Eye AF comparison between Canon R5 , Sony A7RIV and Nikon Z7 by Fro

[YuengLinger]

Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.

https://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Gable,%20Clark/Annex/Annex%20-%20Gable,%20Clark_03.jpg

By the way, if you are into portraits and not familiar with Dr. Macro's website, you are in for a huge treat. And many of the photos print brilliantly at 8x10! I have quite a few hung to frame our TV. (Yes, I'm a classic movie buff!)

 

[stevelee]

Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.

https://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Gable,%20Clark/Annex/Annex%20-%20Gable,%20Clark_03.jpg

By the way, if you are into portraits and not familiar with Dr. Macro's website, you are in for a huge treat. And many of the photos print brilliantly at 8x10! I have quite a few hung to frame our TV. (Yes, I'm a classic movie buff!)

Neat picture. Thanks. It looks to me that this had to be done with a view camera using swings. There doesn't appear to be a plane of focus perpendicular to the film plane.

Many of my favorite movies are from the '30s and '40s.

 

[BeenThere]

Here, for discussion's sake, is one of my favorite classic Hollywood portraits. Notice how shallow is the depth of field. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it just captures a presence, a closeness, and immediacy that, in this case, deeper DoF would miss.

https://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Gable,%20Clark/Annex/Annex%20-%20Gable,%20Clark_03.jpg

By the way, if you are into portraits and not familiar with Dr. Macro's website, you are in for a huge treat. And many of the photos print brilliantly at 8x10! I have quite a few hung to frame our TV. (Yes, I'm a classic movie buff!)

Nitpicking the image, the shadows around the eyes are a bit dark IMO. But I do like these classic actor shots.

 

[stevelee]

In fact, this is an interesting point, and we could have great discussions about if/when/how often to go with DoF so shallow that only one eye is in sharpest focus. But beyond this, even shooting stopped down a bit, for portraiture, the eye is, of course, a key compositional reference point.

I've just started experimenting with the Eye AF on my R, and it really does allow me to concentrate more on composition and paying attention to what is happening within the frame and with the EVF readouts. Yes, I still have to pay primary attention to the subject, but with Eye AF tracking small to medium movements of a face, I'm relaxing enough to let peripheral vision kick in a little more. Does that make sense? I can keep shooting, for example, while being aware of the histogram in high contrast situations, while noticing background distractions just a tiny bit more, and in Av mode, paying attention to borderline shutter speeds.

I can only see this becoming more useful as I progress with it, and, hopefully, with the improved version the R5 offers.

We'll see!

I don't shoot a lot of portraits, especially in these days when portraits would raise the question, "Who was that masked man?" And for my purposes, just face recognition seems to work more than adequately. If I'm carefully composing and have very particular ideas of what I want in focus, I'm likely to focus manually anyway.

Thanks for sharing your experience. A lot of times here it is hard for me to relate to others' situation, and it seems they are obsessed over some problem I haven't run into and probably am not likely to.

 

[stevelee]

Nitpicking the image, the shadows around the eyes are a bit dark IMO. But I do like these classic actor shots.

The style was to go for the dramatic.

It does seem odd now that back then smoking was seen as glamorous, and with Nick Charles at least, heavy drinking was funny.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

I really like the eye AF on my R5 and I agree that in many cases you can achieve the same goal by manually focusing but why? As a photographer, your goal should be to capture the image and not have to worry about things like focus. I like to shoot at f8 when possible to add another layer of confidence that my shot comes out in focus, with greater DOF. When doing portraits wide open for maximum Bokeh, your depth of field is almost zero and you must have as accurate a focus as possible.

When I'm shooting people, it's best if they are moving fluidly from pose to pose. If you have to make them stop and wait for you to do all the setup steps, then their shots tend to look stilted and less natural.

 

[AlanF]

The style was to go for the dramatic.

It does seem odd now that back then smoking was seen as glamorous, and with Nick Charles at least, heavy drinking was funny.

He died at 59, from a heart attack. So many other great stars died about that age from lung or oesophageal cancer or heart disease, all associated with smoking, compounded by drinking.

 

[Aussie shooter]

He died at 59, from a heart attack. So many other great stars died about that age from lung or oesophageal cancer or heart disease, all associated with smoking, compounded by drinking.

Yeah. But they lived a hell of a life while they were kicking so I wont hold it against them

 

[zim]

Well I do air shows, still waiting on cockpit af