AF not as accurate

[blu-by-u]

It's been a few months and 1 firmware update since the launch.

I am still having problems with the EM1ii. Not sure if other users of this flagship are facing similar issues and are suffering in silence. The AF seems to work very differently from the EM1mk1.

When attach with the 40-150 or the 12-40, I am getting the same issues. The camera will focus and give a confirm AF beep and in my case a Green Rectangle flash. But when you refocus on a same object, the screen defocus and then refocus. Sometimes, it's totally off focus and yet the AF confirm beep and that blink.

I don't see that in the EM1mk1. The EM1ii is suppose to be faster in AF and more accurate but if out of focus it can still give a confirmation beep, would this also be the cause of many out of focus and not so accurate photographs?

[Walti]

Re: AF not as accurate

I've rattled off a few in the garden this morning and am quite underwhelmed so far!

I'm going to do a back to back to see what the difference is, but I'm getting a lot of out of focus and blurred photos I simply don't get with the MKi - so some settings to be investigated I think (hope)...

I'm disappointed with the my sets on the dial only as well (I've set two up onto buttons on the MKi which allows me to switch without taking my eye from the viewfinder.... I'm not sure I can manage this so well from the dial)

[MikeH]

Re: AF not as accurate

I've only just got the MK2 (Sunday) so cannot really comment as I've not had much time to test other than a few out of the window, but I haven't noticed the problem you are talking about

[pdk42]

Re: AF not as accurate

No problems with AF on mine so far. Seems more accurate with my 50-200 in fact. Since it's the ED, the focus limiter really helps since I can set it for 5m-infinity (or whatever) which stops the thing racking back and forth through the whole focus range.

Focus accuracy on the u43 lenses seems just as good as on the mk i.

Just a thought if you are having difficulty - because it's PDAF, is there a need for calibration. I see that there is a micro-adjustment feature. Personally I hope I never have to use this - it was one of the things that I was very happy to leave behind when I moved from Canon.

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: AF not as accurate

No problems with AF on mine so far. Seems more accurate with my 50-200 in fact. Since it's the ED, the focus limiter really helps since I can set it for 5m-infinity (or whatever) which stops the thing racking back and forth through the whole focus range.

Focus accuracy on the u43 lenses seems just as good as on the mk i.

Just a thought if you are having difficulty - because it's PDAF, is there a need for calibration. I see that there is a micro-adjustment feature. Personally I hope I never have to use this - it was one of the things that I was very happy to leave behind when I moved from Canon.

You've touched on the point that this model will use PD-AF (with CD-AF using DualFast AF) & would focus differently in certain circumstances to the E-M1 with u43 lenses. I had to adjust the micro AF adjustment in my E-M1 for my 50-200 SWD lens at the tele end (+3) because of the lens calibration & I would not be surprised that there might need to be adjustment needed with the u43 lenses too. I suspect it might have a lot to do with technique for the above users though as I think the two focussing methods needs to be used to each of their advantages, such as the focus area with CD-AF needs to cover the subject with contrasting detail & not the background (as much as possible), while PD-AF will tend to focus on detail in the foreground.

Since using my 40-150 Pro lens (& especially with the MC14) using CD-AF (on the E-M1), I find it may not lock onto focus as easily as the 50-200 SWD lens did (with PD-AF) in some circumstances & I have to be more careful with the size of the Focus Area, because of it. Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is, technique &/or Micro Adjustment might need to change with the Mk II model over other models. I would think it should be more like using a DSLR for technique, but then I haven't had a chance to try one yet.

[MJ224]

Re: AF not as accurate

I've rattled off a few in the garden this morning and am quite underwhelmed so far!

I'm going to do a back to back to see what the difference is, but I'm getting a lot of out of focus and blurred photos I simply don't get with the MKi - so some settings to be investigated I think (hope)...

I'm disappointed with the my sets on the dial only as well (I've set two up onto buttons on the MKi which allows me to switch without taking my eye from the viewfinder.... I'm not sure I can manage this so well from the dial)

Me too!!

just assume I need to get to grips with the beast better. There are so many tweaks to be made. I think I just have to get used to it..........

[Walti]

Re: AF not as accurate

I've just been out and fired off 300 photos, with the MKi I would have got a far better hit rate than I have so far with the MKii.

My head was telling me to do the test and wow before buying, and my conclusions so far is that if I had done so I wouldn't have bought it!

I need to stop and seriously look at the results and try and understand why I am so disappointed with them so far!

[DavyG]

Re: AF not as accurate

I've just been out and fired off 300 photos, with the MKi I would have got a far better hit rate than I have so far with the MKii.

My head was telling me to do the test and wow before buying, and my conclusions so far is that if I had done so I wouldn't have bought it!

I need to stop and seriously look at the results and try and understand why I am so disappointed with them so far!

I've been using the E-M1 II for circa 3 months now and have had no focus problems at all.

The AF speed and accuracy is amazing, I was achieving BiF and DiF with the E-M1, I think the Mark II will make these a lot easier to capture.

I think you've seen some of the images I'm capturing with this body, I'm very pleased so far.

I'd be interested to know which SD cards and lenses you're using, settings and shutter speeds, these may help identify why you're having problems.

A few example images with exif intact would also help.

Dave

[pdk42]

Re: AF not as accurate

There have been a lot of reviews of the mark II on most of the usual internet sites and I've not seen any negative comments about AF accuracy. There have certainly been some reviewers saying that it's not quite top of class in subject tracking compared to the D500 and XT2, but that's a long way from saying it's inaccurate.

It seems odd though that two experienced Olympus users are seeing problems. Would be very interested to see examples.

[Bikie John]

Re: AF not as accurate

I have used one for a few indoor music gigs, and one rugby match on a fairly gloomy afternoon. Both situations can be quite challenging, and it is very difficult to be at all precise about results. But my initial gut feel is that focussing is faster than the Mark I (and 4/3 "real" DSLRs from what I remember) and just as accurate if not better.

John

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: AF not as accurate

Save all your settings, then do a full reset and try again...

[Growltiger]

Re: AF not as accurate

There are so many things that a user can do to make it harder for the camera to decide where to focus. Some examples:
- Use lots of focus points.
- Turn on the Face feature.
- Turn on Tracking.

So I suggest anyone new to the camera starts with S-AF, single focus point, no Face. Check it works really well.

Then set it to C-AF (no tracking), single focus point, no face, and try again. Check that works really well.

Only after that start experimenting with the other settings.

[Walti]

Re: AF not as accurate

There are so many things that a user can do to make it harder for the camera to decide where to focus. Some examples:
- Use lots of focus points.
- Turn on the Face feature.
- Turn on Tracking.

So I suggest anyone new to the camera starts with S-AF, single focus point, no Face. Check it works really well.

Then set it to C-AF (no tracking), single focus point, no face, and try again. Check that works really well.

Only after that start experimenting with the other settings.

I'm getting quite good results with the MKi so have done a similar set of settings for the MKii - much as your list but 9 point for BiF against a plain sky.

I need to look at the lens settings by the sound of it, but I will do some back to back comparisons to show why I'm so disappointed - all the reviews I've read to date suggest there's a massive improvement so I must be doing something wrong to see a decline in performance!

[BreezeG]

Re: AF not as accurate

Meh!, just went out today to trail the camera on birds. About 2% keeper rate!
Obviously operator error, Ive just noticed both tracking and face recognition are on.
Must do better, will try again tomorrow.
Loving the resolving power of the 14-150 f2.8 Pro though, these were taken with the 1.4 TC attached.

[DavyG]

Re: AF not as accurate

I'm getting quite good results with the MKi so have done a similar set of settings for the MKii - much as your list but 9 point for BiF against a plain sky.

I need to look at the lens settings by the sound of it, but I will do some back to back comparisons to show why I'm so disappointed - all the reviews I've read to date suggest there's a massive improvement so I must be doing something wrong to see a decline in performance!

I did the same, I copied my E-M1 settings to my Mark II and tweaked from there.

If you are using sequential H or Procapture H be aware that the camera only uses S-AF, it will provide C-AF on sequential L or Procapture L.

For BiF against a clear sky, try using all focal points, for BiF against a busy background try either 9 or 5 focal points.

I'd still be interested to hear which lenses you're using.

Dave