I'll chime in on the AF accuracy of 45mm debacle, as I grabbed this lens during BF sale (that was the only offer that caught my eye and I also wanted to see for myself how AF-C is in practice, because the opinions ranged from unsuable to completely okay).
So, in my limited testing on A7III of AF-C vs AF-S in range of 0.5m (that's where the wide open glow gets less noticeable imho) to a couple of meters maximum I came to the following conclusions:
* AF-C is simply unreliable, I'd say in 9/10 cases AF-S gives noticeably better focused image. I don't have any other lens that behaves like that (some actually seem sometimes worse in AF-S).
* AF-C is still usable (45mm @2.8 is not that demanding even around 0.5m), but the chance you will have tack sharp image focused exactly where you wanted (e.g eye via eyeAF) is small (but we're talking mostly about pixel peeping at 100%). I took a lot of pictures in AF-C, that are worse than AF-S but still completely usable to me. The thing is you don't know when taking the shot how close (or far) AF-C precision will be compared to AF-S
* AF-C + slow/mid continuous drive is now the only way I use AF-C, so instead of taking 1 shot I take around 3-5, which in most cases gives me at least one focused "close enough" to AF-S.
* AF-S is too slow to use with my kids , so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
So, to sum it up, I'd say AF-C is usable but luck is involved (i.e. you need some means to minimize its impact) ...
Maybe an example of AF-C incosistency (click the link to view the original size), shot at about 0.8m wide open, 3 shots exif claims one second apart from each other, taken from 100% crop, eyeAF I hope: AFC_1sec_series_100 by Jan U, on Flickr
So, to me they are all acceptable, with the first being the worst, but none of them is really tack sharp on the eye (actual focus is rather on the eye lashes and still not perfect)... For this kind of shot, this is an acceptable result for me though .
I'll chime in on the AF accuracy of 45mm debacle, as I grabbed this lens during BF sale (that was the only offer that caught my eye and I also wanted to see for myself how AF-C is in practice, because the opinions ranged from unsuable to completely okay).
So, in my limited testing on A7III of AF-C vs AF-S in range of 0.5m (that's where the wide open glow gets less noticeable imho) to a couple of meters maximum I came to the following conclusions:
* AF-C is simply unreliable, I'd say in 9/10 cases AF-S gives noticeably better focused image. I don't have any other lens that behaves like that (some actually seem sometimes worse in AF-S).
* AF-C is still usable (45mm @2.8 is not that demanding even around 0.5m), but the chance you will have tack sharp image focused exactly where you wanted (e.g eye via eyeAF) is small (but we're talking mostly about pixel peeping at 100%). I took a lot of pictures in AF-C, that are worse than AF-S but still completely usable to me. The thing is you don't know when taking the shot how close (or far) AF-C precision will be compared to AF-S
* AF-C + slow/mid continuous drive is now the only way I use AF-C, so instead of taking 1 shot I take around 3-5, which in most cases gives me at least one focused "close enough" to AF-S.
* AF-S is too slow to use with my kids , so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
So, to sum it up, I'd say AF-C is usable but luck is involved (i.e. you need some means to minimize its impact) ...
Maybe an example of AF-C incosistency, shot at about 0.8m wide open, 3 shots exif claims one second apart from each other, taken from 100% crop, eyeAF I hope: AFC_1sec_series_100 by Jan U, on Flickr
So, to me they are all acceptable, with the first being the worst, but none of them is really tack sharp on the eye (actual focus is rather on the eye lashes and still not perfect)... For this kind of shot, this is an acceptable result for me though .
I'll chime in on the AF accuracy of 45mm debacle, as I grabbed this lens during BF sale (that was the only offer that caught my eye and I also wanted to see for myself how AF-C is in practice, because the opinions ranged from unsuable to completely okay).
So, in my limited testing on A7III of AF-C vs AF-S in range of 0.5m (that's where the wide open glow gets less noticeable imho) to a couple of meters maximum I came to the following conclusions:
* AF-C is simply unreliable, I'd say in 9/10 cases AF-S gives noticeably better focused image. I don't have any other lens that behaves like that (some actually seem sometimes worse in AF-S).
* AF-C is still usable (45mm @2.8 is not that demanding even around 0.5m), but the chance you will have tack sharp image focused exactly where you wanted (e.g eye via eyeAF) is small (but we're talking mostly about pixel peeping at 100%). I took a lot of pictures in AF-C, that are worse than AF-S but still completely usable to me. The thing is you don't know when taking the shot how close (or far) AF-C precision will be compared to AF-S
* AF-C + slow/mid continuous drive is now the only way I use AF-C, so instead of taking 1 shot I take around 3-5, which in most cases gives me at least one focused "close enough" to AF-S.
* AF-S is too slow to use with my kids , so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
So, to sum it up, I'd say AF-C is usable but luck is involved (i.e. you need some means to minimize its impact) ...
I'll chime in on the AF accuracy debacle, as I grabbed this lens during BF sale (that was the only offer that caught my eye and I also wanted to see for myself how AF-C is in practice, because the opinions ranged from unsuable to completely okay).
So, in my limited testing on A7III of AF-C vs AF-S in range of 0.5m (that's where the wide open glow gets less noticeable imho) to a couple of meters maximum I came to the following conclusions:
* AF-C is simply unreliable, I'd say in 9/10 cases AF-S gives noticeably better focused image. I don't have any other lens that behaves like that (some actually seem sometimes worse in AF-S).
* AF-C is still usable (45mm @2.8 is not that demanding even around 0.5m), but the chance you will have tack sharp image focused exactly where you wanted (e.g eye via eyeAF) is small (but we're talking mostly about pixel peeping at 100%). I took a lot of pictures in AF-C, that are worse than AF-S but still completely usable to me. The thing is you don't know when taking the shot how close (or far) AF-C precision will be compared to AF-S
* AF-C + slow/mid continuous drive is now the only way I use AF-C, so instead of taking 1 shot I take around 3-5, which in most cases gives me at least one focused "close enough" to AF-S.
* AF-S is too slow to use with my kids , so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
So, to sum it up, I'd say AF-C is usable but luck is involved (i.e. you need some means to minimize its impact) ...
I'll chime in on the AF accuracy debacle, as I grabbed this lens during BF sale (that was the only offer that caught my eye and I also wanted to see for myself how AF-C is in practice, because the opinions ranged from unsuable to completely okay).
So, in my limited testing on A7III of AF-C vs AF-S in range of 0.5m (that's where the wide open glow gets less noticeable imho) to a couple of meters maximum I came to the following conclusions:
* AF-C is simply unreliable, I'd say in 9/10 cases AF-S gives noticeably better focused image. I don't have any other lens that behaves that (some actually seem sometimes worse in AF-S).
* AF-C is still usable (45mm @2.8 is not that demanding even around 0.5m), but the chance you will have tack sharp image focused exactly where you wanted (e.g eye via eyeAF) is small (but we're talking mostly about pixel peeping at 100%). I took a lot of pictures in AF-C, that are worse than AF-S but still completely usable to me. The thing is you don't know when taking the shot how close (or far) AF-C precision will be compared to AF-S
* AF-C + slow/mid continuous drive is now the only way I use AF-C, so instead of taking 1 shot I take around 3-5, which in most cases gives me at least one focused "close enough" to AF-S.
* AF-S is too slow to use with my kids , so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
Dec 13, 2020 at 04:54 PM
Previous versions of j4nu's message #15433382 « Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses »
, so I hope Sony improves AF-S operation in next iteration of cameras (as I've read about other cameras) . What I mean, in most cases it's easier to take multiple shots in AF-C hoping at least one will be good enough, than to wait for the long enough "still" moment when AF-S manages to acquire focus.
.