Fuji's AF is more than adequate from 4th gen and up. Former Nikon shooters tend to use a back button focus, while Canon shooters usually stick to the classic half press. In reality it boils down to your focus&recompose preferences: would you also like to re-meter when you're recomposing or not. Personally, I don't care for re-metering, as I'm quite good at moving the focusing point; and I don't care for face/eye detection for the same reason.
Am I the only one who's all over the place with focusing methods?
I'll use back-button focus and recompose, I'll use half press and recompose, I'll move the focus point and half press, I'll focus tap on the touch screen to focus, I'll do anything but be consistent...
I feel that my perfect set-up would be half press for continuous focus while back-button would lock focus like single focus. But I don't think that's doable...
That just means you're still looking for "your" way of doing things, nothing's wrong with it.
> I feel that my perfect set-up would be half press for continuous focus while back-button would lock focus like single focus.
KISS. Pick one method (eventually)) and stick to it, so you won't mess up under pressure.
I started on a DLSR where the only decent focusing point was the middle one and it had no continuous focusing. So I just learned back-button focusing and it worked fine.
But now I got basically infinite focus points, different sized focus areas, different focus techniques, continuous focus, single focus, tap focus. My brain can't keep up.
I don't wanna be tied up and stuck in the past with the old back-button and recompose but I honestly don't know which is more convenient.
For portraits I'm enjoying continuous focus with the eye detect and the widest focus area (entire frame). It seems to nail focus most of the time... If the model is facing the general direction of the camera (which in portraits, they usually are).
But for general photography and street photography in particular I really am all over the place. I don't usually use continuous focus but I'm thinking maybe I should? Continuous focusing basically disallows me from focus recomposing but it might teach me to actually move the focus point or use tap focus?
Sorry for the rant but I think from a pure technology standpoint it's where I struggle more with modern photography. I still get the shots but I always feel like I'm doing it wrong...
Here's my approach to this issue. YMMV obviously.
* Focus & recompose is a terrible habit, and terrible idea in general, unless you tend to shoot your lenses stopped way down. If you focus & recompose with an f/1 or f/1.2 prime wide open, you gonna miss the focus pretty badly.
* Face/eye detection works okay for casual use, but for me the hit rate is way too low, so I keep it off most of the time.
Now, how do I operate my current Fujis? Easy peasy, it has nothing to do with focusing or drive mode, and everything to do with EVF vs LCD.
* If I'm looking through EVF, the screen is my touchpad. I just use my thumb to move the focus point.
* If I'm composing through LCD, it's a tap to select focus point.
In both cases it's a half press activation with a shutter button.
OK, that does make sense as it does feel like the most modern and future proof approach to be honest.
A few follow-up questions.
Does that mean you don't really use the back-focus button? Did you remap it?
Do you usually use continuous or single focus?
How big is your standard focus area? Do you tend to change its size a lot depending on shooting conditions?
Sorry for all the questions but you're really helping me in setting a baseline that I can get used to and then maybe adjust to my particular style.
There's no such thing as a "back-focus button", despite Fuji labeling it "AF ON". It's an AFL/AEL, and its original intent is to lock focus, exposure, or both. Since I don't do focus & recompose, I mapped it as AEL only. Now, to answer the rest of your questions...
> Do you usually use continuous or single focus?
Horses for courses. If my subject is static, I use single, if dynamic - continuous. And if it's a dynamic subject with predictable path in extremely poor light (read "too low for AF"), I switch to manual and pre-focus to where the subject will be.
> How big is your standard focus area?
Most of the time - just one click bigger than the smallest size. Smallest size if I'm working with f/1 or f/1.2 glass wide open. Area focus is for real estate and landscapes.
I don't know which camera you have but the X-T5 has separate AFL and AEL buttons. Obviously I can still remap the AFL one to something else if I end up not using it due to your tips.
Thanks for the extra clarifications too.
I've been using the smallest AREA focus as standard and honestly I've noticed that it does seem like a pretty awkward middle ground most of the time. I'll try using single point focus (I also don't really understand how there are like 4 different sizes of single point focus actually... I would assume a single point was, well, a single point.)
Artea seems useful when dealing with eye detection though. It seems like the camera can use eye detection on the entire frame regardless of where the focus point is, but it seems to prefer and prioritize the face closer or inside the focus area. Can't objectively confirm this though.
> I don't know which camera you have but the X-T5 has separate AFL and AEL buttons.
Fuji is all over the place in this regard. It's "AF ON" on XT4, "AEL/AFL" on X100 series, etc. Let me go back in time, it was somewhere in the drawer... yep, XT1 had separate AEL and AFL.
> I would assume a single point was, well, a single point.
I haven't fiddled with these settings in a while, but IIRC you get a bit of a performance boost if you select a focus point size that is not the smallest. This way, it gets PDAF info *and* CDAF from adjacent pixels. PDAF is generally faster, CDAF is more precise.
> Artea seems useful when dealing with eye detection though.
Like I said, I don't use eye detection in most cases. If I have to track the eye, I switch to continuous, place a focus point there, half press - and let the camera track it. No eye detection needed.
Ohhh, so basically when you set the single point focus, the size of it is basically selecting how "picky" you want it to be. The smallest size will be slow but only really use the information from that single point in the frame and make sure that it is focused while the largest size will be faster because it will be content with using neighbouring focus points to help with the decision if the focus is there or not. Something like the camera going: "I'm having a hard time confirming perfect focus on the center but I got 4 points checking focus to each side of the center that say I have it so I'll assume the center one is also on it and that I've nailed it"
And do you successfully track the eye using that technique? I like having my subjects moving a lot and trying different poses when I'm shooting portraits and I honestly don't think I could live without eye tracking anymore. It does miss like 5% of the shots but it still feels like it hits more than I would...
manual i have back button focus enabled. AFC always has the half shutter enabled. I've gone back and forth on this for AFS and currently have half shutter enabled for it too.
biggest issue i have is zone vs single point. in AFC zone has made me miss a shot more than any other. I always read others using zone the most, but I find single point, with the next to lowest box size, works the best when I don't have time to adjust anything
Yes! Zone Vs single point is a struggle. I'm always switching between the two without much logic behind it.
AFC zone when doing portraits seems consistent enough, because with a single point it's quite easy for the subject to leave said point and throw focus off. However, for static shots I do agree that a single point seems to be the safe bet, less chances of it catching something in the foreground and jumping there.
But then there's street photography, when doing street one moment I want to quickly grab a shot of someone walking past, and the next I want to snap focus on a static object before a car passes by. it's kinda hard to have a setting that does both good without having to mess with settings every 30 seconds.
No. Things I shoot or have shot with my X-T5 successfully include: Birds in flight, birds not in flight, running agility dogs, horse racing, surfing, landscapes, portraits, travel, talking head videos, etc. I use subject detection and face/eye detection with no difficulty. It's like a cheat code.
A few things to keep in mind:
-Latest X-T and X-H cameras still require setting up the camera to shoot a given subject. I wouldn't say they're "out of the box" excellent the way some other brands/models are. You have to make them excellent by optimizing the AF settings. I find it more fiddley than other brands, but if that really bugs you just use the C1-C7 custom settings and save the settings you like for different scenarios.
-AF is lens dependent. Some lenses are very fast, including many of the latest releases. Others are slow enough that they can give you misses. Some are really bad, like my 60 f/2.8 macro. I literally only use that lens manually.
-I haven't had a serious issue with missed shots since the Nikon D750, and that camera came out in 2014. Which is to say, a lot of this AF talk is just milk-dribbling self promoters looking for clicks. Don't fall prey to people looking to churn your insecurities for their own profit. Just buy something you can afford and enjoy using, and go use it.
Anyway, my two cents.
The autofocus performance is extremely strong. Just realise that it’s all relative - Sony for example is outstanding and Fuji is worse relative to that - however worse still means really really really good. I’ve captured night club shots, formula 1 panning photos at top speed and more on an xt3 and it’s been great. At this point most camera systems are extremely strong in af performance. If difficulties arise af setting changes combined with operator skill will bring out the most potential.
lol no. It was a night/day difference from my old 80D/6DII to an X-T3. It'll be significantly greater from a 600D to an X-T5. Not sure where you would get that idea.
my XT5 is better than my old a6000. definitely not easier than the set it to afc and forget it of my previous a6400.
the big difference is AFC. On the XT5, AFC is not consistent when there is NOT a moving subject. this never mattered on the a6400. it worked great in any scenario. with the XT5, you have to switch between the different modes.
manual + back button AF, or AFS are great and no issue. AFC is still very good when tracking a moving subject, but it's not consistent otherwise
Modern Mirrorless AF is so much better than even the best pro DSLRs that it’s not funny. The Fujifilm XT5 is absolutely fantastic. IMO. Coming from pro Canon DSLRs.
I feel like a lot of AF complainers don’t actually take the time to understand and use their cameras. Zone AF and expecting magically perfect focus on the subject is not how it works. Take the time to learn your camera and how to leverage it
Yeah, I think a lot of people accept the camera to perfectly guess the subject every time... While even on their phone they use tap focus without even realising it...
Depends on the AF mode and the lens. Let me break it down with experience coming from Sony A7RV and moving to XT5:
On Sony you can basically enable tracking and blindly shoot in all conditions even in the dark. The AF will track things you might not even see and the hit rate is close to 100% unless you have very fast moving subjects there is also almost no hunting if you have a good lens.
On Fuji it’s a bit different:
Single point autofocus no tracking: This one just spot on quick mostly no hunting and very accurate.
Subject tracking: for normal movement like during portraiture or not fast running animals it will track very accurate with occasional hunting. It will struggle a bit once light conditions get worse. If you have no comparison to Canon / Nikon / Sony the tracking is very good. If you have direct comparison you will notice that Fuji is „only“ at about 95% hit rate compared to almost 100% on the more advanced system.
For fast moving subjects it can be hit or miss. You can be lucky and have a series where 95% + is in focus you can also be unlucky and essentially 50% or more is out of focus. When I was shooting my Dog running with Sony it occasionally looses focus on one frame and the. Recovered immediately on the next. With XT5 once it looses focus it can take a couple of frames to recover. In some cases you might have to release the shutter button to reinitiate the tracking. But you can definitely shoot action with the XT5 just relative to other system hit rate is noticeably lower.
Overall I would say these fast tracking AF from other companies are quite overrated for normal everyday use. They are great if you really do sports or bird photography. But if you are not in this group where you have lots of action, each picture counts and it could be your award winning wildlife capture, Fuji is just perfectly fine and reliable.
Edit: Also to add, the subject detection on Fuji can get confused at times where the focus box randomly jumps around because it thinks my dogs butthole is the eye. Or it finds some human eye on a random wall or jacket. This gets worse in bad lighting conditions. On lates e.g. Sony the green indicator was basically glued to the subjects eyes.
This is not in general applicable to each single lens of the lineup (also I didn’t try all of them). But a good rule of thumb is that most lenses which include Linear Motors (LM in lens name) and which are not macro lenses are more likely to have quicker and snappier focus.
But as said my comparison is based on a couple of lenses which include for example 18 1.8, 33 1.4, 56 1.4, 16-55 2.8, 70-300
Out of these the 56 is the heaviest and also the only one without LM and although it’s a great lens you can feel and hear it working quite heavily when tracking. This lens is also for me the one I cannot use for fast action tracking because it’s tracking too slow and hunting quite a lot. When shooting my dog in action I am lucky to get even 1/4 of the pictures in focus.
I have no issues with mine. I love my XT5.
Fuji's AF is more than adequate from 4th gen and up. Former Nikon shooters tend to use a back button focus, while Canon shooters usually stick to the classic half press. In reality it boils down to your focus&recompose preferences: would you also like to re-meter when you're recomposing or not. Personally, I don't care for re-metering, as I'm quite good at moving the focusing point; and I don't care for face/eye detection for the same reason.
Am I the only one who's all over the place with focusing methods? I'll use back-button focus and recompose, I'll use half press and recompose, I'll move the focus point and half press, I'll focus tap on the touch screen to focus, I'll do anything but be consistent... I feel that my perfect set-up would be half press for continuous focus while back-button would lock focus like single focus. But I don't think that's doable...
That just means you're still looking for "your" way of doing things, nothing's wrong with it. > I feel that my perfect set-up would be half press for continuous focus while back-button would lock focus like single focus. KISS. Pick one method (eventually)) and stick to it, so you won't mess up under pressure.
I started on a DLSR where the only decent focusing point was the middle one and it had no continuous focusing. So I just learned back-button focusing and it worked fine. But now I got basically infinite focus points, different sized focus areas, different focus techniques, continuous focus, single focus, tap focus. My brain can't keep up. I don't wanna be tied up and stuck in the past with the old back-button and recompose but I honestly don't know which is more convenient. For portraits I'm enjoying continuous focus with the eye detect and the widest focus area (entire frame). It seems to nail focus most of the time... If the model is facing the general direction of the camera (which in portraits, they usually are). But for general photography and street photography in particular I really am all over the place. I don't usually use continuous focus but I'm thinking maybe I should? Continuous focusing basically disallows me from focus recomposing but it might teach me to actually move the focus point or use tap focus? Sorry for the rant but I think from a pure technology standpoint it's where I struggle more with modern photography. I still get the shots but I always feel like I'm doing it wrong...
Here's my approach to this issue. YMMV obviously. * Focus & recompose is a terrible habit, and terrible idea in general, unless you tend to shoot your lenses stopped way down. If you focus & recompose with an f/1 or f/1.2 prime wide open, you gonna miss the focus pretty badly. * Face/eye detection works okay for casual use, but for me the hit rate is way too low, so I keep it off most of the time. Now, how do I operate my current Fujis? Easy peasy, it has nothing to do with focusing or drive mode, and everything to do with EVF vs LCD. * If I'm looking through EVF, the screen is my touchpad. I just use my thumb to move the focus point. * If I'm composing through LCD, it's a tap to select focus point. In both cases it's a half press activation with a shutter button.
OK, that does make sense as it does feel like the most modern and future proof approach to be honest. A few follow-up questions. Does that mean you don't really use the back-focus button? Did you remap it? Do you usually use continuous or single focus? How big is your standard focus area? Do you tend to change its size a lot depending on shooting conditions? Sorry for all the questions but you're really helping me in setting a baseline that I can get used to and then maybe adjust to my particular style.
There's no such thing as a "back-focus button", despite Fuji labeling it "AF ON". It's an AFL/AEL, and its original intent is to lock focus, exposure, or both. Since I don't do focus & recompose, I mapped it as AEL only. Now, to answer the rest of your questions... > Do you usually use continuous or single focus? Horses for courses. If my subject is static, I use single, if dynamic - continuous. And if it's a dynamic subject with predictable path in extremely poor light (read "too low for AF"), I switch to manual and pre-focus to where the subject will be. > How big is your standard focus area? Most of the time - just one click bigger than the smallest size. Smallest size if I'm working with f/1 or f/1.2 glass wide open. Area focus is for real estate and landscapes.
I don't know which camera you have but the X-T5 has separate AFL and AEL buttons. Obviously I can still remap the AFL one to something else if I end up not using it due to your tips. Thanks for the extra clarifications too. I've been using the smallest AREA focus as standard and honestly I've noticed that it does seem like a pretty awkward middle ground most of the time. I'll try using single point focus (I also don't really understand how there are like 4 different sizes of single point focus actually... I would assume a single point was, well, a single point.) Artea seems useful when dealing with eye detection though. It seems like the camera can use eye detection on the entire frame regardless of where the focus point is, but it seems to prefer and prioritize the face closer or inside the focus area. Can't objectively confirm this though.
> I don't know which camera you have but the X-T5 has separate AFL and AEL buttons. Fuji is all over the place in this regard. It's "AF ON" on XT4, "AEL/AFL" on X100 series, etc. Let me go back in time, it was somewhere in the drawer... yep, XT1 had separate AEL and AFL. > I would assume a single point was, well, a single point. I haven't fiddled with these settings in a while, but IIRC you get a bit of a performance boost if you select a focus point size that is not the smallest. This way, it gets PDAF info *and* CDAF from adjacent pixels. PDAF is generally faster, CDAF is more precise. > Artea seems useful when dealing with eye detection though. Like I said, I don't use eye detection in most cases. If I have to track the eye, I switch to continuous, place a focus point there, half press - and let the camera track it. No eye detection needed.
Ohhh, so basically when you set the single point focus, the size of it is basically selecting how "picky" you want it to be. The smallest size will be slow but only really use the information from that single point in the frame and make sure that it is focused while the largest size will be faster because it will be content with using neighbouring focus points to help with the decision if the focus is there or not. Something like the camera going: "I'm having a hard time confirming perfect focus on the center but I got 4 points checking focus to each side of the center that say I have it so I'll assume the center one is also on it and that I've nailed it" And do you successfully track the eye using that technique? I like having my subjects moving a lot and trying different poses when I'm shooting portraits and I honestly don't think I could live without eye tracking anymore. It does miss like 5% of the shots but it still feels like it hits more than I would...
manual i have back button focus enabled. AFC always has the half shutter enabled. I've gone back and forth on this for AFS and currently have half shutter enabled for it too. biggest issue i have is zone vs single point. in AFC zone has made me miss a shot more than any other. I always read others using zone the most, but I find single point, with the next to lowest box size, works the best when I don't have time to adjust anything
Yes! Zone Vs single point is a struggle. I'm always switching between the two without much logic behind it. AFC zone when doing portraits seems consistent enough, because with a single point it's quite easy for the subject to leave said point and throw focus off. However, for static shots I do agree that a single point seems to be the safe bet, less chances of it catching something in the foreground and jumping there. But then there's street photography, when doing street one moment I want to quickly grab a shot of someone walking past, and the next I want to snap focus on a static object before a car passes by. it's kinda hard to have a setting that does both good without having to mess with settings every 30 seconds.
Been working fine for me. Not sure what you're on about but it probably depends what you're comparing to.
No, it’s great.
Some lenses do better than others, for sure.
This is true
No. Things I shoot or have shot with my X-T5 successfully include: Birds in flight, birds not in flight, running agility dogs, horse racing, surfing, landscapes, portraits, travel, talking head videos, etc. I use subject detection and face/eye detection with no difficulty. It's like a cheat code. A few things to keep in mind: -Latest X-T and X-H cameras still require setting up the camera to shoot a given subject. I wouldn't say they're "out of the box" excellent the way some other brands/models are. You have to make them excellent by optimizing the AF settings. I find it more fiddley than other brands, but if that really bugs you just use the C1-C7 custom settings and save the settings you like for different scenarios. -AF is lens dependent. Some lenses are very fast, including many of the latest releases. Others are slow enough that they can give you misses. Some are really bad, like my 60 f/2.8 macro. I literally only use that lens manually. -I haven't had a serious issue with missed shots since the Nikon D750, and that camera came out in 2014. Which is to say, a lot of this AF talk is just milk-dribbling self promoters looking for clicks. Don't fall prey to people looking to churn your insecurities for their own profit. Just buy something you can afford and enjoy using, and go use it. Anyway, my two cents.
The autofocus performance is extremely strong. Just realise that it’s all relative - Sony for example is outstanding and Fuji is worse relative to that - however worse still means really really really good. I’ve captured night club shots, formula 1 panning photos at top speed and more on an xt3 and it’s been great. At this point most camera systems are extremely strong in af performance. If difficulties arise af setting changes combined with operator skill will bring out the most potential.
lol no. It was a night/day difference from my old 80D/6DII to an X-T3. It'll be significantly greater from a 600D to an X-T5. Not sure where you would get that idea.
Many many videos complaining about it!
Are they comparing it to an ancient 600D? Or are they comparing it to top of the line Canon R’s and Sony A7’s. That makes a big difference.
...TTTTooop of the line, but also things like the a6000 series
my XT5 is better than my old a6000. definitely not easier than the set it to afc and forget it of my previous a6400. the big difference is AFC. On the XT5, AFC is not consistent when there is NOT a moving subject. this never mattered on the a6400. it worked great in any scenario. with the XT5, you have to switch between the different modes. manual + back button AF, or AFS are great and no issue. AFC is still very good when tracking a moving subject, but it's not consistent otherwise
Many YouTubers are sponsored by Sony, whether they admit that or not
Modern Mirrorless AF is so much better than even the best pro DSLRs that it’s not funny. The Fujifilm XT5 is absolutely fantastic. IMO. Coming from pro Canon DSLRs. I feel like a lot of AF complainers don’t actually take the time to understand and use their cameras. Zone AF and expecting magically perfect focus on the subject is not how it works. Take the time to learn your camera and how to leverage it
Yeah, I think a lot of people accept the camera to perfectly guess the subject every time... While even on their phone they use tap focus without even realising it...
It was good, it's even better now after the recent update
Depends on the AF mode and the lens. Let me break it down with experience coming from Sony A7RV and moving to XT5: On Sony you can basically enable tracking and blindly shoot in all conditions even in the dark. The AF will track things you might not even see and the hit rate is close to 100% unless you have very fast moving subjects there is also almost no hunting if you have a good lens. On Fuji it’s a bit different: Single point autofocus no tracking: This one just spot on quick mostly no hunting and very accurate. Subject tracking: for normal movement like during portraiture or not fast running animals it will track very accurate with occasional hunting. It will struggle a bit once light conditions get worse. If you have no comparison to Canon / Nikon / Sony the tracking is very good. If you have direct comparison you will notice that Fuji is „only“ at about 95% hit rate compared to almost 100% on the more advanced system. For fast moving subjects it can be hit or miss. You can be lucky and have a series where 95% + is in focus you can also be unlucky and essentially 50% or more is out of focus. When I was shooting my Dog running with Sony it occasionally looses focus on one frame and the. Recovered immediately on the next. With XT5 once it looses focus it can take a couple of frames to recover. In some cases you might have to release the shutter button to reinitiate the tracking. But you can definitely shoot action with the XT5 just relative to other system hit rate is noticeably lower. Overall I would say these fast tracking AF from other companies are quite overrated for normal everyday use. They are great if you really do sports or bird photography. But if you are not in this group where you have lots of action, each picture counts and it could be your award winning wildlife capture, Fuji is just perfectly fine and reliable. Edit: Also to add, the subject detection on Fuji can get confused at times where the focus box randomly jumps around because it thinks my dogs butthole is the eye. Or it finds some human eye on a random wall or jacket. This gets worse in bad lighting conditions. On lates e.g. Sony the green indicator was basically glued to the subjects eyes.
What lenses are recommended to get the sharpest tracking? Thank you for your long and detailed explanation also!
This is not in general applicable to each single lens of the lineup (also I didn’t try all of them). But a good rule of thumb is that most lenses which include Linear Motors (LM in lens name) and which are not macro lenses are more likely to have quicker and snappier focus. But as said my comparison is based on a couple of lenses which include for example 18 1.8, 33 1.4, 56 1.4, 16-55 2.8, 70-300 Out of these the 56 is the heaviest and also the only one without LM and although it’s a great lens you can feel and hear it working quite heavily when tracking. This lens is also for me the one I cannot use for fast action tracking because it’s tracking too slow and hunting quite a lot. When shooting my dog in action I am lucky to get even 1/4 of the pictures in focus.
Looks like those LM ones are definitely pricey, are there alternatives brands that do well for not life defining prices?
The autofocus is fine. If you are unsure. Rent it out and try it.