Any bodies competitive with Sony c-af or eye-af?

Long time M43 user (still have my G1 - now IR converted) shooting G7 and many native lenses.

I am cross shopping A73, a6400, and Fuji X-t30 for better c-af for candids of my twin toodlers. Shortof the em-1x, what is next best for fast moving kids?

I am ready to go multi system and get something better for candids and portraits, but obviously staying with M43 would save buying more lenses, but I probably would wind up getting a fast focusing 15 or 17, since my 20 is so first gen.   Already have 12-35 2.8, and 45 1.8.   and 35-100, and 7.5, and....

So what, if any M43 body will be close to a6400?  Even Fuji's latest gen reviews pretty well.

Do you have problems getting enough keepers with the G7? I have very good success with my GM5 and GX80 using AFF and the smallest focus area, which I put on the eyes of my subjects. Panasonic's CDAF is not only very fast, but also extremely precise and sensitive. That is what I need for getting a high keeper rate when shooting children, including indoors.

The focusing system in my A7 III is a bit of a step back in this regard, as the smallest area fails to acquire focus in AFC way too often and one is thus forced to use the larger "expand flexible spot", which is less precise as it is too large in some situations (and AFS is pretty slow). Even then, the A7III slows down indoors much more than Panasonic, especially when one has to stop down (focus is tracked stopped down in AFC, in contrast to wide open with Panasonic).

The A7III has much better eye AF than my Panasonic cameras. The GM5 is ok for still subjects, the GX80 for slightly moving ones, but the A7 III identifies people much more reliably and tracks the eye with way more confidence. However, it still fails to identify the eye/face sometimes (so one should have a plan B) and it has a tendency to focus on whatever is in the front in the focusing area (eyebrows or glasses). Glasses are a big problem with the A7III in general, as the camera fails to identify faces with glasses around half of the time and even if it succeeds, it most often focuses on the glasses. Using the "expand flexible spot" instead of eye AF is often not much better, as the area is too big to selectively focus on the eyes behind the glasses.

The PDAF system in the A7 III is better with fast moving subjects, where a large focusing area is necessary, e.g. in sports or BIF. It focuses on the subject in the foreground much more reliably, while Panasonic's CDAF might go for the background, especially if it is busy. It's not unusable, but the keeper rate goes down substantially if one is not able to use a small focusing area, which fits the subject entirely. However, shooting portraits of children is not in this category, in my opinion.

The A7III has a major advantage with AF in video, which is slow and unreliable with Panasonic. If you want to film moving children then yes, the A7 III (or a similar camera with well working PDAF) is a very reasonable upgrade.

Highgrovemanor wrote:

I am cross shopping A73, a6400, and Fuji X-t30 for better c-af for candids of my twin toodlers. Shortof the em-1x, what is next best for fast moving kids?

It is a well known fact that for "fast moving kids" you absolutelly need the best sports/action oriented camera, preferably with a very fast lens. I would suggest Canon 1D, Nikon D5 or Sony A9.

what I experienced is that in single af mode eye-af performance is comparable on many models, including 1gen sonys I use now.

but if we take c-af with eye-af - sony 3d generation out-levels competition, at least in my eyes) even with adapted canon lenses.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Highgrovemanor wrote:

So what, if any M43 body will be close to a6400? Even Fuji's latest gen reviews pretty well.

Quick question:

Do you know that Sony's eye detection is mainly more for a show without real benefit in portraits, while on m4/3 system the eye tracking is done only once the depth of field becomes thinner to actually require the eye to be focused?

Sony engineers wanted to show up how amazing their face and eye tracking is, so they consume lots of processing to try recognize the face every situation (as should) and then once done so, recognize the eye and track it with a visual cue regardless of the DOF. While ie Olympus went on other way in 4/3 face and eye detection design. First to recognize the face and only when the recognized face size in the frame is large enough to make the eye focus mattering, do they start the eye detection process.

This makes the m4/3 system look inferior as you don't get the box for the eye all the time, as the system simply doesn't perform eye detection when the whole face is likely inside the depth of field.

As Olympus design is based to known fact that DOF is same regardless of the focal length when the subject magnification is same and when using the same F-ratio. Ie, 300mm f/4 has same DOF as the 12mm f/4 when the face is same size in the frame.

This allowed to simplify the processing for Live View decade ago as when the face is filling the DOF, then eye detection and focusing process can be deactivated. And only once the face becomes larger than the DOF, is the eye detection process started.

Here is example Panasonic implementation of the system:

So just keep in mind that while m4/3 cameras doesn't visually inform you about eye detection, it is not because they are inferior but it is by design just not done.

It doesn't mean that Sony didn't do anything less than great, but it is as well hyped through the roof even if it would be less than useful in such situations. What Sony method well show is their raw power and performance, but such things ain't usually benefit for the user, but when it works great for marketing purpose to show everyone that you are better, you will then just sell more as people talk about you more.

This example how not really until the A7r II the face and eye detection was started to be talked around the youtube reviewers as it was not so great in DSLR cameras, so ignorance people got amazed when a new popular brand had features that DSLR's didn't have, regardless that other mirrorless brands had it for long time. But to that point the others were just "gimmick".

So Sony really has managed to get a "standard" status where everything is suppose to be compared. And that is good for them, as they can sell a lot based only for that. Now Canon and Nikon get to feel how it is to be on the opposite side.

This is some incredible amount of BS.

kolyy wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Highgrovemanor wrote:

So what, if any M43 body will be close to a6400? Even Fuji's latest gen reviews pretty well.

Quick question:

Do you know that Sony's eye detection is mainly more for a show without real benefit in portraits, while on m4/3 system the eye tracking is done only once the depth of field becomes thinner to actually require the eye to be focused?

Sony engineers wanted to show up how amazing their face and eye tracking is, so they consume lots of processing to try recognize the face every situation (as should) and then once done so, recognize the eye and track it with a visual cue regardless of the DOF. While ie Olympus went on other way in 4/3 face and eye detection design. First to recognize the face and only when the recognized face size in the frame is large enough to make the eye focus mattering, do they start the eye detection process.

This makes the m4/3 system look inferior as you don't get the box for the eye all the time, as the system simply doesn't perform eye detection when the whole face is likely inside the depth of field.

As Olympus design is based to known fact that DOF is same regardless of the focal length when the subject magnification is same and when using the same F-ratio. Ie, 300mm f/4 has same DOF as the 12mm f/4 when the face is same size in the frame.

This allowed to simplify the processing for Live View decade ago as when the face is filling the DOF, then eye detection and focusing process can be deactivated. And only once the face becomes larger than the DOF, is the eye detection process started.

Here is example Panasonic implementation of the system:

So just keep in mind that while m4/3 cameras doesn't visually inform you about eye detection, it is not because they are inferior but it is by design just not done.

It doesn't mean that Sony didn't do anything less than great, but it is as well hyped through the roof even if it would be less than useful in such situations. What Sony method well show is their raw power and performance, but such things ain't usually benefit for the user, but when it works great for marketing purpose to show everyone that you are better, you will then just sell more as people talk about you more.

This example how not really until the A7r II the face and eye detection was started to be talked around the youtube reviewers as it was not so great in DSLR cameras, so ignorance people got amazed when a new popular brand had features that DSLR's didn't have, regardless that other mirrorless brands had it for long time. But to that point the others were just "gimmick".

So Sony really has managed to get a "standard" status where everything is suppose to be compared. And that is good for them, as they can sell a lot based only for that. Now Canon and Nikon get to feel how it is to be on the opposite side.

This is some incredible amount of BS.

Dear, why?

can you please bring facts?

br gusti

Donald B wrote:

em12 can track my daughter and her dog running full speed at the camera. so unless they can run faster than a 16 yo im sure it will do the job.

Don

The E-M1 II might very well be able to do that (the OP's G7 might be good enough as well though), but what is your experience with the precision of the Olympus AF system? I only played with the E-M1 II in a showroom, but the one point AF area seemed way too big for me and I have seen people complain in this forum that the camera can even focus outside of that pretty large area. If I want to take a portrait of an unpredictable child, then I need to be able to quickly and reliably focus on the eye, instead of the nose or ear. Panasonic seems to me to have a pretty big lead in this area, so I am not sure the E-M1 II would be a relevant upgrade to a G7 for OP's purpose.

Okapi001 wrote:

Highgrovemanor wrote:

I am cross shopping A73, a6400, and Fuji X-t30 for better c-af for candids of my twin toodlers. Shortof the em-1x, what is next best for fast moving kids?

It is a well known fact that for "fast moving kids" you absolutelly need the best sports/action oriented camera, preferably with a very fast lens. I would suggest Canon 1D, Nikon D5 or Sony A9.

M43 can't do thin DOF so everything is always in focus anyway.

mcabato wrote:

kolyy wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Highgrovemanor wrote:

So what, if any M43 body will be close to a6400? Even Fuji's latest gen reviews pretty well.

Quick question:

Do you know that Sony's eye detection is mainly more for a show without real benefit in portraits, while on m4/3 system the eye tracking is done only once the depth of field becomes thinner to actually require the eye to be focused?

Sony engineers wanted to show up how amazing their face and eye tracking is, so they consume lots of processing to try recognize the face every situation (as should) and then once done so, recognize the eye and track it with a visual cue regardless of the DOF. While ie Olympus went on other way in 4/3 face and eye detection design. First to recognize the face and only when the recognized face size in the frame is large enough to make the eye focus mattering, do they start the eye detection process.

This makes the m4/3 system look inferior as you don't get the box for the eye all the time, as the system simply doesn't perform eye detection when the whole face is likely inside the depth of field.

As Olympus design is based to known fact that DOF is same regardless of the focal length when the subject magnification is same and when using the same F-ratio. Ie, 300mm f/4 has same DOF as the 12mm f/4 when the face is same size in the frame.

This allowed to simplify the processing for Live View decade ago as when the face is filling the DOF, then eye detection and focusing process can be deactivated. And only once the face becomes larger than the DOF, is the eye detection process started.

Here is example Panasonic implementation of the system:

So just keep in mind that while m4/3 cameras doesn't visually inform you about eye detection, it is not because they are inferior but it is by design just not done.

It doesn't mean that Sony didn't do anything less than great, but it is as well hyped through the roof even if it would be less than useful in such situations. What Sony method well show is their raw power and performance, but such things ain't usually benefit for the user, but when it works great for marketing purpose to show everyone that you are better, you will then just sell more as people talk about you more.

This example how not really until the A7r II the face and eye detection was started to be talked around the youtube reviewers as it was not so great in DSLR cameras, so ignorance people got amazed when a new popular brand had features that DSLR's didn't have, regardless that other mirrorless brands had it for long time. But to that point the others were just "gimmick".

So Sony really has managed to get a "standard" status where everything is suppose to be compared. And that is good for them, as they can sell a lot based only for that. Now Canon and Nikon get to feel how it is to be on the opposite side.

This is some incredible amount of BS.

Dear, why?

can you please bring facts?

br gusti

I am not sure it's worth to argue in detail about the output of a hard core fan. Do you really think Tommi K1 knows the intent of Sony or Olympus engineers? Do you think he knows how the systems work under the hood? Of course not, he is just making stuff up. I don't think he has any other point than to make any weakness of his favorite brand seem inconsequential or even turn it around and make it seem like an advantage. Quite possibly he has very little experience with Eye AF in latest Sony cameras.

Above I shortly compared face/eye detection on my Sony and Panasonic cameras. My experience correlates well with what I have read in reviews. The Sony, though not perfect, is clearly better in most practical aspects, like reliably identifying the face/eyes in various situations, not losing them intermittently, following them across the frame and actually focusing on them continuously.

Donald B wrote:

7kolyy wrote:

Donald B wrote:

em12 can track my daughter and her dog running full speed at the camera. so unless they can run faster than a 16 yo im sure it will do the job.

Don

The E-M1 II might very well be able to do that (the OP's G7 might be good enough as well though), but what is your experience with the precision of the Olympus AF system? I only played with the E-M1 II in a showroom, but the one point AF area seemed way too big for me and I have seen people complain in this forum that the camera can even focus outside of that pretty large area. If I want to take a portrait of an unpredictable child, then I need to be able to quickly and reliably focus on the eye, instead of the nose or ear. Panasonic seems to me to have a pretty big lead in this area, so I am not sure the E-M1 II would be a relevant upgrade to a G7 for OP's purpose.

I think your getting a bit carried away. No camera is going to focus on an eye that fast period. I even dought you would be able to track the child.

Don

I am not sure you are following me. I am not talking about how fast a camera can focus, but how precisely you can tell the camera what to focus on. If the AF area covers both the eye and the nose, then it's a lottery what will actually be in focus. If the camera has a tendency to focus outside the indicated AF area, then one will not be able to avoid misfocused shots in situations, where critical focus is important.

Highgrovemanor wrote:

Long time M43 user (still have my G1 - now IR converted) shooting G7 and many native lenses.

I am cross shopping A73, a6400, and Fuji X-t30 for better c-af for candids of my twin toodlers. Shortof the em-1x, what is next best for fast moving kids?

Panasonic G9 and GH5 line, Olympus E-M1 II.

When shooting people with my E-M1 II, I use face and eye detect exclusively and focus on composition. It has been very reliable for me, never missed a shot. It even works quite well with Metabones and the Sigma 18-35, although that combo is less reliable because AF is simply not as fast as with native lenses. The only lens with which this does not seem to work well is Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, because it just cannot do C-AF.

Foto4x4 wrote:

kolyy wrote:

Donald B wrote:

em12 can track my daughter and her dog running full speed at the camera. so unless they can run faster than a 16 yo im sure it will do the job.

Don

The E-M1 II might very well be able to do that (the OP's G7 might be good enough as well though), but what is your experience with the precision of the Olympus AF system? I only played with the E-M1 II in a showroom, but the one point AF area seemed way too big for me and I have seen people complain in this forum that the camera can even focus outside of that pretty large area. If I want to take a portrait of an unpredictable child, then I need to be able to quickly and reliably focus on the eye, instead of the nose or ear. Panasonic seems to me to have a pretty big lead in this area, so I am not sure the E-M1 II would be a relevant upgrade to a G7 for OP's purpose.

Seems like your test of an EM1.2 was a while ago before the V2 firmware was released. It added a smaller focus point as used on the EM5.2 and greatly improved C-AF and tracking. Besides, it doesn’t matter what camera you choose, all need some time to work out how to get the best from them.

Yes, it was about a year ago. I missed that a FW update fixed that, thanks!