[Sliver-Surfer]

And you recommend "eye focus" for those settings, and have images to show us why?

No. I recommend using the eyes as the focal point. If you "have to" use AF, then Eye AF would be beneficial. Like I said I don't use AF most for my photography because it is not my method . I think in my perfect world everyone should just shoot MF.

I think many don't understand that this is not the focus mode or the focus settings. You can focus on whatever you want.. and if someone with at least one eye happens to enter your frame and that eye is what you want to focus on you press the EYE AF button. The camera functions and tracks faces and objects normally even if you decide not to use this button. If there are no people it tracks the closest object. If there are people it will track peoples faces or a registered face. If you decide you want to, press the EYE AF button then it tracks the Eye.

---

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 06-25-2018 at 11:00 AM.

[normhead]

No. I recommend using the eyes as the focal point. If you "have to" use AF, then Eye AF would be beneficial. Like I said I don't use AF most for my photography because it is not my method . I think in my perfect world everyone should just shoot MF.

We re I'm agreement there.I have become accustomed to setting the focus point on something equivalent to what my hyperlocal point would be, but that's actually a lot more work than just setting a hyperlocal distance. With my older lenses with distance and DoF scales, or with my Rokinon 14 2.8, I Just use the scales on the lenses. Such a shame newer lenses don't have those scales.

[biz-engineer]

The depth of field is way too narrow for my liking, to my mind the softness of the image with the sharp eyes is just creepy,

My point was, if you make portrait shots for business clients in a studio, they certain don't want to have the kind of shot with a thin DoF and only the eyes in focus. My point is, just look for portraits of executives and popular actors made by professional photographers and non of those portraits will be with razor thin DoF when only a fraction of the face is in focus. Even, shots with thin DoF will be rejected by journals and press media.

[biz-engineer]

Go to google and search images with key word "fashion portraits" and check for yourself how many portraits are with shallow DoF so that only the eye are within the DoF zone.

[biz-engineer]

I browsed 300 professional portraits, and I found 0 (zero) portrait with only the eye in focus, the most professional found portrait is the one with the whole head and body in focus, something that is absolutely not require a Sony eye tracking focus.

[Sliver-Surfer]

I browsed 300 professional portraits, and I found 0 (zero) portrait with only the eye in focus, the most professional found portrait is the one with the whole head and body in focus, something that is absolutely not require a Sony eye tracking focus.

The eye is the best place to have your focal point if you want the person to be the subject of the photo. This does not mean if you should not have the whole body in focus. Sony should have a "Nose AF" if the subject turns sideways.
Look at this Photographers work..he has some important clientele Martin Schoeller

[biz-engineer]

The eye is the best place to have your focal point if you want the person to be the subject of the photo. This does not mean if you should not have the whole body in focus. Sony should have a "Nose AF" if the subject turns sideways.Look at this Photographers work..he has some important clientele Martin Schoeller

Apparently for us it's not a problem not to have an eye focus system. Canon 5DII will do fine. Look here: Home - Michael Schnabl photography

[Sliver-Surfer]

Apparently for us it's not a problem not to have an eye focus system. Canon 5DII will do fine. Look here: Home - Michael Schnabl photography

I am not saying it is or isn't necessary to have a Sony Camera I am saying it is important/desirable to use the eyes as the focal point. The artist I used as an example of artist who focus on just the eyes uses film cameras. There are a lot of instances where it is impossible to focus on the eye with any cameras, however why do you think having the option of Eye AF is anything but good. It is like me Poo pooing on the Pentax green button..there is no reason to?

[Rondec]

I am not saying it is or isn't necessary to have a Sony Camera I am saying it is important to use the eyes as the focal point. The artist I used as an example of artist who focus on just the eyes uses film cameras. Why do you think having the option of Eye AF is anything but good it is like me Poo pooing on the Pentax green button..there is no reason to?

Yes, but the point of the video that was posted above that you defended was that this sort of focus is difficult if not impossible with relatively recent gen cameras like the 5D MK IV and 4Ds, because they don't have eye-fi auto focus, but the Sony A7III can do it.

I think the points expressed in this thread are a couple of fold (a) Most good photographers stop down a bit, this helps the auto focus system by giving a bit more depth of field, but also allows for more than just the eye to be in focus (we all agree the eyes should be in focus, but the question, I suppose if it is reasonable for any other part of the subjects body to be sharp too), (b) This sort of focus is actually possible with multiple different cameras, including the 5D MK IV and 4Ds in the OP's video (c) No camera tech will substitute for some basic skill on the part of the photographer -- those who complain that recent vintage cameras are incapable of certain types of shots just haven't learned how to use these cameras and get the most out of them.

Clearly Sony cameras are very capable. I have no problem saying that. It is more the idea expressed here that other brands aren't adequate for what is actually a very basic photographic skill -- the art of shooting portraits - that bothers me.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Yes, but the point of the video that was posted above that you defended was that this sort of focus is difficult if not impossible with relatively recent gen cameras like the 5D MK IV and 4Ds, because they don't have eye-fi auto focus, but the Sony A7III can do it.

I think the points expressed in this thread are a couple of fold (a) Most good photographers stop down a bit, this helps the auto focus system by giving a bit more depth of field, but also allows for more than just the eye to be in focus (we all agree the eyes should be in focus, but the question, I suppose if it is reasonable for any other part of the subjects body to be sharp too), (b) This sort of focus is actually possible with multiple different cameras, including the 5D MK IV and 4Ds in the OP's video (c) No camera tech will substitute for some basic skill on the part of the photographer -- those who complain that recent vintage cameras are incapable of certain types of shots just haven't learned how to use these cameras and get the most out of them.

Clearly Sony cameras are very capable. I have no problem saying that. It is more the idea expressed here that other brands aren't adequate for what is actually a very basic photographic skill -- the art of shooting portraits - that bothers me.

I am not defending the video. My whole point is whether you use AF or not, being able to focus on the eye preferred focal point in most portraits whether you shot fast or slow fstops.

[Dan Rentea]

The only reliable eye af is on A9. A7 III is miles away when comes to eye af, EVF, tracking capabilities, white balance, etc. I had the opportunity to play with both at a recent event and I understood after a few minutes why the Sony photographer wanted to let go the A7 III and buy another A9 as a backup camera. Sony does an impressive job in adding features or improving the functions of their cameras and they are spending tons of money on marketing, hopping to get as much market share they can this year. That is good for us, consumers, because raising the bar means extra features for us.

As for "it is hard getting the eye in focus at f1.2 or f1.4 when comes to portraits", it is funny. The only way to miss the focus is to use the focus and recompose technique. If I realy want to get similar eye af as Sony, I switch to live view and use dual pixel af with face recognition. It does a very good job in keeping the focus on the eye. Or use ITTR with me selecting the focus on the eye and let the camera track the eye. Or use lots of different tricks with any other cameras, no matter the brand.

And if someone is shooting portraits at f5.6-f11 and he is not getting the eyes in focus, then he really has to find another hobby.

[Rondec]

I am not defending the video. My whole point is whether you use AF or not, being able to focus on the eye preferred focal point in most portraits whether you shot fast or slow fstops.

The video (and in particular its title) is what bothers me. Every one of these cameras is capable. Acting as though top end cameras from Canon and Nikon are incapable is the theme of this thread, not how good the A7III is. We've had plenty of "A7III is awesome!!!!" threads and I have very little to say. I don't shoot Canon or Nikon, but both of the other cameras mentioned are excellent cameras. Disparaging them to build up Sony is the way of its paid minions, but I don't have to like it.

[Sliver-Surfer]

The video (and in particular its title) is what bothers me. Every one of these cameras is capable. Acting as though top end cameras from Canon and Nikon are incapable is the theme of this thread, not how good the A7III is. We've had plenty of "A7III is awesome!!!!" threads and I have very little to say. I don't shoot Canon or Nikon, but both of the other cameras mentioned are excellent cameras. Disparaging them to build up Sony is the way of its paid minions, but I don't have to like it.

I don't like what the guys in the video are doing either.... you know it is not to sell Sony it is for Views, hitting the dislike button is beneficial to their Youtube algorithm. I try not to brand bash. except Fuji they took away my "pack film" so they could sell more party cameras that's just evil.

[Dan Rentea]

Pfff, I've just saw the video. Having those poor results with Nikon D4s which is more than excelent in keeping the subject in focus, to me it looks like a really bad joke. Some photographers are being bought too easily as far as I can tell and they are doing some extreme videos to earn their money. I mean, come on, a sport oriented camera which until 2-3 years ago was the best Nikon camera for action can't take 10 clear shots of a static subject but can track Usain Bolt at top speed? Are these guys for real? I can take 10 consecutive sharp images on static subjects like the ones from the video with my 5D Mark IV or with a K3 even if I'm drunk in love (to quote Beyonce and her song).

The funny thing was also shooting with Sony in live view and with the other cameras trough OVF. Why they didn't use live view also on Canon and Nikon? I tell you why they didn't. Is because using live view we could actually see what they were doing instead of listening about how they did it.

And it seems that I was right. They first used the focus and recompose technique with a 85mm f1.4 lens. It is the only way to get blurry images.

[biz-engineer]

To me, the big joke of the video is when they take 10 times the same shot to compare autofocus . Why not taking 50 shots?