In my Fujifilm said What?! article, I stated that the number one thing Fujifilm could do to quiet the autofocus critics is to make the AF settings more intuitive, and have it programmed to work well for most straight-out-of-the-box. Fujifilm offers a lot of customization to maximize autofocus performance for each person’s specific use-case and preferences; however, a lot of people are unaware that not only can they do this, but they’re expected to. Even if they are aware, they’re unlikely to know what the settings should be for their photography or videography needs. If Fujifilm never improved the AF algorithm or the hardware, and only did this one thing—make it more intuitive—it would be seen an a major improvement by many.
My epiphany came from two places: 1) Camera Conspiracies, who was highly critical of Fujifilm’s AF until he found the right settings for him, and 2) the large number of people who have stated across the internet that they just want it to “work” straight-out-of-the-box. In other words, a lot of people want to power on their brand-new camera for the very first time, and, without making any adjustments to the camera settings, want it to perform perfectly for them. They want it to be much more simple and intuitive than it currently is. In my opinion and estimation, this is where the majority of the AF complaints actually come from, the root cause.
There’s nothing wrong with Fujifilm’s current approach. It works well for a lot of people. Just because the Canikony brands do something a certain way doesn’t mean that Fujifilm should, too. There are certainly pros and cons to the implementation of anything, including AF. Obviously, the cons are not appreciated by a very vocal subset of the community, and they have made this well-known. If Fujifilm is interested in addressing the issue (and I assume they are because they’ve said so), the simplest and most affective way is intuitiveness. Make it as simple as practical.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-T1
So how would it work? There are a number of ways that Fujifilm could tackle it, and I’m sure they’ve already made some steps towards this on whatever they’ve designed for the upcoming sixth-generation X-series cameras. But, if I were a Fujifilm employee (which I’m not), I would suggest this: at initial startup, when the camera is first powered on, after prompting the date and time, I would have a short questionnaire. Skip the questionnaire, and the default autofocus behavior is as it currently is. Answer the questions, and the camera (based on those answers) sets AF up in what should be more ideal settings for that person. The questions could be: Do you usually use AF-S, AF-C or M? Are you primarily a photographer, videographer, or both? Do you most often photograph fast moving subjects, slow moving subjects or stationary subjects? Do you most often photography people, animals/birds, cars/trains/bicycles, or other objects? Do you most often use wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, or mid-range lenses? Do you typically use zooms or primes? I’m sure they could refine that into fewer questions. A total of three sets of questions would probably be sufficient.
Whatever someone answers, that would determine the default autofocus settings. The camera could still be custom set to whatever, but it would give those who choose the questionnaire a better starting point for their specific needs. The camera’s AF would work better for them straight-out-of-the-box. That simple change would likely make many people believe that Fujifilm has improved their AF without making any other improvements. Why? Because Fujifilm’s autofocus system isn’t nearly as bad as some would have you believe—in fact, it’s pretty darn good. Yes, the Canikony brands are better, but not being super awesomely amazing doesn’t make it bad, it only makes is awesomely amazing (instead of super awesomely amazing). The main issue is that people don’t want to set up their AF parameters, they’re largely unaware that they’re expected to, and they don’t really know what settings would work best for them, anyway. Fujifilm can and should do more to help educate their customers on this. But making the camera’s AF more intuitive with a simple questionnaire at initial startup would solve this issue for many.
PetaPixel published a couple of articles recently detailing an interview with Fujifilm at CP+. Phototrend also interviewed Fujifilm at this event, which resulted in some interesting answers. PetaPixel’s conversation was much different, so let’s talk about what was said and what it means.
For one article, PetaPixel asked, “How will Fujifilm fix its video autofocus woes?” Fujifilm answered, “There are two improvements we can make, one based on the algorithm and then one based on the device itself. So we have the fifth-generation device now, and so to make an improvement here, we just need to improve the algorithm. That’s the maximum we can do.”
The basic takeaway from the interview is that for fifth-generation cameras, which are the current models, Fujifilm is working on potential firmware updates for autofocus improvement. My guess is that they are taking their time to ensure there are no issues. They want to avoid something like a couple of years ago when the firmware update had a significant AF bug. Maybe this update will be released soon or maybe it will never see the light of day, who knows? Fujifilm did say, though, that they are actively working on it. Also, they are planning to improve autofocus through hardware (think faster readouts, quicker processing, increased memory buffers, better heat dispersion, etc.), which will benefit sixth-generation cameras, which will be here before you know it.
I’m really tired of talking about Fujifilm’s autofocus. For the majority of the last 10 years, this wasn’t a top topic within the community. It’s really only over the last few years that it’s become a big deal, and I find that very odd and quite telling. I’ve discussed this all at length numerous times, so I want to avoid rehashing everything, but some things need to be re-said, I suppose. I’m sure you’ve seen the hyperbolic, troll-like statements that flood the comments section of any article or video even slightly related to this topic.
It’s important to keep expectations realistic. Let’s ground ourselves in reality. The Canikony brands had a major head start in developing AF (going back to the 1970’s), have a much larger R&D budget, can better attract the best and most experienced experts in the field, and have put the majority of their eggs in the AF basket, ignoring image quality improvements or even sometimes to the detriment of IQ (as reported by PetaPixel). Those who expect Fujifilm to have “class leading” autofocus, or at least to have it be on par with the big three camera makers, are living in a fantasy land. It’s not going to happen outside of a major paradigm shift (perhaps AI is that paradigm shift). When you buy a Fujifilm camera, it’s important to know that it’s not going to have AF as good as the Canikony brands—that should be your expectation, because it’s the truth, and it only makes sense if you think about it for a mere moment.
That doesn’t mean Fujifilm’s autofocus is bad. Of course it isn’t bad! If you were to take the lowest-end, bottom-rung, entry-level X-M5, which costs only $900, and hop into your DeLorean, blast some Huey Lewis, go back in time 10 years, and show people that this is what Fujifilm’s autofocus will be in a decade, the camera would impress a whole lot of people. The community would be all excited for the eventual autofocus performance that the X-M5 demonstrated. Hurray for Fujifilm’s future AF! For some reason, the perspective that a lot of people who complain about Fujifilm’s autofocus seem to have is that photography has only been around for a few years. Do we not remember autofocus from any brand 20 years ago? 30? 50? I guess we don’t, because we lack an appreciation for how incredibly awesome even so-called “bad” autofocus is today. That AF system that you call garbage can run circles around the best AF from not terribly long ago, and yet our photography and cinematography isn’t any better than it was back then. I think a lot of people just don’t appreciate how good they have it today.
With that said, there is certainly room for Fujifilm to improve autofocus. I think all of the Canikony brands have reached a point of diminishing returns. They are quickly approaching, are at, or are maybe just beyond the peak of an inverted U-curve. The practical benefit of an AF improvement from (say) Sony helps a tiny fraction of their customers, while for 99.99%, the AF capabilities are already beyond what they need. Now for Fujifilm, who isn’t quite as far along, an AF improvement might have a practical benefit for (say) 15% of their customers, and maybe the next improvement benefits 12%, perhaps 7% for the following one, and so forth, as they climb the inverted-U. They are working on this right now. For the majority of people, though, Fujifilm’s AF is already plenty good enough for most subjects and situations.
Fujifilm’s autofocus is nowhere near as bad as some on the internet would have you believe—not even close—but there is something that Fujifilm could do that would have an immediate major impact on this perception: intuitiveness. It took me awhile to figure out that this is likely the number one issue. People apparently want to take their camera out of the box, throw in a freshly charged battery, and shoot amazing pictures, without ever setting it up. Some of this might be explained by beginners who just purchased their first camera, but I believe the majority are not beginners. In fact, I think (quite ironically) that most are the same people who would tell you that you must shoot RAW, and only amateurs shoot JPEGs. Perhaps this is because those who use Film Simulations and Recipes are constantly in their camera’s menu, so making adjustments and customizations is normal and no big deal. Whatever the reason, there are those who just want the AF to “work” without setting any of it up first. So if Fujifilm were to make a major stride in how intuitive their AF is without improving any other aspect, it would be seen as a big upgrade.
Fujifilm allows you to customize how autofocus works on your camera; however, I think a lot of people don’t realize that not only can they do this, but they’re expected to do so. Even if someone does realize, they probably don’t know how, or what the most ideal settings are for their use case. This is something Fujifilm could have done a much better job communicating to their customers; sadly, in recent times when they have tried, they were heavily mocked for doing so. Far too often, people would rather blame something else than take any sort of responsibility for a failure. Telling people that they’re the problem is never well received. But the truth is that those who complain about Fujifilm’s AF have the power to fix most—if not all—of their woes, and they’ve had this power the whole time. An example of this is Camera Conspiracies, who constantly mocked Fujifilm’s AF until he figured out the right settings for his needs. I think there are merits to Fujifilm’s approach, but either they need to do a much better job getting the word out on how to best use their system, or they need to make it work well for everyone—no matter someone’s individual needs—as factory-default settings.
In the next PetaPixel article, Fujifilm stated, “What we want to do as a company is make sure the photography culture remains for the foreseeable future. If we don’t continue to offer something exciting, fun for the users, then people won’t be really interested in photography itself. That would be a nightmare for us, we believe photography is such an important part of everyone’s lives. We think that’s our mission, to make sure everybody understands and knows that if they ever want to try something related to photography, we’d be there to offer as many options as possible.”
I find that fascinating. If camera makers don’t offer exciting and fun-to-use gear, photography itself is in jeopardy, says Fujifilm. And that makes sense. If the pros and hobbyists get burned out because photography is no longer enjoyable, they’ll quit. If potential newcomers are satisfied with their cellphones and AI-generated images, and no “real” camera seems interesting or fun to them, they’ll never even explore photography in the first place. It’s possible that cameras like the X100VI, X half, X-E5, and GFX100RF are actually saving photography, and are not just gear existing within the industry. It’s interesting to think about, and maybe something that other camera makers should pay more attention to.
This article is already longer than I wanted it to be, so let me wrap this up real quick. The way these two topics relate is that Fujifilm could make a variety of the most exciting gear ever released, but if a bunch of trolls and Negative Nancies (my apologies to anyone named Nancy) complain about it, will those products actually save photography? Maybe, maybe not. I think it’s important for Fujifilm to address the first topic aggressively—not because their AF is bad, but because people can’t accept that it is good just because it isn’t quite as good as the Canikony brands (which apparently makes it trash). Fujifilm’s two options are to better communicate how to best use their AF, or to make it more intuitive and work better out-of-the-box at factory-default settings. The latter is the path that will be best received. The firmware and hardware refinements that Fujifilm mentioned to PetaPixel I’m sure will be welcomed and appreciated, but it doesn’t address what I think is the largest problem, which is intuitiveness. Once fixed, when the fun gear is announced, there will be fewer negative comments that unfairly scare away potential buyers. Or maybe trolls will be trolls, and none of it matters.
Captured with a Fujifilm X-M1 camera & Fujinon 90mm f/2 lens
There have been a lot of vocal complaints recently about Fujifilm’s autofocus. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen people online call it “garbage” or “bad” or some other negative term. Every once in awhile a person will comment on Fuji X Weekly with a similar sentiment; however, it’s vocalized a lot less here than elsewhere, it seems. This is a controversy that I’ve tried to steer clear of—people have strong opinions about this topic, and I believe that my take is not going to be well received by those with the strong opinions. But I feel someone needs to say something, so I will.
First, let’s begin with this important perspective: no camera is perfect. Each and every model, no matter the manufacturer, has advantages and disadvantages. No Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, etc., etc., will ever be perfect, because each and every person has different wants and needs. Someone will desire a camera that’s especially compact, while someone else will want one with a large grip. The first person would likely greatly dislike a Canon EOS R1, and the second person would likely greatly dislike a Nikon Zfc; however, the first person might like the Zfc and the second person might like the R1. The first person might like a Ricoh GR III significantly more than the Zfc, and the second person might like a Fujifilm GFX100 II a little more than the R1. For the first person, the GR III might be the most perfect camera currently available, while for the second person, the GFX100 II might be. Now realize that there are 10,000 or more various takes on what is or isn’t the “best” camera, and those opinions are likely fluid and evolving.
Second, let’s not forget that photography has been around for a very long time. It didn’t begin two, five, or ten years ago. People have been capturing amazing photographs for well over 100 years. If you were to grab a Fujifilm X-T5, jump into a DeLorean, and travel back in time just 20 years, you’d blow away the photographers of that time with what would seem like to them impossible camera technology. Yet the photographs captured today are no more impressive than than theywere then. Camera gear has advanced tremendously over the last two decades, but the great photographs from today are no more great than they were 30, 40, 50, etc., etc., years ago.
If you disagree with the complaints, a common rebuttal that people will make regarding this topic is that “you must only photograph things that don’t move.” Interestingly, if you Google search photos of the Olympic games from the ’60’s or ’70’s, you can find some really amazing sports images captured well before autofocus was even invented. You can do the same with wildlife photography. They did this on equipment that was far less advanced and sophisticated than what exists today. If they could do it with the gear they had, why can’t you with the gear that you have? (Hint: it’s not the gear, and never has been).
Third, Fujifilm’s autofocus should not be expected to have the same level of performance as pretty much any other camera maker. Both Canon and Nikon’s first autofocus SLRs were released in 1986. Konica made the very first autofocus camera back in the 1970’s, and Minolta made the first “good” autofocus camera in 1985 (Sony cameras trace their heritage to both Konica and Minolta). Fujifilm has been making autofocus cameras for a much shorter time; Fujifilm also has had less R&D money to spend in-general than the Canikony brands. Anyone who expects that Fujifilm’s autofocus would be at the same level as those brands (who had a big head start and more money to spend) hasn’t put much thought into this. Even so, Fujifilm isn’t all that far behind Sony and Canon, and is arguably on par with Nikon. I have a Canon EOS 5DS R, Sony A7 IV, and Nikon Zfc (and have owned other cameras from those brands in the past), and I haven’t personally noticed any difference in autofocus performance between any of those cameras in my photography.
Fujifilm’s autofocus is very good—fantastic, actually. However, Sony and Canon (and arguably Nikon) have a bit more fantastic autofocus system than Fujifilm (as you’d expect). I really don’t understand the complaints about Fujifilm’s autofocus. It is like complaining that a Corvette isn’t a Maserati, and calling the Corvette garbage because it isn’t more like a Maserati. If you want a Maserati, buy a Maserati! Otherwise, appreciate that you have a Corvette.
The fact is that autofocus is a crutch, and I don’t mean that in a bad way. A lot of tech is a crutch, which can make things easier for you—they can oftentimes be quite helpful. I almost always use crutches of some sort in my photography, and I suspect that most other people do as well. But like any crutch, you don’t need it, or, at the least, you can learn how to make it work for you. Someone told me a long time ago that either you control your camera or your camera controls you. That has to be much more true today than when it was told to me. Whatever subject that you are photographing, people have been capturing amazing pictures in that genre for longer than you’ve been alive and with gear much less advanced and “capable” than yours. If they could do it, so can you. Your gear is only a liability if you allow it be—if it is a liability to you, you have the power to not allow it (control your camera vs it controlling you). The gear has never been the issue, but it’s a lot easier to blame the gear than to look inward. It’s important to remember that whatever you are photographing, there are people in that same genre using Fujifilm gear with much success. The gear isn’t a problem for them, so why is it for you?
Which brings us to your choice. If you own a Fujifilm camera and are dissatisfied with the autofocus, you have three options: 1) figure out how to make it work for you (you absolutely have the power to do this), 2) find a different camera that has better autofocus (a more sophisticated crutch), or 3) do neither, and just complain about it and be miserable. I can’t think of any other options, so those are your choices.
The complaints about Fujifilm’s autofocus have really only been over the last couple of years. Yes, there have been discussions about it since the original X100 back in 2011; however, I’ve seen a sharp increase in the complaints over just the last couple of years, and especially over the last year. I believe what accounts for this is people coming to Fujifilm from Canikony brands (especially Canon and Sony), and being dissatisfied with the autofocus of Fujifilm compared to the cameras that they previously had (my question is: why did they leave their previous brand if it was so good??). Fujifilm’s autofocus is not quite as advanced as Sony’s or Canon’s, but that should be expected (as was already outlined), and it doesn’t mean that Fujifilm’s is garbage or bad, only that the photographer needs to rely just a bit more on their own personal skills to compensate for the slightly diminished crutch.
It is true that I’m neither a sports nor wildlife photographer—I’ve dabbled in both at times, but those are not my main photographic interests by any stretch. I do have kids, and have captured a ton of successful pictures of them, as well as many other moving subjects. I don’t personally have any issues with Fujifilm’s autofocus—not even on the older models, which have far less sophisticated autofocus capabilities than the latest fifth-generation cameras. With that said, your photographic wants and needs might be different than mine, which brings us right back to the start: no camera is perfect, and each has advantages and disadvantages. If you don’t feel that a certain one is “right” for you, you have a lot of options. If you feel like the camera is controlling you (and not the other way around), I wholeheartedly believe that you have it within you to take control of your photography.
Contrast of Johanna – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100F – Acros Push-Process
One of the auto-focus options for the Fujifilm X100F is Face Detection, which, as you might guess, recognizes faces and automatically focuses on them. When on, you can set Eye Detection to left eye priority, right eye priority, auto or off. How well does it work? Is this a feature you should use?
It can be tough to nail focus on a person’s eyes, and, if a person is the subject, the eyes should absolutely be in sharp focus. If you are in a controlled environment (such as a studio) you might have time to manually focus and focus peek to ensure it is spot-on. In real world use where the subject might be still for just a short moment, it’s a lot more difficult to achieve perfect focus on the eyes. When I use the focus joystick I usually get pretty close, but I notice that I do miss sometimes and the subject’s eyes aren’t tack sharp.
This is much more critical when you are using a shallow depth of field. If you have a small aperture and much of the scene is in focus, getting perfect focus on the eyes isn’t a big deal because the eyes and everything else will fall within the focus zone. If you are using a large aperture, because of the shallow depth of field, being off even a half of an inch could ruin an otherwise great picture.
Face Detection auto-focus with Eye Detection on the X100F does a much better job of getting the subject’s eyes perfectly in focus than I ever could. It’s quick, so it works well even with little kids who can’t sit still. I’ve captured photographs that would have otherwise been unsuccessful if not for this feature.
There are some negatives, though. There are reasons that you might not want to use face and eye detection. There are lots of people who don’t use it, and, while I use it frequently, I don’t always have it on.
One issue is that the camera won’t always pick the correct face. If there is more than one person in the scene, the camera might pick the wrong one to focus on instead of the main subject because it will pick the face closest to the center of the frame. So it works better with one person than two or more. A similar issue is that the camera will occasionally detect a face when there isn’t one. Sometimes it falsely thinks it sees a human face based on a pattern in the picture. There have been times that I didn’t get the picture because of Face Detection. It’s rare, but it has happened.
Johanna’s Face – Edmonds, WA – Fujifilm X100F – Acros Push-Process
When the camera detects a face, it automatically spot meters on it, which is usually a good thing (but occasionally not). However, because of this, the general spot metering setting is disabled when Face Detection is turned on. For some people this is a reason not to use it. If you frequently use spot metering, it might be best to not use Face Detection when photographing things other than people.
If you use the optical viewfinder (OVF), Face Detection works, but there is no indication that it is working. It’s definitely an awkward operation, so my recommendation is to not use the two features together.
The face and eye detection feature on the X100F is slick when it works, and it usually does, but it is frustrating when it doesn’t. I think it’s worth trying if you’ve never done so. With a little practice it can be turned on and off quickly, and it’s not a big deal to change in and out of it, depending on what you are photographing.
