State of mirrorless

[David Anderson]

No micro AF adjust ?

Excellent - this whole mirrorless thing is gaining traction with me.. 

[mediumcool]

I enjoy reading Mr. Ming's take on things as he comes at it from a perspective quite different to mine. He's a guy who earns his living at this creative endeavor whereas I'm just having fun.
-Dave-

I thought he worked for Olympus (for a quid). Not true?

[Telecaster]

CDAF is more accurate, but PDAF is a lot faster. When you need AF, it's generally because you need to focus on something quickly, or focus on a moving subject. Otherwise MF (+/- focus confirmation) is better.

While mostly true enough this isn't how the majority of camera owners use AF.    (BTW, Olympus' CD-AF is very fast indeed, though in continuous mode it doesn't track as well as PD-AF systems.)

Also, the STM motors recently introduced by Canon are optimal for CDAF without losing any functionality for PDAF.

Good. Hope Nikon takes/is taking the same approach.

-Dave-

[shadowblade]

While mostly true enough this isn't how the majority of camera owners use AF.    (BTW, Olympus' CD-AF is very fast indeed, though in continuous mode it doesn't track as well as PD-AF systems.)

Good. Hope Nikon takes/is taking the same approach.

-Dave-

The majority of camera owners also use popup flash to try to light up a mountain... High-level gear needs to be designed for those who know how to shoot and know how to best use their equipment, not for those who can't focus on a nonmoving subject without AF.

[Telecaster]

The majority of camera owners also use popup flash to try to light up a mountain... High-level gear needs to be designed for those who know how to shoot and know how to best use their equipment, not for those who can't focus on a nonmoving subject without AF.

This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.

-Dave-

[Hans Kruse]

This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.

-Dave-

I use AF all the time even if I could use MF. I only use MF for landscape photography when DOF is challenged at f/16 and I don't want to stop down further. This would be in combination with use LV zoomed in to foreground and background to check DOF and acceptable details. As Dave says, why should one not use AF when AF is the best and fastest option. I would question many views of what proper equipment use would be. For me only the results count. How this is achieved in essence does not matter. Is it done the slow way by everything manual or the fast way of using as much automation as possible does not matter, except the timing factor which for me is very important. For others not.

[synn]

I concur. I use AF when it is possible, even in landscaping, even with the much maligned 645 DF+. This whole notion that MF is the only real "F" is a bit silly.



Credo 40, 645 DF+, AF and enough near-far detail to make focusing challenging. Have printed this in various sizes and am happy with the results.

[Petrus]

I concur. I use AF when it is possible, even in landscaping, even with the much maligned 645 DF+. This whole notion that MF is the only real "F" is a bit silly.

I think some people confuse the term "auto focus" with "let the camera decide everything". I rarely use AUTO AF, meaning full auto where camera picks the focus point. I use Auto Assisted Focus 98% of the time, where I pick the focus point and place it where I need/want it to be in the frame. Then I let the electronics do the dirty work for me, i.e. turn the focus mechanism. It does it faster and more accurately than I can do it.

With the new face detection and closer eye focus system Fujifilm X-T1 has, I do sometimes let the camera do the whole thing, as is actually seems to work.

One example, taken with autofocus (gasp) and AE…

[BernardLanguillier]

With the new face detection and closer eye focus system Fujifilm X-T1 has, I do sometimes let the camera do the whole thing, as is actually seems to work.

One example, taken with autofocus (gasp) and AE…

The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! Few male non gay photographers could.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Good point…

Getting back to state of mirrorless and focusing techniques… Before getting the A7rII I mostly used magnified live view whenever I wanted to achieve optimal focus. With the A7rII the PDAF points cover a large area so I can select a focusing spot just about anywhere, or rather almost anywhere, in the image. Also the A7rII is said to have very accurate AF, as far I did not make any observation to the contrary. So, now I use AF more than ever.

One other point I have seen was the EVF works very well in dark places. I was shooting in a few dark places, churches in France and Italy. The EVF was much better than naked eye without finder. Obviously there is a limit for EVFs. My exposures in those churches were in the 10-30s range at low ISOs. There are darker places than that. But the EVF worked for me in dark conditions. In bright conditions it is a different thing. An eye cup may be helpful.

Best regards
Erik

The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! Few male non gay photographers could.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.

-Dave-

Because AF lands it close (sometimes very close) and very fast, but MF can land it spot-on, if you have time to do it. Doubly so if the feature you want in sharpest focus is smaller than the size of the AF point. And sometimes 'close' just isn't close enough - a 42MP sensor is absolutely unforgiving of any degree of misfocus.

[Petrus]

The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! Few male non gay photographers could.

Cheers,
Bernard

Have to clarify: that photo was taken with D800e & Sigma 50mm Art, not Fuji. AF spot aimed at the closer eye. In some cameras in the past they had a focusing system which followed the photographer's eye on the viewfinder. With that it would have been quite impossible… 

[BernardLanguillier]

In some cameras in the past they had a focusing system which followed the photographer's eye on the viewfinder. With that it would have been quite impossible… 

Photography is such a hard job sometimes!

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paulo Bizarro]

The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! Few male non gay photographers could.

Cheers,
Bernard

Indeed, and it is also a fine example of pushing up exposure:)

[Hans Kruse]

Because AF lands it close (sometimes very close) and very fast, but MF can land it spot-on, if you have time to do it. Doubly so if the feature you want in sharpest focus is smaller than the size of the AF point. And sometimes 'close' just isn't close enough - a 42MP sensor is absolutely unforgiving of any degree of misfocus.

The fact that focus is sometimes not suitable for Af does not mean (in my opinion and experience) that AF is not even very good in 99%+ of the cases.

For landscape I focus with back button focus and one AF point enabled and I focus in the viewfinder where I want the focus to be with the chosen focal length and then I compose the shot and shoot. This works really well. I see no flaw in this approach. The chosen DOF need to be either known well in advance or checked and then LV is the best tool for that for me. This is an absolute minority of my shots where this is needed.

[Petrus]

As I shoot 99% handheld, trying to focus manually with live view or enlarged focus point just does not work. I find that placing a focus point where I want and thus using auto assisted focus (AAF…) works at least 98% of the time. Good enough for me at least.

[shadowblade]

The fact that focus is sometimes not suitable for Af does not mean (in my opinion and experience) that AF is not even very good in 99%+ of the cases.

For landscape I focus with back button focus and one AF point enabled and I focus in the viewfinder where I want the focus to be with the chosen focal length and then I compose the shot and shoot. This works really well. I see no flaw in this approach. The chosen DOF need to be either known well in advance or checked and then LV is the best tool for that for me. This is an absolute minority of my shots where this is needed.

The point of this discussion has been first sidetracked, then completely lost in the minutiae.

The fact is, AF is optimised for action and moving subjects, and rightly so. Better to have an AF system that works well in situations where you absolutely need it (or as close to 'absolutely' as you can get, anyway) than to have a slower AF system that is potentially more accurate in situations where you could easily MF anyway, but which cannot keep up with fast action when you really need AF. PDAF is a lot faster than CDAF, although not as accurate (although on-sensor PDAF eliminates microadjustment and, potentially, focus shift too, if one is willing to sacrifice speed). Therefore, better a camera with a fast PDAF system for action, then manually focusing (or just accepting a bit of inaccuracy) when shooting still subjects, than a camera with a super-accurate CDAF system that can't keep up with moving subjects. You can replicate CDAF's accuracy on still subjects with MF, but you can't replicate PDAF's speed on moving subjects with anything else.

[shadowblade]

As I shoot 99% handheld, trying to focus manually with live view or enlarged focus point just does not work. I find that placing a focus point where I want and thus using auto assisted focus (AAF…) works at least 98% of the time. Good enough for me at least.

What about focus peaking? That's basically manually-operated CDAF, better than any ground glass and at least as accurate as Leica's rangefinder mechanism.

[Manoli]

What about focus peaking? That's basically manually-operated CDAF, better than any ground glass and at least as accurate as Leica's rangefinder mechanism.

More accurate than Leica's rangefinder mechanism - but also very much subject and lens dependent. Not guaranteed to be applicable in all circumstances - you need an edge or two. Try to use it on clouds and you'll be twiddling until next year, try it on an eyeball with a 75 and you'll be mm accurate.

It's also dependent on your camera settings, not just the FP settings but your display settings too.

Wouldn't be without either.

+1

[shadowblade]

Using the a7II with long lenses I find focus peaking insufficiently accurate and most of the time I can focus manually more accurately, even without magnification.

Using the A7r or A7rII, I find any method other than zooming in and manually adjusting focus insufficiently accurate for critical focus.

36/42MP is extremely unforgiving - your mindset and methods must be more like shooting with a MFDB than with a traditional SLR, since the resolution is high enough to show the slightest inaccuracy or DOF limitation. (Incidentally, a sensor-based tilt function would be extremely valuable, since higher resolutions and larger print sizes now mean that what used to be acceptable with just a simple lens is now better done using a tilt-shift lens, for better focal plane control).

If you're shooting action, of course, this all flies out the window, with 'near enough is good enough' being the maxim, subject to the accuracy limitations of PDAF.