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).
Not even worth replying. The subjects ARE large enough in the frame and I've posted many images demonstrating eye detect in the same sized static subject whereas it is never indicated for a BIF, period. Post some of your own images of a BIF with the AF point over the eye.
Yup, this is what I encounter 100% of the time. I'm waiting for all of the rationalizers to try to explain it away as the subject is too far, your exposure is off, atmospherics, blah, blah, blah. I am still waiting to see all of the BIF images where the AF point is on the EYE!
I think you need to move on to another forum if you are going to rant like a child using caps to scream. Moderators I think it's time to cool this thread down and stop the posting for a day. The OP doesn't seem interested in considering feedback.
Yes, this does matter and please indulge me to explain. For most BIF flying 90 degrees from the photographer, the actual AF, whether it is on the eye, the neck, body, wing, etc. is not of seminal importance because usually the head is in alignment with the rest of the body and DOF usually provides sufficient AF. Now, have the bird moving at an angle incident to the photographer, such as the Sandhill which was landing towards me. Those are the scenarios where accurate eye AF matters. With respect to cockpit AF, I wasn't complaining. To the contrary, I was bowled over how precise it was across a variety of aircraft. That's what made me wonder what is going on? The AF system can detect and track eyes and manage a variety of aircraft from all angles, lighting, etc. and yet it doesn't seem to apply to BIF.
But my point is it wasn't actually on the cockpit in a lot of those images, but it was close enough that you were happy with it.
Thank you and that's what I would expect? I have many images which the subject is as large as this in the frame and yet the AF is always on a wing, back, legs, or somewhere else. In this example, the bird is large in the frame and fortunately, it is in decent focus and with processing is a super image though again eye detect did not occur in any of the images of the series.
is that wing actually in focus? it's hard to tell from these, but it doesn't look to me that it is. the legs look more in focus to me. i think this is back-focused.
in this example it looks like it's flying through foreground clutter which can be problematic. again, a smaller box will help here. remember if it temporarily goes to something else, then switches back, that whole round trip while it was racking the focus out, then back in, you'll get out of focus images.
Appreciate the thoughts. Here are 10? frames in the series. Not a single one was in focus during the landing... the focus point was on the underside of a wing and then appears to enlarge and move to the top of the wing...
I've mentioned it several times and thus far you haven't acknowledged it: the lens can make an enormous difference in this kind of thing. Much as it surprised me, after years working with these cameras I'm convinced the lens can make more of a difference than the body sometimes. If the way the camera worked on that pelican is what you'd expect, then clearly the camera can do it and the difference must be something else - the lens being one such possibility.
It's no unusual for me to turn it off and just take over using a small Wide AF area and do it myself. 
I'd say they're all about equal, with some having different edge cases they're better in. You can't go wrong with any of them.
just different. in the same ballpark. each system works a bit differently, is better and worse at different things. i previewed the a1 and then bought the z9 and i have no regrets. but i’d also be happy with an a1 or r3
This!The Z8/9 will try to get the eye of a flying bird in focus. However, it depends on the situation.
As I mention in my books (under the subject detection section), Nikon's tracking isn't so great with long necked birds - like the ones in many of the examples. It usually just tries to lock onto the body - or gives up entirely. For more traditional-looking birds it does a better job, but again this is dependent on the situation - something like an eagle dropping out of a tree is a classic way to fool it
In addition, the skill of the photographer can come into play. The subject detection system requires time to recognizing a flying subject. I find the better I am at keeping my subject in the same place in the viewfinder, the more likely it is that subject detection will migrate to the eye - even with long-necked birds (sometimes). If the subject moves around to much, it never has the time to fully lock-on and find the eye, often going for the body (or back to the default AF area instead of subject detection).
Hi Steve, thanks for your explanation and for confirming to a degree what I am observing. The Z8 (Z9) does a heck of a job recognizing and tracking eyes on people, animals,and static birds (even long necked ones). In fact, I’ve found it gets fooled less than my R5/R3 on certain static birds such as a GBH, where the R5 frequently jumps to the neck. Nonetheless, it struggles with birds who are flying at obtuse angles or those flying directly at the observer. For the later, it is easier to place a small AF area over the face but how to you manage a Hawk or Eagle swooping out of a tree or a Sandhill landing at an angle where the head position is always changing in the frame? Again, my Canon and Sony bodies didn’t struggle in these scenarios even when they were operating in full arrays.The Z8/9 will try to get the eye of a flying bird in focus. However, it depends on the situation.
As I mention in my books (under the subject detection section), Nikon's tracking isn't so great with long necked birds - like the ones in many of the examples. It usually just tries to lock onto the body - or gives up entirely. For more traditional-looking birds it does a better job, but again this is dependent on the situation - something like an eagle dropping out of a tree is a classic way to fool it
In addition, the skill of the photographer can come into play. The subject detection system requires time to recognizing a flying subject. I find the better I am at keeping my subject in the same place in the viewfinder, the more likely it is that subject detection will migrate to the eye - even with long-necked birds (sometimes). If the subject moves around to much, it never has the time to fully lock-on and find the eye, often going for the body (or back to the default AF area instead of subject detection).
Of course they are working on improving BIF AF, as they are working on improving all aspects of AF and many other aspects of camera performance. That seems to be an obvious thing for any camera company to do. I mean, they don't just release a camera and then put their feet up and say, well do your best with what we have offered.
): simply put "X in flight" (X="swan"|"heron"|"crane"| etc) in google image search and point your camera at the computer screen with animal detection ON. The cam now has all the time in the world to find the eye. If it misses in this simple test, there is no chance it will find it in real life imo.