Sony A7III vs Canon 5DIV vs Nikon D4s

Winder · 06-24-2018, 10:30 AM - **1 Like**

You Tube

biz-engineer · 06-24-2018, 12:57 PM

Nice Sony advertising. I never shoot portraits with the DoF so thin that only a part of the face is in focus, for the simply reason that the best looking professional portraits are done with DoF large enough to have the whole depth of the subject in focus. When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not. Advertising again! This again technology oriented definition of a camera is what destroys the art of photography little by little.

Winder · 06-24-2018, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Nice Sony advertising. I never shoot portraits with the DoF so thin that only a part of the face is in focus, for the simply reason that the best looking professional portraits are done with DoF large enough to have the whole depth of the subject in focus. When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not. Advertising again! This again technology oriented definition of a camera is what destroys the art of photography little by little.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-24-2018, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not.

If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16

**Rondec** · 06-25-2018, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16

How hard is it to get the eyes in focus at f16?

(There is a reason why smartphones don't have eye recognition, only face recognition -- it isn't exactly needed when wide open is f12 equivalent or something like that).

Sliver-Surfer · 06-25-2018, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

How hard is it to get the eyes in focus at f16?

(There is a reason why smartphones don't have eye recognition, only face recognition -- it isn't exactly needed when wide open is f12 equivalent or something like that).

Depends, how close you are to the subject.

**Rondec** · 06-25-2018, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

Depends, how close you are to the subject.

No, not really. Assuming you aren't shooting with a macro lens with it somehow turned to ultra close focus, at f16 most lenses will give quite a bit of depth of field. Remember, we are talking about the difference between the A7III, the D4 and the 5D MK IV. You are telling me that you are shooting with a D4 stopped down to f16 and your camera is going to miss focus by that much that the eyes will be out of focus? I'm sorry, but even a K10 would be able to get the eyes in focus at that aperture.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-25-2018, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

No, not really. Assuming you aren't shooting with a macro lens with it somehow turned to ultra close focus, at f16 most lenses will give quite a bit of depth of field. Remember, we are talking about the difference between the A7III, the D4 and the 5D MK IV. You are telling me that you are shooting with a D4 stopped down to f16 and your camera is going to miss focus by that much that the eyes will be out of focus? I'm sorry, but even a K10 would be able to get the eyes in focus at that aperture.

My point is that it is important to have the eyes in focus. If you are shooting someone with a 85mm f16 1m distance.. the DOF is about 10cm I am not saying any of the cameras can or can not do that but if there is a microphone in front of their face, or a groom kissing his bride, or a baby rattle in the foreground, People that rely on AF would benefit from the EYE AF.

**Rondec** · 06-25-2018, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

My point is that it is important to have the eyes in focus. If you are shooting someone with a 85mm f16 1m distance.. the DOF is about 10cm I am not saying any of the cameras can or can not do that but if there is a microphone in front of their face, or a groom kissing his bride, or a baby rattle in the foreground, I would imagine that people that rely on AF would benefit from the EYE AF.

Who is going to shoot a portrait with an 85mm lens at 1 meter? That seems pretty crazy to me unless you "only" want the eye in focus and don't care about the rest of the face. With 85mm, my expectation would be that you would be closer to 3 to 4 meters distant from your subject. But maybe you take different portraits than I do...

My understanding of this tech is that works a lot better for static portraits and is not very useful in tracking. It is perhaps odd, but I just haven't struggled with focus in that situation at all with the crappy auto focus that is on Pentax cameras. My wife shoots weddings and gets about 95 percent keepers.

Sony's tech is pretty amazing, but I just think people act like older cameras are pretty incapable when in fact they perform quite well and produce good results in the hands of a skilled photographer. (I'm not one, but I can still occasionally get the eyes in focus on my kids)...

normhead · 06-25-2018, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16

You're just being obtuse here right?
His point was, the wider the depth of field is, the easier it is to get the eye in acceptable focus. You could argue that having the eye as the focal point is the preferred hyperlocal point, but it's not true. You probably want your exact focus to be bit behind the eye. Eye focus would actually be a hindrance.

Have you ever worked in a portrait studio?
You seem to think that being a Sony proponent makes you an expert on everything.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-25-2018, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Who is going to shoot a portrait with an 85mm lens at 1 meter?

Headshots.are smaller field of view than this scenario.

Originally posted by Rondec

Sony's tech is pretty amazing, but I just think people act like older cameras are pretty incapable when in fact they perform quite well and produce good results in the hands of a skilled photographer. (I'm not one, but I can still occasionally get the eyes in focus on my kids)...

That is a beautiful shot but you can see that the Hand and leaf are the sharpest point in the image. If you wanted it to be the eyes you just have to press a button and that function is yours. I think the Hand and leaf is the better choice for this shot and I know that all you have to do to get it bang on is move the focus point over her face. Now if she were running around the eye af would be beneficial .

---------- Post added 06-25-18 at 11:33 AM ----------

Originally posted by normhead

You're just being obtuse here right?
His point was, the wider the depth of field is, the easier it is to get the eye in acceptable focus. You could argue that having the eye as the focal point is the preferred hyperlocal point, but it's not true. You probably want your exact focus to be bit behind the eye. Eye focus would actually be a hindrance.

Have you ever worked in a portrait studio?
You seem to think that being a Sony proponent makes you an expert on everything.

OBTUSE? Thanks!

Winder · 06-25-2018, 08:34 AM

This image is taken as a test shot for AF. Child was on a rocking horse going back and forth and I was about 1 meter away. Their back porch had a bunch of distracting "junk" on it and I needed to blow that out. A9 nailed about 70% of the shots with eye AF tracking the eyes. I had tried this before with My K-3 and I had zero keepers.

When shooting weddings I will always shoot pictures of the bride getter her make-up on. I have lots of shots of the bride applying eye liner or shadow that are taken at very close focusing distances at very wide apertures. 90mm macro is often the lens I use.

normhead · 06-25-2018, 08:46 AM

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, but hey, that's just me. If you like that, go for an A9. Each to his own. So I'm not sure what that is, an example of why to buy Eye focus for some, or a reason not to buy it for people like me.

Or to put it another way, great if you want that, but i don't want that.

And I'm definitely not paying A9 prices for it.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-25-2018, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Have you ever worked in a portrait studio?

I shot 400 Candid Portraits of 30 people at a paid event yesterday. I don't use AF however, not for me even though my A7II and A6000 can do it very well.
I have a portable studio and I have worked in professional studios (not Sears or Walmart).

normhead · 06-25-2018, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

I shot 400 Candid Portraits of 30 people at a paid event yesterday. I don't use AF however, not for me even though my A7II and A6000 can do it very well.
I have a portable studio and I have worked in professional studios (not Sears or Walmart).

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

06-25-2018, 07:36 AM	#8
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Rondec No, not really. Assuming you aren't shooting with a macro lens with it somehow turned to ultra close focus, at f16 most lenses will give quite a bit of depth of field. Remember, we are talking about the difference between the A7III, the D4 and the 5D MK IV. You are telling me that you are shooting with a D4 stopped down to f16 and your camera is going to miss focus by that much that the eyes will be out of focus? I'm sorry, but even a K10 would be able to get the eyes in focus at that aperture. My point is that it is important to have the eyes in focus. If you are shooting someone with a 85mm f16 1m distance.. the DOF is about 10cm I am not saying any of the cameras can or can not do that but if there is a microphone in front of their face, or a groom kissing his bride, or a baby rattle in the foreground, People that rely on AF would benefit from the EYE AF. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 06-25-2018 at 07:44 AM.

06-25-2018, 08:08 AM	#11
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Rondec Who is going to shoot a portrait with an 85mm lens at 1 meter? Headshots.are smaller field of view than this scenario. Originally posted by Rondec Sony's tech is pretty amazing, but I just think people act like older cameras are pretty incapable when in fact they perform quite well and produce good results in the hands of a skilled photographer. (I'm not one, but I can still occasionally get the eyes in focus on my kids)... That is a beautiful shot but you can see that the Hand and leaf are the sharpest point in the image. If you wanted it to be the eyes you just have to press a button and that function is yours. I think the Hand and leaf is the better choice for this shot and I know that all you have to do to get it bang on is move the focus point over her face. Now if she were running around the eye af would be beneficial . ---------- Post added 06-25-18 at 11:33 AM ---------- Originally posted by normhead You're just being obtuse here right? His point was, the wider the depth of field is, the easier it is to get the eye in acceptable focus. You could argue that having the eye as the focal point is the preferred hyperlocal point, but it's not true. You probably want your exact focus to be bit behind the eye. Eye focus would actually be a hindrance. Have you ever worked in a portrait studio? You seem to think that being a Sony proponent makes you an expert on everything. OBTUSE? Thanks! Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 06-25-2018 at 08:30 AM.

06-25-2018, 08:46 AM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	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, but hey, that's just me. If you like that, go for an A9. Each to his own. So I'm not sure what that is, an example of why to buy Eye focus for some, or a reason not to buy it for people like me. Or to put it another way, great if you want that, but i don't want that. And I'm definitely not paying A9 prices for it. Last edited by normhead; 06-25-2018 at 09:07 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-1ii VS Sony A7iii (Am I switching to the dark side?)	KevinMoss	Pentax DSLR Discussion	243	02-01-2022 02:11 PM
Sony A7III with sensor stripe issues?	beholder3	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	46	04-18-2018 02:56 PM
B&H Shipping new Sony a7iii - with a surprise!	interested_observer	General Photography	12	12-16-2017 05:57 PM
Nikon D4s high iso is 409,600	LFLee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	46	04-13-2014 07:04 PM
Is the Nikon D4s ugly or is it just me?	6BQ5	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	35	04-09-2014 12:14 PM

06-24-2018, 12:57 PM	#2
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,237	Nice Sony advertising. I never shoot portraits with the DoF so thin that only a part of the face is in focus, for the simply reason that the best looking professional portraits are done with DoF large enough to have the whole depth of the subject in focus. When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not. Advertising again! This again technology oriented definition of a camera is what destroys the art of photography little by little.

06-24-2018, 04:06 PM	#3
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by biz-engineer Nice Sony advertising. I never shoot portraits with the DoF so thin that only a part of the face is in focus, for the simply reason that the best looking professional portraits are done with DoF large enough to have the whole depth of the subject in focus. When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not. Advertising again! This again technology oriented definition of a camera is what destroys the art of photography little by little.

06-24-2018, 06:41 PM	#4
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by biz-engineer When shooting professional portraits with large DoF, it doesn't matter if the camera system can focus on the eye or not. If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16

06-25-2018, 02:45 AM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16 How hard is it to get the eyes in focus at f16? (There is a reason why smartphones don't have eye recognition, only face recognition -- it isn't exactly needed when wide open is f12 equivalent or something like that).

06-25-2018, 05:12 AM	#6
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Rondec How hard is it to get the eyes in focus at f16? (There is a reason why smartphones don't have eye recognition, only face recognition -- it isn't exactly needed when wide open is f12 equivalent or something like that). Depends, how close you are to the subject.

06-25-2018, 05:18 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer Depends, how close you are to the subject. No, not really. Assuming you aren't shooting with a macro lens with it somehow turned to ultra close focus, at f16 most lenses will give quite a bit of depth of field. Remember, we are talking about the difference between the A7III, the D4 and the 5D MK IV. You are telling me that you are shooting with a D4 stopped down to f16 and your camera is going to miss focus by that much that the eyes will be out of focus? I'm sorry, but even a K10 would be able to get the eyes in focus at that aperture.

06-25-2018, 07:49 AM	#9
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer My point is that it is important to have the eyes in focus. If you are shooting someone with a 85mm f16 1m distance.. the DOF is about 10cm I am not saying any of the cameras can or can not do that but if there is a microphone in front of their face, or a groom kissing his bride, or a baby rattle in the foreground, I would imagine that people that rely on AF would benefit from the EYE AF. Who is going to shoot a portrait with an 85mm lens at 1 meter? That seems pretty crazy to me unless you "only" want the eye in focus and don't care about the rest of the face. With 85mm, my expectation would be that you would be closer to 3 to 4 meters distant from your subject. But maybe you take different portraits than I do... My understanding of this tech is that works a lot better for static portraits and is not very useful in tracking. It is perhaps odd, but I just haven't struggled with focus in that situation at all with the crappy auto focus that is on Pentax cameras. My wife shoots weddings and gets about 95 percent keepers. Sony's tech is pretty amazing, but I just think people act like older cameras are pretty incapable when in fact they perform quite well and produce good results in the hands of a skilled photographer. (I'm not one, but I can still occasionally get the eyes in focus on my kids)...

06-25-2018, 07:49 AM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer If you are doing portraits and are using AF, getting the eyes in focus is very very important whether it is f1.2 or f16 You're just being obtuse here right? His point was, the wider the depth of field is, the easier it is to get the eye in acceptable focus. You could argue that having the eye as the focal point is the preferred hyperlocal point, but it's not true. You probably want your exact focus to be bit behind the eye. Eye focus would actually be a hindrance. Have you ever worked in a portrait studio? You seem to think that being a Sony proponent makes you an expert on everything.

06-25-2018, 08:34 AM	#12
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	This image is taken as a test shot for AF. Child was on a rocking horse going back and forth and I was about 1 meter away. Their back porch had a bunch of distracting "junk" on it and I needed to blow that out. A9 nailed about 70% of the shots with eye AF tracking the eyes. I had tried this before with My K-3 and I had zero keepers. When shooting weddings I will always shoot pictures of the bride getter her make-up on. I have lots of shots of the bride applying eye liner or shadow that are taken at very close focusing distances at very wide apertures. 90mm macro is often the lens I use.

06-25-2018, 09:11 AM	#14
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by normhead Have you ever worked in a portrait studio? I shot 400 Candid Portraits of 30 people at a paid event yesterday. I don't use AF however, not for me even though my A7II and A6000 can do it very well. I have a portable studio and I have worked in professional studios (not Sears or Walmart).

06-25-2018, 09:35 AM	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer I shot 400 Candid Portraits of 30 people at a paid event yesterday. I don't use AF however, not for me even though my A7II and A6000 can do it very well. I have a portable studio and I have worked in professional studios (not Sears or Walmart). And you recommend "eye focus" for those settings, and have images to show us why?