The AF point selection has nothing to do with the AF performance, except that it allows you to select a point anywhere, and with more precision, in AF-S. In AF-C mode, the extra precision really just would slow me down too much for dynamic subjects. The SIZE of the point you DO select does have import in terms of AF-acquisition and tracking, however. BUT, as the size goes up, precision goes down. I use single-point with AF-C all the time, and usually with a fairly large point otherwise getting a lock can be too challenging. I've also face-tracked very successfully with the smallest zone box+face tracking enabled (not my normal approach, however). Next is the more important point. Mirrorless cameras like the Fuji have "phase detect" pixels that span the entire sensor, the quantity of which scaling with the resolution of the sensor. The higher the resolution, the more phase-detect pixels there are (that must be processed). The X-Trans 4 sensor has 2.16 million phase detect points across the whole sensor (so about 8% of the sensor area is, in other words, lost to the AF system). X-Trans 5 bumps it to over 3 million, still about 8% of the 40mp sensor. That is a secret "cost" of Fuji's mirrorless cameras using phase detect - you give up some amount of noise+DR performance and resolution otherwise available to accommodate the AF system. Canon's dual pixel system seems to be technically superior. Its system compares the output of two halves of two pixels to calculate AF, I think, and after that calculation is made, uses the pixels to record the image. In other words, the whole sensor can support both AF and record functions. In both systems the resolution of the sensor means more AF points from which to sample focus, but Canon's approach might not come at the cost of, say, image quality. But the other question is what the processing overhead of either approach is, and I can't get specs on anything (but I can note that some Canon cameras are noted for overheating - a good sign that they've got a lot of power hungry processing going on). Fuji's X-Trans filter array imposes 20-30% additional processing overhead (well worth it, IMO), so frankly its hard to see them ever catching up with the other brands, unless they start implementing faster/more processing power (while still charging us less money and not overheating, of course . . . ). The approach they take definitely leaves gaps in AF coverage as a subject moves from point to point, which is why the AF system simply has to be predictive in the case of subjects moving between AF points, on top of recognizing them in the first place. In parallel with the development of new bodies, we have the development of newer/better lenses as well. My newest lenses are working way better on my older Fuji body compared to my oldest lenses, a clear sign that motors/electronics inside the new lenses is playing a role in improving AF performance. Per my own calculations, the Fuji X-series in general is giving people some pretty high-end features and image quality for like 60% of the cost of an identical FF system, at lower weight and size as well. I'll leave it to each user to decide if missing 20-30% of your shots, or even 50% of your shots, is more intolerable to you than carrying more weight and spending almost twice as much. When I switch to Canon it will not be because of something Fuji did, per se - it will be because I am a nerd and want to experience other camera systems to satisfy my curiosity.
Its interesting you mention this today as I was speaking to the fuji tech rep in my local camera store only today. Where you mean precision of the AF, this is precisely what I was illustrating when I compared the camera to my S5iiX. The fuji rep confirmed that all AF points are still used in 117 mode, but they work as a cluster, rather than individually. He agreed that having 425 available in zone AF mode would give more granularity and accuracy possibly, on a given subject. So in essence, if the XTrans 5 processor can handle it, in theory you could have more AF points in zone and area AF modes!
@@NatsWright That is really interesting - I assume you are referring to AF-C mode when you say "117 mode". I further assume that what you mean is that, in "117 mode", Fuji cameras are basically breaking up the AF area into 117 "zones" vs. 117 detection POINTS. Alternatively, if the user could make use of all 425 selectable points in AF-C mode (all still, however, acting as zones) it is possible that one might get higher precision and as a result sharper results. To me that actually sounds more frustrating - as moving the focus point around will be more cumbersome in dynamic environments. That also doesn't seem to address anything I wrote above - how I select an AF zone is totally different than what the camera is actually doing to find and maintain focus within that zone. The system has a finite number of pixels available to detect focus with, and likely significant processing overhead. I am more interested in finding out how many phase detect pixels are in popular Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras (with, notably, larger sensors), and what sort of processing power the brands are using.
@matt88169 I can telly you my Lumix S5IIX has 779 AF points. I did indeed mean 117 AF zones as you illustrated too. But I feel an option to toggle between 425 and 117 in C-AF would be nice, so you have the option either way
I never found a clear and official explanation on whether changing the number of pocus points in AF-S really changes the actual number used, or it is just meant to give you a quicker or more granual option for moving the AF Box around in singlepoint mode. In Zone AF, this option is unavailable because it simply doesn't make as much sense due to the larger area covered. Although I have to agree that the overall grid displayed in Zone AF is pretty big compared to other cameras or even Singlepoint mode. I might be wrong on this, but I never noticed a real life AF performance difference between the two options to begin with. So is there a definitive explanation on this option somewhere? Even the official manual states that is only for "selection": "Choose the number of focus points available for focus-point-selection in manual focus mode or when SINGLE POINT is selected for AF MODE." Limiting the actual number used in all other AF modes would make no sense at all, but again I don't know so I'm asking. I am in no way trying to defend Fujifilm here, I'm as disappointed with the AF performance as anyone else right now. Maybe it is even a remnant of older bodies that operated exactly as you described, but that again would mean pretty bad software development in the first place.
@@JakeChambersOy we need a more technical deep dive into how the AF works, why is sony so good? Even Panasonic is decent these days! However, more AF points seems to improve AF. The Sony A7iv has 759 and superb AF performance
@@NatsWright I don't think the number of focus points is the issue, A6600 also has 425 focus points and it works great. The Fuji focuses VERY fast when it hits on of the PDAF points but struggles in between them, i think it may be that their hybrid AF system is either underpowered or simply the contrast detect AF algorithm is bad.
@@vladfechete8563 good points, I wonder if more modes, such as phase detect only. Plus why some modes are limited to 117 AF points. Something may hell be hobbled is software.
It seems like the loudest complaint from many long time Fuji shooters was that the AF got progressivly worse, with each firmware "upgrade". I returned my X-H2s, and it was a real bummer, in many ways it was a fantastic camera. I've moved on and when I shot a 500 dollar cheaper Canon R6II with old EF glass it has fantastic AF, especially compared to my X-H2s.
I have shoy various sports events, triathlons, British touring cars, cycle races, horse eventing etc, I have used Con focus and con focus with tracking not had a problem. It does what I want it to. However I do not shoot Video.
I'm today years old that I learned that the AF points have NOT been changed for like 3 gens of Fujifilm cameras! You bring a very solid question. I do believe (or HOPE) that Fuji is able to fix this via firmware update. I love my X-T5 very much but I cannot stand more AF issues like the false positives. It would be great that they come forward and explain which AF mode tracks better (about the AF points). As long as AF works great within those I would say it's good enough. Some say their AF works better when there are less AF points, so the processor does not need to load so much processing. I don't expect my X-T5 to have Sony levels of AF, but getting below 35% keepers even when conditions have plenty of light it's almost unbearable. They should go the Canon route and allow for less convoluted options like with their newer R1/R5 mkii. Also it would be great if they implement a mode with auto subject detection without needing to set everything else to AUTO. If that new rumored camera it's, say, a Full frame one, it would be very sad that they keep their old AF algorithms when even their Medium Format cameras are affected by it. A more expensive camera than their APS-C line dragging the AF issues is a marketing "recipe" for disaster in their current situation.
I kind of take it for granted about Fuji having across the board AF problems. Only have one Fuji, the XS20, because it does have AF 240fps video. At least Fuji 240fps is not strictly MF only, like some cameras still being made. Maybe Fuji will fix AF with firmware. It took years for Lumix to fix DFD-AF. Who actually knows what these companies are doing? Your video is food for thought.
I'm a software developer and is not just the money that you put in hr, Sony, Canon, Panasonic have a long history of working with professional video, all these years of experience, feedback and development certainly contributed to what they are now. It take years to develop a good product, look at how many years took photoshop to have an easy to use tool to remove the background around people's hair, no need to get a course only to do that anymore, also image manipulation is an area that i think is very hard to find developers with experience in doing that and to be honest the best software developers in a specific area are going to work on companies that pay more = Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc
@@Jannevisuals I don't have any audio issues that I'm aware of with my mic? I have quite a quiet voice too, and a northern UK accent, maybe it's that. I also filter the audio via davinci resolve, with a compressor and noise gate. All I have is a Rode wireless go, no other mics. Try a few other videos, I've had several comments complimenting my voice too!
@@NatsWrightso when you talk there is a lot of noise it starts when you talk and its so loud that your voice isnt easy to understand. Since i am from germany and we learn UK english in school i should easily understand you
Fuji autofocus is poor and customers are not getting what they paid for, which is unacceptable. This is particularly the case in the X-H series of cameras. Heresy I know, but should this a massive issue for the X-T cameras? They’re retro cameras so should we not just accept that they don’t have the best AF? I have mine set with single point in the centre of the frame and the joystick switched off so I can’t move it to other focus points and only use single autofocus or manual focus - a retro approach which I accept is not what most people will be doing. At what f-stop does this become irrelevant anyway (f4?) because the depth of field makes everything in the rough focus area acceptably sharp. I wonder how far back we would need to go to find cameras with similarly poor autofocus, especially tracking.
@@ianforber I think it's a given that older cameras have worse AF, the X-H series being one. While your points would help to an extent, many areas of photography demand shallow DOF, hence accurate AF
@@NatsWright True, and many photographers style involves shallow DoF, especially at the moment when it is a very fashionable style (I’m guilty of that too!). My comment was probably more of a rhetorical question on why we expect the same level of ever-increasing perfection from every camera. Focusing is pretty fundamental though and my XT-50 isn’t very good at it.
Im using an older fujifilm x-t20, and have had no problems with autofocus, photographing birds in flight. I watched most of omar gonzalez and pal2techs videos for tutorials and tips. You need to put your camera on high performance mode, if you haven't. Some people say its best to use less focus points, rather than higher, because it gives the camera less work and faster autofocus. There's also a focus mode option in the menu to choose release priority or focus priority, and you're more likely to get blurry photos if you choose release priority, so choose focus priority. You can also try face/eye auto detect options for certain subjects. Panning with the moving subject also helps.
The AF point selection has nothing to do with the AF performance, except that it allows you to select a point anywhere, and with more precision, in AF-S. In AF-C mode, the extra precision really just would slow me down too much for dynamic subjects. The SIZE of the point you DO select does have import in terms of AF-acquisition and tracking, however. BUT, as the size goes up, precision goes down. I use single-point with AF-C all the time, and usually with a fairly large point otherwise getting a lock can be too challenging. I've also face-tracked very successfully with the smallest zone box+face tracking enabled (not my normal approach, however). Next is the more important point.
Mirrorless cameras like the Fuji have "phase detect" pixels that span the entire sensor, the quantity of which scaling with the resolution of the sensor. The higher the resolution, the more phase-detect pixels there are (that must be processed). The X-Trans 4 sensor has 2.16 million phase detect points across the whole sensor (so about 8% of the sensor area is, in other words, lost to the AF system). X-Trans 5 bumps it to over 3 million, still about 8% of the 40mp sensor. That is a secret "cost" of Fuji's mirrorless cameras using phase detect - you give up some amount of noise+DR performance and resolution otherwise available to accommodate the AF system. Canon's dual pixel system seems to be technically superior. Its system compares the output of two halves of two pixels to calculate AF, I think, and after that calculation is made, uses the pixels to record the image. In other words, the whole sensor can support both AF and record functions. In both systems the resolution of the sensor means more AF points from which to sample focus, but Canon's approach might not come at the cost of, say, image quality.
But the other question is what the processing overhead of either approach is, and I can't get specs on anything (but I can note that some Canon cameras are noted for overheating - a good sign that they've got a lot of power hungry processing going on). Fuji's X-Trans filter array imposes 20-30% additional processing overhead (well worth it, IMO), so frankly its hard to see them ever catching up with the other brands, unless they start implementing faster/more processing power (while still charging us less money and not overheating, of course . . . ). The approach they take definitely leaves gaps in AF coverage as a subject moves from point to point, which is why the AF system simply has to be predictive in the case of subjects moving between AF points, on top of recognizing them in the first place.
In parallel with the development of new bodies, we have the development of newer/better lenses as well. My newest lenses are working way better on my older Fuji body compared to my oldest lenses, a clear sign that motors/electronics inside the new lenses is playing a role in improving AF performance. Per my own calculations, the Fuji X-series in general is giving people some pretty high-end features and image quality for like 60% of the cost of an identical FF system, at lower weight and size as well. I'll leave it to each user to decide if missing 20-30% of your shots, or even 50% of your shots, is more intolerable to you than carrying more weight and spending almost twice as much. When I switch to Canon it will not be because of something Fuji did, per se - it will be because I am a nerd and want to experience other camera systems to satisfy my curiosity.
Its interesting you mention this today as I was speaking to the fuji tech rep in my local camera store only today. Where you mean precision of the AF, this is precisely what I was illustrating when I compared the camera to my S5iiX.
The fuji rep confirmed that all AF points are still used in 117 mode, but they work as a cluster, rather than individually. He agreed that having 425 available in zone AF mode would give more granularity and accuracy possibly, on a given subject.
So in essence, if the XTrans 5 processor can handle it, in theory you could have more AF points in zone and area AF modes!
@@NatsWright That is really interesting - I assume you are referring to AF-C mode when you say "117 mode". I further assume that what you mean is that, in "117 mode", Fuji cameras are basically breaking up the AF area into 117 "zones" vs. 117 detection POINTS. Alternatively, if the user could make use of all 425 selectable points in AF-C mode (all still, however, acting as zones) it is possible that one might get higher precision and as a result sharper results. To me that actually sounds more frustrating - as moving the focus point around will be more cumbersome in dynamic environments.
That also doesn't seem to address anything I wrote above - how I select an AF zone is totally different than what the camera is actually doing to find and maintain focus within that zone. The system has a finite number of pixels available to detect focus with, and likely significant processing overhead.
I am more interested in finding out how many phase detect pixels are in popular Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras (with, notably, larger sensors), and what sort of processing power the brands are using.
@matt88169 I can telly you my Lumix S5IIX has 779 AF points. I did indeed mean 117 AF zones as you illustrated too. But I feel an option to toggle between 425 and 117 in C-AF would be nice, so you have the option either way
I never found a clear and official explanation on whether changing the number of pocus points in AF-S really changes the actual number used, or it is just meant to give you a quicker or more granual option for moving the AF Box around in singlepoint mode.
In Zone AF, this option is unavailable because it simply doesn't make as much sense due to the larger area covered. Although I have to agree that the overall grid displayed in Zone AF is pretty big compared to other cameras or even Singlepoint mode. I might be wrong on this, but I never noticed a real life AF performance difference between the two options to begin with. So is there a definitive explanation on this option somewhere? Even the official manual states that is only for "selection":
"Choose the number of focus points available for focus-point-selection in manual focus mode or when SINGLE POINT is selected for AF MODE."
Limiting the actual number used in all other AF modes would make no sense at all, but again I don't know so I'm asking. I am in no way trying to defend Fujifilm here, I'm as disappointed with the AF performance as anyone else right now.
Maybe it is even a remnant of older bodies that operated exactly as you described, but that again would mean pretty bad software development in the first place.
@@JakeChambersOy we need a more technical deep dive into how the AF works, why is sony so good? Even Panasonic is decent these days! However, more AF points seems to improve AF. The Sony A7iv has 759 and superb AF performance
@@NatsWright there is no doubt about that, I fully agree
@@NatsWright I don't think the number of focus points is the issue, A6600 also has 425 focus points and it works great. The Fuji focuses VERY fast when it hits on of the PDAF points but struggles in between them, i think it may be that their hybrid AF system is either underpowered or simply the contrast detect AF algorithm is bad.
@@vladfechete8563 good points, I wonder if more modes, such as phase detect only. Plus why some modes are limited to 117 AF points. Something may hell be hobbled is software.
It seems like the loudest complaint from many long time Fuji shooters was that the AF got progressivly worse, with each firmware "upgrade". I returned my X-H2s, and it was a real bummer, in many ways it was a fantastic camera. I've moved on and when I shot a 500 dollar cheaper Canon R6II with old EF glass it has fantastic AF, especially compared to my X-H2s.
I have shoy various sports events, triathlons, British touring cars, cycle races, horse eventing etc, I have used Con focus and con focus with tracking not had a problem. It does what I want it to. However I do not shoot Video.
I'm today years old that I learned that the AF points have NOT been changed for like 3 gens of Fujifilm cameras!
You bring a very solid question. I do believe (or HOPE) that Fuji is able to fix this via firmware update. I love my X-T5 very much but I cannot stand more AF issues like the false positives.
It would be great that they come forward and explain which AF mode tracks better (about the AF points). As long as AF works great within those I would say it's good enough.
Some say their AF works better when there are less AF points, so the processor does not need to load so much processing.
I don't expect my X-T5 to have Sony levels of AF, but getting below 35% keepers even when conditions have plenty of light it's almost unbearable.
They should go the Canon route and allow for less convoluted options like with their newer R1/R5 mkii. Also it would be great if they implement a mode with auto subject detection without needing to set everything else to AUTO.
If that new rumored camera it's, say, a Full frame one, it would be very sad that they keep their old AF algorithms when even their Medium Format cameras are affected by it. A more expensive camera than their APS-C line dragging the AF issues is a marketing "recipe" for disaster in their current situation.
@@lionheart4424 fingered crossed Fuji fix it this time, as you say, something that works, that's all we ask!
I kind of take it for granted about Fuji having across the board AF problems. Only have one Fuji, the XS20, because it does have AF 240fps video. At least Fuji 240fps is not strictly MF only, like some cameras still being made. Maybe Fuji will fix AF with firmware. It took years for Lumix to fix DFD-AF. Who actually knows what these companies are doing? Your video is food for thought.
Yeah, 240p on the X-S20 is pretty good, and the AF works quite well
Good considerations. Perhaps Fuji has not invested nearly as much in software engineers as have others.
I'm a software developer and is not just the money that you put in hr, Sony, Canon, Panasonic have a long history of working with professional video, all these years of experience, feedback and development certainly contributed to what they are now. It take years to develop a good product, look at how many years took photoshop to have an easy to use tool to remove the background around people's hair, no need to get a course only to do that anymore, also image manipulation is an area that i think is very hard to find developers with experience in doing that and to be honest the best software developers in a specific area are going to work on companies that pay more = Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc
I Like your Videos but the sound quality of your mic is sooo bad that its very hard for a not native speaker to follow you.
Maybe its not the mic itself but something stupid is happening when you talking. Maybe watch some Videos to get the voice better.
@@Jannevisuals I don't have any audio issues that I'm aware of with my mic? I have quite a quiet voice too, and a northern UK accent, maybe it's that. I also filter the audio via davinci resolve, with a compressor and noise gate. All I have is a Rode wireless go, no other mics. Try a few other videos, I've had several comments complimenting my voice too!
@@NatsWrightso when you talk there is a lot of noise it starts when you talk and its so loud that your voice isnt easy to understand. Since i am from germany and we learn UK english in school i should easily understand you
Maybe its the noise gate that causes the problem because its only when you talking and stops when your sentence is done
@@NatsWright ok so i took a quick look and think that the problem started in the fuji metering video but anyways the mic quality is not sooo good
Fuji autofocus is poor and customers are not getting what they paid for, which is unacceptable. This is particularly the case in the X-H series of cameras. Heresy I know, but should this a massive issue for the X-T cameras? They’re retro cameras so should we not just accept that they don’t have the best AF? I have mine set with single point in the centre of the frame and the joystick switched off so I can’t move it to other focus points and only use single autofocus or manual focus - a retro approach which I accept is not what most people will be doing. At what f-stop does this become irrelevant anyway (f4?) because the depth of field makes everything in the rough focus area acceptably sharp. I wonder how far back we would need to go to find cameras with similarly poor autofocus, especially tracking.
@@ianforber I think it's a given that older cameras have worse AF, the X-H series being one. While your points would help to an extent, many areas of photography demand shallow DOF, hence accurate AF
@@NatsWright True, and many photographers style involves shallow DoF, especially at the moment when it is a very fashionable style (I’m guilty of that too!). My comment was probably more of a rhetorical question on why we expect the same level of ever-increasing perfection from every camera. Focusing is pretty fundamental though and my XT-50 isn’t very good at it.
Im using an older fujifilm x-t20, and have had no problems with autofocus, photographing birds in flight. I watched most of omar gonzalez and pal2techs videos for tutorials and tips. You need to put your camera on high performance mode, if you haven't. Some people say its best to use less focus points, rather than higher, because it gives the camera less work and faster autofocus. There's also a focus mode option in the menu to choose release priority or focus priority, and you're more likely to get blurry photos if you choose release priority, so choose focus priority. You can also try face/eye auto detect options for certain subjects. Panning with the moving subject also helps.
Fujifilm will eventually get their own AI chip for autofocus and post-processing like Sony DJI and others.
@@ferdinandbardamu3945 let's hope so!
This . . . or, we won't get it as a condition of lower prices.