Is phase-detect autofocus much better than contrast-detect for bird photography?
Asked 9/23/2014
5 views
2 answers
0
I currently shoot with a Panasonic Lumix G5 and Panasonic 45-200mm. I struggle with bird photography and I’m trying to work out whether the limitation is mostly my technique or the camera’s contrast-detect autofocus system.
I often read that birds in flight are difficult with CDAF, but I’m less clear about perched or walking birds that still move around. If you’ve used both CDAF and PDAF systems, how different are they for bird photography? Is PDAF only a major advantage for birds in flight, or does it also make a noticeable difference with less demanding subjects like perched birds?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
4
I shoot both a Canon 50D and the micro four-thirds G3 and GX7. I use my 50D/EF 400mm f/5.6L USM combo for bird in flight shots. For me, the difference is chalk and cheese at the speed of reaction I have to have to get a BiF shot.
The G3 with my 45-200 OIS are perfectly capable of taking perched/walking bird shots, though, as you suspected.
G3+45-200 OIS:
![Whimbrel [identified]](https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8115/8669921998_f1a1c53525_z.jpg)
Given that mirrorless cameras are now including on-sensor PDAF, a body like the Olympus EM-1 is probably somewhere between my G3 and dSLR performance, and that gap may close even more in future years with PDAF technology or lenses like the Oly 300/4. So, for now, I'd probably withhold judgement on whether dSLRs are always going to beat mirrorless. But I would say that at the moment, dSLRs have the edge for any type of fast-action shooting.
Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27440
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
In general, PDAF is a big advantage for bird photography, especially for motion.
For birds in flight, the difference is often dramatic: CDAF has to hunt by checking focus back and forth, which makes it much less reliable for fast-moving subjects. PDAF can tell not just whether focus is correct, but also which direction and roughly how far to adjust, so it reacts much faster and tracks movement more reliably.
For perched or walking birds, CDAF can still work well. Users shooting Micro Four Thirds bodies with lenses like the 45-200mm report they are perfectly capable of getting good shots of perched birds. So if your main subjects are relatively still birds, your current system is not necessarily the problem.
So the short version is:
- perched/walking birds: CDAF is often adequate
- birds in flight or other fast action: PDAF is usually much better
Also, autofocus performance depends on the specific camera and lens, not just CDAF vs PDAF. Newer mirrorless bodies with on-sensor PDAF can narrow the gap significantly.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How do contrast-detect and phase-detect autofocus decide what to focus on?
Why do adapted DSLR lenses autofocus more slowly on a Sony A7 than native lenses?
Should I use autofocus or manual focus for bird photography with a Canon Rebel XTi and a 500–1000mm f/8 lens?
Why don’t cameras use time-of-flight depth sensing for autofocus?
When do Nikon 1 cameras stop using on-sensor PDAF in low light?