Subjective experience with G9 firmware v1.2 and birds in flight

[biglouis]

I've a bit of a dark secret. For some weeks I have been eyeing up a Fuji XT3 and 100-400 for my bird photography. I've been that disastified with my G9 and 200/2.8. I can't count the number of times I have framed a bif while panning and have been ferociously pressing the shutter button and often getting bad response from the AF, or even in one final straw no response as the AF hunts - even when the damn bird is dead centre - and in the case of Kestrel - hovering almost stationary above me while it hunted for prey, a few weeks ago.

What has stayed my hand is two things. Firstly, the publishing by Panasonic of the Lumix AF Guidebook and secondly, the announcement at Photokina that new firmware version 1.2, specifically to fix AF issues that have caused me so much bother, would be released in October.

I've now used the guidebook to 'tune' my AF settings and on Wednesday I installed the new firmware. I've spent two days photographing birds on Hampstead Heath in London, culminating yesterday in shooting exclusively for the whole session using the 200/2.8 with the TC2.0 which gives an effective fov of 400mm at f5.6. Focussing with the TC2.0 has always been a challenge and I figured if I could get any keepers from this session then maybe, just maybe my desire to change systems could be stayed.

These are the results. (With the disclaimer that I am not trumpeting my prowess as a bird photographer, just explaining whether I have noticed any improvement). In the description of the final photograph I'll explain the statistics of overall shots and keepers.


I would estimate this about 150 metres from me and this is close to a 100% crop. The depth of field at this distance is several feet. The shutter speed has properly stopped the action but what did surprise me was that given the amount of sky the AF did respond to the action and focussed acceptably.
400mm f5.6 1/2000 iso320

A tiny Dunnock shot at close to the minimum distance of the lens. I was using single point focus (iirc) and trying to get it on the eye. I was pretty surprised to find that there was no hunting at such a close distance. To date, the AF has often let me down in time critical focussing (e.g. I need it now, or the bird will fly). But this time it locked on again, and again (I shot 116 frames in about 5 minutes). I got 11 very good frames, which may seem low but in fact I rejected a lot of focussed captures because framing or pose was not worth keeping.
400mm f7.1 1/200 iso800

Grey Heron, at about 100 metres and partially hidden in branches at the edge of a pond. This was the opposite to my Dunnock photo - at a large distance, where the depth of field is greater. But, worth pointing out that to date most of the time the AF on the G9 would have focussed on the branches in front, or the foliage behind and not the bird. I would argue this shot alone shows an improvement in the AF algorithms.
400mm f5.6 1/4000 iso2000

To date this is where the G9 AF has often been disappointing: in focussing on fast moving animals. As you can see the shutter has perfectly stopped the movement but I've more often than not been left with blurry misfocussed shots. Enough times in the past that I've doubted the AF more than my technique.
400mm f5.6 1/1600 iso800

This was one of 8 frames shot panning on the Cormorant as it took off on its travels. The first seven were not in focus. This one is acceptably in focus. In the past none at all would have been anything other than blurry noise in front of the background foliage. I can live with a one in eight success rate. Also, my bad but I had accidentally dropped the shutter speed. I suspect if I had been at more like 1/2000 or even 1/2500, although the iso would have increased the stop action focus would have been better at the speed the bird was travelling.
400mm f5.6 1/1600 iso1000

The 'proof of the pudding'. Panasonic claims the AF improvement in the new firmware is to keep focus on subjects in front of foliage. In thousands of BIF shots where the bird has entered foliage I have never once had anything other than misfocussing. In fact, it is so bad that I generally shoot only when birds are above foliage or against the sky and when they dip down in front of foliage I don't even bother. Now, one good focus does not prove anything but it gives me hope that the AF has indeed been improved. There is some softness but I feel that is the impact of the iso.
Of course, it would be great if Panasonic actually shared a bit more information with us about exactly what they have changed about the autofocus.
It would also be great if the G10 has BSI sensor so that we can shoot at iso2000 and above with less noise. I'm willing to sacrifice a kidney if Panasonic can do that, so c'mon guys, what are you waiting for?
400mm f5.6 1/1600 iso2500

My best focussed bif shot of the day. Photographing birds in flight is one of the most challenging forms of photography. The way I look at it, I expect to get at least one 'hero' shot per session. That may seem low but it is also realistic. In fact, I got 43 good shots from 466 taken out of which I choose 4-5 which are absolute keepers. To be fair to the G9 half of the overall were either my bad technique or just not very interesting photographs. So my keeper rate was more like 43/233 = 18%. I'm normally happy with a 10% overall keeper rate so I would say (subjectively) there is AF improvement with this firmware.
400mm f5.6 1/1600 iso2500

 

[drofnad]

...new firmware version 1.2[/URL], ...

I've read about focus-stacking,
but seeing your first/top shot I must wonder,
did this G9 get bird-stacking, too?

 

[Knorp]

Hi Louis,

now that you read the AF guide and installed the new firmware, would you say the G9 (and 200/2.8+2.0x) for BiF is performing 'good enough' or are you still eyeing that Fuji ?
And thanks for the write-up and link to that guide.

Kind regards.

 

[Knorp]

:OT: speaking of "... a bit of a dark secret": how about that 45G extension tube ?

:watch:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I admire your patience, Louis, but I wonder if BIF isn't still easier to do with a "good old" DSLR, like a D500 with a 300 or 500mm PF or the excellent 200-500mm f/5.6. Wildlife photographers who have started using mirrorless cameras and who are not "brand ambassadors" for Sony, Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, mostly seem to keep their DSLR cameras for stuff that moves. Moose Peterson is on of them:

https://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/

Horses for courses.

Last night, I was watching a dozen or more of the videos made for Fuji by an assortment of photographers in connection with the introduction of the X-T3 and the GFX50R. Excellent stuff of course, and they really made me want those cameras. However, whenever I stopped watching and started using my brain, I had to realise that much or most of what they did in those videos and the images that they captured could have been done with my GX8 or a good DSLR. While technology is certainly improving, none has so far introduced a magic do-it-all.

Edit:
I found this link on one of the Nikon Z7 threads. This guy kind of confirms as well as contradicts what I said above. What I find impressive here is that he's using two adapted DSLR lenses and still gets results on this level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFPjvIBQfE

 

[Tonygamble]

Louis,

I am so pleased you have started this thread.

On Wednesday my wife and I went to see the Wildlife Photography exhibition at the National History Museum. I have no definitive statistics but my guess is that there are about two hundred shots on display.

I think I am right in saying that only one is taking with m43 – a Panasonic of some type. There are two collages of Leica shots but they are journalistic reportage of (again from memory) some animal injury sanctuary.

All the other shots are Nikon or Canon. Again I have to admit I am not familiar with the model numbers but it suggests to me that every other shot is from Full Frame.

Another thing I noticed was how often the photographers were working at and above 1,000 ASA. This struck me so much that yesterday morning I dug out the manual for my E-M5 mk 2 bodies and re-set the ASA to work in auto mode in Manual. I use Manual a lot and still too many of my shots are underexposed because I have my lens full open, shutter as long as I dare and too little time to up the ASA. I also did a few assorted ASA shots to remind myself where noise started to become intrusive (I saw not one noisy shot at the NHM).

Louis, I love your London scenes. They are brilliant. But I have to say I can only admire your courage and enthusiasm when it comes to using m43 for flying birds. I hope you master it – for all our sakes. As the previous poster has suggested – the secret might be simply to resort to a relatively cheapo FF and leave the m43 kit for your strolls around Camden.

Your grey heron near the reeds works better as it is static but, again, would not the shorter depth of field from FF been more satisfying? I have a heron that lives in the Club next to our apartment and I have never got a decent shot of it in flight.

Do keep up the experimenting. I will follow it with interest.

Tony
SW6

 

[biglouis]

Hi Louis,

now that you read the AF guide and installed the new firmware, would you say the G9 (and 200/2.8+2.0x) for BiF is performing 'good enough' or are you still eyeing that Fuji ?
And thanks for the write-up and link to that guide.

Kind regards.

The jury is still out. I'd like to not have to move camera systems and I hope the new firmware and AF settings give me better and more consistent results. Prior to this I was having such a frustrating time with the G9 recently that I was quite disillusioned. I always blame myself first but as stated the straw which broke the camels back was trying to get AF on a Kestrel which was about 20 feet above me and pretty much stationary. Even switching from a multi AF area to a single point did not help. The frickin' camera refused to focus. When you consider the capital invested in both the camera and the lens (the 200/2.8) you have to start asking yourself, is it worth it?

BTW, I was using the mechanical shutter and AFF for most of these shots. I am not convinced about the superHI electronic shutter and also C-AF with the 200/2.8+TC2.0. With the TC2.0 there is so much AF 'jiggle' with the C-AF it is almost unusable.

:OT: speaking of "... a bit of a dark secret": how about that 45G extension tube ?

:watch:

For another time. I'm still playing with focus stacking which is very poorly explained by Fuji. There are a couple of good articles by photographers explaining how to use it and if you Google you will find them.

I admire your patience, Louis, but I wonder if BIF isn't still easier to do with a "good old" DSLR, like a D500 with a 300 or 500mm PF or the excellent 200-500mm f/5.6. Wildlife photographers who have started using mirrorless cameras and who are not "brand ambassadors" for Sony, Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, mostly seem to keep their DSLR cameras for stuff that moves. Moose Peterson is on of them:

https://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/

I found this link on one of the Nikon Z7 threads. This guy kind of confirms as well as contradicts what I said above. What I find impressive here is that he's using two adapted DSLR lenses and still gets results on this level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFPjvIBQfE

That Z7 video certainly surprises me. I figured the Z7 was designed for anything but wildlife.

My heart says mirrorless but my head keeps on saying DSLR. Second hand prices for the 7DmkII and L400/5.6 are ridiculously cheap in comparison to what I've spent with Panasonic.

However, my big concern is whether now that I am completely mirrorless I can go back to an optical viewfinder and no realtime feedback on EV etc.

Having invested so much in Panasonic, both in money and time over the years, I feel I should perservere and try to get the best I can out of the system.

If Panasonic have demonstrated they can improve the AF with a firmware update, perhaps there will be even more improvements with future firmware releases?

Thanks for all the feedback

LouisB

 

[biglouis]

Louis,

I am so pleased you have started this thread.

On Wednesday my wife and I went to see the Wildlife Photography exhibition at the National History Museum. I have no definitive statistics but my guess is that there are about two hundred shots on display.

I think I am right in saying that only one is taking with m43 – a Panasonic of some type. There are two collages of Leica shots but they are journalistic reportage of (again from memory) some animal injury sanctuary.

All the other shots are Nikon or Canon. Again I have to admit I am not familiar with the model numbers but it suggests to me that every other shot is from Full Frame.

Another thing I noticed was how often the photographers were working at and above 1,000 ASA. This struck me so much that yesterday morning I dug out the manual for my E-M5 mk 2 bodies and re-set the ASA to work in auto mode in Manual. I use Manual a lot and still too many of my shots are underexposed because I have my lens full open, shutter as long as I dare and too little time to up the ASA. I also did a few assorted ASA shots to remind myself where noise started to become intrusive (I saw not one noisy shot at the NHM).

Louis, I love your London scenes. They are brilliant. But I have to say I can only admire your courage and enthusiasm when it comes to using m43 for flying birds. I hope you master it – for all our sakes. As the previous poster has suggested – the secret might be simply to resort to a relatively cheapo FF and leave the m43 kit for your strolls around Camden.

Your grey heron near the reeds works better as it is static but, again, would not the shorter depth of field from FF been more satisfying? I have a heron that lives in the Club next to our apartment and I have never got a decent shot of it in flight.

Do keep up the experimenting. I will follow it with interest.

Tony
SW6

Tony, only saw your response after posting the my responses above. Thanks for the good words about my urban work. I have twin passions: urban grunge and bird photography. What a mixture!

I see your point about the shorter dof with a ff camera but then to achieve a 800mm equivalent depth of field I'd have to carry a canon around with me. On the other hand, 45mpx of cropping potential (with, say a D850) could be useful!

As it is, my G9 and 200/2.8 plus both TCs fit into a relatively tiny camera bag - which at my age is pretty much essential.

I also wonder sometimes if my lack of success is down to not specialising enough. I've been working on a new portfolio which has taken a lot of my time and I've only been out photographing birds a handful of times in the last few months. Practice makes perfect?

I will try to make it to the exhibition at the Science Museum. I'll probably combine it with a trip to the new photography galleries at the V&A.

Thanks again

LouisB

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

One thing that it's important to be aware of is that any mirrorless camera, as opposed to any DSLR, uses a significant amount of processing capacity to update the EVF. A DSLR obviously uses none. The better the EVF, the more processing goes on, leaving less capacity for AF and image processing. I have seen claims that these are separate processing channels and that they don't influence each other. I don't believe that. All processes in a computer system influence on each other, and all generate heat, lowering the capacity, and in the case of cameras, introduce noise.

While I have a lot of respect for Panasonic's work on DFD, the constant calculations that are necessary to make it work, must take its toll on the processing capacity, and I think it's fair to question if enough of it is available.

The first time I gave up on m4/3, one of the reasons was actually that I suspected that limited processing capacity sometimes influenced image quality negatively when using heavily software corrected lenses, like the Panasonic 7-14mm. This shouldn't be a problem with the 200mm, since I believe it's optically corrected, but again; there are other processes going on.

 

[Tonygamble]

Second hand prices for the 7DmkII and L400/5.6 are ridiculously cheap in comparison to what I've spent with Panasonic.

I was also going to comment on my earlier message about the number of photographers in the under fifteen years category - and indeed under ten.

I was the son of relatively wealthy parents but I was well into my teens before I persuaded them to buy me a Rollei. And that was aided by the fact that they knew someone who had got bored with his and would take anything reasonable to get it off his hands. At the exhibition all these 'young' photographers were using Nikon/Canons with huge lenses. Maybe these are not an arm and a leg if you don't need the latest model. And, of course, youngsters often have more time to sit waiting for the right shot than their parents who have still to earn a crust or two.

You are modest, Louis, to say it is lack of experience. In a way I hope that is the case. In my heart of hearts I fear it is the kit. Horses for courses someone said a short while ago.

I have three courses. My day to day photojournalism where I use the twin E-M5's. My travels with the Ricoh GR. My produce shots where I did out one of my three Sigma Merrills. Each the right tool for the occasion.

But do keep trying and keep us posted. We learn a lot from each other's experiences.

Tony

 

[iiiNelson]

Tony, only saw your response after posting the my responses above. Thanks for the good words about my urban work. I have twin passions: urban grunge and bird photography. What a mixture!

I see your point about the shorter dof with a ff camera but then to achieve a 800mm equivalent depth of field I'd have to carry a canon around with me. On the other hand, 45mpx of cropping potential (with, say a D850) could be useful!

As it is, my G9 and 200/2.8 plus both TCs fit into a relatively tiny camera bag - which at my age is pretty much essential.

I also wonder sometimes if my lack of success is down to not specialising enough. I've been working on a new portfolio which has taken a lot of my time and I've only been out photographing birds a handful of times in the last few months. Practice makes perfect?

I will try to make it to the exhibition at the Science Museum. I'll probably combine it with a trip to the new photography galleries at the V&A.

Thanks again

LouisB

So I don’t think you need to completely change systems but I do this a body with PDAF may assist in getting your hit rate up. I don’t think it’s about having a DSLR vs. Mirrorless as I do feel that some mirrroless cameras are up to doing the job a bit better than others.

Heres an example - https://scottbourne.myportfolio.com/

He shoots with an OMD EM1-2. Now a lot of it may be that it’s just him but he happily shifted from a 1DxMk2 + L lenses to the Olympus and is a full time wildlife photographer. I think you COULD do it with Micro 4/3 but I do believe that it helps to have the body be able to have certain hardware advantages. Panasonic “marrying” itself hardcore to CDAF and DFD is what worries me about the Lumix S but other than some types of photography in less contrasting conditions it’s fine. I do believe the XT3 will likely be a good option as well but I’d rent before buying into it without knowing it’ll work for you.

 

[Tonygamble]

He shoots with an OMD EM1-2. Now a lot of it may be that it’s just him but he happily shifted from a 1DxMk2 + L lenses to the Olympus and is a full time wildlife photographer. I think you COULD do it with Micro 4/3 but I do believe that it helps to have the body be able to have certain hardware advantages.

Those birds in flight shots are eons away from what I am getting with my E-m5 on that website. Are you sure they are with an Oly?

Do you think the M1 is that different? Body hardware?

Tony

 

[iiiNelson]

He shoots with an OMD EM1-2. Now a lot of it may be that it’s just him but he happily shifted from a 1DxMk2 + L lenses to the Olympus and is a full time wildlife photographer. I think you COULD do it with Micro 4/3 but I do believe that it helps to have the body be able to have certain hardware advantages.

Those birds in flight shots are eons away from what I am getting with my E-m5 on that website. Are you sure they are with an Oly?

Do you think the M1 is that different? Body hardware?

Tony

Here’s his Instagram account as well. You can see his shooting combination for each picture there. Many more shots there and he posts regularly. Like I said much of it may just be HIM... but the camera is capable of these shots. He’s also an Olympus Ambassador so I’m sure that many, if not most, are with an Olympus camera.

https://instagram.com/bourne.scott?utm_source=ig_profile_share&igshid=1poq8o8bswz2d

 

[biglouis]

Second hand prices for the 7DmkII and L400/5.6 are ridiculously cheap in comparison to what I've spent with Panasonic.

My travels with the Ricoh GR...

Tony

Completely off topic but the one thing I can confidently predict is that I'll fall for the new next version GR next year. My GR has been a fantastic camera. I like to call it the camera I take with me when I don't want to take a camera

LouisB

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

He shoots with an OMD EM1-2. Now a lot of it may be that it’s just him but he happily shifted from a 1DxMk2 + L lenses to the Olympus and is a full time wildlife photographer. I think you COULD do it with Micro 4/3 but I do believe that it helps to have the body be able to have certain hardware advantages.

Those birds in flight shots are eons away from what I am getting with my E-m5 on that website. Are you sure they are with an Oly?

Do you think the M1 is that different? Body hardware?

Tony

The E-M1 and E-M1 II have phase detect AF. Big difference.

Here's what he's shooting with:

 

[iiiNelson]

I admire your patience, Louis, but I wonder if BIF isn't still easier to do with a "good old" DSLR, like a D500 with a 300 or 500mm PF or the excellent 200-500mm f/5.6. Wildlife photographers who have started using mirrorless cameras and who are not "brand ambassadors" for Sony, Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, mostly seem to keep their DSLR cameras for stuff that moves. Moose Peterson is on of them:

https://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/

Horses for courses.

Last night, I was watching a dozen or more of the videos made for Fuji by an assortment of photographers in connection with the introduction of the X-T3 and the GFX50R. Excellent stuff of course, and they really made me want those cameras. However, whenever I stopped watching and started using my brain, I had to realise that much or most of what they did in those videos and the images that they captured could have been done with my GX8 or a good DSLR. While technology is certainly improving, none has so far introduced a magic do-it-all.

Edit:
I found this link on one of the Nikon Z7 threads. This guy kind of confirms as well as contradicts what I said above. What I find impressive here is that he's using two adapted DSLR lenses and still gets results on this level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFPjvIBQfE

I think the take away is that PDAF would help his keeper rate... I don’t believe most people would cite the Nikon Z as the “pinnacle of Mirrorless AF ability” in an objective testing when compared to the current best performers (with regard to) AF systems in Mirrorless - but that’s not to say it’s bad or not capable in any way. The problem that would arise from the Nikon Z is that the weakest part of the AF is the continuous AF performance.

Perhaps the XT3 or the OMD EM1-2 would be a better fit for him (since he wants to remain with a Mirrorless system) than a DSLR since he wants to keep lens size to a minimum. Both offer PDAF and quick focusing in various conditions.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

If I'm going to continue using m4/3 as my main system, I'll probably have to add an E-M1 II to my kit. It's simply a better camera for moving subjects than the Panasonics. I did have an E-M1 a couple of years ago and disliked the ergonomics strongly, but apart from that, it's a fine camera. The icing on the cake is of course that it focuses nicely with 4/3 mount lenses, like the PL 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 that I can't seem to get rid of.

Then there's the rumoured new high end Olympus body... interesting times.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think the take away is that PDAF would help his keeper rate... I don’t believe most people would cite the Nikon Z as the “pinnacle of Mirrorless AF ability” in an objective testing when compared to the current best performers (with regard to) AF systems in Mirrorless - but that’s not to say it’s bad or not capable in any way.

Perhaps the XT3 or the OMD EM1-2 would be a better fit for him (since he wants to remain with a Mirrorless system) than a DSLR since he wants to keep lens size to a minimum. Both offer PDAF and quick focusing in various conditions.

The E-M1 II is the obvious choice, but the D500 with the 300mm f/4 PF gives more or less the same reach as the PL 200mm on a m4/3 body and at a lower weight than his current combo with AF that will surpass any mirrorless camera. D500 + 300mm PF = 1,600 gram, G9 + PL 200mm = 1,900 gram. The Nikon combo is also less front heavy, so easier to handle. It's a stop slower, but the larger sensor compensates for that.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#648.710,725.689,ha,t

Since Fuji has been mentioned:
The only prime they have with this kind of reach is the 200mm f/2 at 2,200 gram plus body and with a price to match. It's a big, white beast that eats tiny British birds for breakfast. :shocked:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Ok, ok, ok... you knew I had to do it. Here's one with the Fuji included. Compact mirrorless :ROTFL:

 

[Tonygamble]

Completely off topic but the one thing I can confidently predict is that I'll fall for the new next version GR next year. My GR has been a fantastic camera. I like to call it the camera I take with me when I don't want to take a camera

Ditto.

It is worth the money to get rid of that rocker on the back that alters the exposure and which every table waiter rocks before taking the only picture of my wife and I together on a trip.

Tony