Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 12, 2009, 11:40 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
Olympus claims "worlds fastest AF" ...
When Olympus advertises the "worlds fastest AF", they're talking about the speed of the autofocus motors in their lenses, not the speed of the AF systems in their cameras, which is not in the same ball park as the rest.
I wasfeeling that you went too far without proper information. The second statement proceeds another step in this direction.

Check out what Olympus claims.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/speed.asp

I'm not going to go as far as their claims. From what others that use multiple systems have said (which I'd put more stock in than mfg claims) is that there is little (no) difference in speed.

I may have to go to my archives to find a three shot sequence by the 3 generation old E500 and kit lens. Until I do that, if you insist, I'll leave you with aretrieve sequence from yesterday I posted in the Oly DSLR forum.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=36
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 1:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I commented because the Oly focus system is not able to keep up with kids to the point it shouldn't be considered. I found this evidence that the poster never used the Oly DSLR.
I don't have to use every camera, or even every brand of camera to know if it is acceptable for a particular purpose, just as I don't have to drive every car, or even every brand of car to know if it is acceptable for a particular purpose. That's what independent review sources like Steve's, and public forums like this, are for. Our shared experiences are a valuable resource for others to draw upon when seeking advice, and for us to draw upon when providing advice.

The Olympus E3 may indeed have an autofocus system that is the equal of those available from other manufacturers, but it is more than twice the price of the Canon XSi I mentioned, and significantly more expensive than even the most expensive one I mentioned. If you can exclude Olympus because lenses appropriate for indoor sports "are expensive and still come up short of the abilities of Canon/Nikon", why can't I exclude Olympus because the only model that might be able to keep up with the AF systems from other manufacturers only comes in a body that is significantly more expnsive?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 2:27 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

For active kid photography, you want speed. Fast autofocus and more focus points to track movement will help. Image stablization is not going to buy you much if your kids are moving quickly. Consider getting a good external flash to freeze action indoors or when not enough light for a fast shutterspeed.

dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 2:40 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
Until I do that, if you insist, I'll leave you with aretrieve sequence from yesterday I posted in the Oly DSLR forum.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=36
Greg - you've got some nice shots there.

BUT, there are a few important piece of information that should be brought up for the OP to put your shots into context.

First, the majority of the shots are of your dog moving perpendicular to your shooting position. At the apparent dofs in your photos it's not likely the dog changed focal planes during the sequence of those shots - so there wasn't much tracking/predictive focus work for the camera to do. In short, for the OP, it's much easier to take that type of shot than the dog moving towards your position. Shots 9, 10 and 11 are probably the most challenging. But judging by the reeds in the background these are not a 3 shot sequence because the background is different.

Second - these shots are a FAR, FAR, FAR cry from shooting gymnastics, night football or night baseball. And those are what matters to the OP. If you've got some low light sports work to show off the Oly's capability I think that would be a great help. As it is, I think without context your shots (which, as I said are quite nice) may give a misleading impression as to how an Oly would perform for the demanding sports work the OP wants to do.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 5:28 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
First, the majority of the shots are of your dog moving perpendicular to your shooting position. At the apparent dofs in your photos it's not likely the dog changed focal planes during the sequence of those shots - so there wasn't much tracking/predictive focus work for the camera to do. In short, for the OP, it's much easier to take that type of shot than the dog moving towards your position. Shots 9, 10 and 11 are probably the most challenging. But judging by the reeds in the background these are not a 3 shot sequence because the background is different.

The order is out-of-sequence. From the last two digits of thefile numbers are:

91, 89, 90, 93, 92, 95 (shots with the bird in mouth)

The missing shot did mis-focus. Shot 94:



The shot after this sequence, shot 96 is:



The dog was getting close to shore at this point, and I was rolling back from a crouch to keep myself dry.
Quote:
Second - these shots are a FAR, FAR, FAR cry from shooting gymnastics, night football or night baseball. And those are what matters to the OP. If you've got some low light sports work to show off the Oly's capability I think that would be a great help. As it is, I think without context your shots (which, as I said are quite nice) may give a misleading impression as to how an Oly would perform for the demanding sports work the OP wants to do.
If I was to recommend based on the posters price requirement, I'd give the Nikon D90/Sigma 70-200 macro a go. It wouldn't be ideal for everything, and IS wouldn't be part of the package, but it would come as close as anything. Together they would be a bit over budget, but not by that much.

My post was prompted by something I thought was a bit off:

Quote:
With kids, the speed of the autofocus system is important, and that leaves out the entry level Nikons (D40/D40x/D60) and the Olympus line.
Even my 3 generation old E500 will hit better than 50% in good light of dogs heading toward me. I'm talking dogs at speeds that exceed kids. I just took exception with the conclusion, as worded.


Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:04 AM.