Evaluation of Auto focus performance among popular cameras

[Interceptor121]

Professionals by and large are still in the dSLR camp. Since Sony does not produce a dSLR it is no surprise there and they have no legacy brand loyalty from the olden times. Olympus, not having a dSLR is a different matter because Olympus does build some cameras that can live in the real world, rugged, and the brand has strong loyalty from the film days, I owned an OM-1 and OM-2. I favor the brand.

As to Sony AF, it is discussion that will always have two side at this time of development. I like the Hybrid AF and subjectively from my limited experience, the Sony cameras, the newest iterations in particular, are subjectively as fast or faster with AF as any. Now, where it gets muddy is shot to shot and where the "shutter" lag is actually generated. For folks using the camera built in strobe, yes, that will slow the system shot to shot vs a camera using a hot shoe and external strobe (surface) or a LED trigger. The "shutter" lag is not from the AF but from the strobe recycling and from the preflash delay.

IR has some good data, it is a good resource, it is just not always complete or regimented. They are comparing apples and oranges and pears and the results are not as useful as could be hoped for. Sony claims worlds fastest AF, this seems to perturb those who do not have a Sony or have a camera with a slower AF. Nonetheless, the Sony AF is fast and getting faster and more intelligent and it is fast enough.

And frankly, for me, I would ditch the auto-everything and especially AF in a heart beat. Give me a true MF system with a split prism or course ground glass and a tactile, mechanical focus ring on the lens. The manual focus on digi-cams is a shadow of what it was on a OM-1 or Nikon F and is difficult to use with no tactile feel and no direct focus screen. So to be truthful, I do not like any of the AF systems and in particular I do not like the Olympus AF at all, again, subjective comparisons.

James

Wasn't referring to you James

The information in the reviews can be used meaningfully but you need to read through it, some data is better than zero data

 

[stuartv]

Sorry but now you are being picky at least there is some foundation and explanation how to read information compared to the crap that is already been written everywhere including review posted by people that sell the equipment

I always get responses from those guys whose system came worse than what they expected and then there is a start of if and buts to build an argument that what I wrote is flawed, you hear nothing from those whose camera appears to do well, wonder why

For what concerns Sony cameras they are quite popular among new comers but extremely rare within pro and people that win competitions so for what matters the marketing did not convince those guys yet. Has this got a link with what I wrote am not sure but those are the facts

If you are happy with your camera just go and get some images to proof the point that is a great camera

I don't think the observation that camera AF speed is very dependent on the specific lens used, and suggesting that it should be mentioned in an article that presents a chart of numbers on camera AF performance, is being too picky.

But, to each his own. I am not the one that will be judged by people who read my article and chose a certain camera because of what I said (or failed to mention).

I don't think there's much to the statement "get some images to proof the point that it is a great camera." As you so rightly noted already, it's 90% the operator. I've seen fantastic images from an RX100. That doesn't prove that it is a great camera... Or maybe it proves that just about every modern camera is great....

 

[stuartv]

Wasn't referring to you James

The information in the reviews can be used meaningfully but you need to read through it, some data is better than zero data

Not if it leaves you thinking that you are fully informed, when you actually are not... Better to be ignorant and know it, than to think you know the right answer because you don't realize you only got part of the data.

 

[HKGuns]

I’ve never done UW but I have done BIF and can attest to the AF challenges.

Can’t imagine diving being more AF demanding.

These barn swallows are really fast movers and pushed the AF limit of my Canon 1DIV as well as my skills. Glass matters too, as I couldn’t have attempted these shots on anything less than my 500/F4.

Lens makes a tremendous difference in AF speed and I agree deserves mention. Pair a fancy camera with crap glass and you typically end up with crap pictures. The person behind the lens matters quite a bit as well. Photo's I can manage with my 500/F4 are nearly impossible with my 100-400. My 400 prime was extremely fast to AF and light which made it very versatile.

These aren’t as sharp as I would like, but pretty decent of an extremely difficult subject.

These are pretty extreme crops, but held together fairly well.

Edited to add a regular bird.

 

[Nemrod]

Wasn't referring to you James

The information in the reviews can be used meaningfully but you need to read through it, some data is better than zero data

No worries mate. As you said, some data is better than no data and such articles do make us think and helps us to consider the different variables and qualities beyond manufacturer advertisement hype (like Sony claiming fastest AF) that make one system seem or actually be more responsive than another.

James

 

[Interceptor121]

Not if it leaves you thinking that you are fully informed, when you actually are not... Better to be ignorant and know it, than to think you know the right answer because you don't realize you only got part of the data.

I don't have answer that is just data if you prefer to ignore it and therefore be ignorant that is up to you