I did wonder and as you say tracking autofocus is what most photographers want in the real world. I think it's probably like taking a more modern car for a test drive; most things feel better but only having purchased it and driven for a while do the quirks start to become noticeable
I often think it’s just a perception, with some of the modern mirrorless cameras AF lock on is near instant, I don’t know how much faster it can be than that. Focus speed between near and far subjects can be detected more, however I would hazard a guess this is more down to the lens motors than the camera body.
right..... canon R1 has three subject types (people, animals and vehicles), and people tracking can be further refined by four sports, and you can pre-load up to 10 specific faces to prioritize. it takes a while to configure and learn to use, but you have a good chance of filling a card with 100% usable frames.
On top of a plethera of focus modes (tracking, AF-C, AF-S etc etc) and focus areas (single point, wide, centre etc etc) my A1 II has the following subject detection:-
On top of a plethera of focus modes (tracking, AF-C, AF-S etc etc) and focus areas (single point, wide, centre etc etc) my A1 II has the following subject detection:-
Auto
People (with face memory and face priority select)
Bird/Animal
Bird
Animal
Insect
Car/Train
Plane
You can then choose which eye, or whether that's auto. Then there's
Tracking Shift Rnage
Recognition priority set
Recognition part
Recognition part select
Tracking persistence level
Recognition sensitivity
Animal Detailed settings
Bird details settings
And if this isn't enough you have:-
AF Level for crossing
AF tracking for speed changes
AF transition speed (video)
AF subject shift sensitivity
AF area registration
There's probably a few more bits, but as you can see it's getting ridiculous. Of course some of the things are super handy, but if we continue along this path are we going to get other subject option sub menus such as:-
Birds > Small Birds > Large Birds > Birds of Prey etc. etc.
Obviously with the last bit I'm being a bit facetious but you get my point
One subject that I would like that's missing is Motorcyle/Motorcyle rider, I do believe some other systems have this.
That’s interesting, I’ve got to say the mirrorless I’ve used have been streets ahead in all areas of AF for me, such as lock on speed, subject recognition, subject tracking etc. However, I did only shoot Nikon DSLR and I know they had a history of the AF being distracted by backgrounds. I remember someone on here with a D5 (I think it was) having plenty of discussions about this with Nikon to try and resolve the issue of it focussing on the background when the backgrounds were ‘busy’.
I don't find my Z9 to be any better in this respect. I think perhaps with easier subjects the mirrorless AF AI (subject recognition, etc) performs "better"... but I didn't/don't really have significant issues with DSLR's in those scenarios either (although I really didn't like the D7000 I had for a while, so maybe model dependent).
In my experience, it varies a lot by camera body. My Fuji GFX, for example, has comparatively poor AF performance vs, say, a Canon 1DXM2 DSLR. On the other hand, the Canon R1 is a big step up from the 1DXM2. I understand that mirrorless bodies can't detect the low-light assist beams emitted by flashes (and which were designed for DSLRs), but I have never found that to be a problem.
Yeah, it's not about the focus assist with speedlights. It's about the lack of cross type sensors, and the fact that the DSLR's PDAF system is working with multiple real images that are (almost) always in-focus (as many as six) so it can (often) find subjects in/through distractions much better.
I know you know your stuff but I find this surprising, I've never seen this reported or mentioned in any comparison. I understand the pros of cross type sensors, but the pros of modern algorithms outweigh this.
The algorithm takes time to work.
My experience with the A1 and A1 II is somewhat different tbh, it’s almost telepathic.
Sony mirrorless has made things so easy that it almost feels like cheating, I no longer have to worry about focussing and can just concentrate on composition, I know the camera will focus on what I want, and it will be tack sharp 99.99% of the time. As you say DSLR often needed micro adjusting, and there were tolerances which meant focus wasn't necessarily 100% tack sharp. I can't remember what the tolerances were, something like 1/3 of the zone of focus or something, I did have lengthy discussions with Nikon about it when I was having problems with my D750.I had Canon DSLR's, 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D. Admittedly maybe not earth shattering technology there. Every mirrorless camera I've had apart from the Fuji's has been in a different league, a better one. I remember reading on the Canon website that if you took 3 pictures you'd see focus differences between them and this was normal. I don't think I care how fast a focus system like that is if it's that inconsistent plus there was that whole Micro Adjust fiasco and differences between bodies and lenses. Nightmare. Give me mirrorless every time
Totally agree with you regarding Sony...Sony mirrorless has made things so easy that it almost feels like cheating, I no longer have to worry about focussing and can just concentrate on composition, I know the camera will focus on what I want, and it will be tack sharp 99.99% of the time. As you say DSLR often needed micro adjusting, and there were tolerances which meant focus wasn't necessarily 100% tack sharp. I can't remember what the tolerances were, something like 1/3 of the zone of focus or something, I did have lengthy discussions with Nikon about it when I was having problems with my D750.
Whilst all this is great and on the whole I wouldn't want to go back, there are times though when it's nice to go back to basics which is why I enjoy shooting with my old fully manual SLR. I wouldn't want to shoot wildlife or motorsports this way nowadays though
Zooms were more of an issue as it was nigh on impossible to get it right for both ends of the zoom, I had both my D750 and 70-200mm f2.8 calibrated by Nikon and it still wasn’t always tack sharp. I remember Sigma brought out their dock and you could calibrate their lenses at different focal lengths of the zoom, but even then it wasn’t 100% perfect every time.
I’m gonna repeat, I trust your experience here with Nikon. But the same is not true of Canon or Sony, where the mirrorless AF even in the midrange is better than the best of their DSLR’s.
I think a lot of people using Nikon would disagree with me as well... but I don't really know why. I know many haven't tested/studied what the AF is actually doing, but I guess that doesn't much matter if the result is good (even if the reason isn't what you think).
TBH I was under the impression that Nikon AF is lagging behind, according to the world of the internet anyway, however we are of course being extra picky as cameras are all fantastic these days.
I didn’t have ‘issues’ beyond the fact that the AF depended on a focus point, and the tracking wasn’t ‘smart’ in the same way that my subject detect is now.
I don't know what you tried but most of the latest few generations of mirrorless aren't slow, focus is nigh on instant even with the bells and whistles on. The D6 is rated to -4.5ev in the centre and -4ev everywhere else. Many mirrorless can focus down to -4ev, and some much lower such as -6.5ev and -7.5ev, and I believe the Nikon Z9 can focus down to -9ev in starlight mode (whatever that is)
You have to be careful with the specs... e.g. the D6 is rated down to -4.5 EV with *any lens. While the Z9 is rated down to -6.5 only with an f/2 lens used wide open; and down to -8.5 EV with an f/1.2 lens (it's picking up over 1 stop of that just by requiring a faster lens). This is because the mirrorless AF system is highly dependent on the image you see (and thus the lens); whereas the DSLR's PDAF system is largely independent (it has its own lenses with their own max apertures). So when I'm using my 600/6.3 on my Z9 it really is hindering the max capability notably.I don't know what you tried but most of the latest few generations of mirrorless aren't slow, focus is nigh on instant even with the bells and whistles on. The D6 is rated to -4.5ev in the centre and -4ev everywhere else. Many mirrorless can focus down to -4ev, and some much lower such as -6.5ev and -7.5ev, and I believe the Nikon Z9 can focus down to -9ev in starlight mode (whatever that is)
Well no, it doesn't work that way... that's like saying a higher resolution sensor requires more light to record an image.
It also depends on the system too, for example Sony stop down the lens all the time if using an aperture smaller than its max aperture rather than focussing with the lens wide open and stopping down only when taking the shot like DSLRs and some other mirrorless. They have a setting that you can use in low light situations where the aperture is wider during focussing but it’s still not fully open, it’s a kind of half way house.
This isn't correct and hasn't been for a long time at least for many mirrorless cameras. What you're describing is Contrast Detect AutoFocus (CDAF) but mirrorless cameras now also use Phase Detect AutoFocus (PDAF) using embedded components within the main sensor, the same as DSLRs so they no longer have the issues you mention. This means they can initially use the PDAF to quickly work out how out of focus the image is which can't be done with CDAF, jump the focus to roughly the correct position then nail the focus with CDAF. This means they can match the speed of a DSLR thanks to the same PDAF but improve on accuracy since the DSLR isn't focusing against the main sensor so may need lens adjustment to get focus dead on.
It's not true of Nikon either, I've had the Sony A9 and Nikon Z8 both of which have remarkable autofocus performance. I'd dabbled in and out with mirrorless cameras before the A9 but always mixed with a DSLR but the A9 meant no DSLR was needed plus outwith AF it has the significant advantages of being completely silent and blackout free shooting.
I've actually just researched this and it appears that we are all wrong.
No, I am not describing CDAF.
https://youtu.be/zExwEMGLBIA?si=CLHXrNQDFlDsG1MNI found this which I thought read as though the light gets split on DSLR, but on reading it again I’m not sure it does.
I can see how that is confusing/misleading. A couple over-simplified drawings to help explain:
Ok, I'm not auire sure what you mean by virtual images? I thought with mirrorless you meant the real time image readout from the sensor, but then SLRs use the same system so it can't be that. I can understand that with DSLR the light source(s) hit the different AF sensors and it works out the difference between the two, but what are you referring to with the "virtual" images? From the diagram above it looks like the light source(s) hit the sensor but rather than a light source splitting and hitting each AF sensor in close proximity, the light from one side of the image hits a completely different part of the sensor (and therefore AF sensor) than light from the other side of the image, but I'm still struggling as to why this creates a virtual image?
A real image only exists at the plane of focus (not sensor necessarily); otherwise it is just scattered/mixed light. A virtual image is just a portion of that scattered/mixed light that will become the real image when focused.
