[JHD]

Lens choice has a big impact on µ4/3 focusing speed.

Lens choice has a big impact on any cameras focusing speed. Only when Nikon releases some faster lenses for the Nikon 1 will anyone know just how fast the N1 really is. In the mean time, it has been established that the OMD does NOT have the "World's fastest autofocus". That claim is a joke.

[falconeye]

Lens choice has a big impact on µ4/3 focusing speed. I looked at the linked article and didn't see any indicate of what lens was used in the 200mm equivalent test, though I don't speak Frog.

It is well documented below the result: 14-150 mm f/4-5.6 ED (and this needs no translation). Which they must use at 100mm. Seems like the best possible choice to me. For this test, they use the same lens for other µFT cameras. Note that they used the 12-50/3.5-6.3 for most other tests though. There is nothing which would prevent somebody from repeating the test.

And 200 mm equivalent length is very much representative for what AF.C is required for: to capture action like in sports, wildlife or BIF. When stopped-down depth of field is not enough (like an equivalent 50mm stopped down to f/11 to capture humans).

And why do you say Frog? I thought they're called French ...

[Aegon]

It is well documented below the result: 14-150 mm f/4-5.6 ED

Ahh, I did a search for "mm", "200", and "100", but it appears this text is part of an image and unsearchable.

I find it hard to believe that the E-M5 performs worse than the E-PM1, which was apparently OK at 7m. But I suppose if I wanted to then I could do the test myself (which I don't want to do).

I think it is also curious that the E-M5 appears to have slowed down the FPS at about 25m (even accounting for the singularity). The camera provided a ton of data further out than 25m, you'd think they'd have more data below 25m, but it appears to have filled the buffer. Also, the "fast FPS" mode (9.2 FPS as stated in the article) doesn't support C-AF, from what I understand, so I'm confused as to how they get so many shots per second before the buffer fills.

Additionally, Olympus actually claims "The E-M5 also boasts the world's fastest autofocus when used with the new M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 II R MSC, M.Zuiko Digital 12mm f2.0, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8, and M.Zuiko Digital 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 lenses." I guess context matters.

And why do you say Frog?

It is no secret that the French are often referred to as frogs! Similarly, Germans are occasionally referred to as Krauts. When I lived in Germany I heard a few terms used to describe other ethnicities (not even nationalities!) that would make you blush.

[metalmania]

I don't really care about those numbers, but from my personal experience, I feel E-M5 is as fast as Canon 60D. I use both cameras, and 25/1.4, 45/1.8 and 40-150 on E-M5.

[falconeye]

It is no secret that the French are often referred to as frogs! Similarly, Germans are occasionally referred to as Krauts.

And it is no secret both terms are derogative. Enough said.

It may be the EM-5 failed in that test for rather trivial reasons, like not realizing the subject is moving (because Olympus says burst rate drops to 4.2 fps with AF.C). But it remains a sad fact that it wouldn't be able to follow a 50 km/h car for 3 seconds.

[bwDraco]

I'll qualify Olympus's claim: This applies only to contrast-detection autofocus. Of course, this statement cannot be true under fast subject-tracking conditions when compared with phase detection AF systems.

When given in the context of a contrast detection AF system, these numbers are indeed impressive, and single-shot AF performance in practice is consistent with these results. When the OM-D is asked to track a fast-moving subject, though, it simply cannot keep up with a proper DSLR (or mirrorless camera with phase detection, such as the Nikon 1 cameras).

--DragonLord

[Aegon]

The camera doesn't determine whether the subject is moving. Instead, you use the menus to set whether you want fast FPS mode without AF or 4.2FPS with AF (which is further modifiable depending on whether you enable IBIS). So that isn't a likely cause of the sudden slowdown.

This site says the E-M5 buffer is 15 shots: Olympus OM-D E-M5 Camera Performance - Review

Count out 15 shots from when the tester starting shooting and you see the marked slowdown at approx. 25m, as described above.

15 shots at 4.2 FPS should provide 3.6 seconds of continuous shooting. Too bad they started shooting 5 seconds before the car arrived.

Clearly user error.

[falconeye]

Clearly user error.

Unlikely. Their test is on an automated bench and they do it all the time. The test starts automatically at 50m. If you do the math, the camera did a 9fps burst and then slowed down and missed focus. But for the first half, it DID focus correctly, so AF.C must have been active. Moreover, independently of buffer issues, it did miss focus at 16m. So, I rather assume some algorithmic flaws which may or may not be fixable in a firmware update. I agree that it is strange though.

Btw, the Fnac charts contain more gems which are otherwise difficult to find. The walker test is more indicative of how snappy the AF is (E-M5 is good here, although not best). And the distance of the FIRST AF.C shot tells how fast the AF.C is able to lock onto a target.

And their stabilisation test shows that the E-M5 stabilization is outstanding indeed! While they see no effect for the Pentax Q, about 2 stops improvement with Pentax K-5 and 3 stops with Nikon, they see 5 stops with the E-M5! And they simulate true human vibration taking 600 shots! Everybody may look at Dpreview. But those guys at Fnac (which is a store!) probably do a better job, esp. if combined with the results of their colleagues around the corner, i.e. DxO.