.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Well....this is encouraging. I was waiting for a Common Yellowthroat when this ratty looking juvenile Field sparrow showed up. I wouldn't bother with any images of this bird
so I decided to do a test with the 2.1 firmware. I intentionally focused on the grass behind the bird and then re-centered on the bird to see if it would acquire focus on the bird.
A couple of times it stuttered for a split second and acquired focus and a couple of times it immediately acquired focus. The grass was maybe 10-15 ft behind the bird. I obviously
couldn't test with the 2.0 firmware, but from past experience I don't think there would be a snowballs chance in hades of it letting go of the background. I tested it without the
bird and it wouldn't acquire focus on just the branch so the bird is doing something. I know, not exactly scientific.
1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
4.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Shot a show last night and I'm torn - eye detection in low light worked great last night - autofocus on the other hand was very sub par in the venue....it was far better w/2.0...so something definitely changed there and not for the better. I'm going to hold off on any harsher judgement because the lighting *was* exceptionally bad - and have another show to shoot this coming Saturday which should be better lit.

Things I noticed shooting last night:

- Eye detection worked great even in very dim scenes.
- Focus was completely hit and miss. Even in better lit songs.
- Occasionally the EVF would flare bright like it was trying to compensate for the dim lighting (which had an adverse effect on focus acquisition).

These things occurred with both native Z and F mount glass. None of my settings varied from any other show I've ever shot (tho I did push the iso up on occasion just to see if that would help but it did not)...so I'm a bit disappointed. My Z6ii worked perfectly and I found myself going to that more and more during the night.
 
Member's gallery
These were last Thursday the only day I have been out since I did the firmware 2.1 update. As I checked things out on NX Studio it confirmed my perception in the field. Dynamic Area AF M and Single-point AF were now working subjectively better in tricky bird ID shots. Wide-area AF C1 (I have it as a 5x7) seemed to be working better on recognizing a bird faster. I shot a few small birds in flight but only one Robin that I did not save was a significant distance away. Except for the one Mountain Bluebird the rest of these shots are examples of tough focus situations for me when shooting small birds. I had far fewer moments where I had to resort to the manual focus ring to get focus on a bird deep in the brush. A couple that I did not keep and needed manual focus override had the head completely hidden and had to rely on the body for an ID guess. I did not get around to setting up Wide-area CF2 to 1x1 ... I had quit using it because of the issue the update is supposed have fixed ... I have it set up again so hope to test it tomorrow.

topaz denoise ai-5148.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_4539.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_4721.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_4961.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_5168.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
These were last Thursday the only day I have been out since I did the firmware 2.1 update. As I checked things out on NX Studio it confirmed my perception in the field. Dynamic Area AF M and Single-point AF were now working subjectively better in tricky bird ID shots. Wide-area AF C1 (I have it as a 5x7) seemed to be working better on recognizing a bird faster. I shot a few small birds in flight but only one Robin that I did not save was a significant distance away. Except for the one Mountain Bluebird the rest of these shots are examples of tough focus situations for me when shooting small birds. I had far fewer moments where I had to resort to the manual focus ring to get focus on a bird deep in the brush. A couple that I did not keep and needed manual focus override had the head completely hidden and had to rely on the body for an ID guess. I did not get around to setting up Wide-area CF2 to 1x1 ... I had quit using it because of the issue the update is supposed have fixed ... I have it set up again so hope to test it tomorrow.

View attachment 42685View attachment 42686View attachment 42687View attachment 42688View attachment 42689
Click to expand...
These seem to show eye focus in very difficult/cluttered surroundings. Thanks for posting.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
These seem to show eye focus in very difficult/cluttered surroundings. Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...
My typical birding environment for small birds. The Z800pf also helps by putting more bird in the frame. The Last shot of the Red-breasted Nuthatch (molting) was shot through a screen of pine needles closer to me than the needles showing on the left of the frame hence the green cast. I was pleasantly surprised that the AF picked up the bird at all :cool:
 
Member's gallery
RugglesZ9 said:
..........but the z9 starter kit should be Thom Hogan's Guide. His books are the bible for Nikon cameras.
Click to expand...
Really? I've never needed to buy one. Oh they have lots of information....but very little that can't be found in other ways. And much that experienced photographers already know or can figure out by getting out and shooting and evaluating the results.
 
Member's gallery
jfbacks said:
Well....this is encouraging. I was waiting for a Common Yellowthroat when this ratty looking juvenile Field sparrow showed up. I wouldn't bother with any images of this bird
so I decided to do a test with the 2.1 firmware. I intentionally focused on the grass behind the bird and then re-centered on the bird to see if it would acquire focus on the bird.
A couple of times it stuttered for a split second and acquired focus and a couple of times it immediately acquired focus. The grass was maybe 10-15 ft behind the bird. I obviously
couldn't test with the 2.0 firmware, but from past experience I don't think there would be a snowballs chance in hades of it letting go of the background. I tested it without the
bird and it wouldn't acquire focus on just the branch so the bird is doing something. I know, not exactly scientific.View attachment 42605View attachment 42606View attachment 42607View attachment 42608
Click to expand...
It seems we have the same set up. Z9 with 500F4G. It is definitely better with things like this after 2.1.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
I bought Thoms book and so far not horribly impressed
Click to expand...
Sometimes Thom is wordy and provides way too much additional information. Right up until the moment, of course, when you have a question and all that extra stuff is absolutely what you need.
Steve is providing a different approach. I think Steve writes much better and his suggestions are always really well thought through, so I will be buying it.
All the firmware updates must be making things tricky. Nikon keeps on #$@**%? fixing things. 🤬🤣😩 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
 
Member's gallery
Now the dust has settled and many of us have upgraded to v2.1. I wonder if we are seeing real benefits from the changes.
Stepping quickly over "High-frequency flicker reduction", which I have no experience of and I am sure many pros do. The next 3 items in the release notes are where I anticipated to "see" a change - and I can report my pair of Z9 work well/really well:
  • "Autofocus is now better at tracking small subjects" - OK - I never had a problem with the Z9 on either of the previous firmware versions and now it works great for me with v2.1 as well - I am not in the group of shooters who insist on having tracking when a potential subject is 1% in the frame and would never shoot such a small image. BUT it seems that many BIF shooters insist this is "essential" - I am not convinced. None has given me an answer I believe to the question "Well are you going to take a photo when a bird is only 1% in the frame AND why do you need to track a bird when it is SOOOOOOOOOO far away?
    [BTW I regularly shoot Falcons in flight at competitions and events so -- fast, ........ try shooting a shaheen falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinator) when it is flying at close to 200 mph while chasing prey. Getting it in the frame/viewfinder is a good start -- while they are at the top of their stooping (not quite hovering) is easiest then track down with them as they dive]

    There also seems to be a "heated debate" or drama around Nikon choosing to have "Less AF points than either equivalent Canon or Nikon bodies".
    Here is a technical question the probably only Nikon can answer - maybe Steve you know - "For the Z9 are the number of AF points a software design choice or a hardware constraint or both?" Steve's Book provides a great explanation in "How Your Autofocus System Thinks" particularly that some pixels have "masks" and this data is used in PDAF process. Tom Hogan, in his book on the Z9, provides a little more engineering data. He says "...the way Nikon had chosen to deal with the rows of photosites that perform the autofocus phase detection. Every twelfth row of the sensor is used for this, and photosites in those rows have to produce both focus information prior to the shot and image data during the shot" Later he goes on to say "The phase detection autofocus system used by Nikon in the Z9 is generally accurate, but it is not always backed by a contrast verification step. Indeed, contrast verification is not performed most of the time; it’s only done in low light conditions or with specific focus settings (e.g. Pinpoint AF). When the Z9 performs phase detect autofocus only, whether the focus point is exactly where it should be when the photo is taken is partly determined by whether the lens motor positioned the focus exactly where it was told to move. " This would imply there is a physical constraint not just a software constraint on the extent to which Nikon can change the Number of AF points.
    If it were purely a SOFTWARE choice, it maybe possible for Nikon's engineers to change the number of AF points via a firmware update -- but this probably would also require significant changes to the AF algorithms and the databases of subject types. I do not know.

    I wonder how Nikon was able to improve the tracking of small subjects and can guess they were able to reduce the "size" of each AF point (or group of photosites they use). AND yes Steve "Whew. And trust me, that’s a very simplified explanation." works great for me.

  • "Autofocus now produces more accurate results with human portrait subjects detected via eye/face-detection AF with [Continuous AF] selected for [Focus mode]" - OK - again I never had a problem. I recently completed a simple test (see below) and can confirm that based on my test the Z9 sets the focus distance on a high contrast area adjacent to the selected eye (normally the closest) NOT the eyeball itself. In my test this was the surface of the eyelid (so not the eyelash) and thankfully not the reflection of a high contrast object in the eye itself. For the avoidance of doubt I was am still very happy with eye detection and the focus distance the camera chooses to set AND it is my job to set the aperture of the camera to the appropriate setting to ensure there is enough DOF (depth of focus) such that those other parts of the subject I want to be in-focus are in-focus when I take the shot. NOTHING has changed in the respective roles here of camera and user. But at least one person seems to want the full AI experience.

  • "Fixed an issue that resulted in the camera focusing on the background when [Single-point AF], [Dynamic-area AF (S)], or [Dynamic-area AF (M)] was selected for [AF-area mode], or when [Wide-area AF (C1)] or [Wide-area AF (C2)] was selected with a custom focus-area size of [1×1]" - well for me and many wildlife shooters (and yes folk that includes the BIF folk too) this was the big one.
    There are an increasing number of vids/reports that there has been an improvement following v2.1. See Jeff's Selective Imagery "Nikon Z9 Firmware 2 10 with BIF"
    Again I do not expect the camera to be perfect and to do the job for me. I expect the Z9 (like other cameras) will always struggle with subject detection particularly of well camouflaged low contrast subjects when there are higher contrast branches/foliage in front of the subject and reflections / other higher contrast subjects in the AF-area one has chosen.
    Which is one reason why my Fn1 button is going to stay as assigned to Single Point AF-C ON.
    I am also not YET ready to surrender the coping mechanisms I put in place some time ago across my mirrorless bodies - primarily involves saving a prefocus point at about 5m away and then to have an easily accessible button allocated to Focus Recall so I can ensure the camera is pulled out of the background rapidly by simply pressing a button.
    What has your experience been of AF tracking working "better", worse or the same for subjects in complex backgrounds and what if any coping mechanisms are you still using or have moved onto?


  • "You can now expect better results from vibration reduction during panning shots taken with the camera pointing up or down and an option other than [Off] selected for [Vibration reduction]".

  • "Fixed the following issues:
    1. With certain Z mount lenses, choosing [Focus] for Custom Setting a1 [AF-C priority selection] with [Continuous AF] selected for [Focus mode] would sometimes disable the shutter release even when the subject was in focus.

      There was a "problem" reported (and confirmed by an NPS member of staff) with the 100-400 but none I have spoken to were able to describe it and the NPS staff member was estopped from providing any details. He did say it was being addressed in this firmware update.
      So to anyone who uses a 100-400 and who had an issue with AF or anything else - was this the problem and has this changed following upgrading to v2.1?

    2. [Aperture lock] could not be selected for Custom Setting f4 [Control lock] in modes M and A when an F mount lens was attached.

    3. Assigning [Recall shooting functions] to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)] would render [Save current settings] unavailable when an F mount lens equipped with an aperture ring and power contacts was attached.

    4. Auto distortion control would sometimes not be applied to pictures taken with [ON] selected for [Auto distortion control] in the [PHOTO SHOOTING MENU].

    5. The camera would not recognize custom Picture Controls saved to a memory card using the Mac edition of Picture Control Utility 2.

    6. Recalling shooting functions would sometimes result in unexpected changes to exposure if:
      • ISO sensitivity was set to a fixed value in mode M,
      • an option other than [Exposure maintenance off] was selected for Custom Setting b7 [Keep exp. when f/ changes], and
      • [Recall shooting functions] or [Recall shooting functions (hold)] was assigned to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)] both with no option (or mode M only) selected for [Shooting mode] and with no check next to any of [Shutter speed], [Aperture], and [ISO sensitivity settings].
    7. When [Recall shooting functions] or [Recall shooting functions (hold)] was assigned to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)], subject detection would not function as expected if the setting for [AF subject detection options] recalled by pressing the control differed from the option currently selected for [AF subject detection options] in the [PHOTO SHOOTING MENU].
Very simple "what does the Eye-AF set its focus distance on" test - using a Z9 (with v2.1 firmware), a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART - strobes/soft boxes and various apertures. Subject (me) at about 1m from the sensor. Similar results are seen with a Z105/2.8 MC and Z24-120/4.0.
The simple DOF maths: 135mm focus distance of 1.0m on an Z9 sized FX sensor the simple DOF calculator on my phone gives the total depth of focus as:
f/1.8=0.51cm,
f/2.8 =0.81cm,
f/5.6 1.61cm,
f/8 2.28cm,
f/11 3.22cm and so on.
As a result the results seen on images (see below) are not a surprise. BTW I would have needed F/32 to get the front of my very large nose in focus as well at 1m -- not possible with this lens, camera and subject distance.

Lightroom (f1.8.jpg and 4 others).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I just got back from Grimsey Island in Iceland where I was photographing puffins and other birds. Used my Z9, 100-400 mm S lens (with and without the 1.4x Z TC) and 500 mm PF (on an FTZII with and without the 1.4x TCIII). Lots of fun.

Firmware 2.1 came out after I was on the island and I was able to download and install it there (luckily no issues). I had done a day's shooting with firmware 2.0 and the rest of the trip with firmware 2.1.

I have only one Z9, so I could not do a direct comparison of 2.0 versus 2.1. My second body was a Z7II. I've had my Z9 since early January and have used it alot in different situations.

My sense is that 2.1 was better at picking up small birds or birds far enough out to be small in the frame than 2.0, at least if the bird was not moving or if it was flying across my field of view. Picking them up smaller than I was likely to want to photograph in many cases. But this was still useful, as it helps to pick up birds early and track them as they get closer.

What I had trouble with was getting initial focus on puffins and other birds that were flying directly toward me (i.e., not across my field of view). I generally used wide area large or C1 with a custom area a bit bigger. Animal detection on. A3 set to its default of 3. I tried to pre-focus where I thought I would pick birds up, based on the flight patterns I was seeing. In those cases where I got an initial focus, the Z9 kept focus very well as the bird continued to fly toward me. But in many, although not all, cases it never got that initial focus.

This seemed equally true with firmware 2.1 and with firmware 2.0. I'm not an expert, so maybe it was user error. I tried turning subject detection on and off; not much difference. I tried setting A3 at 1 and 2. This might have helped a little bit, but then the focus was not as sticky once acquired. I tried auto area with animal detection, but did not find it useful. I tried the bare lenses without the TCs; not much difference.

Backgrounds were often not that busy -- sky (with and without clouds), ocean, or cliffs behind the birds that were not super close.

There were lots of puffins and lots of opportunities, so I got lots of photos that I like. Still working through them. But frustrating at times to miss shots of birds that flew toward me.

Any suggestions for birds flying at you that I should consider?
 
Member's gallery
ajm057 said:
Now the dust has settled and many of us have upgraded to v2.1. I wonder if we are seeing real benefits from the changes.
Stepping quickly over "High-frequency flicker reduction", which I have no experience of and I am sure many pros do. The next 3 items in the release notes are where I anticipated to "see" a change - and I can report my pair of Z9 work well/really well:
  • "Autofocus is now better at tracking small subjects" - OK - I never had a problem with the Z9 on either of the previous firmware versions and now it works great for me with v2.1 as well - I am not in the group of shooters who insist on having tracking when a potential subject is 1% in the frame and would never shoot such a small image. BUT it seems that many BIF shooters insist this is "essential" - I am not convinced. None has given me an answer I believe to the question "Well are you going to take a photo when a bird is only 1% in the frame AND why do you need to track a bird when it is SOOOOOOOOOO far away?
    [BTW I regularly shoot Falcons in flight at competitions and events so -- fast, ........ try shooting a shaheen falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinator) when it is flying at close to 200 mph while chasing prey. Getting it in the frame/viewfinder is a good start -- while they are at the top of their stooping (not quite hovering) is easiest then track down with them as they dive]

    There also seems to be a "heated debate" or drama around Nikon choosing to have "Less AF points than either equivalent Canon or Nikon bodies".
    Here is a technical question the probably only Nikon can answer - maybe Steve you know - "For the Z9 are the number of AF points a software design choice or a hardware constraint or both?" Steve's Book provides a great explanation in "How Your Autofocus System Thinks" particularly that some pixels have "masks" and this data is used in PDAF process. Tom Hogan, in his book on the Z9, provides a little more engineering data. He says "...the way Nikon had chosen to deal with the rows of photosites that perform the autofocus phase detection. Every twelfth row of the sensor is used for this, and photosites in those rows have to produce both focus information prior to the shot and image data during the shot" Later he goes on to say "The phase detection autofocus system used by Nikon in the Z9 is generally accurate, but it is not always backed by a contrast verification step. Indeed, contrast verification is not performed most of the time; it’s only done in low light conditions or with specific focus settings (e.g. Pinpoint AF). When the Z9 performs phase detect autofocus only, whether the focus point is exactly where it should be when the photo is taken is partly determined by whether the lens motor positioned the focus exactly where it was told to move. " This would imply there is a physical constraint not just a software constraint on the extent to which Nikon can change the Number of AF points.
    If it were purely a SOFTWARE choice, it maybe possible for Nikon's engineers to change the number of AF points via a firmware update -- but this probably would also require significant changes to the AF algorithms and the databases of subject types. I do not know.

    I wonder how Nikon was able to improve the tracking of small subjects and can guess they were able to reduce the "size" of each AF point (or group of photosites they use). AND yes Steve "Whew. And trust me, that’s a very simplified explanation." works great for me.

  • "Autofocus now produces more accurate results with human portrait subjects detected via eye/face-detection AF with [Continuous AF] selected for [Focus mode]" - OK - again I never had a problem. I recently completed a simple test (see below) and can confirm that based on my test the Z9 sets the focus distance on a high contrast area adjacent to the selected eye (normally the closest) NOT the eyeball itself. In my test this was the surface of the eyelid (so not the eyelash) and thankfully not the reflection of a high contrast object in the eye itself. For the avoidance of doubt I was am still very happy with eye detection and the focus distance the camera chooses to set AND it is my job to set the aperture of the camera to the appropriate setting to ensure there is enough DOF (depth of focus) such that those other parts of the subject I want to be in-focus are in-focus when I take the shot. NOTHING has changed in the respective roles here of camera and user. But at least one person seems to want the full AI experience.

  • "Fixed an issue that resulted in the camera focusing on the background when [Single-point AF], [Dynamic-area AF (S)], or [Dynamic-area AF (M)] was selected for [AF-area mode], or when [Wide-area AF (C1)] or [Wide-area AF (C2)] was selected with a custom focus-area size of [1×1]" - well for me and many wildlife shooters (and yes folk that includes the BIF folk too) this was the big one.
    There are an increasing number of vids/reports that there has been an improvement following v2.1.
    Again I do not expect the camera to be perfect and to do the job for me. I expect the Z9 (like other cameras) will always struggle with subject detection particularly of well camouflaged low contrast subjects when there are higher contrast branches/foliage in front of the subject and reflections / other higher contrast subjects in the AF-area one has chosen.
    Which is one reason why my Fn1 button is going to stay as assigned to Single Point AF-C ON.
    I am also not YET ready to surrender the coping mechanisms I put in place some time ago across my mirrorless bodies - primarily involves saving a prefocus point at about 5m away and then to have an easily accessible button allocated to Focus Recall so I can ensure the camera is pulled out of the background rapidly by simply pressing a button.
    What has your experience been of AF tracking working "better", worse or the same for subjects in complex backgrounds and what if any coping mechanisms are you still using or have moved onto?


  • "You can now expect better results from vibration reduction during panning shots taken with the camera pointing up or down and an option other than [Off] selected for [Vibration reduction]".

  • "Fixed the following issues:
    1. With certain Z mount lenses, choosing [Focus] for Custom Setting a1 [AF-C priority selection] with [Continuous AF] selected for [Focus mode] would sometimes disable the shutter release even when the subject was in focus.

      There was a "problem" reported (and confirmed by an NPS member of staff) with the 100-400 but none I have spoken to were able to describe it and the NPS staff member was estopped from providing any details. He did say it was being addressed in this firmware update.
      So to anyone who uses a 100-400 and who had an issue with AF or anything else - was this the problem and has this changed following upgrading to v2.1?

    2. [Aperture lock] could not be selected for Custom Setting f4 [Control lock] in modes M and A when an F mount lens was attached.

    3. Assigning [Recall shooting functions] to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)] would render [Save current settings] unavailable when an F mount lens equipped with an aperture ring and power contacts was attached.

    4. Auto distortion control would sometimes not be applied to pictures taken with [ON] selected for [Auto distortion control] in the [PHOTO SHOOTING MENU].

    5. The camera would not recognize custom Picture Controls saved to a memory card using the Mac edition of Picture Control Utility 2.

    6. Recalling shooting functions would sometimes result in unexpected changes to exposure if:
      • ISO sensitivity was set to a fixed value in mode M,
      • an option other than [Exposure maintenance off] was selected for Custom Setting b7 [Keep exp. when f/ changes], and
      • [Recall shooting functions] or [Recall shooting functions (hold)] was assigned to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)] both with no option (or mode M only) selected for [Shooting mode] and with no check next to any of [Shutter speed], [Aperture], and [ISO sensitivity settings].
    7. When [Recall shooting functions] or [Recall shooting functions (hold)] was assigned to a control using Custom Setting f2 [Custom controls (shooting)], subject detection would not function as expected if the setting for [AF subject detection options] recalled by pressing the control differed from the option currently selected for [AF subject detection options] in the [PHOTO SHOOTING MENU].
Very simple "what does the Eye-AF set its focus distance on" test - using a Z9 (with v2.1 firmware), a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART - strobes/soft boxes and various apertures. Subject (me) at about 1m from the sensor. Similar results are seen with a Z105/2.8 MC and Z24-120/4.0.
The simple DOF maths: 135mm focus distance of 1.0m on an Z9 sized FX sensor the simple DOF calculator on my phone gives the total depth of focus as:
f/1.8=0.51cm,
f/2.8 =0.81cm,
f/5.6 1.61cm,
f/8 2.28cm,
f/11 3.22cm and so on.
As a result the results seen on images (see below) are not a surprise. BTW I would have needed F/32 to get the front of my very large nose in focus as well at 1m -- not possible with this lens, camera and subject distance.

View attachment 42846
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed information; you always have a lot to offer, and I appreciate it.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I just got back from Grimsey Island in Iceland where I was photographing puffins and other birds. Used my Z9, 100-400 mm S lens (with and without the 1.4x Z TC) and 500 mm PF (on an FTZII with and without the 1.4x TCIII). Lots of fun.

Firmware 2.1 came out after I was on the island and I was able to download and install it there (luckily no issues). I had done a day's shooting with firmware 2.0 and the rest of the trip with firmware 2.1.

I have only one Z9, so I could not do a direct comparison of 2.0 versus 2.1. My second body was a Z7II. I've had my Z9 since early January and have used it alot in different situations.

My sense is that 2.1 was better at picking up small birds or birds far enough out to be small in the frame than 2.0, at least if the bird was not moving or if it was flying across my field of view. Picking them up smaller than I was likely to want to photograph in many cases. But this was still useful, as it helps to pick up birds early and track them as they get closer.

What I had trouble with was getting initial focus on puffins and other birds that were flying directly toward me (i.e., not across my field of view). I generally used wide area large or C1 with a custom area a bit bigger. Animal detection on. A3 set to its default of 3. I tried to pre-focus where I thought I would pick birds up, based on the flight patterns I was seeing. In those cases where I got an initial focus, the Z9 kept focus very well as the bird continued to fly toward me. But in many, although not all, cases it never got that initial focus.

This seemed equally true with firmware 2.1 and with firmware 2.0. I'm not an expert, so maybe it was user error. I tried turning subject detection on and off; not much difference. I tried setting A3 at 1 and 2. This might have helped a little bit, but then the focus was not as sticky once acquired. I tried auto area with animal detection, but did not find it useful. I tried the bare lenses without the TCs; not much difference.

Backgrounds were often not that busy -- sky (with and without clouds), ocean, or cliffs behind the birds that were not super close.

There were lots of puffins and lots of opportunities, so I got lots of photos that I like. Still working through them. But frustrating at times to miss shots of birds that flew toward me.

Any suggestions for birds flying at you that I should consider?
Click to expand...
Try Auto Area with Animal Detect with a bird flying at you!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Kumarsnaveen said:
Even I was surprised on the test in video. Testing with 3D focus with animal detection mode on a leaf simulating a bird may not be best way to form initial impressions.

My brief tests in falling light day before appeared promising but yet to test on skittish song birds in clutter. Eye detection worked lot better and faster on coots, grebes, ducks and herons at a distance and tiny in frame. Focus consistently regained to eye much faster during wading motion many a times. Initial focussing appeared fast for flight shots of painted storks, night herons, striated herons, oriental daters, kites etc in clear backgrounds and in falling light. None of this is to conclude one way or other.

If it consistently doesn't work then we can live with a workaround even it means developing bit of muscle memory. Not expecting 2.1 firmware to solve all issues that we encounter in field.
Click to expand...
Today tested focus moving from far to near on my Z9 firmware 2.1 and 500 mm PF lens. Tracks small birds fairly well, that were occupying about 20 to 25% of screen.

Unfortunately focus doesn't shift easily or automatically from far to near. It struggles a lot. Manual rotation of focus ring and memory recall works like charm. As mentioned by many learned and experienced photographers, it's a limitation of mirrorless cameras that we have to live with.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I just did my "standard" cat-walking-toward-me AF test with the 2.1 firmware; auto area AF (!); animal eye - I've been using this test with my D850 and Z9 to try and determine the best AF settings and technique for these sorts of moving animal situations. The results.... were far beyond any of my previous results - I'd say 80+% in perfect focus on the eye - the rest just a smidge off, but acceptable. The eye AF box was incredibly sticky.

So I'm kind of amazed right now... Between this and my prev outing involving a GBH and dragonflies, I'm thinking Nikon seems to have dropped in some pretty significant improvements to AF - at least to animal AF.

Cheers!

...Dave...
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
Any suggestions for birds flying at you that I should consider?
Click to expand...

I have the same question and was actually going to make a post about it a month or so ago. I was doing a ton of shots with pelicans and cormorants flying toward me. I was typically using wide-L or wide-C1 (with larger than wide-L), sometimes wide-c2 (1x1) with subject detection set to animal. I did notice what seemed to be more difficulty acquiring initial focus. But even after I got initial focus, and the box was showing it was tracking the head or sometimes even the eye, what I found when reviewing the photos was that the focus was always somewhere further back. These were not particularly fast moving birds since I intentionally positioned myself upwind and there was often a 15-20mph head wind for them. It was extraordinarily frustrating. These were shots I had much more luck with in the past using my d850. Initially the shots were with the 2.0 firmware, and then later I did a repeat with the 2.1 firmware. The 2.1 seemed like it might be better but it still seemed to be an issue. Also note that the birds were pretty large in the frame. I was shooting with the 800f5.6, usually with the 1.25x TC attached, but also tried naked, and also tried the 1.4x TC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top