Eye AF comparison between Canon R5 , Sony A7RIV and Nikon Z7 by Fro

[Chaitanya]

 

[Jonathan Thill]

The Canon's no blackout destroyed the Nikon and Sony. I do like the Nikon colours though.

 

[stevelee]

Since I've never had eye autofocus, I've never missed it. I can't think of a situation that I would be shooting that having the face in focus would not be adequate. So would some of you for whom this is an important feature explain why you need it, or at least find it helpful? I assume that there are folks for whom this is not just a spec-sheet checkoff item. And whatever you say, I'm unlikely to run out and buy something with the feature. I'm just curious.

 

[AlanF]

Since I've never had eye autofocus, I've never missed it. I can't think of a situation that I would be shooting that having the face in focus would not be adequate. So would some of you for whom this is an important feature explain why you need it, or at least find it helpful? I assume that there are folks for whom this is not just a spec-sheet checkoff item. And whatever you say, I'm unlikely to run out and buy something with the feature. I'm just curious.

I've managed without it for bird photography but I can see some advantages. It's usual to try and get the bird's eye in focus. So, I focus on that for sitting birds. But, with eyeAF, you can compose the and place the bird and the eyeAF takes care of the focus. For birds in flight with a wing stretched out towards you, the eyeAF will focus on the eye, not the wing. It's nice, not a game changer for me, but I think it would be useful

 

[Bdbtoys]

I might be a little biased now, but it sure looks like Canon clearly won in the test, Sony being a close 2nd, and Nikon being a far 3rd.

But as Jared mentioned... all 3 offer something that is way better than anything we had years ago.

 

[Ozarker]

Great side by side review by @JaredPolin. Does anyone else remember people saying that Canon would never catch up to Sony in mirrorless? In my opinion, Canon wins.

 

[Ozarker]

Since I've never had eye autofocus, I've never missed it. I can't think of a situation that I would be shooting that having the face in focus would not be adequate. So would some of you for whom this is an important feature explain why you need it, or at least find it helpful? I assume that there are folks for whom this is not just a spec-sheet checkoff item. And whatever you say, I'm unlikely to run out and buy something with the feature. I'm just curious.

Especially with a moving subject, eye-AF is a Godsend. I also find that a subject's iris is, more often than not, in focus. The frustrating thing with my 5D Mark III was putting the focus point right on an eye and the iris comes out not quite focused, or chasing my subject's movements with the single point focus box... trying to keep it on the eye. Eye-AF has mostly solved those problems for me. Note: I am using an R, not an R5.

 

[kirbic]

Sure is light years ahead of what was possible only a few years ago. Would have really liked it if Jared had just given comparisons of the overall hit rates between cameras on specific series.
I was surprised he didn't seem to understand that the AF was happening wide open, so of course the 85/1.2 blurred the background more in the viewfinder!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Excellent showing from the Canon. I think the Nikon Z's need a bit more processor grunt, which we are expecting from s models. As always, it is more important to pick the one you are happy with, they'll always be a new body.

 

[stevelee]

I've managed without it for bird photography but I can see some advantages. It's usual to try and get the bird's eye in focus. So, I focus on that for sitting birds. But, with eyeAF, you can compose the and place the bird and the eyeAF takes care of the focus. For birds in flight with a wing stretched out towards you, the eyeAF will focus on the eye, not the wing. It's nice, not a game changer for me, but I think it would be useful

I don't shoot BIF, and really wonder about its appeal beyond the challenge of following the bird in the viewfinder. I wonder why you would want part of the bird in focus and other parts out of focus. I can see using a shutter speed low enough that it looks like a BIF rather than just coasting, so maybe wings being out of focus helps give that effect. I do shoot birds at the feeders next door, just because they are cooperative subjects when I'm trying out a telephoto, unlike the deer, who hide when you point something at them. I don't use anything longer than 400mm, and birds are small enough that the whole bird is in focus if any of it is. I would be interested in hearing of non-bird applications for this, though I know this site skews toward BIF, certainly in comparison to the general population.

 

[Bert63]

I've managed without it for bird photography but I can see some advantages. It's usual to try and get the bird's eye in focus. So, I focus on that for sitting birds. But, with eyeAF, you can compose the and place the bird and the eyeAF takes care of the focus. For birds in flight with a wing stretched out towards you, the eyeAF will focus on the eye, not the wing. It's nice, not a game changer for me, but I think it would be useful

Excellent post.

 

[Bert63]

Can someone give me a TL DR so I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO POLIN SCREAMING AT ME?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Can someone give me a TL DR so I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO POLIN SCREAMING AT ME?

Turn cc on and volume off

 

[Bdbtoys]

Can someone give me a TL DR so I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO POLIN SCREAMING AT ME?

All 3 are good (and have come a long way since initial showing). Canon/Sony are better than the Nikon (not to say Nikon is terrible). They also tie at the 'first glance test' (however I think Canon won). He provided jpgs so people could check out the hit rate (which I think was really missing from his video... couldn't he just tell us which one had the better hit rate?).

It's worth watching just to see the tracking in action.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I've managed without it for bird photography but I can see some advantages. It's usual to try and get the bird's eye in focus. So, I focus on that for sitting birds. But, with eyeAF, you can compose the and place the bird and the eyeAF takes care of the focus. For birds in flight with a wing stretched out towards you, the eyeAF will focus on the eye, not the wing. It's nice, not a game changer for me, but I think it would be useful

100%. I tend to shoot a series and ditch the shots if the focus is not right on the eye. That is often over half the images on a fast moving animal.

 

[koenkooi]

Since I've never had eye autofocus, I've never missed it. I can't think of a situation that I would be shooting that having the face in focus would not be adequate. So would some of you for whom this is an important feature explain why you need it, or at least find it helpful? I assume that there are folks for whom this is not just a spec-sheet checkoff item. And whatever you say, I'm unlikely to run out and buy something with the feature. I'm just curious.

For me, it's for keeping my kids in focus while I concentrate on not tripping over things while walking backwards

 

[AaronT]

Since I've never had eye autofocus, I've never missed it. I can't think of a situation that I would be shooting that having the face in focus would not be adequate. So would some of you for whom this is an important feature explain why you need it, or at least find it helpful? I assume that there are folks for whom this is not just a spec-sheet checkoff item. And whatever you say, I'm unlikely to run out and buy something with the feature. I'm just curious.

Here is just one example. Doing head shots with a 85mm F1.2 at 1.2. Depth of field about 1/2 inch. You move a bit, model moves a bit or changes pose and the camera keeps the closest eye in perfect focus all the time. You can just concentrate on when to press the shutter.

 

[Jack Douglas]

It reminds me of all the times reviewers were "down playing" Canon's "inferiority" and presented Canon's offering as a very capable and really not significantly different camera. Think DR! WOW Is this what they call apologetics?

Jack

 

[stevelee]

Here is just one example. Doing head shots with a 85mm F1.2 at 1.2. Depth of field about 1/2 inch. You move a bit, model moves a bit or changes pose and the camera keeps the closest eye in perfect focus all the time. You can just concentrate on when to press the shutter.

I understand the example. Thanks.

But I don't understand why someone would want a picture of someone with one eye in focus and not much else.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I understand the example. Thanks.

But I don't understand why someone would want a picture of someone with one eye in focus and not much else.

Steve, I think it's usually not that cut and dry since focus disappears gradually but you still want the eye to be the sharpest.

Jack