Autofocus Real-world experience:
Focus is usually acceptably fast, though anyone coming from an E-3 or E-5 is likely to find themselves disappointed, in comparison.
The way see it is this: if you're a Four Thirds lens owner and you're expecting full DSLR performance, you're going to be disappointed. However, if you want a camera that offers a considerable step up in image quality, that allows you to continue to take great images with your existing lenses and welcomes you into an impressive and growing new system, then you'll be delighted.
Which isn't to say the focus is bad - our first impressions are that the performance is consistent with Canon's EOS 70D, which offers some of the best live view focus of a conventional DSLR. However, for the very best performance, the E-M1 should be used with Micro Four Thirds lenses.
Continuous and tracking AF has been a stumbling block for mirrorless cameras, so far, because contrast-detection AF can't give the camera information about where to focus the next shot. The addition of on-sensor phase detection to the E-M1 promises to improve this - a concept several manufacturers are trying to develop.
Our initial impression is that the E-M1 is a step forward for Olympus (and Mirrorless cameras in general) - doing a pretty good job of tracking a target and getting a healthy proportion of shots in focus. Interestingly our tests so far have suggested that the camera will either tend to be significantly out-of-focus or absolutely tack sharp - a rather different behavior than we're used to seeing in DSLRs, where shots can prove to be a fraction out-of-focus once viewed on anything other than the camera's screen. We'll be conducting more tests and posting further conclusions soon.
The continuous autofocus with tracking on EM1 with use of mzuiko lenses is better than E5 with 4/3 lenses. I shall cover this in my coming review parts. Trust me the continuous focusing on EM1 has improved a lot!
Interesting conflicting evaluations by DPR vs. Robin and Ming. For a pixel peeper like me, the RAWs at high ISO in DPR's new studio comparison tool appear to be slightly better in the EM5 than EM1.Robin's part I review is out also:
Robin Wong: Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review: Introduction and High ISO Shooting
I see in the comments that he is now working for Olympus... More on AF:
Dpreview has revised it's comments on AF with 43's lenses on the E-M1 vs. 43's lenses on the E-5. Seems they did their comparison based on memory of how the E-5 AF performance was. Now they say the E-M1 is equal to the E-5's AF performance! Geez, how many other comparisons have they made from memory in the last few years? Do ya think all those adds from Canikon may have affected their memory?I scan the Ming's review, he is happy with the af improvements. DPR preview says that it is not as fast as high end 43 dslr af w/ 43 lenses, so they recommend m43 lenses. The focus tracking is a good improvement:
Yeah, a definite faux-pas, especially when their comment was at variance with all the other early reviewers. I see the M43 Olympus crowd remembering this one for a long time ...Dpreview has revised it's comments on AF with 43's lenses on the E-M1 vs. 43's lenses on the E-5. Seems they did their comparison based on memory of how the E-5 AF performance was. Now they say the E-M1 is equal to the E-5's AF performance! Geez, how many other comparisons have they made from memory in the last few years? Do ya think all those adds from Canikon may have affected their memory?
Yeah, m43 lost me on expensive lenses and bodies and now bigger bodies.mft no longer pocketable. FF cameras get smaller and so do aps-c ones. MFT looses some of its competitive edge, at least as far as bodies are concerned. Time to get rid of the adjective "micro" or else compact cameras ought to be called "nano".
Reminds me of cars. The BMW 3 series grew every time a new version came out. It`s now as large as the previous 5 series. The same with the VW golf etc.