Animal Eye AF

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
Chikubi
Chikubi Senior Member • Posts: 1,880
Re: Animal Eye AF
1

tbcass wrote:

Chikubi wrote:

You don't need eye AF to shoot moving animals and have them in focus. As someone already mentioned earlier, at most distances,

MOST? Well not all.

Being pedantic means nothing. Are you saying that no one ever has shot animals in motion w/o eye AF at any distance you can think of? I would venture to bet if you hopped on Flickr or Google yourself you'd be hard pressed to not find an example of nearly any situation you could think of.

with a decent lens and a properly chosen aperture, you should have more than enough DOF to have the eyes as well as the whole animal in proper focus.

Unfortunately that is not true, especially with large sensor cameras and at telephoto distances. What about in instances where the lighting and movement require f2.8 or greater and 1/500 sec shutter speed?

At 50ft, with a FF camera and a 200mm lens, at f/2.8 you have just over 3ft of DOF available to you. (https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) This is a pretty typical distance for that kind of focal length usage, so are you telling me that that's not enough to keep a dog, cat, bird, squirrel, etc. in focus? Again, I'm sure if you search you'll be able to find plenty of examples of acceptable photos at pretty much any distance/focal length combo you like.

Take a look at any BIF photos here or elsewhere. Birds in flight are far more demanding than cats, dogs, etc. and they have no problem getting the bird, eyes and all, in focus without using eye AF.

See for yourself: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=birds%20in%20flight

How many shots were out of focus? You only see the ones in focus because people don't post their duds.

Results are all that matters. There isn't a single sports, event, wildlife, or general action shooter out there who has anything even close to a 100% keeper rate. It's par for the course for that kind of shooting.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need some fancy feature or a particular camera to do basic work.

I understand. Your camera doesn't have it and you desperately need to think that any feature you don't have is of no use. Don't fall into that trap because you are 100% wrong. None of my cameras have it either but I'm smart enough and broad minded enough to see the usefulness and possibilities even if I wouldn't need it myself. Denial of the usefulness of features that they don't have is all to common among DPR posters.

You understand nothing. What you have here is thread that was started by an inexperienced photographer who honestly had to ask the question if cameras without animal eye AF would actually be able to take photos of animals in motion competently like Sony is promoting its cameras being able to do so. The answer is yes they can; neither a Sony camera nor animal eye AF is even remotely necessary for that, which is what even the very first reply to his post more or less stated.

It has nothing to do with open or closed-mindedness, it's just stating a fact. Problem is, many people like yourself don't want to hear it or accept that. It's almost like they can't stand the fact that there are people out there who don't need what a particular company is pushing, are able to see past the marketing speak and pressure, don't feel like stepping into line with the crowd, and are willing to state as much publicly. If anything, they're the ones who're desperately looking for confirmation, not the other way around.

I personally have no problems trying out new technology and techniques, but they have to prove themselves beyond a doubt that they're better than what I have or know already before I'm willing to adopt them or make any recommedations to others.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow