Fuji How slow is the AF really?

[csnite]

I am seriously looking into the x-e1. There is not a camera shop around that I can pick one up to play with. I understand it's slower than a DSLR or OMD-EM5. My main concern is outdoor kids sports like soccer and indoor/low light pictures of my 2 year old and 7 year old. I am currently using a Nikon V1 and an older Canon XTi. The Nikon is incredibly fast, but the image quality is subpar above 800 iso in my opinion. The Canon is a relic that I rarely pull out any more. In your opinion, is the AF fast enough to keep up with 2 crazy kids? I am totally sold on the image quality, manual controls, build, lenses, etc. I am mainly looking at the x-e1 (which is the way I am leaning,) a Nikon 5200, or a Pentax K-30. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Ray Sachs]

It can be made to work with good anticipation skills - lots of us shot that kind of stuf with manual focus gear for many many years - but there are other cameras that are a lot better for the action-y applications you mention. I have an X-Pro and love it but I tend to pull out my OMD for the types of shooting you're talking about. Maybe the XE2 will be more capable for that kind of shooting - it sounds like the X100s is a good deal faster focussing than the original X100, so there's hope for the future. But with the current gear, I wouldn't buy an X-E1 or X-Pro for the applications you're talking about.

It CAN work, but its far from ideal.

-Ray

 

[csnite]

How big is the image quality difference between your OMD and X-Pro?

I tend to pull out my OMD for the types of shooting you're talking about.

I have had an E-pl1,2 and e-pm1, so I am familiar with mu43, at least in the 12MP sensor variety. How much difference do you see between the OMD and X-Pro as far as image quality and High iso? I will probably keep my V1 for fast stuff like sports. I love it's speed, but the image quality is really lacking for larger prints, and the high iso is really bad above 800. Assuming I was using the Panasonic 25 or Oly 17 non pancake, vs the X-e1 and 35, would I see a huge difference in the images? How about above 1600iso? I'm more than a little jealous of your dual setup, Ray. Seems like the best of both mirrorless worlds.

 

[ean10775]

Coming from using both 12MP m43 gear and full frame Canon gear (5D Mark II) my opinion that the AF of the X-E1 with the 35mm is a little faster than the E-PL1 with the 20mm f1.7. As far as IQ goes, the X-E1 is close to being on par with my 5DII up to about ISO 1600, then the 5DII has an advantage, but its not huge. I would be comfortable using the X-E1 up to ISO 3200 for larger prints and ISO 6400 is perfectly fine for smaller prints and web use.

 

[Hyubie]

I think it's slower than the E-PL3, but not much (at least for me). Maybe it's just me, but the focus only takes longer when it goes from, say, focused on a near object and then you ask it to focus on a far object. The focus hunting reminds me of the E-PL3 + Olympus 45mm (when it decides to get ill and decide to hunt). Both the m43 and X-E1 is good enough for most of my uses, but my kids are not yet into sports, so...

 

[ean10775]

Maybe it's just me, but the focus only takes longer when it goes from, say, focused on a near object and then you ask it to focus on a far object.

Agreed, but that's pretty much the case with any camera/lens. If the lens doesn't need to move very far the refocus will be very quick. That's why I don't think much of some of the X100S tests I've seen focusing between a few objects sitting on a desk several feet in front of the camera. My E-PL1 + 20mm is fast when doing that kind of focusing.

 

[Gary]

I've shot a ton of sports/action. Generally, any camera can shoot sports. But some cameras are better at action than others. There are many factors to consider:

1) AF speed; and
2) high ISO quality;

are certainly important, but equally/additionally important is:

3) EVF refresh rate;
4) CAF;
5) Buffer size;
6) Write-Speed: and
7) Availability of long and fast lenses.

While any camera can shoot action, the difference between a camera's 1-7 capabilities will have a significant affect upon your 'keeper rate' and your ability to consistently capture the exceptional action image. At this point I'll stay away from greater detail, but generally speaking, for sports (1D), a high level dSLR will shoot rings around a high level µ4/3 (OM-D), a high level µ4/3 will shoot rings around a high level X-camera (X-Pro 1). Once again for the sake of clarity, all else being equal, you will have a better 'keeper ratio' and a higher consistency for capturing the exceptional image, if you shoot with a high level µ4/3 rather than an X-Pro 1. You will have a better 'keeper ratio' and a higher consistency for capturing the exceptional image, if you shoot with a high level dSLR rather than a high level µ4/3 camera. I think shooting sports with than X-camera would be disappointing and quite frustrating especially knowing there are much better alternatives in the same price range.

Caveats:
1) I presently own and shoot with the cameras listed. So my opinions are based upon personal experience.
B) I have not attempted to shoot sports with the X-Pro 1, but I have shot action oriented subjects;
C) I have shot soccer for the age group of your kids with IDsMKII, MKIII, 5D and OM-D;
E) I presently shoot soccer with a couple of OM-D's knowing that it is much harder to shoot sports with the OM-D as opposed to dSLR's, (as the OM-D hasn't a suitably working CAF and slow refresh rate), and that I will walk away with less keepers and more trash.

Gary

 

[Jman13]

I have a rather large m4/3 kit and use the OM-D as my main camera. I got the X-E1 a few weeks ago and have been shooting a lot with it. Image quality is better, especially in lower light, and there's an added depth to the images.

Indoor AF, though, isn't anywhere near the OM-D. It's not so much speed. It's slower for sure, but that's not really the big deal with it. The problem is that when shooting people, especially when trying to focus on an eye in dim light, the AF will flat out fail. As in, it will not achieve focus. I've had times where it would fail on 4 or 5 attempts in a row before finally locking. On high contrast subjects or in good light, it's perfectly fine (though action shots are going to be limited to pre-focus and that's about it). It's really a more deliberate camera system at this point. AF reminds me a lot of my old E-P1 actually, though in good light it's faster than that.

 

[ean10775]

The problem is that when shooting people, especially when trying to focus on an eye in dim light, the AF will flat out fail. As in, it will not achieve focus. I've had times where it would fail on 4 or 5 attempts in a row before finally locking. On high contrast subjects or in good light, it's perfectly fine (though action shots are going to be limited to pre-focus and that's about it). It's really a more deliberate camera system at this point. AF reminds me a lot of my old E-P1 actually, though in good light it's faster than that.

+1 This has been my experience as well. In taking photos of my 6 month old daughter in low light, I have always been able to get a good shot. Due to the constraints of the AF system, it just may not have been 'the shot' or the expression that I had initially wanted to capture.