Modern autofocus isn’t the cheat code everyone says it is – you can still miss regularly
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Small, erratic animals like red squirrels are extremely hard to focus on. | Credit: Future / Mike Harris
I hear a lot of people talking about autofocus as if it's some kind of cheat code: it's taken the challenge away from photography – you can't miss. And while I certainly think that AF algorithms have advanced tenfold in the era of the mirrorless camera , changing the game forever, it worries me that beginner or intermediate photographers might feel like they're doing something wrong when they miss focus.
Let me tell you, I'm a photography educator with years of experience and I still miss focus regularly . Granted, how much you're likely to miss depends on what you're shooting. But it also depends on your standards for critical focus. I'm somebody who likes to know that I've absolutely nailed my focus and it really bugs me when I haven't.
Other photographers have different standards – and that's not to say they're wrong. Something I've had to work on in recent years is my tendency to overemphasize the importance of critical focus and be a bit more lenient with my images. But what I'm interested to know is where does this myth that you can't miss actually come from?
The 'you can't miss' myth
Longer lenses and skittish subjects make focusing much more challenging | Credit: Mike Harris
Autofocus is so much more than camera tech. The lens, aperture, light, and subject all affect your hitrate. It's one thing for a camera reviewer to test a body with a 'nifty fifty' at f/8 in broad daylight, and a whole other ballgame for a wildlife photographer shooting in drab weather at f/2.8 with a 200mm lens, trying to focus on a red squirrel that won't keep still! Don't get me wrong. I've been that camera reviewer and the time you get with a new release and the lens that comes with it means that the latter scenario is rarely an option. But you get my drift.
As someone who enjoys photographing both sports and wildlife, I can tell you that no current autofocus system is capable of hitting a darting critter's eye or the helmet of a superbike rider consistently. These situations usually require long lenses, which complicate things further. You're usually shooting at a fast aperture in order to gather more light so you can increase your shutter speed and compensate for camera shake .
All of this results in a much smaller depth of field, allowing far less margin for error if you don't quite hit your intended point of focus. And since long lenses amplify camera shake, the setup is moving around a lot more, causing the camera to refocus more than usual. Add low light into the mix, and even advanced hybrid-autofocus systems will find the situation more challenging. So, not matter how good your autofocus system is, you absolutely can miss . Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
You might also like...
Want more of my ramblings? Nikon never bothered to support the Nikon Zf and Zfc with retro-cool lenses , but thanks to Voigtlander it doesn't need to. You can't buy heritage: Why Nikon still rules as it celebrates its 109th birthday! Plus, "Overwhelming" demand forces Nikon to halt Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S orders (report) .
