Having owned Z7, Z7ii and Z9 and now owning a GFX100s and XT5, I can tell you this:
AF in Nikon Z9 is state of the art. Incredible really.
The XT5 is maybe almost Nikon Z6/7 level, but not more.
The GFX is even less robust, more like Nikon DSLR.
If quality AF is your nirvana, use you Nikon Z8/9 or perhaps Sony or Canon whatever’s that are better.
Why are so many expecting a medium format camera to have great AF? I mean, there really are no better options with the same or larger sensor size.
If the GFX cameras would have both 33x44 mm sensor and AF like the latest FF cameras, they would cost twice as much. And then people would complain about that instead.
I honestly do not know. I mostly just shoot mine in AF-S single shot. The other issue with AF isn't even the firmware, it's the AF motor tech in the lenses themself. Makten wrote:
Why are so many expecting a medium format camera to have great AF? I mean, there really are no better options with the same or larger sensor size.
If the GFX cameras would have both 33x44 mm sensor and AF like the latest FF cameras, they would cost twice as much. And then people would complain about that instead.
Makten wrote:
f the GFX cameras would have both 33x44 mm sensor and AF like the latest FF cameras, they would cost twice as much. And then people would complain about that instead.
Options, so one doesn't have to have 2 separate systems. A lot of GFx owners also have Sony A7rxx, A1, Nikon Z9 and so on. If Sony was making the GFX, it will have much better AF. Not that I like everything that Sony does but their AF tech is pretty good.
Why some of the expensive GF lenses don't have LM? Sony puts multiple motors in their newer lenses for faster AF.
gear-nut wrote:
Having owned Z7, Z7ii and Z9 and now owning a GFX100s and XT5, I can tell you this:
AF in Nikon Z9 is state of the art. Incredible really.
The XT5 is maybe almost Nikon Z6/7 level, but not more.
The GFX is even less robust, more like Nikon DSLR.
If quality AF is your nirvana, use you Nikon Z8/9 or perhaps Sony or Canon whatever’s that are better.
Not a Nikon person but I did buy Sony A1 when they came out and tried it with my old canon 85mm f1.2 II and it was like wow. Nailing almost all shots at f1.2. Also for my needs nothing beats its 1/400 sync speed.
bobby350z wrote:
Not a Nikon person but I did buy Sony A1 when they came out and tried it with my old canon 85mm f1.2 II and it was like wow. Nailing almost all shots at f1.2. Also for my needs nothing beats its 1/400 sync speed.
Exactly my point: horses for courses, meaning the right toolbox for the job at hand.
I also think having the second system argument really depends on what it is that said photographer specializes in. GFX could have Z9 AF, but there's no way in hell I'm shooting GFX for high volume event work. GFX gets on location portrait and studio work, everything else gets the event work. bobby350z wrote:
Options, so one doesn't have to have 2 separate systems. A lot of GFx owners also have Sony A7rxx, A1, Nikon Z9 and so on. If Sony was making the GFX, it will have much better AF. Not that I like everything that Sony does but their AF tech is pretty good.
Why some of the expensive GF lenses don't have LM? Sony puts multiple motors in their newer lenses for faster AF.
Has anyone used the 55 and 63 from Fuji? I was wondering if the autofocus is faster on the 55?
Think I'm going to put all my lenses for sale or try to see if I could trade locally. Right now I have the 35-70,Mitakon 65 & Fuji 63, but I really want to minimize my setup and just go with the 55 f1.7.
Forgot this thread exists. The 55/1.7 has become a favorite precisely because of the things it doesn't do perfectly...I actually have wound up really liking the "flaws" in the rendering that are so bemoaned on the internet. There's only one other lens that would come close to the look of the 55, and it doesn't have AF (if we ignore the Q43). While the transition zones can be rough in certain situations, the microcontrast, the color rendering, the center sharpness, and the subject pop all make up for it.
It's really, REALLY fun to use it wide open midday with a 3 stop ND, too.
Joeydgraffix wrote:
Has anyone used the 55 and 63 from Fuji? I was wondering if the autofocus is faster on the 55?
Think I'm going to put all my lenses for sale or try to see if I could trade locally. Right now I have the 35-70,Mitakon 65 & Fuji 63, but I really want to minimize my setup and just go with the 55 f1.7.
I have, but not at the same time. None of them are fast but I'm not sure which is slower. Probably same ballpark.
Personally I like the rendering of the 63 much better, but the focal length is too long, so I got rid of it.
The 55 is a brick and I seldom use it because of that. The 35-70 and 50/3.5 are much nicer to use thanks to small size and low weight, and they're also a lot faster focusing.
Actually, it's not the AF speed that makes it feel "slow". It's the erratic behaviour in between shots. It "resets" whenever you view images on the screen and moves focus for no particular reason when it should not. The 80 is the same, but no other GF lenses that I know of. Very annoying.
Edit: The main reason (IMO) to get the 55 is the "MF look". I would never own it if I didn't have any interest in shallow DOF at fairly large distance.
GFX50S IIGF55mmF1.7 R WR lens55mmf/1.71/320s100 ISO0.0 EV
Makten wrote:
Why are so many expecting a medium format camera to have great AF? I mean, there really are no better options with the same or larger sensor size.
If the GFX cameras would have both 33x44 mm sensor and AF like the latest FF cameras, they would cost twice as much. And then people would complain about that instead.
People who don't know much about medium format perhaps aren't aware that image quality is the main market forces dictating what these companies put most of their effort into, leaving fewer resources for autofocus and the like.
If we lived in an alternate universe where medium format sensors were the norm, and were being sold in millions of cameras from the "big 3", then they would have fast AF.
Makten wrote:
I have, but not at the same time. None of them are fast but I'm not sure which is slower. Probably same ballpark.
Personally I like the rendering of the 63 much better, but the focal length is too long, so I got rid of it.
The 55 is a brick and I seldom use it because of that. The 35-70 and 50/3.5 are much nicer to use thanks to small size and low weight, and they're also a lot faster focusing.
Actually, it's not the AF speed that makes it feel "slow". It's the erratic behaviour in between shots. It "resets" whenever you view images on the screen and moves focus for no particular reason when it should not. The 80 is the same, but no other GF lenses that I know of. Very annoying.
Edit: The main reason (IMO) to get the 55 is the "MF look". I would never own it if I didn't have any interest in shallow DOF at fairly large distance.
Yeap, 100%. I don't get why some people give Fuji such a pass on the horrible AF. I never get the people that seem to worship companies instead of expecting better. I have the same feelings on the 63mm, took it out today and was wishing I had the 45mm. That pic came out great with your 55, it really seems like a nice sweet spot between the 45 and 63.
I still debate all the time about switching over to a full frame Sony camera.The sony 7cr looks really nice, really debating on getting rid of the Fuji at times for that. I have a feeling after the summer I'll be putting the 50s ii on sale or trade for that camera.
Or I think I may look for the fringer adapter and see how 1 or 2 canon lenses go with the autofocus on the Fuji.
Half of your horrible AF problems are from using the 50SII, since it has contrast detect AF. The 100 series cameras smooths this out slightly with phase detect, but it's still pretty sluggish with stuff like the 80 1.7. The LM lenses are a bit better. Either way these things are not fast action cameras. Joeydgraffix wrote:
Yeap, 100%. I don't get why some people give Fuji such a pass on the horrible AF. I never get the people that seem to worship companies instead of expecting better. I have the same feelings on the 63mm, took it out today and was wishing I had the 45mm. That pic came out great with your 55, it really seems like a nice sweet spot between the 45 and 63.
I still debate all the time about switching over to a full frame Sony camera.The sony 7cr looks really nice, really debating on getting rid of the Fuji at times for that. I have a feeling after the summer I'll be putting the 50s ii on sale or trade for that camera.
Or I think I may look for the fringer adapter and see how 1 or 2 canon lenses go with the autofocus on the Fuji.
Joeydgraffix wrote:
Yeap, 100%. I don't get why some people give Fuji such a pass on the horrible AF. I never get the people that seem to worship companies instead of expecting better.
I guess some people base their expectations on products that came before it or if it is meeting their needs. I do not find 50S AF horrible. The 100S is better by a little and I find that nice but not a big deal. I don't understand why anyone would expect super fast AF on a Medium Format camera. There has never been one before and it doesn't sound like Hassy's are any better. I'm pretty happy that either of my Gfx have useable, pretty decent AF that suits my needs most of the time. When it doesn't, I go to manual focus and get what I need. I love these camera for what they are.
So then Fuji has "state of the art" medium format AF, . I don't know anything about the Hassy line except that they appear to be beautiful cameras outside of my target price.
