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



## Chaitanya (Aug 15, 2020)




----------



## Jonathan Thill (Aug 15, 2020)

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


----------



## stevelee (Aug 15, 2020)

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 (Aug 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2020)

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 (Aug 15, 2020)

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 (Aug 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2020)

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 (Aug 15, 2020)

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 (Aug 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2020)

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


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 15, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2020)

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 (Aug 17, 2020)

AaronT said:


> 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 (Aug 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> 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


OK, I can see your wanting *both* eyes to be the sharpest things in the picture, but I can't recall ever seeing a portrait that I though was decent when the nose didn't look sharp, and the ears at least tolerably so, and I'm somebody who has put a layer of nylon stocking under the enlarger lens. I can see, however, how eye autofocus can help ensure that the eyes are dead on sharp, so that is probably the best answer to my question that makes sense to me. I can't recall ever having taken a picture where the camera locked on to a face, but the eyes didn't look sharp.

Also I guess it gets down to matters of taste and artistic sensibilities. I think portraits with backgrounds so out of focus that they call attention to themselves look gimmicky rather than artsy, and by now rather much a cliché. Most photographers apparently disagree with me.

Anyway, thank you, and others, for helping me see where you are coming from. I don't think I'm being purposely obtuse. I realize that different folks have different tastes, interests, and experiences, and I like having some insight into them.


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> OK, I can see your wanting *both* eyes to be the sharpest things in the picture, but I can't recall ever seeing a portrait that I though was decent when the nose didn't look sharp, and the ears at least tolerably so, and I'm somebody who has put a layer of nylon stocking under the enlarger lens. I can see, however, how eye autofocus can help ensure that the eyes are dead on sharp, so that is probably the best answer to my question that makes sense to me. I can't recall ever having taken a picture where the camera locked on to a face, but the eyes didn't look sharp.
> 
> Also I guess it gets down to matters of taste and artistic sensibilities. I think portraits with backgrounds so out of focus that they call attention to themselves look gimmicky rather than artsy, and by now rather much a cliché. Most photographers apparently disagree with me.
> 
> Anyway, thank you, and others, for helping me see where you are coming from. I don't think I'm being purposely obtuse. I realize that different folks have different tastes, interests, and experiences, and I like having some insight into them.



with anything artistic there are differences of opinion, style etc... but generally one uses a shallower depth of field to draw the viewer's eyes to focus on a specific object... to tell a story so to speak.

when it's a living creature usually our primary focus is on it's eyes... but it depends on what you're trying to convey.. for sexy pictures sometimes you want to focus on *ehem* other parts. When too much is in focus it can draw away from that or muddy what you're looking.. and a blurry (bokeh) background can give a bit of a dreamy look as well. Try focusing on your fingers ... similar effect with your eyes.

getting what you want in focus when your depth of field is narrow is ok with a cooperative subject, but wildlife, sports, kids, pets etc are cases where that is a lot more difficult because they move around so much... more so if the light isn't so good and you need to open up your aperture to let more light in.


----------



## JoTomOz (Aug 17, 2020)

Couldn’t resist the opportunity to post some shallow DOF photos. Unfortunately, I reckon you need to hit people over the head with photography these days. If you aren’t super super obvious about what is interesting, the focal point, they move on quickly. I’m my case I’m photographing young families documentary style in their living room, in really low light, and they are not often camera aware/ looking towards the camera so it helps. For the most part they want photos of thier family at home, not real estate shots of their home, so blurring out the background can really help to clean up the composition (when needed). 

In the first one the eye AF was slightly off, but Is still loved anyway. 

Shots of my little man with the Eos R and RF 28-70 (1st) and Ef 50 stm (2nd).


----------



## AaronT (Aug 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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.


I personally prefer a wider depth of field but people who buy the 85 F1.2 like that narrow depth of field for artistic reasons. I would say that super narrow DoF portrait photography is the main target of this lens. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 17, 2020)

kirbic said:


> 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!



He's accustomed to Sonys which do AF stopped down.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 17, 2020)

AaronT said:


> I personally prefer a wider depth of field but people who buy the 85 F1.2 like that narrow depth of field for artistic reasons. I would say that super narrow DoF portrait photography is the main target of this lens. Different strokes for different folks.



Call me old-fashioned, but to me not having at least _both_ eyes in acceptably sharp focus is a technical error, not an artistic choice. At least when the subject is mostly facing the camera.


----------



## AaronT (Aug 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Call me old-fashioned, but to me not having at least _both_ eyes in acceptably sharp focus is a technical error, not an artistic choice. At least when the subject is mostly facing the camera.


Personally, I agree with you. I am of the "F 8 is Great" club. I am not the type of person to whom this lens is marketed. I just pointed out that the portrait photographers that buy this lens tend to use it at f 1.2. It all comes down to personal/artistic choice.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Call me old-fashioned, but to me not having at least _both_ eyes in acceptably sharp focus is a technical error, not an artistic choice. At least when the subject is mostly facing the camera.


Which is why in practice I have found it's _always _been better to use a long focal length for shallow depth of field portraiture rather than a shorter lens relying on ultra wide apertures. Distance increases dof, but to get the same framing the longer lenses aperture is larger, giving shallower dof. So in theory it's a stale mate. However despite this I've found the "micro" dof is greater whilst the background blur is also greater, so more dof where you need it, less where you don't want it. In my case, now that fast prime lenses have gotten so big and heavy, it makes me question whether I should cash then in and use a 24-70/2.8 II for those focal lengths, and my 135 and 200 for portraits all the time.

The only occasions I think the 85/1.2 lenses shine are when used at a distance, for full body shots, and even then just a single person, not couples or groups.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Aug 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Call me old-fashioned, but to me not having at least _both_ eyes in acceptably sharp focus is a technical error, not an artistic choice. At least when the subject is mostly facing the camera.



Well, call me old-fashioned, but I only call it a technical error when it is not done purposely - definitely not when it is done by choice.
Anyway, I think you are also allowed to take shots from further away than just a few feet - therefore getting the whole person in the frame and having both eyes in focus, while bluring much of the background. And I would imagine the next day you are also allowed to go back to your studio, close the aperture back to f8 or f16 and shoot some technically perfect headshots for drivers licenses, identity cards, etc...


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 17, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> Well, call me old-fashioned, but I only call it a technical error when it is not done purposely - definitely not when it is done by choice.
> Anyway, I think you are also allowed to take shots from further away than just a few feet - therefore getting the whole person in the frame and having both eyes in focus, while bluring much of the background. And I would imagine the next day you are also allowed to go back to your studio, close the aperture back to f8 or f16 and shoot some technically perfect headshots for drivers licenses, identity cards, etc...



Specifically for the RF85 f/1.2, that one has virtually no CA, so when I rented it for a week I used it to film a swimming lesson for my daughter. It kept her completely in frame, her complete head was in focus, but kids around her nice and blurry. No CA from the harsh reflections and a nice ISO 800.
I wonder how the RF85 f/2 handles CA.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> Well, call me old-fashioned, but I only call it a technical error when it is not done purposely - definitely not when it is done by choice.
> Anyway, I think you are also allowed to take shots from further away than just a few feet - therefore getting the whole person in the frame and having both eyes in focus, while blurring much of the background.


This is the part a large number of people don't seem to understand. They tend to assume that it is always used for close up head shots (one eye out of focus) and that f/1.2 is not good for anything else. That tells me that a lot of people either do not understand the effect that distance to subject has on DOF, or they have never shot at wide aperture in an effective manner.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Call me old-fashioned, but to me not having at least _both_ eyes in acceptably sharp focus is a technical error, not an artistic choice. At least when the subject is mostly facing the camera.


Remini uses AI to make old, blurred or low quality photos taken with old cameras or mobile phones to high-definition and clarity. Would work well with these f/1.2 oof shots!


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2020)

JoTomOz said:


> In the first one the eye AF was slightly off, but Is still loved anyway.
> 
> Shots of my little man with the Eos R and RF 28-70 (1st) and Ef 50 stm (2nd).


I love the first photo. I’m not sure that much of anything is in focus, maybe a bit of the hair. The second one is technically better, but not as good a photo, and the difference is not just the smile. Any photo of that subject is going to be cute whatever you do.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Which is why in practice I have found it's _always _been better to use a long focal length for shallow depth of field portraiture rather than a shorter lens relying on ultra wide apertures. Distance increases dof, but to get the same framing the longer lenses aperture is larger, giving shallower dof. So in theory it's a stale mate. However despite this I've found the "micro" dof is greater whilst the background blur is also greater, so more dof where you need it, less where you don't want it. In my case, now that fast prime lenses have gotten so big and heavy, it makes me question whether I should cash then in and use a 24-70/2.8 II for those focal lengths, and my 135 and 200 for portraits all the time.
> 
> The only occasions I think the 85/1.2 lenses shine are when used at a distance, for full body shots, and even then just a single person, not couples or groups.


Facial features are distorted when photographed from too close. That’s why selfies usually look bad, and people prefer 85mm and longer lenses for portraits. it’s not the focal length as such, but the distance from the cam to the subject.

As for depth of field, one can get blurry backgrounds with more distance between subject and background even without an extremely wide aperture.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2020)

BTW, I bought my first and only film SLR in about 1970. It came with a 58mm f/1.2 lens.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 12, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> Well, call me old-fashioned, but I only call it a technical error when it is not done purposely - definitely not when it is done by choice.
> Anyway, I think you are also allowed to take shots from further away than just a few feet - therefore getting the whole person in the frame and having both eyes in focus, while bluring much of the background. And I would imagine the next day you are also allowed to go back to your studio, close the aperture back to f8 or f16 and shoot some technically perfect headshots for drivers licenses, identity cards, etc...


Similarly leaving the lens cap on or having your finger in the shot can be an artistic choice.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Similarly leaving the lens cap on or having your finger in the shot can be an artistic choice.


Wooow... Just Wow. So you equate all shallow DOF shots to black frames shots with a lens cap on? 
Are you for real or are you just trolling?


----------



## stevelee (Sep 15, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> Wooow... Just Wow. So you equate all shallow DOF shots to black frames shots with a lens cap on?
> Are you for real or are you just trolling?


Not at all. Breaking “rules” on purpose can be an artistic choice. I might not agree with the choice or think of the results as high art. Have you not been to an art gallery and seen a twentieth century painting that was basically just solid black?

I wouldn’t want to go to a whole exhibit of paintings like that any more than I’d want to see a roomful of portraits shot at f/1.2 just because you can. Does the photo express a mood or give us some insight into the subject or tell us how the photographer felt that day or felt about the subject? Or does the photo just say, “Look at me. I’m rich enough to afford a fast lens,” or “I haven’t given this any thought, so I’m just going with a cliché”?


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Not at all. Breaking “rules” on purpose can be an artistic choice. I might not agree with the choice or think of the results as high art. Have you not been to an art gallery and seen a twentieth century painting that was basically just solid black?
> 
> I wouldn’t want to go to a whole exhibit of paintings like that any more than I’d want to see a roomful of portraits shot at f/1.2 just because you can. Does the photo express a mood or give us some insight into the subject or tell us how the photographer felt that day or felt about the subject? Or does the photo just say, “Look at me. I’m rich enough to afford a fast lens,” or “I haven’t given this any thought, so I’m just going with a cliché”?



I don't even know why I'm posting this... If you don't see a benefit of a lens with a wide aperture.. well fine. Some people only shot with above 50mm, some only color, some only B&W. 
But I hope you do realize that you can apply different techniques to tell a story, and that you can shoot all sort of stuff wide open, not just cheap headshots from half a meter away, and that even then if someone is going for a tight headshot sometimes focusing on one eye or just a part of a detail can be desired?
I photograph most of my stuff with an aperture above f4. BUT I have also shot a lot of stuff with really shallow depth of field- basically everything from sport, people, commercial to wildlife. Be it because you want to concentrate on a detail, isolate the subject, blur the background to an extent where it just gives you the sense of the atmosphere, when all the important subjects are in the same focus plane, or sometimes because you want to capture a moment and there isn't enough light to shoot with a narrow aperture. 

Regarding exhibitions: No I haven't been to a one where every frame is black, but I have seen plenty of good and bad photos with shallow dof. And looking and photos of photographers like Richard Avedon, Nick Brandt and alike I find them engaging even if the they aren't all in focus and perfectly sharp all over the frame.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2020)

stevelee said:


> 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.


In fact, this is an interesting point, and we could have great discussions about if/when/how often to go with DoF so shallow that only one eye is in sharpest focus. But beyond this, even shooting stopped down a bit, for portraiture, the eye is, of course, a key compositional reference point. 

I've just started experimenting with the Eye AF on my R, and it really does allow me to concentrate more on composition and paying attention to what is happening within the frame and with the EVF readouts. Yes, I still have to pay primary attention to the subject, but with Eye AF tracking small to medium movements of a face, I'm relaxing enough to let peripheral vision kick in a little more. Does that make sense? I can keep shooting, for example, while being aware of the histogram in high contrast situations, while noticing background distractions just a tiny bit more, and in Av mode, paying attention to borderline shutter speeds.

I can only see this becoming more useful as I progress with it, and, hopefully, with the improved version the R5 offers.

We'll see!


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2020)

Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.



https://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Gable,%20Clark/Annex/Annex%20-%20Gable,%20Clark_03.jpg



By the way, if you are into portraits and not familiar with Dr. Macro's website, you are in for a huge treat. And many of the photos print brilliantly at 8x10! I have quite a few hung to frame our TV. (Yes, I'm a classic movie buff!)


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neat picture. Thanks. It looks to me that this had to be done with a view camera using swings. There doesn't appear to be a plane of focus perpendicular to the film plane.

Many of my favorite movies are from the '30s and '40s.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 22, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nitpicking the image, the shadows around the eyes are a bit dark IMO. But I do like these classic actor shots.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> In fact, this is an interesting point, and we could have great discussions about if/when/how often to go with DoF so shallow that only one eye is in sharpest focus. But beyond this, even shooting stopped down a bit, for portraiture, the eye is, of course, a key compositional reference point.
> 
> I've just started experimenting with the Eye AF on my R, and it really does allow me to concentrate more on composition and paying attention to what is happening within the frame and with the EVF readouts. Yes, I still have to pay primary attention to the subject, but with Eye AF tracking small to medium movements of a face, I'm relaxing enough to let peripheral vision kick in a little more. Does that make sense? I can keep shooting, for example, while being aware of the histogram in high contrast situations, while noticing background distractions just a tiny bit more, and in Av mode, paying attention to borderline shutter speeds.
> 
> ...


I don't shoot a lot of portraits, especially in these days when portraits would raise the question, "Who was that masked man?" And for my purposes, just face recognition seems to work more than adequately. If I'm carefully composing and have very particular ideas of what I want in focus, I'm likely to focus manually anyway.

Thanks for sharing your experience. A lot of times here it is hard for me to relate to others' situation, and it seems they are obsessed over some problem I haven't run into and probably am not likely to.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Nitpicking the image, the shadows around the eyes are a bit dark IMO. But I do like these classic actor shots.


The style was to go for the dramatic.

It does seem odd now that back then smoking was seen as glamorous, and with Nick Charles at least, heavy drinking was funny.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Oct 13, 2020)

I really like the eye AF on my R5 and I agree that in many cases you can achieve the same goal by manually focusing but why? As a photographer, your goal should be to capture the image and not have to worry about things like focus. I like to shoot at f8 when possible to add another layer of confidence that my shot comes out in focus, with greater DOF. When doing portraits wide open for maximum Bokeh, your depth of field is almost zero and you must have as accurate a focus as possible.

When I'm shooting people, it's best if they are moving fluidly from pose to pose. If you have to make them stop and wait for you to do all the setup steps, then their shots tend to look stilted and less natural.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 13, 2020)

stevelee said:


> The style was to go for the dramatic.
> 
> It does seem odd now that back then smoking was seen as glamorous, and with Nick Charles at least, heavy drinking was funny.


He died at 59, from a heart attack. So many other great stars died about that age from lung or oesophageal cancer or heart disease, all associated with smoking, compounded by drinking.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> He died at 59, from a heart attack. So many other great stars died about that age from lung or oesophageal cancer or heart disease, all associated with smoking, compounded by drinking.


Yeah. But they lived a hell of a life while they were kicking so I wont hold it against them


----------



## zim (Nov 10, 2020)

Well I do air shows, still waiting on cockpit af


----------

