Originally posted by labidas For fast situations there is a benefit. Sports, action etc. You wan't the camera to correct the focus as fast as possible and do so continuously.
I fully agree. However, I don't think average AF tracking is enough, IMO an autofocus tracking must be ultra fast (Sony A9, Canon 1D, Nikon D500/D5) otherwise there is not benefit. For me, an autofocus system is able to fully track for near 100% in focus shots, if not I don't care much if it's fast or slow. Except the A9, other mirrorless AF is not as good as fast AF tracking DSLR.
---------- Post added 08-02-19 at 12:56 ----------
Originally posted by labidas Same for portraits. It's far easier with the Sony to let the camera lock onto the eye and continuously focus, letting you commit yourself fully to the composition and working with the model.
Eye AF is nice to have, although it's a very impressive for promotional marketing, in practice professional model photographer use static setups because their want to control the light on the model. Overall, it hurt when I read comments from hobbyists who never have learn the better way of shooting with a professional. In out city, we have an extremly talents model photographer, but he really doesn't care about eye AF or AF tracking, he uses any camera the results are the same because he is extremely competent in lighting, no camera can replace his skills. The problem in photography is as long as you have to rely on camera gear you won't progress.
(I can also promote mirrorless if I want too, everything in life has pros and cons, I can sell you anything, including a mirrorless camera ("mirrorless is new, it's the future, please buy"), it's easy , just pull out all the positives and forget to mention the negatives).
Last edited by biz-engineer; 02-08-2019 at 05:04 AM.