Predictive AF to Excite & Inspire
I’ve been trying to capture flying birds since I started using Lumix cameras. On November 12, 2018 I released a blog post titled Panasonic Lumix G9 47,000 Pictures Over 10 Months. It’s been almost a year and an additional 35,000 images since I wrote that post, and the industry continues to make huge strides in camera technology. During this time, I’ve been less active on my blog due to several factors including
family health issues, lots of time on the road with our Invitational Photo Tours, and ongoing hope that my favorite camera company, Panasonic, was going to finally give us quality, reliable
From the first day I signed on as a Lumix Ambassador, I’ve been honest with my readers. I give the good with the bad, often times pointing out the flaws and failures as readily as the wins and the triumphs. Doing so builds trust with not only my audience but the Lumix engineers as well. My colleagues at Lumix might not always like hearing what I have to say, but they always know I’ve done my homework to help them build a better product.
Moving Forward with Olympus and Sony
With the many changes taking place in technology, I decided it was time to rethink my options. You can only wait for so long before the competition passes you by. I held back in the 90’s, and I swore I’d never do it again. That
Back in November 2018, I wrote, “Panasonic is trying hard with their DFD (Depth From Defocus) technology which uses Contrast Detection for acquiring proper focus. Many YouTube pundits have harshly criticized the DFD/Contrast Detection for not being able to match the results of Phase Detection AF other manufacturers employ, and that criticism has been warranted. However, Panasonic is making great strides with DFD, and I’m confident DFD will eventually catch up and surpass Phase Detection AF.“
Well… Unfortunately, it’s not there yet for flying birds. For whatever reason, the Lumix team has made a commitment to the DFD AF system, and they show no sign of changing. Consequently, for fast moving subjects, I’m now testing two new photographic tools, the Olympus OM-D EM-1X and the Sony A9 with a 100-400mm G Master series zoom.
What Inspired the Change
How did I get to this point? Quite simply I desperately need a camera that can equal or better the predictive autofocus capabilities I had with my Nikon system. Even with the Lumix G9’s newest firmware updates and additional Custom AF Settings combined with lots and lots of practical experience, I’ve not been able to make the Lumix system produce professional results for flying birds I SOMETIMES need, images like the one below shot with the Sony A9.
Three Camera Systems to Cover All My Bases
One could make the argument that a single system should do everything needed for virtually all situations. However, even with all the competition in the world of photography, that one system does not exist. To solve that issue I’m now shooting three different camera systems. Below I highlight the different models and my thoughts on each so far.
Lumix G9 Can Sometimes Do Flying Birds
I’ve now been shooting the Lumix system almost full-time since about 2010. I’ve been a Lumix Ambassador for almost the same amount of time, and
First of all, it’s all about size. Micro Four Thirds cameras are small, light, and easy to carry. Using the Lumix system has cut the dimensions and weight of my camera bag by two-thirds. It’s the size of the overall system that keeps me devoted to Micro Four Thirds.
A second important feature is ease of use. Nobody’s doing a better job of giving us a useable menu system with class-leading touch capabilities and well-thought-out ergonomics.
Finally, unique features such as High-Speed Pre-Burst, 6K & 4K Photo Mode, Focus Stacking, Dual IS, and other class-leading technologies are the icing on the cake for making this a world-class system for many kinds of photography. It’s just not for really
Olympus EM-1X’s Very Good Predictive AF
With the goal of improving my keeper rate for all things flying and running, I’m now testing the Olympus OM-D EM-1X. My hope is to find another MFT body that can give me much better predictive AF than what I’ve been getting with my Lumix gear. The EM-1X is showing great promise.
It’s a marked improvement over my Lumix G9 when it comes to fast-moving subjects. An added bonus is the Olympus 300mm F/4 (600mm equivalent) in the MFT world that is stunningly sharp. That 600mm replicates what I shot with my Nikon system, and with Olympus’ Synch IS I can handhold this combination to unheard of shutter speeds.
Speeding Pooch Test
For the Olympus
Live Animal Better Than a Machine
This is much better than a fast-moving car, since a dog gives you unexpected moves that only a live subject can provide. The dog is erratic and not completely predictable in both speed and direction, so the test is closer to what I would normally photograph in the world of nature. The Speeding Pooch Test proved the Olympus was far ahead of my Lumix G9, but there’s definitely still room for improvement.
For the Speeding Pooch T
Sony A9 Predictive AF is Simply Jaw Dropping !
When I began my quest to improve my action photography I already had this Alaska trip planned. Autumn in Alaska is the time for brown bears to feast on spawning salmon and catching their prey. It can be fast and furious with activity few other subjects provide.
An exception is flying birds, and one of the fastest and most difficult of all birds are horned puffins. Alaska was a great spot for trying the Olympus and Sony on these medium-sized birds that fly like miniature fighter jets. Several prior years of shooting my Lumix gear on running bears and flying puffins have been disappointing. The struggle of even keeping a puffin in the viewfinder is far beyond difficult, and if you can accomplish that, you DO NOT want the camera to let you down.
Last year one of our Natural Exposures Explorers, Mike Spain, loaned me his Sony A9 and 100-400mm lens during our trip to see the puffins. That was the begining of my reawakening. Seeing what the Sony could do made me realize I was really missing out on capturing subjects that excite and inspire.
Photography to Create Awareness
Inspiration is the reason for my ongoing work in the world of conservation. The image above shows the site of a proposed gold and silver mine what will be called the Johnson Mine. This new open-pit mine will be in the middle of Lake Clark National Park. The industrial complex for this new mine will extend all the way down the Johnson Valley and out into the bay about a mile from where we do most of our brown bears and puffins. These two photos are from a photo shoot I did to create interest in this disastrous project almost nobody knows about.
Just over the mountains from the Johnson Mine is the Pebble Mine. I wrote about the Pebble Mine in the post Cameras With A Cause. It too is on the edge of Lake Clark National Park. Two major open-pit mines in the same region, both with potential to have profound effects on wild salmon and brown bear populations. Photography is my only hope to get the general public interested. Without inspiring the world there will be no desire to protect and appreciate what we still have. Action and landscape photography can be a big part of inspiring others to accomplish that goal.
Not Everybody Shoots Action
Wrapping this all up, one might make the argument that not everybody shoots action. I’ve heard some say photographers who want exceptional action capabilities might be one in ten. What the actual numbers are I have no idea.
But… the folks who do want to capture that elusive bird in flight or hard-charging bear,
With that excitement comes an inordinate amount of enthusiastic chatter expounding on the extraordinary capabilities of whichever camera was used to capture that elusive memory.
Nobody rants and raves about a studio portrait that the camera nailed focus on. Every photographer expects that. But getting a fabulous bird in flight can create word of mouth publicity you can’t even think about buying.
Word of Mouth Buzz
That word of mouth excitement is what’s holding Panasonic back in my opinion. An example is an interaction I just had with a nice young lady here at the lodge. We went out to see bears and she was clutching a brand new Sony A9 and 100-400mm lens. She asked me what I was shooting and that evening I had the Olympus and Lumix on my shoulders.
We started chatting and she immediately talked about how impressed she was with the phenomenal focus capabilities of her new camera. She also likes the smaller size of the camera body. But it was the autofocus she was really excited about. Interesting how I’ve seen the autofocus technology play out in the past. Canon began the displacement of Nikon in 1989 with quality autofocus. Sports shooters left Nikon in droves. Nikon eventually caught up but never regained the market share they had before autofocus.
That’s the kind of excitement Sony’s creating, giving photographers the ability to capture images that for many were never before possible. Only time will tell if my Lumix friends can make changes fast enough to create a similar buzz. Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened yet.
You can join us in 2020 for Brown Bears and Puffins in Alaska.
UPDATE 10/08/2019
Incase you’re wondering why the link at the top of this post, the same as this one to my Lumix Ambassador page, is not showing me any longer, we’ll in simple terms — I got fired. It seems LUMIX management was not happy with me telling the truth. Not long after writing this post I got the old Pink Slip. But that’s OK . I’ve always been honesty first. There are so many of you who depend on that integrity and I take it very seriously. I was extremely patient with LUMIX but I just could no longer accept what I was experiencing. I can tell you, with the same honesty I shared in the offending post, that even though LUMIX is finished with me, I’m still a huge fan of their products. Just not for action photography and specifically Birds In Flight. You’ll continue to see me write about LUMIX cameras.
JanOn Jul. 19th, 2023 (2 months ago)
Daniel, very interesting read indeed. I was wondering if you still try to use the G9 for birds in flight with the latest firmware update.
I would love to be able to buy the latest Sony or OM gear but my budget will not allow it, so I have set my sight on the G9 as it is available for half price and the lenses are smaller and cheaper. Just for comparison the Sony A7 r4 or A9 setup equivalent to G9 100-400 is at least 5x more costly…
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 19th, 2023 (2 months ago)
Jan, unfortunately, the G9 is just not very productive for birds in flight. Even with the new firmware updates. The good news is that the new Olympus OM-1 turns the Leica 100-400mm in to what seems like a brand new lens. The AF on the OM-1 is so superior it’s as if the 100-400mm is a brand new version of that same old lens. I realize your budget may not allow you to go the route of a new body but if you can swing it, the OM-1 will be vastly better than the G9 with the lens you already have.
VolkerOn May. 2nd, 2020
I can’t imagine where you would have disappointed me, Daniel!
I just wanted to know if I missed the opportunity for a direct answer here. That´s all!
Regards
Volker
VolkerOn May. 1st, 2020
@Daniel:
How can one respond to an answer (quotation) here?
Obviously one cannot respond directly to your reply!?
The image quality of the Sony product is superior but it does neither offer the E-M1X´s burst rate of 60 RAW images per second (for a short timeperiod) nor does it provide a dual based image stabilization so that the lens stabilizer can be synchronized with the in-built image stabilization system of the image sensor.
Both features – especially the 60 RAW Images per second – can be of considerable advantage in certain situations. Ultimately, the decision for a particular system always depends on the photographic goals you want to achieve.
There are situations in bird photography that are currently less likely to be captured photographically at the continuous shooting speed of the Sony camera than with an E-M1X or a G9.
I would have liked best the picture quality of the Sony in connection with the feature richness of the E-M1X. 😉
Regards
Volker
Daniel J. CoxOn May. 1st, 2020
Sorry Volker for not being able to respond directly to my reply. I seem to continue to disappoint you. Unfortunately, this web site and blog is a labor of love. It ain’t perfect and neither am I. If this continues to disappoint you maybe you should find a Blog that better suits your needs.
VolkerOn Apr. 27th, 2020
[quote]
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 5th, 2020 (3 months ago)
Steve, as you mention, I’ve just started really working with the EM-1X with birds in flight. I’m planning a trip to Japan in the next three weeks where I’ll have a good number of opportunities for birds in flight. I’ll be taking the EM-1X and the Sony A9 to see how they compare. I’ve been doing my own research for the best settings for BIF. There’s a nice blog post by Peter Bambousek where he shares the settings he uses. My one concern is he mentions, “that overall about 80% were perfectly sharp, 10% slightly ‘unfocussed’ and 10% out of the focused area”. A it rate of 80% is about 10% less than what I used to get with my Nikons and that was the D4. The D5 and D500 are above that. So this information makes me a bit nervous since the hit rate of the Sony A9 was well into the 95+% area. Guess we shall see. Below are the settings I plan to start with which I took from Peter’s blog post. He was shooting at 18 FPS which for me it’s too many.
I plan to use the 10 FPS mode. That may actually improve AF performance.
+ reduce the focus area matrix to 3×3 or 5×5 points allowing to quickly change the AF area
+ 3×3 group target AF points
+ select C-AF
+ set C-AF sensitivity to 0
+ image stabilization in Auto mode or IS2 (for panning)
[/quote]
If it’s true that the E-M1X uses both live view data and already made recordings for the prediction calculation, I wouldn’t go to 10 fps.
Maybe of interest for you: BIF examples (E-M1X):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4484101?page=2
Kind regards
Volker
Daniel J. CoxOn Apr. 30th, 2020
Volker,
Thanks for sharing this with our readers. I also found that the Nikon hit rate was 90% plus. My Olympus experience is similar to what you shared. So yes there will be a bit less in focus with the Olympus system than what we experienced with Nikon. And Sony seems to be a good 5 to maybe as much as 8 frames better than what my Nikons used to produce. So in the end if you have to have every frame razor sharp focus which we would all like to have Sony is the answer. On the other hand Olympus gives me quick reaction capabilities and a very large number of the frames in focus so it’s a tossup to be honest with you. my prediction is Olympus is going to close that gap though and it won’t be too far down the road.
JasonOn Mar. 17th, 2020
I forgot to mention that I tried 6k video feature where you grab frames from a video sequence. Works okay when you can prefocus on a nest and can select specific frames such as a mother feeding her chicks but very slow autofocus and useless for birds in flight. I assume the focus is slow because rapid focus changes are jarring in videos
Jason
Daniel J. CoxOn Mar. 18th, 2020
Yep, we’re on the same page.
JasonOn Mar. 17th, 2020
Daniel
I appreciate your honest review. It agrees with my own experience with the G9 and trying to capture birds in flight with the Leica 100-400. I occasionally get a few in perfect focus but it is rare. For the longest time, I thought I was doing something wrong
I switched to the Sony A9 and A7RIV with the GM 100-400 with and without 1.4 TC. More recently use the Sony 200-600 G. Really outstanding results for action. MUCH better than Lumix G9. Also better image quality but larger heavier and more expensive gear.
However, I love the ergonomics of the G9 and like the top dslr like display and the compact lightweight lenses. For travel, I will often choose the G9 and MFT system.
In my mind, the Sony FF system and lenses is like medium or large format in the film days and the G9 like a top notch 35mm camera.
Jason
Daniel J. CoxOn Mar. 18th, 2020
It really is a shame that Lumix just can’t crack the autofocus nut. They would be a much more dominant force if they could. Your comments about the G9’s ergonimics mirror mine exactly. I don’t think anyone is building a camera as easy to use and recall as the Lumix G9. Regarding the 6K Photo Mode. It’s a fabulous feature but very limited since once again, AF is not an option and now with Pre Burst that allows RAW capture, the 6K Photo Mode is basically overshadowed. The one dark horse in all of this is Olympus. I’ve just finished 6 weeks on the road with Lumix, Olympus, and Sony. The tools Olympus offers are compelling. I’ll be sharing my thoughts on all of this in the coming weeks. Thanks for adding your voice Jason. I always love hearing from my readers.
WilliamOn Feb. 15th, 2020
I agree that Lumix autofocusing is lacking for birds in flight. I owned a both a G7 and a G9. I have the Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm and the 100-300mm lenses.
I could get the new Olympus but then I am investing in small sensors when a Sony A9 with a 200-600mm lens will do the trick for birds in flight.
I have a Nikon D5000 which did better with birds in flight.
I will keep my G9 for backyard birds that are perching or roosting. But the Panasonic autofocus is one of the worst autofocus systems. Low light situations are commonly encountered in wildbird photography and the problem is the small sensor during the golden hours.
I have been a photographer since the 60s So if birds in flight is your thing, avoid Lumix cameras. If shooting in low light is your thing, avoid small sensors.
Steven KornreichOn Jan. 25th, 2020
Daniel,
Just stumbled onto your website very informative indeed.
I don’t shoot wild life well at least not yet until I move from Park City to Bozeman,
Anyways I shoot both Alpine Ski racing for the US Ski team and also Freestyle skiing.
Been currently using the Sony A9, I came from the Nikon D5 and the Canon IDX, yes the A9/A9ll is an amazing camera but…
For me the handling even with the battery grip Is less then desirable when using the 100-400/4.5-5.6 Sony Zoom and in the winter wearing gloves can be a real problem.
So for an upcoming Freestyle event in February I rented a EM!-X and the 40-150/2.0 Olympus Pro Lens. I will be curious to see how it does, I am a little overwhelmed with all the shooting modes, yet I think I will try the 18FPS Electronic shutter and try a few different C-AF setting. Most of the time I have skiers coming towards me so it will be interesting.
I know you have only been working with the Olympus for a short time, yet for your BIF captures when the bird is coming towards you have you come up with a good settings that you could share.
Thanks
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 5th, 2020
Steve, as you mention, I’ve just started really working with the EM-1X with birds in flight. I’m planning a trip to Japan in the next three weeks where I’ll have a good number of opportunities for birds in flight. I’ll be taking the EM-1X and the Sony A9 to see how they compare. I’ve been doing my own research for the best settings for BIF. There’s a nice blog post by Peter Bambousek where he shares the settings he uses. My one concern is he mentions, “that overall about 80% were perfectly sharp, 10% slightly ‘unfocussed’ and 10% out of the focused area”. A it rate of 80% is about 10% less than what I used to get with my Nikons and that was the D4. The D5 and D500 are above that. So this information makes me a bit nervous since the hit rate of the Sony A9 was well into the 95+% area. Guess we shall see. Below are the settings I plan to start with which I took from Peter’s blog post. He was shooting at 18 FPS which for me it’s too many. I plan to use the 10 FPS mode. That may actually improve AF performance.
+ reduce the focus area matrix to 3×3 or 5×5 points allowing to quickly change the AF area
+ 3×3 group target AF points
+ select C-AF
+ set C-AF sensitivity to 0
+ image stabilization in Auto mode or IS2 (for panning)
Bob HamiltonOn Jan. 22nd, 2020
Dan,
For the past month or so, I’ve been using the Sony A7R4 for my birding photography, initially with the 100-400mm G Master f4.5-f5.6 lens, coupled with the 1.4x teleconverter, but, for the past fortnight, with the 200-600mm G f5.6-f6.3 lens.
I find the tracking capability of the A7R4 to be pretty much the equal of my A9, the only real, noticeable difference, setting number of frames per second aside, being the fact that the A9 has blackout free shooting capability, when using the electronic shutter, whereas the A7R4 does not. I also find that my copy of the 200-600mm G lens is, to my eyes, the equal of the 100-400mm G Master, in terms of sharpness, and, despite weighing in at some 550g more, compared to the 100-400mm G Master and 1.4x teleconverter combination, feels better balanced, as it has internal, rather than trombone, zooming and a very short throw to move from 200mm to 600mm. It also has the benefit of not requiring the addition of a teleconverter to get to a more decent focal length for wildlife work. I’ve tried the 2x teleconverter with the A7R4 and 100-400mm GM lens and the image quality becomes noticeably degraded.
Another major difference between the A7R4 and not only the A9, but also the current resolution offered by micro four thirds cameras, lies in the native resolution of the A7R4 with its pixel dimensions of 9,504 by 6,336, which, if cropped to the M43 pixel width of 5,184, effectively turns the 200-600mm lens into one of 367-1,100mm equivalence.
For the above reason, coupled with the tracking capability and basic image quality of the A7R4 (not only resolution, but also dynamic range and high ISO capability – I regularly use ISO 6400 with excellent results), I’ve (very sadly) decided to sell all of my Lumix G9 based equipment, despite the many thousand images I’ve taken with it, the fun I’ve had in doing so and, despite its severe limitations, in terms of the G9’s continuous autofocus and tracking capability, the many excellent images I’ve captured. As I said, I do so very sadly and reluctantly but the combination of the A7R4 and the 200-600mm lens is pretty irresistible.
Bob
Daniel J. CoxOn Jan. 23rd, 2020
Great report Bob. Thanks for sharing this info. It looks promising.
Robert E StricklandOn Jan. 17th, 2020
well, after reading this blog I am at a loss, everything I have read and watched pointed to the G9 but now I am not so sure. I have not purchased yet buy was getting close. However Sony price is out of the budget, I used canon for years when I sold it thinking I could make the Coolpix P1000 work for me as I got older and grayer. P1000 just doesn’t get it done. So I starting researching the 4/3rds cameras, in which I boiled it down to the G9. but now I need to do some more research on the Olympus camera I guess
Daniel J. CoxOn Jan. 17th, 2020
Sorry to confuse the issue for you Robert. I feel your pain. I’m a huge fan of the Lumix system except for fast-moving subjects which I shoot a lot. So that’s important to me. If you don’t do much action I would suggest you will love the G9. Many people just accept the fact the G9 is not an action tool. The other option you mention is Olympus. It’s a very good camera and their lenses are as good as ANY I’ve ever shot. I absolutely love Olympus lenses. That said, I’m not a big fan of the Olympus ergonomics. They’re better than Sony ergonomics but nowhere near what Lumix offers. It all boils down to no system being perfect. If Lumix would drop their insistence on using their proprietary Depth From Defocus Contrast AF and start using Phase Detection AF I believe they would have a huge, huge hit in the G9 and their other cameras. People love Lumix cameras. Just not their inability to follow fast-moving subjects. Here’s a video that explains the differences in AF systems.
Rick NOn Jan. 6th, 2020
Hello, Daniel,
At present Oly and Pana are both not doing enough to jointly promote M43. Also, they’ve muddied the waters by having brand-specific features (DFD vs ProCapture). Instead of building an M43 user base, they have split the votes (so to speak) and the engineering.
There should never have been two 100-400 lenses both supporting IS in the M43 space. That is a travesty. So much for a jointly developed format.
All that being said, many people are positive about MFT for travel, portraits and especially for landscape because of the extended DoF. For interiors the IS is amazing.
I do have a question, if you wouldn’t mind. When you were shooting the G9, and now on the M1X, do you use CAF, or, do you use SAF?
Daniel J. CoxOn Jan. 6th, 2020
Could not agree more Rick. Part of what sold me on MFT was the combination and strength that Panasonic and Olympus provided as a team. As you pointed out, that didn’t last long. That lack of cooperation was just one of several issues that made me reconsider my involvement with Lumix. I still think Panasonic builds THE BEST camera on the market as far as ease of use is concerned. In fact, nobody comes close. But their stubbornness not to change their DFD AF system out for something that actually works was what put me over the edge. I honestly believe that if they would fix their AF issues they would be a major player with their MFT cameras and even their Full Frame cameras. Unfortunately, both systems have the same DFD issues. Such a major pitty.
Regarding AF on the G9. I always use AF-C for moving subjects and AF-S for portraits etc. Thanks for stopping by to add your voice. Every little bit helps.
Jerry HallOn Dec. 6th, 2019
Thanks for your careful research on my question re Olympus EM5.3. I now understand that the E1.x, E1.2 and E5.3 all have the same AF foundation, but differ in added special features. EVF of E1.2 and E5.3 inadequate for my old eyes in comparison to G9.
I found the article linked below detailing some BIF fine tuning of the G9 under 2.0 and a comparison to the EM1.2 of interest. I will give the suggestions a try. Look forward to your 2.0 evaluation and settings.
Jerry HallOn Dec. 1st, 2019
Daniel, I noticed that the new this month EM5.3 seems to have much the same innards as the EM1X, especially the AF system. Smaller, lighter and much less expensive. Might it capture BIF similar to the EM1X? If so it is tempting to give it a try with my 100-400 and then turn in my G9 and GX85. Your thoughts? Jerry
Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 2nd, 2019
Jerry,
I emailed a contact I have with Olympus who specializes in helping the pro-market. Below are his comments. Hope this helps.
While his generalization of the M5.3 having the same guts as the M1X is overly generous, his comment about the AF system being the same is correct. As a result, the camera is able to focus at the same level for BIF as the M1X. But, there are feature differences that aren’t available in the M5.3.
1. The top shooting speeds for C-AF are 6fps mechanical shutter and 10fps electronic shutter. (The E-M1X is 10fps mechanical and 18fps electronic).
2. There are no customizable AF Target options available. The E-M1X allows a large number of options to mimic the size and orientation of the subject.
3. No joystick for quickly moving the AF Target.
4. The EVF doesn’t offer the High Frame Rate option which makes it easier to follow a quickly moving subject when shooting at fast continuous speeds.
These are what I’d consider the Top Level feature differences, but, the camera is still able to focus as well as the E-M1X. The above tools simply make serious work easier.
DavidOn Nov. 21st, 2019
Daniel, thank you for your honesty. Yes the G9, with the 100-400 has not been great for doing birds in flight, for reasons you have rightly covered. I’ve had best results with the 6K function, getting the bird to fly through or along a focal plain I’ve set for it. Recently I’ve been using mine more with the 50-200 plus 1.4X telconverter, a combo I like better. I shoot wildlife, as I find it, as video first and stills second. For that, I still think there is no better camera for ‘walk-up’ wildlife video at this (for me) doable price level. I mainly focus manually with back-button auto, peaking is handy, viewfinder great, love the level of stabilization achieved hand-held or on a monopod and the high quality of the 4K output. Firmware 2.0 makes the G9 even more attractive for such video. The Sony A9 is a beast for action shots, and should be better given it costs multiples of the G9, esp. with added lensware, I’d love one, but…. I’ve yet to properly test the new ‘bird detect’ autofocus function of the G9, it certainly picks up our manic honeyeaters (here in Australia) well, moving about inside bushes, we shall see..
Mark WashburnOn Oct. 19th, 2019
I appreciate your honesty Dan…even if Panasonic doesn’t:) . In truth I guess I can’t blame them for making changes of people…but really they do need to consider some changes with the AF. They can be stubborn if they want but I think it’s to a point of hurting them. I have the G9 and find the camera quite appealing for many things, but birds in flight…no…just no. My EM1.2 kicks it every time and having used the X some, it’s even better. I’ll be selling the G9 at some point and moving fully to Olympus except for the 100-400 PL. I found that lens to actually work quite well with the X at an airshow…and it’s so small and light that I think it’s worth keeping around. I’ll try the new Olympus 150-400 coming out but it’s going to have to be quite a bit better for me to plunk down as much money as I expect it will cost. I may try the Sony at some point too just to see where it’s at, but like you as well, I don’t want to go back to larger and more costly lenses if I can help it. Your commentary was a fairly influential factor for me moving over to m43 and I sincerely thank you for that. It has made photography very enjoyable and the images have been pleasing to me…hard to ask for more than that.
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 19th, 2019
Thanks for your input, Mark. I knew I would be pushing the limits of what any company would accept but I was ready for the dismissal. I had done my best and tried everything to get the Lumix gear to do what I needed. When it finally became obvious it wasn’t possible I felt I had a more important obligation to the folks who travel with us and also my internet audience. Our NE Explorers trust me for the right information on any given camera system. A large number of our travelers has switched to the Lumix system based on my recommendations. When I finally had to throw in the towel on Auto Focus I felt it was my duty to share that info with the people who’ve put their trust in me. It’s all water under the bridge and I loved working with Panasonic’s Lumix division. I just don’t think they understand how important competitive AF is even though I did everything I could to try and convince them. I honestly believe if they would solve this issue they would be a serious force in the photography world. If they don’t, it won’t be positive long term. Canon destroyed Nikon in the ’90s with one advantage and that was AF. Nikon never recaptured the market share Canon rightfully acquired. Amazingly, Sony is now doing to Canon what Canon did to Nikon. Hard to believe that AF can still be improved to the point it’s once again enticing photographers to another brand, me being one of them, but that’s exactly what we’re seeing. It confirms my belief that quality AF is THE key element photographers are looking for.
Michael W. EwanusOn Oct. 15th, 2019
Daniel,
Thank you so much for your honesty.
Mike Ewanus
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 15th, 2019
Happy to do it.
Mark GOn Oct. 14th, 2019
Hi I’ve recently discovered your blog here and found it extremely informative and honest. I’d also read you reviews of the G9 as part of your ‘previous” role as a Lumix ambassador. I think I’ve seen every review , YouTube , the normal sites Camera?abs, David Thorpe etc, and have found yours to be really detailed and practical. So much so I was going to downside my 5Dmk4 and lenses to MFT due to weight and portability.
I’m really a landscape, wildlife shooter , BIF occasionally.
Having read your reasons for now being ‘fired’ and the reasons why I’m really between a rock and a hard place on this. There are still many positive reviews on the G9 And the Olympus MFT system as well , but your arguments about the auto focus system are somewhat compelling. What to do next !
Thanks for your work it really is inspiring and honest – probably to a fault!
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 14th, 2019
Thanks for your input Mark. I’ve never been accused of people not knowing what I think. My integrity is worth more than anyone can pay and it’s always been that way. It won’t change I can promise you. Great hearing from you.
David ChmelikOn Oct. 13th, 2019
I was following you for a long time and I have gone through similar thinking proces. Your thoughts and remarks helped me a lot, but then I had an opportunity to borrow EM1x … and that was it.
A9 may well be even better, but EM1x seems to be very decent way to stay in MFT land. For an amateur like me there is no way to carry those big fullframe long lenses and there are many other nice features of MFT cameras one can make use of.
Thanks for your sincereness, it must have been not easy.
David
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 13th, 2019
Thanks for the kind words, David. It was very difficult to write a completely honest review since I’ve been involved with the Lumix folks for several years and it’s been a very personally rewarding relationship. However, I told them when I signed their contract that I may not be able to be completely dedicated to Lumix if I found it not filling my needs. They agreed in the beginning but later the contract changed. I, on the other hand, did not. So the time came to finally tell it like it is after several years of being very patient and working hard to make the system they’ve developed work as good as it possibly can. Unfortunately for the kind of work I do, it just doesn’t produce the results I need for fast action. Everything else is great and in fact, I still use their gear for 80% of what I do. I’m hopeful the day will come where they’ll get it figured out. Until then I have to shoot other camera equipment for Birds in Flight and other fast-moving subjects.
AnnieOn Sep. 25th, 2019
In 2016, after damaging a Nikon body and Sigma 150 macro beyond repair, invested in a GH4 and Olympus 60mm macro, which I have been really happy with. A year ago, after some considerable research which led me to this blog amongst other resources, I decided to go for a G9 and the 100-400. I soon came to the conclusion that this combination gave almost indistinguishable results to my D500+1.2+300mm for static birds, but despite dialling in all your recommendations, it didn’t do well for birds in flight.
Nevertheless, wanting a simple lightweight set of equipment (not forgetting that a single type of battery was helpful) for travel, I bought a second G9, and the Olympus 7-14mm, only days before you posted this article. Now, I’m wondering if I made the right move – not that I can afford to change it.
My husband has bought the Nikon Z6, and also swapped his 200-400 for the much lighter-weight 500PF to use with his D500.
I’m going to Spain next week, and the trip will include a visit to a site with griffon vultures. I’ve never managed decent photos of griffons in flight – mostly due to atmospheric effects. I’ve been practising birds in flight with the G9 and 100-400 again, but really am conflicted as to whether I should take this lighter-weight, more versatile lens, or go back to the D500 set-up which gives me more consistent results. On the other hand, I already have some photos of griffons with that combination.
This trip is based around a conference, and I’ll be staying in a town (unusual for me) so I’ll be taking only the wide angle combination, and a long lens combination.
Anyway, I’ll keep visiting your site for the very useful insights you’ve been so good at providing.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 25th, 2019
Thanks for your input, Annie. Unfortunately, if you really want to get as many Griffon Vultures/Birds in Flight as you can possibly get, you’ll have to opt for the Nikon D500. The G9 will get some for you but not the number you will get from the D500. I’m disappointed to tell you this but it is the reality of our current situation with Lumix. The other camera I’m testing that gives me hope to combine with my Lumix gear is the Olympus EM-1X which is doing much better for action subjects than my Lumix cameras. The downside to this body is that it’s actually a bit heavier than the D500. The upside is you can use it with your 100-400mm lens. Hope this helps.
Luis MesaOn Sep. 19th, 2019
Daniel, thanks for posting your honest views on this issue. I changed to M4/3 about 5 years ago. First with Olympus and now with Lumix. I recently returned from a trip to Iceland, Greenland, and the Golf of St. Lawrence. Using the G9 mostly with the 50-200 + 1.4 TC. I got some excellent shots of BIF even flying towards me, although when the background was very busy, the ratio dropped to about 25%. However, I had a terrible acceptance ratio of photos of Beluga whales in the Saganey Fjiord in Quebec. I mostly blamed the light, which was very bright reflecting on the water, and the fact that whales, although slow, are very unpredictable to be able to spot them. Have you had a similar experience with birds or other wild life because of the bright light?
I am frustrated because it was probably a unique opportunity sorely missed.
Some other questions:
Have you tried the new firmware for the Oly OM1-ii (version 3.1) and does it improve the tracking capability? I am thinking of getting this camera, which I have tried before and I like a lot, to be a second body to the G9 mostly for tracking situations. I think it is compatible with the Lumix Leica lenses and the 1.4, but correct me if I am wrong, please.
Also, could the OM5-ii, be that second body mostly for tracking wildlife and birds, and be an improvement to the G9?
I have read your comments about the Sony, but I don’t want to spend the money including the lenses that I need, as it is only a hobby for me, plus carrying a complete new system as well would deny the advantages of M4/3.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
Luis
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 21st, 2019
Luis, beluga whales are extremely difficult simply because it’s impossible to predict where they will appear from beneath the water. This particular situation is not a problem for just the Lumix cameras, it’s a problem for all cameras. I have not tried the firmware on the older Olympus OM1-Mrkll. I’ve heard good things, however. Yes, it is compatible with the Leica/Lumix lenses but you will not get the benefit of the Dual IS. When you mix and match the Lumix and Olympus lenses you lose the Dual IS. I have my doubts the OM5 will be a camera for birds in flight. Typically you need to be shooting the top tier camera from any brand to get the best Predictive AF possible. That’s not usually the case with the second tier cameras. I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting the OM5 to be a great action camera. That said, with the issues we’re having with the G9, it may just be better. Impossible to say until it’s released. Regarding the larger Sony system, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I wished desperately Lumix would give us the quality AF Sony has in the smaller package many of us want. Thanks for joining the conversation.
Louis BerkOn Sep. 17th, 2019
Daniel, a very interesting (and brave post for a Lumix Ambassador).
As you may recall from our interactions in your blog I was until earlier this year a long time Panasonic m43rds shooter – although a little bit Olympus as well, as my favourite UWA lens was the PRO 7-14/2.8 which in my experience is the best UWA I have shot with.
Most of my work is not wildlife and I have had great success with the Panasonic/m43rds system in both professional and personal work.
However!
The end came for me when I invested heavily in the G9 and 200/2.8 for wildlife. In a year of using the system I got an average keeper rate of 10-15% for any bird photography. The 15% was heavily weighted towards static bird portraits and the 85% of out of focus and out of luck non-keepers was largely birds in flight. The 200/2.8 with the TC1.4 was barely usable and with the TC2.0 was completely unusable, even on occasion for static bird shots where the AF should have locked on.
To give you an idea of my frustration a typical example was trying to get focus locked on with a Kestrel which was hovering in the air about 20 feet above me (Kestrels seem to completely ignore humans in my experience which is a wonderful) and I was pounding away on the shutter button in complete frustration as the AF hunted back and forth. In the end I got maybe one shot but the bird had turned away from me which ruined the composition. I can recall many other frustrating occasions. It got to the point where I just knew the camera/lens would not lock on in certain situations (with busy backgrounds, for example) and I wouldn’t even bother to attempt a capture. At that point I am afraid I decided I had to move to another system or give up my enjoyment of bird photography!
You, like me, state the obvious, which is the ‘DFD-autofocus’ is like the emperors new clothes. Panasonic inspire a lot of loyalty amongst their users and none of us wants to actually put our hands up and state, “Sorry, Panasonic, but DFD just doesn’t work for fast action photography”.
My belief is that the relationship with Leica may be some of the problem (I speak as long time Leica user). Leica comes up with fantastic innovations which on paper are superior to any other technology but which in practise just don’t work. I think with the DFD system Panasonic has caught the same disease.
It is very interesting now that Panasonic has moved into the FF market with the professional camera bodies that reviewers who for the first time are trying out Panasonic cameras are all pretty much consistently commenting on how the DFD auto focus system is a weakness compared to pro bodies from Nikon and Canon. You think?
I was very, very sad to leave the m43rds eco system. I was only prepared to move to another mirrorless body and for me I had previous experience with Sony (not good, in fact, so poor that I sold all my Sony kit and only used my Panasonic system for my work) so I went with Fuji. Now, the X-T3 is nowhere near as good a body as the G9 but the autofocus is just plain amazing. I have taken bird in flight photographs and grab-shot-once-in-a-lifetime captures with the X-T3 and 100-400 zoom which I would not have bothered even attempting with the G9 and 200/2.8 (without or with the TCs).
If Panasonic were to adopt a more conventional and proven predictive auto focus system I would be interested in return to m43rds. I really do miss my Vario 12-35 and Vario 35-100 zooms, as well as the PRO 7-14 but I needed to release all the capital in my m43rds kit to fund my move to Fuji. I’m not emotionally as attached to Fuji as I was to m43rds. There is something about the ergonomics and lenses of the m43rds system which for architecture and urban landscapes (which is what I do) is ‘just right’.
But while I want to continue to pursue wildlife photography alongside my other interests, at present Panasonic are no longer for me. I am interested in your results with EM1X but the size of the body completely negates the benefits of m43rds, in my humble opinion.
Hope my ramblings have not been too long. I love your wildlife photography – the charging bear after the salmon is just sublime! Keep up the good work!
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 17th, 2019
Thanks for your honest insight Louis. I’ve felt your same frustration and it’s exactly why I wrote this piece. I have no idea if my colleagues at Lumix in the US or even Japan read this blog but if they do they’ll get an honest assessment of how people feel on this issue. I really do believe Lumix equipment is superb except for this one major problem and I also believe if they were to fix it they have no idea how popular their cameras would become. This one issue is holding them back in a major way. Who knows where this will all lead. My Lumix friends may eventually feel I’m no longer an asset. If that happens I’ll feel very comfortable that I’ve always been truthful with our Natural Exposures Explorers and the rest of my readers here on the blog and other forums.
Rick PophamOn Sep. 10th, 2019
Hi Dan,
I’m happy with my Micro 4/3 gear (mostly Olympus) in everything except trying to keep moving things in focus. I’ve pretty much decided that I’ll have to keep my Nikon system going just for wildlife — which is a shame because that Olympus 300 f/4 is one of the sharpest lenses I’ve used.
So I’m VERY interested in your experience with the E-M1X. Fingers crossed that it measures up. Thanks again for all you do here.
Rick
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 10th, 2019
Yep, me too Rick. I’m currently in South Africa with my Lumix gear as well as the EM-1X and I’m very impressed with the Olympus. I’m shooting the 300mm F/4 with the Olympus body and using the Leica 50-200mm on the G9. Both did very well last evening with a pack of wild dog puppies we found. There was lots of action with the puppies playing though admittedly nothing extremely fast or coming straight at the camera.
I’m not ready to give up on the Panasonic system. I do a lot of travel work along with my wildlife and the Lumix gear is fabulous due to weight and size for travel. I’m willing to give it a little more time to see if the next Lumix body is capable of being the wildlife tool I need. Until that happens I plan on using whatever necessary to continue producing professional wildlife work. I’m also waiting to see what the next Sony A9 update brings. It’s an exciting time to be a photographer. Thanks for your input.
Steve YatesOn Sep. 10th, 2019
I’ve been struggling with shooting fast action using my GX9 and 100-400mm for the last year. Despite trying every option and suggestion I could find I get very few keepers when shooting birds in flight.
It’s particularly frustrating how often I get a shot that looks OK when I’m pressing the shutter, but turns out to be slightly out of focus when zoomed in afterwards. As you point out, it can be challenging enough just filling the frame with a fast moving bird – it’s disappointing to then have to delete shots I thought I’d nailed.
Posting about this on certain forums, I received some rather condescending comments blaming it on my incompetence and claiming that no decent photographer would have any problem with Panasonic’s DFD AF. Other people suggested that switching from the GX9 to the G9 would be an AF game-changer, but brief testing with the higher-end Panasonic didn’t leave me convinced.
It’s somewhat reassuring to see that I’m in good company when it comes to this issue. I just wish there was an alternative kit as small and light as the GX9+100-400mm that offered cutting edge C-AF.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 10th, 2019
Steve, I do believe the G9 would give you better results but not substantially better. I’ve shot birds in flight for literally 40 years. I know how to make these kinds of pictures happen but… you have to have the gear that can produce the results once you’ve done your part. Unfortautnely, the really fast action like birds in flight, the Lumix system just doesn’t cut it. It’s not your fault, I can assure you.
Alan StankevitzOn Sep. 9th, 2019
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your honest review. Being a bird photographer for many years now and being a “Canon guy” for most of them, I have mostly switched over to Sony. I also have M43 gear including the G9 and still use M43 gear for 4k video work. On the stills side of things, I had the 1DXII and the Canon 600mm II + 1.4x TC for bird photography. I still own the 600, but sold the 1DX MII about 18 months ago and have never looked back.
I tried to make the G9 work for BIF with the 100-400mm Panasonic lens, but it was a lesson in futility, especially when taking shots with busy backgrounds. (I wrote to you a few times about this.) I have used the A9 with both the 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses and I think the Sony 200-600mm + 1.4x +A9 is the BEST combination for bird photography I have ever used.
I also did indoor comparison shots using the Canon 600mm II and the 200-600mm @600mm and found the image quality to be almost exactly the same. The 200-600mm was slightly sharper than the Canon, but it was ridiculously hard to tell the two apart. I doubt I will ever purchase the Sony 600mm prime because the 200-600mm is so good and when needed the Canon 600mm II with the MC-11 adapter works quite well on the A9.
The only thing negative is working in low-light conditions in which the 600mm primes are always going to be better. I’ll keep my Canon 600mm for that, but I can tell you that 90% of the time, the A9 will have the 200-600mm attached to it.
I still like M43 for it’s light-weight bodies and cameras and maybe when the Olympus 150-400mm arrives I might try that out but I have a feeling that now that I have the Sony A9 with the 200-600, it will be tough to persuade me to go back to M43 for bird photography. I still also have hopes that Olympus will advance their phase-detect autofocus system. It certainly is usable, just not quite there yet compared to the A9.
Thanks again,
Alan Stankevitz
iwishicouldfly.com
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 9th, 2019
Thanks for your input Alan. I’m excited to hear you’re liking the 200-600mm. I’ve heard mixed reviews on this new lens but there’s so few out there I’ve been waiting for more info. I plan on testing one when I get home in October. Sounds encouraging. You also express virtually exact same findings as I’ve experienced with the Olympus cameras. The EM-1X is good but still no comparison to the Sony. That said, Olympus has at least made good progress and I think they’ll get there. I too am anxious to see the new Olympus lens. Will be interesting. My only fear is there are so few of us that want serious quality anymore that none of these camera companies will survive and we’ll all be shooting birds in flight with our dang phone.
Chris FragapaneOn Sep. 9th, 2019
…and the quest for “perfection” goes on. All this incredibly sophisticated equipment, but nothing yet “does it all”. Really interesting read Daniel.
Admittedly, I can and do fall for the latest and greatest, but since I rarely do BIF, I will continue to marvel at the capabilities of my G9, and it has not let me down even with most other non-static subjects.
Thank you for the updates.
JayOn Sep. 8th, 2019
Dan,
As always a great unbiased review! I completely agree with you that no camera system can do it all. As soon as Nikon started to market PhaseFresnel lens , I bought a D500 and 300PF with tc 1.4 and that works incredibly well for wildlife and BIF. The combination has similar reach and weighs less than Omd em1 mii with 300mm ! i have resolved to the fact that there is truly no swizz army knife (as yet) in the camera world, if one wants the ideal camera for every situation. There are always work arounds, but sometimes its frustrating.
Paul FramptonOn Sep. 8th, 2019
Hi Dan, another informative and honest post.
As an amateur I invested into Panasonic with the G9 and 100-400 Leica a while back, and I have been largely happy with the system. Problems come, like you with BIF, a subject which I enjoy quite a lot. Reading this blog had me leaping to my favourite camera stores website to look at the A9 and 100-400 combo. The price sadly, is way out of my budget. Even the EM1X is too much for me.
To your knowledge, is there anything comparable AF wise in the lower end Sony equipment? I’ve even looked at the Sony RX10 IV more than a couple of times as the AF has some good write ups, and I’ve read that it “blows away” the G9 for tracking. But part exchanging my G9 and 100-400 to go to smaller sensor and shorter focal length seems like a backwards step. I’ll probably stick with my G9 setup, in the hopes of another FW update for the AF.
I wonder what your opinions are for someone on a tighter budget that likes to photograph BIF?
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 8th, 2019
Thanks for stopping by Paul. Unfortunately, I don’t have any good answers for a budget camera that does exceptional birds in flight. It’s obviously not easy to do based on what we’re seeing with the Lumix equipment. Additionally, I’ve not had any opportunities to test other gear. It’s possible the new Sony APS-C cameras the Sony A6100 and Sony A6600 could be an option. The adverts talk a good game on how well both cameras do with focus tracking. I have a friend that uses the Sony A6500 with the older version of the newly announced Sony Alpha 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G and is very happy with it’s AF tracking capabilities. None of it inexpensive when you already have a system in place however. I wished I had more positive news. I’m still hoping Lumix gets us better Predictive AF in the G9 but it may not happen based on how long it’s taking.
Bill OttOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts and research on the Pany DFD technology. To be honest, that is the one thing that has kept me away from Panasonic. I spent 20+ years shooting a Canon system and after a tremendous amount of research and testing, I made the switch to Olympus about 3 years ago. After years of toting heavy 500/F4 lenses and bulky camera bodies around, I really do love the reliable “hand holdability” of the MFT system and am often astonished at what can be achieved without lugging my heavy Gitzo tripod around. Olympus lenses are exceptional, but I really appreciate the option of being able to use Pany lenses as well. I recently rented a full frame Sony and some lenses to test. The first thing I noticed was the size and weight of the lenses, especially noticeable after 3 years of freedom with the lightweight MFT system. It felt like the “fun factor” was gone and lugging the heavier lenses was a burden. I missed being able to reliably hand-hold at ridiculous slow shutter speeds like I can with MTF. For BIF, I’ve used the EM-1X with the 300/4 and 40-150/2.8 and the success rate has been great. So, for me, I’ll stick with Olympus. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Best of luck in your testing!
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Great to have your input Bill. The size of the lenses just can’t be ignored. Ditto regarding the price when you get into the long glass I often need for my work. Just for fun I pulled up a few images from my last shoot in Alaska that were taken with the EM-1X and the 300mm F/4 with the 2X teleconverter.
All were shot handheld, the salmon boat was handheld at 1/60th. of a second! 1200mm at 1/60th of a second for goodness sakes. This image I’ve included is a screenshot of the photograph at 100%. A very similar lens to this combination, the Canon 1200mm F/5.6 originally sold for $90,000US. I knew a guy who had one> let’s just say he wasn’t a working wildlife photographer.
Below are two more images shot with the 300mm F/4 and 2X teleconverter.
Whitney DunnOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Dan,
An enormous benefit Canon and Nikon have is the feedback loop from state of the art systems to sophisticated users and back. The engineers are experienced developing AF systems; they know the edge cases; they have the data; and they’ve explored what works and what doesn’t. From that, they iterate on what’s already state of the art . And because of their market shares — built on decades of technical leadership — they have a large stable of experienced testers in whose hands they can put their prototypes. Those cameras are then pushed to the limits in all the key sports and wildlife scenarios, and the feedback used to refine the AF systems. It’s a virtuous circle. And we’ll see the fruits in the upcoming D6 and 1DX Mark III.
Sony, to their credit, didn’t start with the users or the same technical base, but was willing to spend the money to develop cutting edge AF. Committing fully to mirrorless has likely also been to their advantage as they haven’t had to split engineering resources between that and DSLR development.
I can’t see Panasonic and, to a lesser extent, Olympus, competing with Canon, Nikon, or Sony. They’ve got the opposite problem: they lack the base of sophisticated (“pro”) users to drive AF development, or the sales to justify it, and the engineering knowledge — think of the thousands of edge cases Canon and Nikon must have evaluated — to create state of the art systems. But without those, they’ll never attract users from other systems.
I’m not sure where Olympus goes with m4/3; recent sales trends are not encouraging. Panasonic likely has a much more defensible niche with video — I think the GH and S1s series are their future. I wouldn’t expect much focus on sports or wildlife.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Whiteney, you’re defense Nikon and Canon’s AF game doesn’t hold a lot of water. Yes… without argument they HAD been the best. However, I’ve not heard anyone excited about how the new Z cameras do for birds in flight. And when Nikon’s Z system was first released it was showing virtually the same issues all mirrorless models, Lumix, Olympus and Sony, experienced with their first releases. Things like EVF blackout, slow predictive AF, battery drain, etc. I was actually shocked that with Nikon’s prowess in AF, as you described, their first attempt did so poorly. Maybe they were just holding back, as they often have, giving Sony more time to extend their lead and Olympus more time to improve.
The one advantage that Nikon holds in their cards is the P lens technology. If they can perfect that then all benefits of the smaller MFT system evaporate overnight. Yet… they build the two amazing P lenses for the old DSLR system. Go figure. Their marketing prowess is head-scratching. Meanwhile, Sony just keeps charging forward while Nikon and Canon rely on ancestry worship. But Sony isn’t necessarily on the right track either. The A9 system overall is right back to the past with regards to size, weight. And we haven’t even mentioned the prices of their new monster lenses like the 600mm F/4 that’s over $12,000US. A similar price to Canon and Nikon’s. That’s a big deal when compared to the Olympus 300mm F/4, that for all intents and purposes gives me a close enough view and image output for a reasonable $2500US.
I also wonder where MFT is headed but I think if Lumix would up their AF game it would make a huge difference. In fact, it’s the reason I did these tests. I’m hopeful they’ll look at this as a positive illustration as to why Predictive AF is so important. Quite frankly I don’t think they currently take it all that seriously. If so they would have changed course by now and gone with Phase Detection AF, a proven technology that creates the buzz they desperately need. In the long run, the Lumix DFD AF system may win out but I’m concerned in the fast-moving camera market they may not have the benefit of time.
As always, thanks for joining the conversation.
Robert SuttonOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Hi Dan, I have followed your MFT journey over the years and have made the same transition to the smaller system as you have. It has made my travels a lot easier and taken the strain off my back and the airplane!….there is a but coming as I photograph wildlife all over the world and was hoping for faster progress from Panasonic in developing and improving their CAF. I have just recently sold my G9 as it was frustrating me with its poor hit rate photographing Puffins in Ireland recently and the other folk I saw were picking them off with their Canon 7d Mk ii’s and 100-400 lens’s. I am also looking at Sony at the moment, the A9, as although the menu system appears less than friendly the AF is amazing and locks on quickly and stays there. I look forward to your further thoughts as i like your say it how it is attitude with no bull**** or bias. Thanks again for your thoughts. Great blog.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 7th, 2019
Great to hear from you, Robert. Yes, unfortunately, those of us shooting the Lumix gear are still at a disadvantage when it comes to birds in flight. I’m really surprised this issue has not been solved on the engineering side. That being the case thankfully there are other options such as the Sony A9 I tested. The downside to the Sony is once you need longer than what the 100-400mm gives you, you’re now into the land of big and expensive, just like we were with Nikon and Canon. I knew the Sony would be hard to beat but I’m just not interested in going back to such massive gear. That’s why I also added the Olympus to the mix and though it wasn’t as good as the A9, it was very much better than my G9. I believe it will only be a matter of time before the Olympus will compete head-on with Sony. But for now, there is no finer camera for birds in flight than the Sony A9. It’s truly shocking how good it is.
Steve WallaceOn Sep. 6th, 2019
After having a breakfast of crow, I am now eating my words. Nicely, done.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 6th, 2019
Steve, anybody that knows me… knows… I pull no punches. When I signed on with Lumix as an Ambassador I told them I could not shoot Lumix full time since in 2010 they didn’t have all the lenses needed. I was assured I could continue shooting whatever I needed, at that time my Nikon system, to produce my professional work. Over the years they’ve introduced the longer lenses but autofocus, for fast-moving subjects, has been a different story. I’ve always been brutally honest with my readers and will continue to do so.
Dave GlatzOn Sep. 4th, 2019
Interesting post, Dan. Always appreciate your honesty. Just got back from a trip and met a guy shooting A9 and brand new Sony 600 f/4 and 200-600. Obviously these are bigger than the 100-400 but still reasonable in terms of weight and very well balanced. And the guy was consistently nailing very tough BIF shots, even when they were flying right at him. Very impressive performance. Look forward to getting your impressions on the Sony system. I don’t now much about the Olympus but will follow your blog and experience with this body too. I don’t shoot a ton of BIF but admit I’m kind of an action photo junkie.
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 5th, 2019
Thanks for the input Dave. The Sony A9 is truly in a league all by itself. Nothing I’ve ever shot is consistently close. The Olympus is threatening but with the new A9 update on the horizon, I can only guess it will be another leap forward for Sony. The downside for me is I don’t want to go back to the behemoth lenses. The new Sony 200-600mm is a reasonable size but I’ve heard very mixed reports on the quality of the glass since it’s not Sony’s G Masters Series lens. Additionally, it’s not considered weather sealed. I plan on doing some tests with this lens when I get back from my current six weeks on the road. I have to give Sony a lot of credit. Autofocus superiority is what put Canon pon the map and took at least 50% market share from Nikon. You would have thought they would have remembered how they did that and would have worked to make sure it didn’t happen to them. But alas it is.