters in the baseball and football ranks are sporting m4/3 gear.

 

[rbelyell]

action shots like the above are different than far away focus of continuous movement throughout the DOF field of a given telephoto lens. the former does not in any way tax even the most rudimentary AF system, while the latter can tax the most sophisticated such system.

imo, i would rather have an m4/3, which doubles the FL of a given lens (thus allowing use of smaller lenses with greater DOFs to achieve extreme tele FLs), used in conjunction with a manual focus telephoto. what this does is allow for easy prefocusing and pre-establishment of the possible DOF range. doing a little work before tha action starts, establishing your DOF range & accompanying focus spots, aperture and shutter speeds in advance, leads to both less stress and a higher percentage of 'keepers' than relying on AF in these situations. 90% of the work is done before the action starts.
tony

 

[ktran]

action shots like the above are different than far away focus of continuous movement throughout the DOF field of a given telephoto lens. the former does not in any way tax even the most rudimentary AF system, while the latter can tax the most sophisticated such system.

imo, i would rather have an m4/3, which doubles the FL of a given lens (thus allowing use of smaller lenses with greater DOFs to achieve extreme tele FLs), used in conjunction with a manual focus telephoto. what this does is allow for easy prefocusing and pre-establishment of the possible DOF range. doing a little work before tha action starts, establishing your DOF range & accompanying focus spots, aperture and shutter speeds in advance, leads to both less stress and a higher percentage of 'keepers' than relying on AF in these situations. 90% of the work is done before the action starts.
tony

+1 on the part about doing the work before the action starts

I actually shot a good number of the Spartan obstacle races this past summer, my keeper ratio/hit-rate surprised the heck out of the folks who hired me (I told them I would be shooting with m4/3 from the get-go, but they were still shocked to see me show up with a kit of 2 bodies + 3 lenses that fit in a small DV camera bag). While the continuous tracking is kind of usable under certain circumstances (not when trying to shoot someone jumping over a fire pit with a super busy background and distorting air-currents), I realised that with a lot of the modern lenses, my S-AF is faster than anyone else's C-AF, so I set up my focus points beforehand and just shot away.

 

[Range-rover]

I was in New York City and went to see the Polish Day Parade I was a little annoyed
because the EP-3 was miss focusing on the moving floats, so the answer is no, there
not there yet.

Range

 

[YYV_146]

In my experience the A99 is up there with the 1dX and D4, it takes a penalty for the EVF lag in extreme situations, but I can use the dual AF to track football games as well as the 1d4, and better than my 7d.

The EM5 is not quite there, but plenty fast enough for day-to-day use. Maybe the EM1 is better, but I doubt that with on sensor focusing it will ever be as fast and accurate as a top-tier DSLR system. The 1dII or III will still be the best bang for the buck.

 

[Godfrey]

Reading many of these responses, it seems most people want the camera to do everything for them, instead of using the camera to do what you want to do.

My E-M1 came in a week and some ago. It is every bit the camera I expected, the autofocusing is fast and sure when I want to use it, the C-AF tracking is amazing for what it can do, and the manual focusing is better than ANY other DSLR or mirrorless I've used due to the superb EVF.

Totally delighted with it and glad I spent the bux for it.

G