Sony A7III vs Canon 5DIV vs Nikon D4s (2025)

Veteran Member

Sony A7III vs Canon 5DIV vs Nikon D4s

Pentaxian

Veteran Member

Original Poster

Pentaxian

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

Loyal Site Supporter

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).

Pentaxian

Depends, how close you are to the subject.

Loyal Site Supporter

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.

Pentaxian

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.

Loyal Site Supporter

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)...

Banned

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.

Pentaxian

Headshots.are smaller field of view than this scenario.

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 ----------

OBTUSE? Thanks!

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 06-25-2018 at 08:30 AM.

Veteran Member

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.

Banned

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.

Pentaxian

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).

Banned

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