Yes, the video autofocus is as bad as everyone says...

Started 3 weeks ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
rattrr75 Forum Member • Posts: 76
Yes, the video autofocus is as bad as everyone says...
12

I started with an X-S10 and 10-24 and enjoyed it enough that I dove into the deep end - X-T4, 16/1.4, and 16-55/2.8. The flagship hybrid body, one of the most highly regarded primes available, and what's widely regarded as one of the best if not THE best overall lenses for the system.

I'm going to give the 16/1.4 a pass. AFAIK, it was never designed to be a video lens. And it's performance actually isn't any worse than the 16-55, it's just noisier. But the system in general, when it comes to video AF, just isn't good enough.

I was trying to make a little talking head video today for my business social media. Nothing fancy, just a static indoor shot. Minimal movement, using the 16-55. Good lighting. Took my glasses off for good measure.

Face/Eye AF couldn't do it. It simply cannot track the face/eye well enough under the simplest of circumstances to be anything close to reliable. Forget anything more complicated like kids playing outside, etc. I've tried all the settings over the course of the past couple of months. Firmware for camera and lens are both the latest.

I'm tired of thinking about video AF. But if you're going to record video using AF on a Fujifilm camera, you can't escape it. It will be front of mind, always.

Simple Area AF, without Face/Eye, is better. It works (within the confines of the parameters), the settings all respond appropriately, etc. It's overall much more reliable than Face/Eye. But the major problem is that the largest available zone is quite small. There's really no such thing as Wide Area AF. "Multi" AF...I don't really know what to think. I have tried and tried, and for the life of me, under all circumstances it behaves exactly the same as Area AF, with a small center focus box, the only difference is the focus box isn't visible.

I was frustrated enough that the camera was still rolling when I whipped out my phone, went to B&H and ordered an A7C with its craptastic kit lens. After I cooled off, I canceled the order. But not because I don't think the Sony will have 1000% better video AF, but rather because I didn't want to go off half-cocked without doing the appropriate research. Especially with the A7IV possibly looming.

When it comes to stills and IQ in video, I have zero complaints. Maybe when it comes to AF-C in stills, ignorance is bliss. I don't know what I'm missing so I don't worry about it too much. I'm sure that when I shoot my kids in motion, a better AF-C system would give me more keepers but it's far from an unworkable situation as it is. Build quality? Battery Life? Ergos? Ehh...I prefer the X-S10 grip, but other than that? Zero complaints.

But video AF? It's a dealbreaker. I'm going to go outside and shake a fist at the clouds for a while.

Why can't they fix this??? The $700 ZV-1 has better video AF. The 3-year old A7III has better video AF. The 5 year old Canon 80D has better video AF, for crying out loud...

 rattrr75's gear list:rattrr75's gear list
Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
Canon EOS 80D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow