Firmware Update

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by pdk42

Depends what you're photographing Steve. If you're trying to capture birds in flight or footballers on a Saturday afternoon, I can absolutely guarantee that good AF will deliver many more keepers than MF.

I would therefore encourage photographers to use AF lenses sparingly, otherwise there's a chance of becomming over reliant, and lose the ability to quickly focus manually with forethought to DoF. AF has many benefits, but some (most?) mirrorless cameras are designed for nothing else. As a consequence MF becomes a compromise, eg focus peaking with odd artefacts corrupting the viewfinder, and thus being a distraction to composition.

[MJ224]

MF is still a good weapon in the armoury when photoing boids in bushes,..

[pdk42]

Originally Posted by Ricoh

I'm not too certain, I think the photographer should be in control of everything. No harm in learning about light and exposure - being able to estimate the correct EV for artistic judgement, and sellecting focus for similar reasons. From my personal experience the use of AF AE does absolutely nothing for the learning process and you can become over reliant. Some photographers also allow the silicon chip(s) within the camera to develop their photographs, churning out JPEGS equivalent to sending a roll of film to a mail order Photolab and expecting exhibition standard prints by return.
Is BonusPrint still trading, I wonder. I used them quite a bit, send your film and get a free fresh film back with the prints and negs. Brilliant!

Who needs all this polyester film emulsion stuff? Wet plates and Daguerreotypes is where real photographers make their images. Lightmeters? - throw them in the bin. Anyone worth their salt can estimate the exposure by the size of the exit pupils on their assistants' eyes and replace the lens cap at just the right time. Viewfinders? - hah, I spit in the face of weakling photographers who use them. What's wrong with a big black cloth and a focusing screen on the focal plane?

In fact, this light sensitive emulsion idea is all fancy modernity. Give me a camera obscura and a set of pens (but not digital pens)!

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by pdk42

Who needs all this polyester film emulsion stuff? Wet plates and Daguerreotypes is where real photographers make their images. Lightmeters? - throw them in the bin. Anyone worth their salt can estimate the exposure by the size of the exit pupils on their assistants' eyes and replace the lens cap at just the right time. Viewfinders? - hah, I spit in the face of weakling photographers who use them. What's wrong with a big black cloth and a focusing screen on the focal plane?

In fact, this light sensitive emulsion idea is all fancy modernity. Give me a camera obscura and a set of pens (but not digital pens)!

I agree with you but stop short of tracing or drawing. That's not photography, you know.

[brian1208]

Hmm:


"The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light"."


Sounds like Paul is the "Real Photographer" amongst us

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by brian1208

Hmm:


"The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light"."


Sounds like Paul is the "Real Photographer" amongst us

Yeah, but the ancients were not aware of the modern periodic table... Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Certainly had no knowledge of solid state physics (electronics), for that you need a working knowledge of the Quantum

[brian1208]

I'm sure you are right but its all Greek to me Steve

[DanC.Licks]

Originally Posted by pdk42

h

There's no excuse for the AF being anything less than the equal of DSLRs.

Well, actually there is when you consider how tiny the AF pixels are on the Oly compared to the monstrous pixels on a dedicated AS sensor. I doubt that on chip phase detect AF will ever catch up to DSLRs.

[timboo]

Based on previous comments on this thread do you think the purpose of a persons photography taints their view on AF. For example if you rely on photography for your living, a tool such as AF improving success rate for the perfect shot is a winner! On the flip side an enthusiast would probably like the option for both MF and the best AF, given they may have more time to plan and experiment.

[brian1208]

As far as I am concerned a camera + lens is a tool for creating the images I want, so I select the one that suits my needs best at a price I can afford.

All the rest of the debate is interesting but irrelevant to my needs

[pdk42]

Originally Posted by DanC.Licks

Well, actually there is when you consider how tiny the AF pixels are on the Oly compared to the monstrous pixels on a dedicated AS sensor. I doubt that on chip phase detect AF will ever catch up to DSLRs.

Yes, that's a good point. I knew that but hadn't followed the thought to that conclusion - duh! However, maybe there is a way to combine data from multiple AF pixels? Just speculating.

[pdk42]

Originally Posted by timboo

Based on previous comments on this thread do you think the purpose of a persons photography taints their view on AF. For example if you rely on photography for your living, a tool such as AF improving success rate for the perfect shot is a winner! On the flip side an enthusiast would probably like the option for both MF and the best AF, given they may have more time to plan and experiment.

It seems odd to me that it's considered a weakness or somehow reduces the photographer's value or skill if they use technology to help them achieve a result - whether they're earning money from it or not. Why is it better if focusing is done manually using crude focusing aids rather than a fast and accurate AF? All that should matter is the end result.

MF, even on static subjects and performed slowly and carefully by someone with skill and practice, is unlikely to be any better in terms of end results compared to a good AF implementation and used by someone who understands its workings (focus point selection etc). MF on more challenging subjects (anything moving, done in a hurry or poor light etc) will produce less reliable results - and at the margin significantly worse results. If I've been hanging around a cold moor all day trying to photograph mountain hares the last thing I want is for the only sighting of the day to be missed because I can't focus quickly or reliably enough.

I understand that MF can work for some sorts of photography - macro, street with zone focusing, landscape for example - but even then AF can also work. I personally very, very seldom use MF and I do shoot all three of those genres. Finally, I'll just add that the market is with me. Apart from the Leica rangefinders (which is a specialist taste for nostalgia enthusiasts and people who value cameras for their price above their function) there's not a single camera system available today that doesn't have excellent AF. Why would it be otherwise?

[DanC.Licks]

No, I think the real "problem" is in "sharing" pixels. Can't make them bigger without loosing image information. They already did that by adding phase detect AF to the E-M1 and lost about 6% of the available pixels in the process. Seems to me the most progress has been made in contrast detect AF and by Oly in combining the two in the mFT lenses, which does not mean they are working together at the same time, but rather that the camera can decide which is better for the situation at hand. They don't tell us exactly HOW it all works, but it is decisively different than a DSLR.

[Bengeo]

If you've got the Panasonic 100-400mm lens you might want to hold off doing this update as there might be a problem when using this lens.

This is being discussed on the E-M1 II Facebook page.

[brian1208]

You may be referring to the thread I started on this Andy?


I think "Might" is the right word, something has changed that wasn't announced and several of us have seen real improvements in the focus acquisition and tracking lock with the 40-150 pro and similar indications for the 12-100


Likewise there are at least two of us who have independently seen slower than previous focus acquisition and tracking with the PL100-400


I need to do a fair bit more testing under better light to see how much of a negative effect there has been but have enough data now to be sure that something unexpected is going on with V1.4


(I'm very happy with the real improvement in the CAF and CAF + tracking behaviour with the OLY 40-150, it will interesting to see if anyone reports a similar effect with the 300 f4 pro)