Why do cameras have more than one autofocus point? Are you people really just trusting the camera is going to guess what you want in focus? That's insane. You are insane.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4378140they're just trying to distract you from the fact that AF speed and accuracy hasn't improved in 30 years. oh but now it has AI, don't you know that's the next big thing?
>>4378140Eye AF is a lifechanger when you shoot sports.>>4378145It absolutely improved. With new Eye AF things, you can have reliable autofocus 95% of the time, even when shooting fast action. This absolutely wasn't the case 30 years ago.
>>4378147>there has been a significant improvement in this one edge-caseokay great
>place centre focus area over what I want to focus on>recompose>camera tracks said subject no matter where it ends up in the frame, or if I move closer or further from it
If it ain't moving I'm using manual focus, simple as.
>shoot f64 and make everything in focusvoila
>>4378142>focus + recompose is faster than "dick around with setting the focus point">touch schreen>it's focused exactly where I touchedskill issue
>>4378140I think this was a feature that was originally created to satisfy working pros like photojournalists, sports photographers, and so on back in the 1990's when multiple AF points first became a thing.I have a Nikon F5, and usually just focus and recompose with the center AF point, but I never shoot long bursts of moving subjects because it's film and I'm not made of money. If I were a professional back in the 1990's and film cost wasn't as much of a concern, and I was shooting those types of subjects, I can see how the other 4 AF points in the viewfinder would be useful to me.Once the pro cameras had multiple AF points, then it became a selling point for "prosumer" camera bodies, and as costs of more advanced AF modules kept coming down, they trickled down into consumer grade bodies, too.This is my theory, anyways.
>>4378147>MUH SPORTS!!!!!!!!
>>4378147Wildlife photography too. It's great for birds that are contstantly flying in and out of focus.
>>4378140Why do you only photograph posed portraits, landscapes, and building cornersLife is so much more interesting than that stodgy "intent is le art" shite. Think of how many things people who live in tiny boxes can now see in motion because of autofocus. How much of the world has been better understood because a video camera with a big fuckoff zoom and a nice big sensor could capture a 100% in focus thing moving around with quality detail instead of sacrificing quality for a tiny sensor and more DOF.
I'm going to ask this here because /sqt/ is gone and this thread is about auto-focus.I am failing to nail focus in low light situations. In the EVF and LCD, it looks sufficiently sharp (z50, lower res screens), but once I take the photo it's horribly out of focus at 100% viewing or when viewed on a monitor. Flash units don't support the green light that mirrorless cameras use to assist. And my built-in assist lamp clearly isn't sufficient. Even zooming in with the EVF doesn't solve the issue because of how low the light is. Does a higher res EVF make a world of difference or am I going to be in the same situation regardless of camera?
>>4379281Are you using the z50's lowlight AF setting?One answer is getter a faster lens, but yes a better camera works too, lowlight AF EV is even a spec listed for cameras. Nikon's best for lowlight AF is currently the Zf, which can focus significantly darker.Are you sure it's out of focus and you're not instead seeing some motion blur?
>>4379281Old nikon is shit in low light af, its trying to focus on a 1/4s capture basicallyThe zf is a lot better but not as good as canonyIf you want low light AF go back to a DSLR
>>4379286>Are you using the z50's lowlight AF setting?Yes>Are you sure it's out of focus and you're not instead seeing some motion blur?Yes, for 95% of cases. There's a clear slice of the image that's in focus, and it's either too deep or too forward outside of its intended target.>One answer is getter a faster lensI'm using the 50mm 1.8 S, so it's not going to get much faster without spending a lot more. That said, the z50 doesn't stop down to 1.8 during focus time, it stays to whatever it's set to for the exposure (even with exposure preview turned off). So I have to either:>Use 1.8 and work with a razor thin focal plane and really hope I nail focus>Use smaller aperture for more wiggle room, but with even worse focusI've been considering the Zf, but I don't know if I can handle the ergonomics of it. Nor do I know if I'll even make use of all the dials. I'm so disappointed that the Z6iii wasn't just a Zf in a modern body. That's all I wanted.>If you want low light AF go back to a DSLRMy D3300's OVF is dark enough where I think it would end up being just as bad in low light as my z50. It's possible it could focus better, but I wouldn't be able to tell until I look at the resulting image.
>>4379286The ZF is only -10ev with nikon’s f1.2 lens. Less sharp f1.2s you can afford and travel with dont work as well and f1.8s also cripple it back down. The softer and slower the lens, the more light and contrast it needs to focus. Sony rates their cameras AF range with an f2 lens. They dont even make an f2 lens.
>>4379294The ZF has some of the best tech in the worst package period. Its a giant brick that relies on menu diving to do half the shit it can do. A sony would feel comfortable and easy to use.Only get it if you’re absolutely allergic to simply upgrading to a better DSLR, ie: d850, k3-iii.
>>4379295>The ZF is only -10ev with nikon’s f1.2 lens.Yeah, which is "only" -8.5EV at f2.For reference, the Z50 is only -4EV at f2. Sony's a1 and a7rv are also -4EV at f2, and a9III is -5EV at f2, and a7sIII at -6EV.Canon, who also uses f1.2, rates the R5II, R1, and R3 at -6EV for f2.A Zf at f8 would be able to focus in darkness where a Z50 at f2 couldn't.
>>4379294>>4379304>Z6iii wasn't just a Zf in a modern bodyThat's called a Z6II, anon
>>4378152You wouldn't notice the difference if you only shoot building corners in AF single. If you're actually shooting stuff that matters (moving targets) then you'd know that AF tracking and continuous modes have gotten 100x better over the last 20 years. It could almost make someone like you autofocus as fast as someone like me could manual focus. You would still compose the shot wrong though.
>>4378140I have only ever used the middle focus point.Why the fuck would you want to play focus point roulette? I've never understood this.BTW, eye AF existed in the film era - I'm considering getting an EOS 3 for this reason alone - the only way multiple focus points would make sense.
