E-M1, E-M5, E-M5.2, etc. ... Peculiarities

[k-hawinkler]

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/5.6, ISO=160, 1/1250 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Now, that seems to be a lens capable of delivering sharp results IMHO! :thumbs:

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/5.6, ISO=200, 1/1600 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

In shots like the following one I noticed, after the latest firmware updates, that AF-C requires quite a bit of contrast to get a focus lock and fire the shutter, Release set to Off.
Focus on Passenger Jet. Using AF-S in contrast always seems to work. I don’t think I have noticed this behavior to the same degree before though.

And with using Curves in CS6.

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/5.6, ISO=400, 1/1600 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/5.6, ISO=250, 1/1250 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

The Roost.

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=3,200, 1/640 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=2,000, 1/1000 s.

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=5,000, 1/1000 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

More Ravens. :shocked:

E-M5.2 + LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5/F1.2 @ FL=42.5 mm, F/10, ISO=200, 1/320 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=6,400, 1/500 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

A View from the Hill.

E-M5.2 + LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5/F1.2 @ FL=42.5 mm, F/11, ISO=200, 1/320 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Basically unprocessed raw with top sky cut off to achieve a 16x9 format. As seen with my naked eyes. :loco:

Processed with COP9. :facesmack:

Added: Nik, Color Efex Pro 4, Remove Color Cast. As seen with my mental eyes. :thumbs: :grin: :clap:

Added: Nik, Silver Efex Pro 2, Neutral.

E-M1 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=200, 1/800 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

The Olympus OM-D cameras E-M1, E-M5, E-M5.2 all have the same pixel pitch of 3.7 µm, whereas the Sony A7r2 has 4.5 µm, and the Nikon D800E has 4.8 µm.
When comparing a D800E + 400 mm lens with an E-M1 + 300 mm lens we find (400/300) * (3.7/4.8) = 1.03 that the D800E + 400 mm lens has 3 % more resolution than the E-M1 + 300 mm lens.
Similarly comparing a D800E + 400 mm lens with an E-M1 + 420 mm lens we find (400/420) * (3.7/4.8) = 0.73, 1/0.73 =1.36 that the E-M1 + 420 mm lens has 36 % more resolution than the D800E + 400 mm lens.
Of course the FF Nikon system also has a larger Field of View that should make it easier to frame a Bird in Flight (BIF). I think I will give the FF Nikon system a try and see whether it has better AF-C performance.

 

[ptomsu]

The Olympus OM-D cameras E-M1, E-M5, E-M5.2 all have the same pixel pitch of 3.7 µm, whereas the Sony A7r2 has 4.5 µm, and the Nikon D800E has 4.8 µm.
When comparing a D800E + 400 mm lens with an E-M1 + 300 mm lens we find (400/300) * (3.7/4.8) = 1.03 that the D800E + 400 mm lens has 3 % more resolution than the E-M1 + 300 mm lens.
Similarly comparing a D800E + 400 mm lens with an E-M1 + 420 mm lens we find (400/420) * (3.7/4.8) = 0.73, 1/0.73 =1.36 that the E-M1 + 420 mm lens has 36 % more resolution than the D800E + 400 mm lens.
Of course the FF Nikon system also has a larger Field of View that should make it easier to frame a Bird in Flight (BIF). I think I will give the FF Nikon system a try and see whether it has better AF-C performance.

It will definitely have better AFC performance, I am sure!

Having said that I would try out the new D500/D5 as these cameras have the latest AF system with 171 AF points over a large area as well as top low light AF performance. The D500 might be even better suited for wildlife or BIF as the AF system covers almost the complete field of view as it is an APSC camera.

If the D5 is to massive and expensive, I would wait for the next incarnation of the D810, which should have the same AF system then and be a smaller FF body with high resolution. Or you simply could try the D810, which is already pretty perfect in all disciplines, especially also in AF - Group AF would be a great setting for BIF.

Combine that with a 80-400 VR2 or the 200-500 and you should be all set ....

Peter

 

[k-hawinkler]

It will definitely have better AFC performance, I am sure!

Having said that I would try out the new D500/D5 as these cameras have the latest AF system with 171 AF points over a large area as well as top low light AF performance. The D500 might be even better suited for wildlife or BIF as the AF system covers almost the complete field of view as it is an APSC camera.

If the D5 is to massive and expensive, I would wait for the next incarnation of the D810, which should have the same AF system then and be a smaller FF body with high resolution. Or you simply could try the D810, which is already pretty perfect in all disciplines, especially also in AF - Group AF would be a great setting for BIF.

Combine that with a 80-400 VR2 or the 200-500 and you should be all set ....

Peter

Thanks for the feedback Peter.
It seems to me going the D5 route would be advantageous from an AF-C but not from an resolution point of view.
I agree with you, the prospective D820 would be a better way to go.

However, if I can avoid buying another DSLR with an OVF, that would be my preference.
I definitely prefer an EVF over an OVF as it is more convenient for my aging eyes. :facesmack:

In my experience, taking a BIF picture, faces two challenges, namely • framing the bird and then • getting the bird in focus for the exposure.
For a given focal length, for the m43 format with its narrower FOV it is more difficult to put the focus point on the intended subject.
If one doesn't get that sufficiently accomplished, then an m43 camera begins to focus hunt, exacerbating the problem by completely obscuring the view of these fast moving Turkey Vultures. And one has to start over, searching the sky with the naked eye or via an Olympus EE-1 Dot Sight.

The EE-1 seems to work well if one has adjusted it correctly with the help of a tripod for the anticipated distance to avoid parallax errors. Pointing the not stabilized EE-1 on the subject then should point the stabilized focus point on the subject as well, more or less precisely.

In contrast, with my Nikon D800E + Nikkor AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR lens I don't have much of a framing or focusing problem as its FOV seems sufficiently large and its AF-C focus fast enough.

Following, are some images illustrating the topic. First, a shot with E-M5.2 + 300/4 lens + EE-1, un-cropped, only reduced in size.

The Turkey Vulture is close enough to fill a fair fraction of the image height. Without the EE-1 it's very easy to lose the bird out of the frame or never even get it into the frame.


Next a similar size Turkey Vulture at about the same distance captured with D800E + AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR @ 400 mm, un-cropped, only reduced in size.

Here framing and focusing is much less of a challenge and I don't feel the need to use the EE-1.

Rotating the bird a bit and cropping yields this image.

Of course, I am very curious how a Sony A7r2 + FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS lens + 1.4x or 2x Teleconverter Lens would perform in this situation. :grin:

 

[k-hawinkler]

Here are two shots with E-M5.2 + 300/4 lens + EE-1, un-cropped, reduced in size of Turkey Vultures at the Canyon Rim before they fly to their roost.

E-M5.2 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=200, 1/1,000 s.

E-M5.2 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=640, 1/1,000 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I then switched over to my Nikon D800E system and got these two images, un-cropped, reduced in size. Apparently the Turkey Vultures are in their mating season.

D800E + AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR @ FL=400 mm, F/5.6, ISO=1,100, 1/1,000 s.

D800E + AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR @ FL=400 mm, F/5.6, ISO=1,600, 1/1,000 s.

Also, obvious the larger FOV of the FF camera as compared to the m43 images.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Canyon Rim Above, as seen from Canyon Floor, 600 feet below, in Evening Light.

E-M5.2 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/4, ISO=200, 1/1,000 s.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Another Favorite Turkey Vulture Hang Out before Descending to their Roost.

E-M5.2 + M.300mm F4.0 @ FL=300 mm, F/6.3, ISO=200, 1/1,000 s.

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks for the feedback Peter.
It seems to me going the D5 route would be advantageous from an AF-C but not from an resolution point of view.
I agree with you, the prospective D820 would be a better way to go.

However, if I can avoid buying another DSLR with an OVF, that would be my preference.
I definitely prefer an EVF over an OVF as it is more convenient for my aging eyes. :facesmack:

In my experience, taking a BIF picture, faces two challenges, namely • framing the bird and then • getting the bird in focus for the exposure.
For a given focal length, for the m43 format with its narrower FOV it is more difficult to put the focus point on the intended subject.
If one doesn't get that sufficiently accomplished, then an m43 camera begins to focus hunt, exacerbating the problem by completely obscuring the view of these fast moving Turkey Vultures. And one has to start over, searching the sky with the naked eye or via an Olympus EE-1 Dot Sight.

The EE-1 seems to work well if one has adjusted it correctly with the help of a tripod for the anticipated distance to avoid parallax errors. Pointing the not stabilized EE-1 on the subject then should point the stabilized focus point on the subject as well, more or less precisely.

In contrast, with my Nikon D800E + Nikkor AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR lens I don't have much of a framing or focusing problem as its FOV seems sufficiently large and its AF-C focus fast enough.

Following, are some images illustrating the topic. First, a shot with E-M5.2 + 300/4 lens + EE-1, un-cropped, only reduced in size.



The Turkey Vulture is close enough to fill a fair fraction of the image height. Without the EE-1 it's very easy to lose the bird out of the frame or never even get it into the frame.


Next a similar size Turkey Vulture at about the same distance captured with D800E + AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR @ 400 mm, un-cropped, only reduced in size.



Here framing and focusing is much less of a challenge and I don't feel the need to use the EE-1.

Rotating the bird a bit and cropping yields this image.



Of course, I am very curious how a Sony A7r2 + FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS lens + 1.4x or 2x Teleconverter Lens would perform in this situation. :grin:

K-H,

I hear you and I also prefer EVF meanwhile for a lot of situations. And a D5 is not an option for me, as it is way too large/heavy and expensive as well. A D820 or whatever would be the maximum I go for in FF DSLR.

But framing on birds etc. with a 400mm focal length and a FF DSLR (in my case D800E) has never been a problem, as has not been AFC and AF performance. With the EM1 this is a challenge.

And looking at your results - I would say that the ones taken with the aged D800E and the 80-400 are dancing circles IQ wise around the Olympus setup with the 300.

Just my 2c

Peter

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Peter.

I can't disagree with your conclusion for some of the images, but not all of them. The OM-D cameras would certainly benefit from better IQ sensors, especially for available light scenarios, needing high ISO. The Oly 300/4 lens no doubt deserves a better sensor IMHO.

FF cameras certainly have a natural IQ advantage. As you well know, that is not the only criteria people, including me, use when choosing a sensor format.

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks Peter.

I can't disagree with your conclusion for some of the images, but not all of them. The OM-D cameras would certainly benefit from better IQ sensors, especially for available light scenarios, needing high ISO. The Oly 300/4 lens no doubt deserves a better sensor IMHO.

FF cameras certainly have a natural IQ advantage. As you well know, that is not the only criteria people, including me, use when choosing a sensor format.

Well, the longer I follow this FF versus APSC versus m43 I come even more to the conclusion that I want overall larger sensor than m43. I think it would be great to have a combination of FF and APSC and say goodbye to m43. I am sure lot of people will disagree especially in a m43 forum, but this is what I am coming back again and again.

Might happen that I either give Fuji another try for APSC, especially with their meanwhile great 24MP sensor with high IQ, DR etc. Waiting for this level of quality from m43 will take at least 5 years from now and then APSC will have evolved even further.

And I am not sure how long I want keep waiting at my age, I want to use and enjoy NOW!