Nielk Mike wrote:
I am not even interested in AF for fast moving subjects! I don't care about subject detection and locked focus on a bird's eye. Just plain reliable AF-S for static scenes and subjects. Without focus beyond infinity and without varying distances when repeatedly focusing on the same subject or spot. That's not too much to ask, or is it?
I use single point af-s or BBF all the time. The Fujis work ss well ss my Nikons did. I haven't lost a shot through camera AF error in 8 years.
We've had this discussion before, I suggest you look to your technique. If my experience was that bad I would have gone back to Nikon or even Sony years ago.
gyoung143 wrote:
I use single point af-s or BBF all the time. The Fujis work ss well ss my Nikons did. I haven't lost a shot through camera AF error in 8 years.
We've had this discussion before, I suggest you look to your technique. If my experience was that bad I would have gone back to Nikon or even Sony years ago.
Gerry
My technique is just fine: BBF and MF correction, if needed. If I had continued to try and use AF-S straight out of camera, I wouldn't be in the Fuji camp anymore. My Fuji journey started with the X100V - and that was the worst among all with regard to AF-S. Using the X-E3 with the 23/35/50 Fujicrons after was a big improvement. The 10-24 was a set back in terms of AF-S, so I sold it.
Doesn't get enough love in my opinion but I always recommend the X-S20. It's like a baby XH-2 and was my first ever camera about 3 years ago now. Really does everything I throw at it and might be a good size/price performance entry into the system!
gyoung143 wrote:
But if you are doing the equivalent with a full frame camera then you will have a 600mm lens on it rather than 400, and the same number of pixels per duck if the cameras have the same mpx.
My point was that I feel it is more important to have the image in focus rather than counting how many more smaller pixels you have in the image. I guess that doesn't matter to some people?
gyoung143 wrote:
I don't see many photos in the picture galleries that would challenge the AF abilities of the Fujis. The very best tracking and burst performance is very rarely if ever needed by the vast majority of photographers, especially amateurs.
Lusting after performance you'll never need and haven't the experience or skill to use is an expensive and futile pastime.
Gerry
After shooting various Fujifilm cameras for over a dozen years, and doing subjects from landscapes to street photography to wildlife, my sense of the Fujifilm AF capabilities is…
… they are fine, though the best cameras from some of the other brands are a bit better in some cases, especially if you buy the more expensive models.
Are you photographing birds in flight and serous, fast-moving sports a whole lot… where optimal AF speed and accuracy are critical? You might well prefer one of those other brands out there at the performance edge. Are you a more typical camera user? Fujifilm AF is just fine.
As to the hyperbole about awfulness of Fujifilm’s files, etc. in a previous post in this thread, consider the snarky history of the poster* before buying that. If you know what you are doing you will get excellent results from Fujifilm gear.
- - -
* I refer to snarky posters who consistently lean towards hyperbole and this kind of ad hominem stuff: “Here's the point where we can stop taking you seriously in regards to this conversation.”
Cliff L. wrote:
My point was that I feel it is more important to have the image in focus rather than counting how many more smaller pixels you have in the image. I guess that doesn't matter to some people?
Both would be a requirement. Obviously every image will not be perfectly focused, but >95% within the camera's capability should be. Subject recognition does sometimes fail to do what we want, but it should be easy to switch to single point. That's the case with any MILC.
EB-1 wrote:
Both would be a requirement. Obviously every image will not be perfectly focused, but >95% within the camera's capability should be. Subject recognition does sometimes fail to do what we want, but it should be easy to switch to single point. That's the case with any MILC.
EBH
95% is pretty optimistic, in my experience with the Fuji cameras. That wouldn't stop me from buying one, but you need to set realistic expectations.
Cliff L. wrote:
My point was that I feel it is more important to have the image in focus rather than counting how many more smaller pixels you have in the image. I guess that doesn't matter to some people?
Of course it dies, and its quite possible to get sharp phot9s with APS-C, and Fuji APS-C, the format is irrelevant.
RoamingScott wrote:
Here's the point where we can stop taking you seriously in regards to this conversation.
I do get unsharp photos, but there has always been a reason. A bird in a perch with d8stant background sometimes the camera will pick the background, that happens with any af system and usually can be spotted before shutter release. I don't count that as a camera 'failure'. Camera cannot read your mind, people have unrealistic expectations of technology. If I did it with a rangefinder or a split image I can choose,
It's always the same ones on here writing knocking copy. The cameras are really not that bad, else people wouldn't buy them, or get good results.
gyoung143 wrote:
I do get unsharp photos, but there has always been a reason. A bird in a perch with d8stant background sometimes the camera will pick the background, that happens with any af system and usually can be spotted before shutter release. I don't count that as a camera 'failure'. Camera cannot read your mind, people have unrealistic expectations of technology. If I did it with a rangefinder or a split image I can choose,
It's always the same ones on here writing knocking copy. The cameras are really not that bad, else people wouldn't buy them, or get good results.
Gerry
Many people never notice focus beyond infinity cause it mostly is an overall softness that only shows upon 100% magnification. Same for AF-S inconsistencies. If the camera puts focus at 3m while the subject is at 5m, it doesn't really show unless one needs to crop into the subject at which time one can see that there is no critical focus there. By the way, people defending Fuji AF are also always the same :-)
GravelBen wrote:
Agreed that the D7200 is still very good for APS-C, even at higher ISO it is impressive what is recoverable/usable now with noise reduction software.
This was at ISO 12,800 from my D7200 in very dim light under a tree, after Lightroom Denoise and some other processing - not claiming its perfect but I was very impressed at that ISO from an APS-C camera that came out over 10 years ago.
This is at ISO 5K same noise reduction, but it looked pretty good with just fiddling with regular noise reduction. It's also a fairly big crop. The lens makes a huge difference. This was the 300mm F4 AF-S.
gyoung143 wrote:
It's always the same ones on here writing knocking copy. The cameras are really not that bad, else people wouldn't buy them, or get good results.
Gerry
What gets really old is the folks who insist the everything fits into one of two categories — either awful or astonishingly wonderful — and that the differences are life-changing. (It doesn't help when they add veiled or obvious personal insults to the mix.)
The truth is that we're often talking about some relatively narrow vectors between things. Yes, that can make a difference for people who are truly pushing the outer edges of performance, which is why I'm happy to say that Fujifilm's good AF is still surpassed by even better AF from some cameras from some of the competitors. But when it is just fine — as it is for the great majority of users — that edge case difference is hardly the only decision factor.
And, as always, each of the well-known camera manufacturers today make excellent gear that will produce excellent output in the right hands.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Many people never notice focus beyond infinity cause it mostly is an overall softness that only shows upon 100% magnification. Same for AF-S inconsistencies. If the camera puts focus at 3m while the subject is at 5m, it doesn't really show unless one needs to crop into the subject at which time one can see that there is no critical focus there. By the way, people defending Fuji AF are also always the same :-)
With teles a difference of one or two cm in focus position can make or break an image.
I view displays like 0.25 or 0.233mm pitch at 100%. I'd expand to 200% for 0.155 like 4K 27' displays. 4K laptops might need even higher magnification to see details clearly.
Of course typical young folks with AA over 10 (Hoffstetter equations) or myopics could move really close to see details.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Many people never notice focus beyond infinity cause it mostly is an overall softness that only shows upon 100% magnification. Same for AF-S inconsistencies. If the camera puts focus at 3m while the subject is at 5m, it doesn't really show unless one needs to crop into the subject at which time one can see that there is no critical focus there. By the way, people defending Fuji AF are also always the same :-)
Are you saying you're the only one on FM who pixel peeps?
On a serious note, all of you are exaggerating for some reason.
1. Not losing a single shot due to AF in 8 years is... unrealistic. In fact, it's unrealistic with any brand.
2. Claiming that Fuji cameras can't AF-S on static subjects reliably is also an absurd exaggeration.
Source: me. The ultimate authority. Lots of Fuji bodies, lenses and years under the belt with thousands of "keeper" images. Yes, it's AF system is weaker than the competition, but is and has always been perfectly usable in AF-S mode, especially against the historical contemporaries. For example, the oldie X-T3 focused better than the Canon 5D Mk2 and Mk4. At the time they were considered solid performers in that regard.
Why ruin the conversation with grandiose claims, over-generalizations, over-extrapolations from your own limited experience? There's always nuance and unknowns in everything. For example, some Fuji lenses are known to have poor focusing accuracy due to their unit-focus design. This means high glass mass to move, requiring stronger but less precise motors. This was the intentional design trade-off favoring the resulting OOF rendering, appreciated by many. Want high-precision focus? Don't buy those!
old-gregg wrote:
Are you saying you're the only one on FM who pixel peeps?
On a serious note, all of you are exaggerating for some reason.
1. Not losing a single shot due to AF in 8 years is... unrealistic. In fact, it's unrealistic with any brand.
2. Claiming that Fuji cameras can't AF-S on static subjects reliably is also an absurd exaggeration.
Source: me. The ultimate authority. Lots of Fuji bodies, lenses and years under the belt with thousands of "keeper" images. Yes, it's AF system is weaker than the competition, but is and has always been perfectly usable in AF-S mode, especially against the historical contemporaries. For example, the oldie X-T3 focused better than the Canon 5D Mk2 and Mk4. At the time they were considered solid performers in that regard.
Why ruin the conversation with grandiose claims, over-generalizations, over-extrapolations from your own limited experience? There's always nuance and unknowns in everything. For example, some Fuji lenses are known to have poor focusing accuracy due to their unit-focus design. This means high glass mass to move, requiring stronger but less precise motors. This was the intentional design trade-off favoring the resulting OOF rendering, appreciated by many. Want high-precision focus? Don't buy those!...Show more →
I'm interested in the Fuji X 100-400, some kind of normal zoom to meet up with that range and an ultrawide zoom. We might try that 150-600 for special purpose though it is stupidly slow.
I don't use lenses with the borkahs nor have any idea about what Fujis are unit focusing other than assuming short primes. The system will not be used for human species. The fastest aperture lens I could imagine using would be f/2.8 but mostly f/4-7.1. Normally I use the continuous AF, but I'm not sure if the AF-C with BBF is at last as good as AF-S for landscapes where it will be on a tripod. With modern Sony and Canon I usually just leave it at AF-C because there is little to no difference once I know it is in focus.
Does the X-H2S have the best AF in all circumstances?
The 5D II AF was an archaic small diamond pattern, mainly designed to differentiate it from the 1Ds III. IME it was one of the worst of the line. Subsequently the 5D III and 1Dx were far better.
Any auto system has it's tolerances, it's margins for error, if you look hard enough you can find those margins. I's naive to expect exact accuracy all the time. There are so many factors affecting usage never mind the efficiency of the programming. If you understand how an AF system works it will be obvious why in the field exact accuracy is unlikely. But in use we have DoF and camera shake etc etc, I the end it's the WHOLE PICTURE captured that matters, an error of a metreor two at 15m at f/8 is not an issue, you won't notice when viewing the whole picture. If it's only noticeable at 100 % it's merely an interesting technical exercise.
The Fuji distance scale in the viewfinder too is pretty unreliable, especially with shorter focal lengths, the fact that duplicate presses s of the shutter release gives different readings is a shame but doesn't seem to indicate actual distancedifference s, the scale is only useful when used if AF mode as a rough indication of DoF. It seems mich better in MF.
We have a small number of frequent contributors who harp on the same 'inadequacies over and over again. There are dozens more here, and millions out there beyond forums who are perfectky happy with the performance of. If you are so far out of step with the majority look to your own technique and levels of expectation.
For my old D7200 I assumed a CoC of about 6µm, ~1.5x the pixel pitch. At 15m (50 feet) using a 400mm lens the total DOF (front+back) is about 9cm at f/5.6 and about 13cm at f/8. Even if you are more lax and accept a larger CoC you have to consider whether accepting 20th print res based on image size vs. printing or viewing large based on pixel pitch.
Of course accuracy can be impaired by various factors including the MTF of the lens, AF motor mechanics and the hardware/software driving the motor. The D7200 was not the fastest to acquire or track (especially compared to the D500), but once lenses are calibrated they are pretty solid. I'm expecting any replacement to be at least as good as it.
