Questions regarding Nikon Z8 Eye AF - animals

[Jerry Watson]

I have decided to only take photos of short neck birds.

 

[jcollins]

I think you'll find that Nikon considers it a matter of technique.

I come from the Fuji community with my X-T2 and there's more than enough focus problem victim blaming there for my taste, it's not really necessary to call it a matter of technique and it doesn't further any discussion positively.

Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, and each brand does that via a combination of their camera capabilities alongside their lens offerings, the latter of which makes me very interested in Nikon these days, the former leading to discussions like this. With the Z9 released during a global pandemic and chip shortage, and the Z8 being trickle-down technology, I'm personally very interested to see where they focus their R&D efforts and I hope to break my piggy bank open at some point (maybe this generation, maybe next).

My current camera isn't very good at shooting BIF or even grounded moving subjects, so I optimized the subjects I focused my efforts on accordingly and I continue to have a wonderful time outdoors.

 

[EricBowles]

I come from the Fuji community with my X-T2 and there's more than enough focus problem victim blaming there for my taste, it's not really necessary to call it a matter of technique and it doesn't further any discussion positively.

Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, and each brand does that via a combination of their camera capabilities alongside their lens offerings, the latter of which makes me very interested in Nikon these days, the former leading to discussions like this. With the Z9 released during a global pandemic and chip shortage, and the Z8 being trickle-down technology, I'm personally very interested to see where they focus their R&D efforts and I hope to break my piggy bank open at some point (maybe this generation, maybe next).

My current camera isn't very good at shooting BIF or even grounded moving subjects, so I optimized the subjects I focused my efforts on accordingly and I continue to have a wonderful time outdoors.

But if you are not achieving good AF results - there are about a dozen reasons other than the camera. Of course, you could be in the 1% that is caused by the camera, so even then, use a different technique. Blaming the gear is usually because someone has not figured out the settings and appropriate technique.

 

[SCoombs]

But if you are not achieving good AF results - there are about a dozen reasons other than the camera. Of course, you could be in the 1% that is caused by the camera, so even then, use a different technique. Blaming the gear is usually because someone has not figured out the settings and appropriate technique.

I think this is true technically speaking, but in practice it's too easy to blame technique or user errors and to not be open to the possibility of legitimate issues.

I've told the story before of how when I got my 200-500 everything was blurry. I, never having had a long telephoto before, wondered if it was me so I tried to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong, to rule those things out, etc. Wheb I couldn't find any fault with myself I started testing with a tripod, setting up targets, checking the AF fine tune, etc. When that went nowhere I went on a forum and asked there, detailing all I'd tried.

90% of the people blamed my technique. They told me to use a tripod - even though I'd posted photos explaining they were taken on the tripod. They told me to try the VR off - even though I had mentioned that I had. They then told me to try it with the VR on. They told me my SS was too low (it was 1/1000 or something). When I raised it to satisfy them, they told me the image just looked blurry due to high ISO. *Nothing* I could do could open anyone to the chance that something was wrong: it was all my fault, my technique, my poor settings, etc.

Finally I sent it back for a replacement and when the replacement came, immediately my results were sharp. It wasn't my technique after all.

Ever since I've seen many dozens of posts of people with various problems and I see the same thing: no matter ehat evidence they provide or what they say they have already checked, most people pile on and say they must just not be very good at using the camera/lens/whatever.

Now I'm not intending to call you out here - I'm just commenting in general that I think it's very easy to think a problem like this is a user problem rather than to consider whether it's something else.

For what it's worth, I have had similar experiences with this camera and BIF, but I'd assumed it was largely a lens issue until Steve came into this thread and in so many words seems to have said that while the camera is fine for BIF, the eye detection isn't the camera's strong suit for these subjects.

 

[EricBowles]

Ever since I've seen many dozens of posts of people with various problems and I see the same thing: no matter ehat evidence they provide or what they say they have already checked, most people pile on and say they must just not be very good at using the camera/lens/whatever.

Now I'm not intending to call you out here - I'm just commenting in general that I think it's very easy to think a problem like this is a user problem rather than to consider whether it's something else.

For what it's worth, I have had similar experiences with this camera and BIF, but I'd assumed it was largely a lens issue until Steve came into this thread and in so many words seems to have said that while the camera is fine for BIF, the eye detection isn't the camera's strong suit for these subjects.

My guess is it's not technique or a user problem - it's probably a setting that does not work as you would expect. I'd start by looking more closely at those that are successful rather than those with problems. Sure - it may be a problem with the camera - or the lens. But if that's the case, a methodical look at technique and settings will confirm that issue. Make the assumption the gear is not the issue and it's one of the other factors. At the very least, you'll probably improve your keeper rate a little and make some small adjustments.

I'm not having similar issues, but I'm also not shooting the same subject matter that you are. Even with less common fast moving subjects - like hummingbirds in flight - I'm finding ways to get a reasonably high proportion of sharp images. It's enough that photographing the hummingbird is easy - it's the rest of the composition that gets my attention. With other subject matter such as people, the percentage in sharp focus is high enough that it's not a primary criteria when reviewing images - I assume they are all sharp because they usually are.

For me, having the box on the eye is not that important - it's getting the subject in focus. The eye is a byproduct of the subject being in focus - even with a fast lens. I'm still working with AF area modes, handoffs between modes, and what circumstances cause a mode to not work as well as others. The subject that caused the most struggle for me was Swallow Tailed Kites in flight - a very acrobatic bird that swoops down low to catch insects in flight. That was hard and had a low keeper rate during their acrobatic maneuvers, but was easy while simply flying. The rapid change in direction caused me to change some settings. And as you would expect, this is subject matter where practice makes a big difference.

 

[Cameron T]

I think this is true technically speaking, but in practice it's too easy to blame technique or user errors and to not be open to the possibility of legitimate issues.

I've told the story before of how when I got my 200-500 everything was blurry. I, never having had a long telephoto before, wondered if it was me so I tried to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong, to rule those things out, etc. Wheb I couldn't find any fault with myself I started testing with a tripod, setting up targets, checking the AF fine tune, etc. When that went nowhere I went on a forum and asked there, detailing all I'd tried.

90% of the people blamed my technique. They told me to use a tripod - even though I'd posted photos explaining they were taken on the tripod. They told me to try the VR off - even though I had mentioned that I had. They then told me to try it with the VR on. They told me my SS was too low (it was 1/1000 or something). When I raised it to satisfy them, they told me the image just looked blurry due to high ISO. *Nothing* I could do could open anyone to the chance that something was wrong: it was all my fault, my technique, my poor settings, etc.

Finally I sent it back for a replacement and when the replacement came, immediately my results were sharp. It wasn't my technique after all.

Ever since I've seen many dozens of posts of people with various problems and I see the same thing: no matter ehat evidence they provide or what they say they have already checked, most people pile on and say they must just not be very good at using the camera/lens/whatever.

Now I'm not intending to call you out here - I'm just commenting in general that I think it's very easy to think a problem like this is a user problem rather than to consider whether it's something else.

For what it's worth, I have had similar experiences with this camera and BIF, but I'd assumed it was largely a lens issue until Steve came into this thread and in so many words seems to have said that while the camera is fine for BIF, the eye detection isn't the camera's strong suit for these subjects.

I'll tell you a story about two different posts I remember, both from a while back.

The first post was someone complaining things weren't sharp, the provided images were a bird on a stick of some sort in a lake and something else I don't remember. The OP of that topic said they were concerned about how bad the AF on their Z9 was, when asked about what af mode (and other settings), they said they were on 3d. Only 3d. They got told they should use literally anything else, because every other mode would be better since 3d isn't likely to pick up a small low contrast bird vs high contrast water (or other things) that are much larger in the frame. The OP went on about how that couldn't be a problem, but in the end, changed what they were doing and their problem was solved.

The other topic was someone complaining about a lens being unsharp, etc. To cut this one short, it turns out shooting out your window in the winter is going to cause a lot of problems, and without people getting to that point OP could have swapped a good lens tons of times and still not solved it.

Most of the time, the problems are not on the camera or lens side, and diagnosing a bad lens requires some sort of objective test (and diagnosing 'af problems' is a whole other story) in controlled conditions most of the time, otherwise you're chasing problems for days or weeks.

 

[SCoombs]

My guess is it's not technique or a user problem - it's probably a setting that does not work as you would expect. I'd start by looking more closely at those that are successful rather than those with problems. Sure - it may be a problem with the camera - or the lens. But if that's the case, a methodical look at technique and settings will confirm that issue. Make the assumption the gear is not the issue and it's one of the other factors. At the very least, you'll probably improve your keeper rate a little and make some small adjustments.

I'm not having similar issues, but I'm also not shooting the same subject matter that you are. Even with less common fast moving subjects - like hummingbirds in flight - I'm finding ways to get a reasonably high proportion of sharp images. It's enough that photographing the hummingbird is easy - it's the rest of the composition that gets my attention. With other subject matter such as people, the percentage in sharp focus is high enough that it's not a primary criteria when reviewing images - I assume they are all sharp because they usually are.

For me, having the box on the eye is not that important - it's getting the subject in focus. The eye is a byproduct of the subject being in focus - even with a fast lens. I'm still working with AF area modes, handoffs between modes, and what circumstances cause a mode to not work as well as others. The subject that caused the most struggle for me was Swallow Tailed Kites in flight - a very acrobatic bird that swoops down low to catch insects in flight. That was hard and had a low keeper rate during their acrobatic maneuvers, but was easy while simply flying. The rapid change in direction caused me to change some settings. And as you would expect, this is subject matter where practice makes a big difference.

Generally my settings are copied over from Steve. It's not that I don't know what they do, but it's that in 95% of cases I'd agree with him anyways and with settings which are sort of a matter of judgment call, like the AF tracking slider, I'm going to defer to his greater number of hours using the different possibilities.

I agree that having the subject in focus is most important. This is why I'd like to see more from the cameras in terms of getting the eye locked on in cases where it should matter - e.g., the bird is closer and so the focal plane needs to be in the right place.

For what it's worth, I don't think hummingbirds are an especially helpful subject for sorting this topic out since they've always been one of the easiest birds to photograph thanks to their tendency to hover in place for long enough to let someone get the shot.

 

[Dinusaur]

I anticipated a lot of questions would be asked about settings. These are screen captures from NX studio indicating the AF points. Are they accurate? Who's to say, though every in focus image, has the little box squarely over the eye for perched birds, people, planes, etc. I'm just not seeing this with my BIF images and am not changing any of the af settings. Defaults are as Steve describes and usually I acquire with a Wide C1 array, sometimes handoff to 3D or sometimes just acquire with 3d if it recognizes the subject with the little white square tracking box. In terms of the image settings for the examples provided, ISO 2500, Tv 1/2000, f/6.3 AF settings, AF-C, Autofocus area mode wide C1, Autofocus detection - animals A1 - release, A3 - 3, steady, A4 - all points used, A6 - AF, A7- Auto, A14 - High, etc. 800 PF.

I think your problem might be A1 setting, Release. I always set it to Focus+Release. With A1 set to Release, the faster a bird flies worse it will be for focus accuracy when shutter is pressed. I have Z9; however, in terms of focus acquisition it might be similar to Z8. This morning I took a series of photos of a Northern Harrier as it flew past me and far away. I used Wide Area (L) for the series and the set came out alright. Here are two photos of the same frame, one full frame with the position of the supposed focus shown and the second is heavily cropped to show the sharpness. Needless to say I have my own frustration with Z9 focus tracking - but that's for another time.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[SCoombs]

I'll tell you a story about two different posts I remember, both from a while back.

The first post was someone complaining things weren't sharp, the provided images were a bird on a stick of some sort in a lake and something else I don't remember. The OP of that topic said they were concerned about how bad the AF on their Z9 was, when asked about what af mode (and other settings), they said they were on 3d. Only 3d. They got told they should use literally anything else, because every other mode would be better since 3d isn't likely to pick up a small low contrast bird vs high contrast water (or other things) that are much larger in the frame. The OP went on about how that couldn't be a problem, but in the end, changed what they were doing and their problem was solved.

The other topic was someone complaining about a lens being unsharp, etc. To cut this one short, it turns out shooting out your window in the winter is going to cause a lot of problems, and without people getting to that point OP could have swapped a good lens tons of times and still not solved it.

Most of the time, the problems are not on the camera or lens side, and diagnosing a bad lens requires some sort of objective test (and diagnosing 'af problems' is a whole other story) in controlled conditions most of the time, otherwise you're chasing problems for days or weeks.

I think this is a bit of a strawman, though. I'm certainly not claiming that these kinds of things are never a user's fault. Sometimes they are. Sometimes it's even the fault of an extremely experienced person, like a well known user on a forum I once saw who had had a lapse and not realized that he had his camera in AF-S mode.

What I'm saying is that the tendency I've noticed is to jump on accusing the user of being at fault almost 100% of the time, and that this tendency is so strong that people will literally keep blaming things even when a person has made clear statements or given clear evidence that should preclude people from raising a certain point - e.g., someone will clearly state that all their photos are handheld and people will still tell them they need to remember to turn the VR off when on a tripod, or someone will post a bunch of examples taken at 1/2000 and people will still say he isn't using a fast enough shutter speed for some subject that needs 1/400.

 

[Cameron T]

I think this is a bit of a strawman, though. I'm certainly not claiming that these kinds of things are never a user's fault. Sometimes they are. Sometimes it's even the fault of an extremely experienced person, like a well known user on a forum I once saw who had had a lapse and not realized that he had his camera in AF-S mode.

What I'm saying is that the tendency I've noticed is to jump on accusing the user of being at fault almost 100% of the time, and that this tendency is so strong that people will literally keep blaming things even when a person has made clear statements or given clear evidence that should preclude people from raising a certain point - e.g., someone will clearly state that all their photos are handheld and people will still tell them they need to remember to turn the VR off when on a tripod, or someone will post a bunch of examples taken at 1/2000 and people will still say he isn't using a fast enough shutter speed for some subject that needs 1/400.

My point was more that both of those people also swore up and down it wasn't them, or anything they were doing. And it absolutely was. I agree with your paragraph in large part (aka that people should read the information provided), but I think it's also fair to question some things and make sure that the person didn't mess the tests up. Having done IT work, the amount of times people said they rebooted when I could tell they hadn't is way way way too high...

 

[SCoombs]

My point was more that both of those people also swore up and down it wasn't them, or anything they were doing. And it absolutely was. I agree with your paragraph in large part (aka that people should read the information provided), but I think it's also fair to question some things and make sure that the person didn't mess the tests up. Having done IT work, the amount of times people said they rebooted when I could tell they hadn't is way way way too high...

I can understand why that would be frustrating, but at the same time can you appreciate that a lot of that kind of behavior comes from people being conditioned to know that IT help desks will often, if not usually, all but ignore the details of their complaints and make them go through a long troubleshooting script even if it has nothing to do with their complaint or what their problem is? As someone who has an abundantly high IT skillset and only requires IT support when there is some kind of restricted action that needs to be performed, this is especially frustrating when I run into it. It also bothers me a lot on the "other side of it" when an IT department's script jumps straight to the most extreme action. Long ago when I was in college I used to fix my friends' computers rather than their going to the IT desk because the IT desk had pretty much one solution to any possible problem: reimage from the recovery partition. There was no question of actually trying to understand the person's problem and fix it - it was a one-sized-fits-all approach, and in a sense that's how IT usually works, even if instead of jumping to the most extreme action they're slowly walking people through the most basic ones every time regardless of the problem.

I think there's probably something similar going on with camera issues: a lot of folks know that no matter what they say, people are just going to blame their technique and so it probably tends to influence the way they're willing to talk about their issues.

I'm actually dealing with an especially frustrating case of this right now in another area. I need to have a professional certification processed and have followed all the instructions for my particular case, but the online form it links to is not correct for my situation and so I cannot complete it. I've emailed with their support five times at this point and each time they just link the same instructions. I've specifically pointed out the problem and pointed out that the link provided does not work correctly, and all they do is email the same instructions. It's as if they just assume that everyone having a problem is someone who hasn't read the basic instructions so they don't even pay attention to my specific message and just email the one-sized-fits-all instructions.

 

[ajrmd]

I think your problem might be A1 setting, Release. I always set it to Focus+Release. With A1 set to Release, the faster a bird flies worse it will be for focus accuracy when shutter is pressed. I have Z9; however, in terms of focus acquisition it might be similar to Z8. This morning I took a series of photos of a Northern Harrier as it flew past me and far away. I used Wide Area (L) for the series and the set came out alright. Here are two photos of the same frame, one full frame with the position of the supposed focus shown and the second is heavily cropped to show the sharpness. Needless to say I have my own frustration with Z9 focus tracking - but that's for another time. View attachment 70924View attachment 70924View attachment 70925

Appreciate the suggestion. Looking at the images, the subject is small and against a busy background. These are the kinds of shots that one trains on, takes for pleasure, or for documentary purpose. For most of my in-flight images, the subject has to occupy at least 1/3rd though preferentially 1/2 the frame or more. It is at those distances and when the bird was flying tangentially that I experienced the most difficulties compared to my other equipment. In my neck of the woods, the large birds have migrated, and I'll have to wait until I go out west or south for large birds/mammals. Since we don't own a dog, I don't have an "at will" subject to test various af combinations and for some reason our cats won't cooperate - imagine that. From what I've read about how the Z8/Z9 prioritizes animals, using a smaller focus area may force the algorithm to look for the eye more quickly.

 

[JoelKlein]

Just what the doctor ordered!
New Z9 update!

Added [Birds] and [Airplanes] to [AF subject detection options] in the photo shooting and video recording menus.

 

[John Navitsky]

What I find particularly intriguing is how the system, which has world class recognition of the eyes on static/perched/swimming subjects, fails completely when the same structures take flight.

random thought, perched and flying birds are different shapes

 

[JoelKlein]

random thought, perched and flying birds are different shapes

That is for sure!!!

 

[ajrmd]

It would be a bit immature of me to do a victory dance, so I'll save that until the firmware is released for the Z8, but how timely was this software update? I hope the naysayers are enjoying their portion of humble pie and take the time to reflect. 'nuff said.

 

[Cameron T]

It would be a bit immature of me to do a victory dance, so I'll save that until the firmware is released for the Z8, but how timely was this software update? I hope the naysayers are enjoying their portion of humble pie and take the time to reflect. 'nuff said.

There's no "humble pie" to be had here. Nikon improving their af doesn't mean that it didn't work before, as people here have proved multiple times. Hopefully you find it works better for you in the future, and find your struggles lessened.

 

[jcollins]

It would be a bit immature of me to do a victory dance, so I'll save that until the firmware is released for the Z8, but how timely was this software update? I hope the naysayers are enjoying their portion of humble pie and take the time to reflect. 'nuff said.

FYI there's already comments from Steve who previewed it a few days ago pre-release, general commentary is that there are notable improvements for the situations you've encountered but it'll be a bit of a wait til "first half of 2024" for you to try on your Z8.

Nikon 4.1 Firmware - Initial Field Report

Nikon just released firmware 4.1 for the Z9 and it includes a brand new subject detection option for birds! I was fortunate enough to have my Nikon rep bring me a camera with a pre-release sample for some test shooting in Florida and I can't wait to share what I found. In this video, I'll...

bcgforums.com

 

[foxysport]

My take is the GBH is still small in the frame for the eye to be relevant. As you said - DOF has the entire bird in focus anyway. The size of the eye and subject is relevant. The camera uses a progression - recognizable shape, body, head, then eye. The smaller the AF area being used, the more concentrated the camera is on a specific location. If it is on a subject and staying on the subject, it continues to refine and maintain focus.

In the case of the cygnet, you have the best possible situation - a dark eye which is well defined against the white head, and as much time as needed to determine that is the eye on the head of a bird. Compared to the GBH, the heron has a two tone face, the eye has low contrast in a busy patterned area, and the camera correctly found the bird but not the eye. I'd be using Wide Small or C1 for that kind of subject and if positioned on the neck, head, or shoulder.

You may find 3D works effectively for any of these subjects. If you have a relatively large subject, it works easily. If your subject is smaller in the frame, a smaller AF area such as Wide Small or Wide C1 is more effective to acquire focus, and then 3D can maintain AF and refine as needed.

To accomplish the latter, I use a Fn button programmed for Wide Small + AF-On - so the camera has a small box, and when you press the button it changes to Wide Small and immediately focuses. The camera will look for the head/eye in and near the Wide Small box. Once acquired, you can release the Fn button and return to your previously selected AF Area mode - 3D - and it should maintain the same focus on the subject and continue to adjust as you follow the subject.

Of course, you could also take other approaches. Some people use Wide Small as an example as the Primary AF mode, and find the subject. Once they find it, they press a button for 3D and 3D takes over as long as the button is held. It's a matter of personal preference.

I'm sure some others will weigh in with their suggested approaches. It's a bit of a personal choice because there are a lot of ways to configure the camera/

This sounds like an amazing option. Had not occurred to me to let 3D be the default, and focus acquisition to be an assigned Function. Keen to experiment with this when I can (especially when SnapBridge finds the 4.10 update).

Thanks!

 

[fcotterill]

My take is the GBH is still small in the frame for the eye to be relevant. As you said - DOF has the entire bird in focus anyway. The size of the eye and subject is relevant. The camera uses a progression - recognizable shape, body, head, then eye. The smaller the AF area being used, the more concentrated the camera is on a specific location. If it is on a subject and staying on the subject, it continues to refine and maintain focus.

In the case of the cygnet, you have the best possible situation - a dark eye which is well defined against the white head, and as much time as needed to determine that is the eye on the head of a bird. Compared to the GBH, the heron has a two tone face, the eye has low contrast in a busy patterned area, and the camera correctly found the bird but not the eye. I'd be using Wide Small or C1 for that kind of subject and if positioned on the neck, head, or shoulder.

You may find 3D works effectively for any of these subjects. If you have a relatively large subject, it works easily. If your subject is smaller in the frame, a smaller AF area such as Wide Small or Wide C1 is more effective to acquire focus, and then 3D can maintain AF and refine as needed.

To accomplish the latter, I use a Fn button programmed for Wide Small + AF-On - so the camera has a small box, and when you press the button it changes to Wide Small and immediately focuses. The camera will look for the head/eye in and near the Wide Small box. Once acquired, you can release the Fn button and return to your previously selected AF Area mode - 3D - and it should maintain the same focus on the subject and continue to adjust as you follow the subject.

Of course, you could also take other approaches. Some people use Wide Small as an example as the Primary AF mode, and find the subject. Once they find it, they press a button for 3D and 3D takes over as long as the button is held. It's a matter of personal preference.

I'm sure some others will weigh in with their suggested approaches. It's a bit of a personal choice because there are a lot of ways to configure the camera/

[This setup or similar obviously applies to the Z8 ]
I have 3D as default AF mode on BBAF - with both Z9's and also the D6.... settled on this setup many months ago. If 3D struggles, I switch to any one of these alternative AFMode+AfOn settings on respective Fn buttons:

> C1 set to 1*1 (effectively a subject-detection Single-point), which is robust at drilling through vegetation etc on to the subject

> C2 as a narrow rectangle, usually 5*3 (but this is a larger area in the Action Shooting banks)

> AutoAF on Lens-Fn

It seems that most users of the Z8/9 (at least for action/wildlife) have multiple buttons programmed to activate different AF modes for instant switching. For example, some people have the DISP button - rarely used for its default purpose - set to AF-ON single point, meaning that pressing this button will instantly start AFing with single point AF. Others have the Fn1 button set to do the same. Lots of people have the Fn1 button set to activate 3D tracking, so regardless of what AF mode the camera is in it will immediately start 3D tracking if pressed. I have my movie record button set to turn of subject detection so if the camera is grabbing the neck of a heron or something as a subject even though my AF point is on its head, I can press this and it will stop doing that and revert to focusing on the head/eye where my AF point is.

These are very easy, efficient, and useful and most people would be using them regardless of how well they thought the AF worked. In fact, users of higher end Nikon DSLRs have long programmed buttons for similar purposes because the cameras allowed it and it is very helpful to be able to instantly start using a different AF mode depending on circumstances.

The world changed in 2016 when Nikon released the D5 and D500 with these AFMode+AFOn custom options...followed by the D850 in 2017. This feature only arrived in the Z System late 2021 in the Z9, but unfortunately is still MIA in Nikon's prosumer ILC's (one major reason why my otherwise excellent Z7 went to a new home).

If 3D struggles in the Z9 (equally D6), the tried and tested tactic is crimp down the search area for S-D if necessary as tight as 3*3 or 1*1; for BIF a long narrow Custom Area usually works well.

Nikon also released AutoAF mode in 2016 and has proved reliable to lock on to a BIF, so AutoAF continues to be my go to mode with S-D in the Z9 - it seems to have better Closest Focus Priority compared to 3D. However, 3D has the advantage of using tone/colour data with S-D (Subject Detection)

Sony and Canon will keep a box on the eye for BIF way more than Nikon will. I'm not even sure if I have a single BIF shot from Z9 that shows eye-detect active for BIF. I don't really have time to go through them all and double check.

I have swallow in flight shots with eye-detect active from the A1. I have many other birds with eye-detect active from R5 and R3. All cameras struggle with long-necked birds, especially one coming towards you so close that the entire bird isn't even in the frame anymore (as seen in the SHC earlier in this thread.

In general the Z9/Z8 require the bird to be way larger in the frame to have subject detect or even AF in general work compared to Sony and Canon.

AutoAF in the Z9 is surprisingly robust on small subjects, and it works well to grab initial focus and hand over to a tighter Custom Area mode

All brands do better when the photographer can pan smoothly and keep the bird centred in the frame.

The real question I see is whether Nikon's lack of showing eye-af for BIF really affects the final keeper rate or not?

Based on my experience with Nikon - namely Z9 (since March 2022) you are correct, the correlation between sharp subjects and position of the AF Box is indeed erratic

I think for most of the time it doesn't really matter and keepers will be sufficient and probably comparable to Sony and Canon. The further the bird is away from you the less it will matter as DOF will cover you. It is when the birds are close that BEAF makes the bigger difference and can easily ruin the shot if the camera chooses the neck, body or near wing to focus on. But even on an A1 (which IMO still has noticeably superior AF to the competition) it will often focus on the near wing of a large, long-necked bird unless you use a very small AF area (like Expand Flex Spot) to place the point on the head of the bird and are able to keep it there.

Final thing I will say is that you can probably find as many images with the indicated focus box in the "correct" spot where the correct spot isn't in focus as you can find images with the indicated focus box in the "wrong" spot but with the correct spot in focus. I don't find that indicated focus spot on any camera to be in sync with reality consistently enough to be worth looking at in post to work out AF problems.

A useful summary I think it was Brad Hill who first confirmed how the AF focus indicator jumps outside the AF box with the Z9.... eg using Wide Area mode, in early 2022. This was an early sign of how the Z9 AF behaves.... As you say, the behaviour of the AF indicator box has always been erratic and IME not only on flying birds but also some mammal species, not only with the eye partially visible. I rely more on a tighter AF area mode whenever possible

With the arrived of Bird Mode in FW 4.10 for the Z9, it will be interesting to test the relationship between sharp eyes of subjects with/without the Focus box fixed on to the eye. My brief tests confirms this Bird mode is definitely stickier but I have yet to compare test shots.

 

[fcotterill]

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 It's no unusual for me to turn it off and just take over using a small Wide AF area and do it myself.

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).

Valuable synopsis particularly on tracking skills (!)
Little to add, except to mention this is where I find toggling to a tighter AF area mode crimps the active search area of Subject Detection - ideally on to the subject's head if circumstances allow. This is where the Custom Area C1 and C2 work best IME

 

[Chappy]

Valuable synopsis particularly on tracking skills (!)
Little to add, except to mention this is where I find toggling to a tighter AF area mode crimps the active search area of Subject Detection - ideally on to the subject's head if circumstances allow. This is where the Custom Area C1 and C2 work best IME

I have my movie record button programmed to toggle between fox and DX. When you toggle to DX the focus point enlarges as with the field of view and allows the focus point to lock on to the eye quicker. Then you can toggle back to fox and the focus point usually stays locked on. I try to have my Z8 setup the same as my Z9, however there is one less button on the Z8 and every now and then I find myself missing that extra function.

It takes time to master all of the programmed buttons but it is worth it in the end.

 

[John Woodworth]

Too soon to be sure, but hopefully the 4.01 update will render this thread moot and vindicate the OP.

 

[NicholasN]

I anticipated a lot of questions would be asked about settings. These are screen captures from NX studio indicating the AF points. Are they accurate? Who's to say, though every in focus image, has the little box squarely over the eye for perched birds, people, planes, etc. I'm just not seeing this with my BIF images and am not changing any of the af settings. Defaults are as Steve describes and usually I acquire with a Wide C1 array, sometimes handoff to 3D or sometimes just acquire with 3d if it recognizes the subject with the little white square tracking box. In terms of the image settings for the examples provided, ISO 2500, Tv 1/2000, f/6.3 AF settings, AF-C, Autofocus area mode wide C1, Autofocus detection - animals A1 - release, A3 - 3, steady, A4 - all points used, A6 - AF, A7- Auto, A14 - High, etc. 800 PF.

2 things to try here:
Wide-l or auto area instead of custom C1/2 focus mode.
Try A1 focus priority.
I have been using focus priority instead of release since the D850. I am using the same focus priority (with enabled not disabled in the side setting of AF ON only) with all firmware versions on my z9. I get very accurate focusing and better results than release priority and slightly better than focus/release priority - when I switch to between different modes this is what I found:
Focus priority for anything going sideways or away is better.
Focus/release priority is more consistent for tracking birds coming towards you except there are slightly more missed shots than focus priority (which although are sharp and always on the bird - the slight confirmation delay for very fast action is slightly back focusing).
Focus priority with aperture higher than f7.1 on a lens that is rated as f5.6/f6.3 ( depending on lens wide open anything above a third of a stop - slight delay and above 2/3 stop there is more delay and stuttering between shots) - does not happen in release or focus/release).
Setting a custom wide setting is not better than the standard wide-L or wide-S (for me anyway). Just remember that these focus modes behave according to your settings for A3 1-5 steady or erratic (where as auto area and 3D - Do Not they operate in anything set above 3-5 steady or erratic. Anything below that reverts to 3) -

 

[EricBowles]

I'm going to lock this thread. There is lots of good information, but with firmware updates and new information, we probably need to pick up the discussion in a new thread and consider current firmware only.