How much do centrally clustered AF points matter in real use?
Asked 10/23/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering a Nikon D600 and noticed that although it has 39 AF points, they’re concentrated near the center of the frame. I often compose using the rule of thirds, so I’m concerned about not having AF points farther toward the edges. For people who’ve used cameras with this kind of AF layout, how much of a nuisance is it in practice?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
5
Yes.
The phase-detect auto focus is based on comparing light rays reaching the focus sensor from two facing sides. The smaller the maximum aperture, the higher the chance that light reaches a peripheral focus sensor only from one side. Thus, dead center of image is the sweet spot for an auto-focusing sensor to be as it will receive enough light from two sides in the biggest range of apertures. Finally (somewhere around f/6.3...f/9), though, the directions will be so subtly different that focus cannot be determined even in the center.
To conclude, being bunched in the center is good because more AF sensors will work with a wider range of max apertures. For people that compare cameras by numbers (x AF sensors work at aperture f/y), and/or plan to use slow lenses (or fast lenses with tele-converters), this looks good. You'll also appreciate the higher sensitivity and smaller gaps between focus points when tracking fast-moving objects; in order to avoid accidentally cropping them, it's a good idea to keep them near the center of frame anyway.
But it also means that phase-detect AF by points further away is not possible, so you are forced to choose a workaround, all of which have some kind of downside:
- place the subject nearer to center, possibly resulting in weaker composition;
- use the "focus and recompose" technique, and either accept the ever-present focus error caused by recomposing, or make your best guess to compensate manually;
- use contrast-based focusing in Live View, which is very accurate, but just plain slower and forces you to give up stabilizing the camera by holding it against your face;
- shoot wider than necessary and crop in post-production into desired framing, losing some resolution;
- use that big full-frame sensor in DX crop mode, effectively cropping peripheral areas not covered by AF sensor, losing roughly half of pixels.
With a slow lens or shooting stopped down, the second option (recomposing and ignoring) is usually pretty much okay. For moving subjects, you'll have some extra focusing inaccuracy caused by subject moving away from metered location while you're recomposing. Laying out cash for a full-frame camera, you might be intending to use some fast lenses to get that oh so thin depth of field, and that's where you would notice the focus being slightly off after recomposing; so in this case, having the AF sensors flocked up in the middle is bad.
Note that designing an AF system with widely spread focus sensors has been rather easy for APS-C DSLRs, since the all crop DSLRs so far use flange distance and rear element diameter dictated by lens mounts originally designed for a larger format (the full frame). Full-frame cameras don't have such extra room to spare, and getting light from the edge of lens is more complicated.
Originally by user4390. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4390
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It can matter, but how much depends on how you shoot. Centrally clustered AF points are common because phase-detect AF works best near the center, where the AF sensor can receive enough light from both sides of the lens. This can help more points remain usable with slower lenses or teleconverters.
In practice, many photographers mostly use the center point anyway: focus on the subject, hold focus, then recompose. For static subjects and portraits, that often works fine. A dense cluster can also be helpful for tracking moving subjects, since you get more AF coverage and accuracy within that central area.
The downside is exactly what you noticed: if you frequently place your subject far off-center and want to select an AF point directly on it, limited edge coverage can be inconvenient. So yes, it can be a nuisance for rule-of-thirds compositions if you rely on off-center AF points rather than focus-and-recompose.
Bottom line: it’s a real usability difference, but not necessarily a dealbreaker. If you often shoot static subjects, you may adapt easily. If you strongly prefer direct off-center point selection, you’ll notice the limitation more.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do some cameras have many autofocus points clustered near the center instead of fewer points spread wider?
How can I use the rule of thirds when photographing two people in a portrait?
Why is there a reddish glow in the center of my night-sky photo?
Should I use focus-and-recompose or select a different AF point for portraits?
How do I focus on the eyes for portraits with a 50mm f/1.8, and what aperture should I use?