Fuji's X-T1/2/3/4/5 AF & sensor evolution compared

musicmaster wrote:

Seems like there's a minor evolution between the X-T3 and X-T4 where it gets the eye a little more frequently. On the other hand, the X-T5 gets the Eye AF way more often and from much further away, with a mask and turning around too.

X-T4 mostly has the same hardware as X-T3. Biggest changes were IBIS, battery & flippy LCD.

Not sure which X-T3 firmware version they used in the video, but it later got a firmware update which gave it X-T4 level eye-AF.

That said, I wonder what the real-world difference is between the 3, 4 and 5 as far as actual in-focus rates.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/ show AF-C hit rate X-T3 (71%), X-T4 (81%), X-H2S (82%)

X-T5 recognizes subjects better with AI. Not sure how to quantify that percentage wise, but we know it is way better. Whether it can keep up during AF-C is a different can of worms.

It's so weird, because coming from years of DSLR shooting and a really poor implementation of "smart" AF on my Canon M5, my X-S10 seems to really blow me away in how good it seems to actually hit faces on my tests. I can't imagine how much better Sony or Canon can actually be for normal shooting.

https://youtu.be/WCmVtAdKtUA?t=216 But, you have to try it in real life to really feel the difference. They eye AF is much more sticky.

One thing I'm curious about is zone AF for sports. I shot college sports for 4 years with my Canon 40D and 7D and a 70-200 2.8 for my school paper. I had no issues in single point or zone AF with those cameras and had a pretty high hit rate with plenty of keepers over the course of the game. How bad can my Fuji be with the same single point or zone setup? I assume it has to be similar to those old DSLR's, right?

I would assume it is similar? Last dslr I touched was 15yrs ago. With sports you aren't shooting F1.2 wide open with narrow dof and mostly hit a subject that is pretty in the frame/zone.