New Firmware 3.0

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

None of these three photos look acceptably focused to me when I view them at original size (on an IPad Pro). The focus looks like it's not locked where I would expect (horse's head/eyes or jockey's head/eyes).

 

Where was the intended focus point? It might be an example where the focus point size on the SL combined with shallow DOF and (not smart enough) AF doesn't suit the subject matter.

 

 

They look just fine to me. The horse is in motion, so there's a bit of motion blur; that's inescapable. The bridle to the horse's ear seem to be in good focus, which includes the plane of the jockey's face.

 

Besides, the POINT of photos like this is to see the horse and rider galloping along, not to count hairs on their eyelids. The fact that I can count hairs is amazing.

[LD_50]

The shots are at 1/5000. I would not expect motion blur when shooting these subjects at that shutter speed. I also do not agree that motion blur here is inescapable.

 

We've obviously different standards for acceptable focus. The horse's shoulder for example looks sharper than it's face/eyes and would have similar level of "motion blur." It simply looks like the camera focused on a part of the horse/jockey combo that I would not find ideal. If the photographer intended this, then the system nailed it.

 

The POINT of these photos is whatever the photographer (Chaemono) and viewer (me) chooses it to be right? I did not bring up counting hairs and depending on the output size the photo may be sharp enough even if the focus point is not where I would want it. The photographer posted them as an example of improved AF and tracking, so I assume that would be the POINT from his perspective and it's what I was addressing.

Edited June 12, 2017 by LD_50

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Chaemono]

None of these three photos look acceptably focused to me when I view them at original size (on an IPad Pro). The focus looks like it's not locked where I would expect (horse's head/eyes or jockey's head/eyes).

 

...It might be an example where the focus point size on the SL combined with shallow DOF and (not smart enough) AF doesn't suit the subject matter.

 

Yes, good point. Could very well be. How about IS as I pan? Could this also be an issue?

 

I used zone instead of field. I tried field before under FW 2.0 but it was more difficult to acquire focus when the horses were moving so fast. As the horses approach my biggest worry is always will the camera's contrast-detect AF find and lock focus on the front running horse wherever the precise focus point may be. Zone works faster in this respect, I found. Field takes longer which may mean I don't get any shots at all. But combined with a shallow DOF, as you point out, the results will look like what one sees here. IMO, even if the horse's or jockey's head/eyes may not be perfectly in focus, in 146, 147, 155, 156, for example, the horses/jockeys that were intended to be in focus (I look at the letters on the saddle) as a whole still look acceptably sharp to me (yes, some parts are more in focus than others). 157 is blurry. Stopping down the lens could partly improve the results. But I don't know if the pictures will then look a bit flat. I'll try f/4 or f/5 next time and try field, again.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Chaemono

[ramarren]

I've seen camera blur at 1/16,000 second. All depends how fast the camera and subject are moving relative to one another. 

 

If you can tell an AF system precisely what iris to focus on, good for you. For me, this is as good as it gets. I've never seen any AFc/tracking system do better, period. And I've had both high and low end Nikons and Canons that are 'so good at this'. 

 

"Horses for courses." Not that affects me at all. I think I've used AFc twice in the past decade for anything but testing.

Edited June 12, 2017 by ramarren

[LD_50]

I've seen camera blur at 1/16,000 second. All depends how fast the camera and subject are moving relative to one another. 

 

If you can tell an AF system precisely what iris to focus on, good for you. For me, this is as good as it gets. I've never seen any AFc/tracking system do better, period. And I've had both high and low end Nikons and Canons that are 'so good at this'. 

 

"Horses for courses." Not that affects me at all. I think I've used AFc twice in the past decade for anything but testing.

My experience is the high end Nikon gear does a better job with tracking and AFc. This doesn't look as good as it gets to me. I guess it's down to your standard of "good enough" being different than mine. That's cool and it's the reason there's a place for so many photographers at a given event with different gear.

 

To achieve parity with the very best (in my experience Nikon, probably Canon, and maybe the newest OMD-EM II and Sonys) perhaps smaller focus points would help in a future FW or camera iteration, combined with PDAF points on sensor to help with tracking speed.

[LD_50]

Yes, good point. Could very well be. How about IS as I pan? Could this also be an issue?

 

I used zone instead of field. I tried field before under FW 2.0 but it was more difficult to acquire focus when the horses were moving so fast. As the horses approach my biggest worry is always will the camera's contrast-detect AF find and lock focus on the front running horse wherever the precise focus point may be. Zone works faster in this respect, I found. Field takes longer which may mean I don't get any shots at all. But combined with a shallow DOF, as you point out, the results will look like what one sees here. IMO, even if the horse's or jockey's head/eyes may not be perfectly in focus, in 146, 147, 155, 156, for example, the horses/jockeys that were intended to be in focus (I look at the letters on the saddle) as a whole still look acceptably sharp to me (yes, some parts are more in focus than others). 157 is blurry. Stopping down the lens could partly improve the results. But I don't know if the pictures will then look a bit flat. I'll try f/4 or f/5 next time and try field, again.

I think the DOF required for this type of shot really depends on the intended output size and viewing distance. With certain levels of magnification everything in these photos will look suitably sharp and consistent across the subject. These aren't way off or anything, just not what I would call ideal if printing or viewing large where the plane of focus is easily seen.

 

Nice work and thanks for posting.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With zone and field focus and wide open, it wouldn't be surprising to find best focus is in the 'wrong' place. Single point focusing would be more likely to show the success or failure of the AF system.

[Irakly Shanidze]

I just discovered that SL does not want to do wifi when connected to an hdmi recorder and vice versa. I doubt that this is beyond hardware capabilities

[ramarren]

My experience is the high end Nikon gear does a better job with tracking and AFc. This doesn't look as good as it gets to me. I guess it's down to your standard of "good enough" being different than mine. That's cool and it's the reason there's a place for so many photographers at a given event with different gear.

 

To achieve parity with the very best (in my experience Nikon, probably Canon, and maybe the newest OMD-EM II and Sonys) perhaps smaller focus points would help in a future FW or camera iteration, combined with PDAF points on sensor to help with tracking speed.

 

 

I use manual focus most of the time.

[sillbeers15]

"

My experience is the high end Nikon gear does a better job with tracking and AFc. This doesn't look as good as it gets to me. I guess it's down to your standard of "good enough" being different than mine. That's cool and it's the reason there's a place for so many photographers at a given event with different gear.

 

To achieve parity with the very best (in my experience Nikon, probably Canon, and maybe the newest OMD-EM II and Sonys) perhaps smaller focus points would help in a future FW or camera iteration, combined with PDAF points on sensor to help with tracking speed."

 

It would make great sense if that you can show proof of same situation shots taken from Nikon & Canon that does not show any of the faults you've commented regarding your focus tracking accuracy expectations.

[deep_blue]

Exposure preview in M does not work correctly - at least in AUTO-ISO not.

the exposure is only shown correct within the limits of the AUTO-ISO settings. Once you hit the limit, the preview is not correct anymore, as long as you change the exposure time. If you close [or open] the aperture: the preview is shown correct again...

 

crazy.

Or is it a feature?

 

I wrote to Leica an received an answer today: It is a bug and they are already working on it. A fix will be published with the next firmware update. 

[LD_50]

"

 

It would make great sense if that you can show proof of same situation shots taken from Nikon & Canon that does not show any of the faults you've commented regarding your focus tracking accuracy expectations.

I sold off all my Nikon gear so there won't be any direct comparisons from me. You can look at just about all the professional sports photography available (including horse racing) to see the high end Nikon and Canon gear's results. There's a reason these two companies dominate sports photography, because the tools simply work best. Sony may be challenging that with the newest A9, though I have no experience with it.

 

The last Nikon gear I shot with was a D4s and an assortment of lenses. For action stuff it was 24-70, 70-200, 200, etc. Now shooting with the SL for a year I can tell you the Nikon gear was substantially better for me when shooting fast moving subjects, AFc, and tracking. I haven't shot anything as effective (besides testing the D5) but I'm sure Canon's best is similar, as are a few others. The SL just isn't in that league yet and probably won't get there without the addition of PDAF.

 

In terms of focus accuracy, the SL blows it away for most everything else. The Nikon zooms were painful for accuracy and having to micro adjust the AF for each one. They don't allow adjustments at different focal lengths/apertures so you basically hope for the best. The one big challenge for me with SL focus accuracy is the size of the AF points. They are far too large to avoid having to zoom in and adjust manually.

Edited June 13, 2017 by LD_50

[ramarren]

I sold off all my Nikon gear so there won't be any direct comparisons from me. You can look at just about all the professional sports photography available (including horse racing) to see the high end Nikon and Canon gear's results. There's a reason these two companies dominate sports photography, because the tools simply work best. Sony may be challenging that with the newest A9, though I have no experience with it.

 

The last Nikon gear I shot with was a D4s and an assortment of lenses. For action stuff it was 24-70, 70-200, 200, etc. Now shooting with the SL for a year I can tell you the Nikon gear was substantially better for me when shooting fast moving subjects, AFc, and tracking. I haven't shot anything as effective (besides testing the D5) but I'm sure Canon's best is similar, as are a few others. The SL just isn't in that league yet and probably won't get there without the addition of PDAF.

 

In terms of focus accuracy, the SL blows it away for most everything else. The Nikon zooms were painful for accuracy and having to micro adjust the AF for each one. They don't allow adjustments at different focal lengths/apertures so you basically hope for the best. The one big challenge for me with SL focus accuracy is the size of the AF points. They are far too large to avoid having to zoom in and adjust manually.

 

 

Nonsense. These two companies dominate sports photography because they have a massive investment in professional services and have built and support equipment for that purpose. The photographers using these lenses have tens of thousands of dollars of investment in that equipment that they're not to going to dump overnight just because Sony or Leica or anyone else comes up with something that is a nuance better. 

 

Of course, the tools do work pretty well by now with all the development work they've put into this specialty niche shooting. But don't forget that the photographers have adapted their shooting methodologies over the years to deal with all the known foibles and failings of that equipment in order to get the results they do, and continue to do so with every new body that's released. They don't just pick up the camera, switch on AFc, and machine gun away without any knowledge to get perfect results. Nothing works that well.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I just discovered that SL does not want to do wifi when connected to an hdmi recorder and vice versa. I doubt that this is beyond hardware capabilities

It may be harder than it seems, since nearly all the control functions of the camera are available over wifi in the Android and iPhone apps that were just released with firmware 3.0 and DNG transfers are possible.  But the manual does not describe any limit on wifi in the part about using HDMI out, or any limit on HDMI when describing using wifi.  So it is reasonable to call attention to it as a bug!

 

Incidentally, I discovered by accident that when there is no chip in slot #1, the SL with the new firmware will write video to chip #2, even though the manual says it doesn't.  Was that also true in the older firmware or is this a new feature?

 

A final question.  I think you said you are using TL lenses for your SL video.  How did you get the upgraded firmware installed to make this work?  Do you have a T or was a camera store willing to help?

 

scott

Edited June 13, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[Chaemono]

Nonsense. These two companies dominate sports photography because they have a massive investment in professional services and have built and support equipment for that purpose. The photographers using these lenses have tens of thousands of dollars of investment in that equipment that they're not to going to dump overnight just because Sony or Leica or anyone else comes up with something that is a nuance better. 

 

Of course, the tools do work pretty well by now with all the development work they've put into this specialty niche shooting. But don't forget that the photographers have adapted their shooting methodologies over the years to deal with all the known foibles and failings of that equipment in order to get the results they do, and continue to do so with every new body that's released. They don't just pick up the camera, switch on AFc, and machine gun away without any knowledge to get perfect results. Nothing works that well.

 

Will go again this Thursday and try to get better looking results by stopping down the lens a bit. In the meantime, I've completed the series from Sunday and added the last eight in the gallery.

 

 https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-kwJ7f2/

 

And here three for tracking one last time. As stated before, it works like a charm when they are just galloping along at moderate speeds. Love these tones from the SL.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Chaemono

[LD_50]

Nonsense. These two companies dominate sports photography because they have a massive investment in professional services and have built and support equipment for that purpose. The photographers using these lenses have tens of thousands of dollars of investment in that equipment that they're not to going to dump overnight just because Sony or Leica or anyone else comes up with something that is a nuance better.

 

Of course, the tools do work pretty well by now with all the development work they've put into this specialty niche shooting. But don't forget that the photographers have adapted their shooting methodologies over the years to deal with all the known foibles and failings of that equipment in order to get the results they do, and continue to do so with every new body that's released. They don't just pick up the camera, switch on AFc, and machine gun away without any knowledge to get perfect results. Nothing works that well.

We disagree frequently. You really think it's nonsense to state Canon and Nikon dominate a photography niche like sports photography because their best cameras and lenses for the task are the best tools for the job?

 

Who else offers competitive tools? I mentioned Sony and Olympus as recently catching up (not from experience, just what I've read) so maybe you'll start to see them take hold on sports photography. Maybe high definition video will take over.

 

For now, like I said, they dominate because they make the best tools for the job. If I was starting from scratch to shoot professional sports (football, basketball, soccer, baseball, tennis, etc), I would be looking at a D5 or 1DXii and the best lenses they offer. I would also test a Sony A9 but they don't offer the lenses I'd want just yet.

Edited June 13, 2017 by LD_50

[Irakly Shanidze]

It may be harder than it seems, since nearly all the control functions of the camera are available over wifi in the Android and iPhone apps that were just released with firmware 3.0 and DNG transfers are possible.  But the manual does not describe any limit on wifi in the part about using HDMI out, or any limit on HDMI when describing using wifi.  So it is reasonable to call attention to it as a bug!

 

Incidentally, I discovered by accident that when there is no chip in slot #1, the SL with the new firmware will write video to chip #2, even though the manual says it doesn't.  Was that also true in the older firmware or is this a new feature?

 

A final question.  I think you said you are using TL lenses for your SL video.  How did you get the upgraded firmware installed to make this work?  Do you have a T or was a camera store willing to help?

 

scott

 

 

Yes, I believe that disabled WiFi is a bug for the same very reason: the limitation has not been described anywhere in the manual.

 

Not sure about the second slot. For internal recording I load both slots, for HDMI both slots are empty. I will play with it.

 

I have not done anything to the 18-56, and it works just fine except in a very particular situation: when I stop playback on a recorder, the screen goes black and then comes back up all garbled. It seems that the lens somehow discombobulates the recorder. Another thing that seems to be happening is that the image on the camera screen looks soft UNTIL I start recording. When recording to the Blackmagic Video Assist 4K, it all looks perfect before and during recording.

[steppenw0lf]

Wow, shooting DNG + Jpg to a second SD card is VERY slow, so slow I thought there was something wrong with my camera (on Sandisk and Lexar cards), camera briefly locked up etc - bad news on a shoot till I suddenly thought I would just try shooting DNG only, like before

 

Shooting DNG ONLY and backup to second SD card is very quick, much faster than before..

 

I wonder why you see such a "big difference". After all you are working with the internal buffer - and differences should only be notable after the buffer is full.

Because I rarely fill the buffer I did not notice a difference - nether positive nor negative.

[steppenw0lf]

I sold off all my Nikon gear so there won't be any direct comparisons from me. You can look at just about all the professional sports photography available (including horse racing) to see the high end Nikon and Canon gear's results. There's a reason these two companies dominate sports photography, because the tools simply work best. Sony may be challenging that with the newest A9, though I have no experience with it.

 

The last Nikon gear I shot with was a D4s and an assortment of lenses. For action stuff it was 24-70, 70-200, 200, etc. Now shooting with the SL for a year I can tell you the Nikon gear was substantially better for me when shooting fast moving subjects, AFc, and tracking. I haven't shot anything as effective (besides testing the D5) but I'm sure Canon's best is similar, as are a few others. The SL just isn't in that league yet and probably won't get there without the addition of PDAF.

 

In terms of focus accuracy, the SL blows it away for most everything else. The Nikon zooms were painful for accuracy and having to micro adjust the AF for each one. They don't allow adjustments at different focal lengths/apertures so you basically hope for the best. The one big challenge for me with SL focus accuracy is the size of the AF points. They are far too large to avoid having to zoom in and adjust manually.

 

Comparing Nikon gear and the SL I find hardly anything to compare them in a fair way. (I still have both).

With Nikon the lenses with AF lock button were my main tool (with some sort of success guarantee), while the SL lens (the 90-280) simply does not have this feature. Here the fast AFs (with single point) is some sort of success guarantee. (The AF lock button could be a big add-on for practical use.)

So I can simply say I find these endless comparisons not worth the time. And I do not care why Canon (more than Nikon) dominates this market, finding it not very insightful. For me personally it was always one or more special lenses that I needed/wanted and which made me buy the corresponding camera. In the last few years Canon often had a slight advantage - lenses that came out earlier or had small details that I needed - like a short minimal distance or a built-in extender or three IS modes. And I typically avoided the pro gear (cameras), as I found the resolution advantage of semi-pro much more important.

 

My summary is simply: I take whatever I find appropriate for the occasion - and the camera simply follows the lens. (And also the budget decides for the lens).

And I agree - simply taking any camera with PDAF and firing away is not producing anything useful - or rarely. I would not mind PDAF for the SL, but that it isn't there is no problem for me.

I am always amazed that small missing parts are such a problem for users. That they write at length about it. I always had the impression in reality it is more important to be at he right place, get enough light, meet the right targets (people or birds or wildlife). The camera features were more important for the "testers" who were trying to push this or that brand.

 

It looks very strange to me that anybody should need "the best equipment". (I am not riding the "best" car, not even on important trips. And would not care much about it even if I could spend thousands on travel. More important maybe do I consult the "best" doctor - very unlikely I'd say.) And if I read what different people regard as best, I completely loose my way. (I cannot regard it as the best - or I would be videographing at 60 fps with small and extremely responsive Olympus gear and hire a cheap assistant to select the "best" from this big heap of garbage.).

 

For me I need equipment that is good at what I typically need/want/am looking for - even better if it is so good that it helps me where my weak spots are. If it is "the best" ? How should I ever know - and how long would that last ?

Edited June 13, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

We disagree frequently. You really think it's nonsense to state Canon and Nikon dominate a photography niche like sports photography because their best cameras and lenses for the task are the best tools for the job?

Who else offers competitive tools? ...

Yes, we do.

Yes, I do. They dominate for a lot of reasons beyond the notion of having "the best tools". That's almost trivial given how well all of the tools works these days.

Doesn't matter; see above.