An interseting observation. I'd never though about contrast detect and
phase detect returning different results. Looking at the E-PL1 image
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/E-PL1%20First%20Outing/slides/P7270073.html>
I'm wondering if the brighter white sky areas are in control of the high
contrast areas thus forcing the focus further back than the foreground.
I've not noticed this problem on my smaller cameras but they have very
small sensors, shorter focal lengths and lots of DoF. But the E-M5 has
lots of focusing options which you can use (assuming you realize there's
a problem)
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/2/2012 5:02 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 7:40 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Moose came up for air:
>>> 179 Shots Today Moose
>> That's all? Who's the poser now?
>
> I'm not a journalist and don't shoot events or sports. I don't think there
> are any other situations where there are as
> many as one usefully photogenic subject available per minute.
>
>
> EXIF says 179 shots in 1 hr, 55 min, so I shot 1.6 per minute. Ergo, I have
> some editing to do. :-)
>
> A quick run-through confirms that to be the case. I took a lot of shots I
> knew wouldn't be much good, just to see what
> happened, and what I might learn about how camera and lens work. I also took
> some duplicates, not enough, really, to see
> how focus, DOF and detail resolution interact.
>
> Focus on relatively small things close vs. background is MUCH better than on
> the E-PL1, and focus in decent light is
> very fast, but where it's CDAF will focus in a complex, 3D subject is just
> 'different' than with Canon PDAF.
>
> Example: A bee on the dark center of a sunflower. With the Canons, centering
> the central focus point on the bee would
> focus on the bee. The OM-D and 14-150 focused on the surface of the flower. I
> got a fuzzy bee. As you saw with the bee
> on coreopsis, a dark bee on very light background nailed the bee.
>
> Just looked again; more complicated than I thought. I may have to post some
> examples. Here's one from the E-PL1, where
> PDAF would have focused on the front parts of the tangle.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/E-PL1%20First%20Outing/slides/P7270073.html>
> The OM-D would have done better, with its
> smaller focus areas, but still would probably have focused somewhere within
> the deep subject.
>
> More study and experience needed there.
>
> The recent thread on diffraction is of great interest, as small sensor or
> not, I often had less DOF than I would have
> liked.
>
> D. O. F. Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|