Right now it's my only camera and so I can't really send it away for a few weeks.
One of my purchases in the next few months will likely be a backup camera of some kind, at which time there is a good chance I will do that.
Struggling with Z8 focus tracking
- Thread starter SCoombs
- Start date
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).
One of my purchases in the next few months will likely be a backup camera of some kind, at which time there is a good chance I will do that.
htom
New member
Looking at the example above. Have you tested the same by switching the Subject Motion setting from Steady to Erratic and vice verse?
That was my first thought and I did briefly but didn't notice a difference. I will try again another time.
rjpawl
Member
Dont know if you checked this fellows site…maybe some useful info
www.robertallen-photography.com
Robert G Allen Photography | A Nikon and Capture One blog
I decided to use all 3 of my current Nikon mirrorless cameras; The Z6, Z8 and Z9 and all with Nikkor F mount adaptive lenses using the FTZ II adaptor. I will break down the post into 4 sections, one for each camera and my overall assessment.
www.robertallen-photography.com
Thanks for the link. Interestingly, this person reports using the focus mode everyone is telling me not to use! He is also using the longer lenses, which makes sense to me given the lighting he had.Dont know if you checked this fellows site…maybe some useful info
Robert G Allen Photography | A Nikon and Capture One blog
I decided to use all 3 of my current Nikon mirrorless cameras; The Z6, Z8 and Z9 and all with Nikkor F mount adaptive lenses using the FTZ II adaptor. I will break down the post into 4 sections, one for each camera and my overall assessment.
I shoot a lot of sports, in fact way more sports than wildlife, and I have been very pleased with the performance of my Z9 and now my Z6iii. I can't imaging the Z8 performance to be any less than the Z9 or Z6iii. I did post earlier about the focus modes I use and I have had very good success. I use my 70-200 Z, 100-400 Z, and even my 180-600 Z with good results. I am a little puzzled by the inconsistencies you are experiencing.
I would guess you are on the latest firmware version for the Z8. Have you thought about saving your settings, resetting the camera to factory settings, reinstalling the latest firmware (I believe you can reinstall the same version), then restoring your settings. You might even think about not restoring your settings after reinstalling the latest firmware, but just redoing your setting in camera. This might take a little work but I am sometimes concerned that there might be a strange bit of data that carries over from firmware update to firmware update and could potentially cause a problem.
I am heading off to shoot a volleyball match and I am going to be there a little early, so I might try shooting some volleyball in dynamic mode to test it out.
I would guess you are on the latest firmware version for the Z8. Have you thought about saving your settings, resetting the camera to factory settings, reinstalling the latest firmware (I believe you can reinstall the same version), then restoring your settings. You might even think about not restoring your settings after reinstalling the latest firmware, but just redoing your setting in camera. This might take a little work but I am sometimes concerned that there might be a strange bit of data that carries over from firmware update to firmware update and could potentially cause a problem.
I am heading off to shoot a volleyball match and I am going to be there a little early, so I might try shooting some volleyball in dynamic mode to test it out.
I have actually reset my settings a few times. Most recently, this was when I was experiencing extremely poor performance in low light. Anything below EV 6-7 was basically not in focus even when the camera reported a good focus acquisition. We went through 4 threads on DPReview discussing it, with half the people insisting their Z8/9s were flawless down to basically total darkness and about half the people saying they'd had similar results to me. Eventually Thom Hogan started discussing and he essentially suggested that the Z8/9 have problems with focus when trying to use AF-C with TTL flash. When I switched to manual flash, it didn't totally eliminate the problem but it sure got a lot better.
In any case, the point is that I reset two or three times at that time. One of those times I reloaded the settings. Another time I reprogrammed them manually. Another time I first tried shooting using pure factory settings to see if it made a difference (it didn't).
Did you reinstall firmware?
Yes indeed.
raptor photo
Well-known member
So, the best AF modes are 3D AF and Wide Area?
ajrmd
Well-known member
What's "wide dynamic af"? My Z8 has dynamic or alternatively, wide areas but not a "wide dynamic". I'm sure it's some misunderstanding or typo? Also, he claims that the Z8 followed the subject in spite of the player moving behind a net. This doesn't happen reliably in my experience.
As an aside, when folks say send your camera in, it makes me chuckle. I have two Z8 bodies, both of which have difficulty maintaining subject lock and tracking (worse on birds in certain scenarios which I've described) and both of which exhibit the strange af on people as you've illustrated. What are the odds that all of these bodies are defective? There is an interesting thread on DP from a pro who shoots runway, where his Z9 was, inexplicably unable to maintain consistent eye autofocus during the model shoot. Some attributed it to the lighting, and while that is a possibility, I've experienced it natural lighting/flash as well. When shooting portraits, I frequently find that it grabs something other than the eye in spite of it indicating eye tracking, and occasionally, it focuses on the lash, brow, or elsewhere. I find myself shooting dozens of redundant frames knowing that some may be in critical eye focus, others won't. I have simply come to the conclusion that for certain applications, the Z autofocus just isn't as good as it should be. In my experience, it's fine for perched birds, most BIF, the best for aircraft, good for motor sports, equivalent for most wildlife, but hit or miss for people. Likewise, with sports, I've come to the conclusion that my R3 just focused better, easier, and with less angst.
This is how I feel too, but with the definite... caveat (if that's the right word here) that there are a LOT of people who say it does all these things flawlessly for them, just as there are a LOT of people who say it does not.
I can't really come up with a great explanation to justify it, but it really at times seems to me like there are two different "variants" of Z8/9 out there, some of which do all of these things well and others of which don't. For instance, I was commenting on the parallel DPReview thread that I have basically never had my Z8 get the subject detect on the eye of a bird in flight. It's something I've mentioned here in the past and gotten some people agreeing with me but also a lot of people saying it does it all the time.
The low light AF stuff that went through 4 threads on DPReview is the same. You have people saying they can basically go out in almost pitch black and get eye-AF on fast moving people without a hitch, but then you also have people who with the same camera and the same other equipment (lenses, speedlights, strobes, whatever) and the same settings who need to take three or four backup shots of a static headshot just to make sure in light 4 times better just to make sure they get one in focus. Critically, with some of this we're talking about a lot of pretty low skill stuff here - e.g., point the camera at the stationary subject, press the AF-On button, let the camera focus - and not only stuff where differences in photographer skill are likely to be a major factor.
I can't explain how the very same model of camera could behave so differently, but I also have a hard time imagining what differences there could be between two different units of a solid state device like this to cause these sorts of differences.
I don't know if this helps, but I took a few test images tonight using Dynamic Medium on my Z9. The focus did not seem to drift across the 34 images in the burst even though the center focus point drifted to the background. A3 was set to 2. Images were shot at 1/1250 at f2.8 at ISO 4000, 20 FPS.
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.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Thanks for that. I'm not sure if it's helpful exactly, but it's certainly interesting. You don't have that center point drift too often, but when it does the helpers are doing what they're supposed to. When I am shooting subjects of this size in the frame the camera goes to the background the first frame that the central point moves off of the subject - so there's definitely a drastic difference in behavior here.
Something else that I find interesting here: what are you doing metering-wise?
I absolutely get where you are and the frustration that you are getting with the AF.
In the Formula 1 world the teams spend weeks and months developing upgrades for the cars that are tested in the wind tunnel and in computer simulations and only released when everything has been triple checked. Then when they are fitted to the car they find that they don't work. The real world has a habit of screwing technology.
I tried my Sigma 150-600 Sport for the rugby but found it much more difficult to use when trying to follow the action or get back on it if I lost the action. I can hand hold it in short bursts but used a monopod most of the time. Then with a shoulder injury that prevented me from being able to bring a camera to my eye or use it on a monopd I had to lay off for a while. When I had made an 85% recovery and got fed up with not shooting I decided to cover a game using a very light lens, my 300mm f4. This gave me more keepers than the 150-600 and it was so easy to use too. Still a bit too short though.
So then I tried my 80-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC. This was then 112-280. not too bad and more flexible but still not long enough. Then I got an adaptor that allowed my F mount lenses with AF motors to AF on my Fujis. This gave me 170-420 with the 80-200 +1.4x TC. This was a lot better but a bit long at the short end. At this point the easy fix is to carry 2 cameras - and back in the day I'd do this a lot, but now I'd only do this if what I was shooting was really important.
The game changer for me was when Fuji brought out a 70-300. I got my used XT-1 the same year as my D850 mainly as it reminded me so much of my SV Pentax that I bought in 1964 or 65, and to see what this mirrorless was all about. I was well smitten with the Fuji and built a system and was using it more than my D850. I tried my XT-4 with the 70-300 and found it was near perfect for what I wanted to do. Better frame rate than the D850, lighter, better AF (once I'd played around seeking the best set up) and more keepers.
So does this set up give me perfect results? No. Is it good enough? Yes.
At this point I have to mention my shooting philosophy. I tailor my shooting and PP to suit what the final use of the images will be. For my Studio work I use my Nikon FF kit and PP in Lightroom and PS. I'll also use it if I know the light will be low and there is no action. For travel/walking I favour my Fuji XT-4 with a 10-24, a 17-55 and 70-300 maybe a fun lens like my manual focus Samsung 85mm f1.8. I might also have the XT-4 body and a couple of other lenses too if I think they are going to be handy. This kit is lighter than my Nikon kit with three f2.8 lenses. PP will vary from just LR to LR + PS. Sports and action is now the realm of my Fuji XH-2s +70-300. The rugby matches seldom see PS and only if there are images that I want for my own use.
In the UK rugby is a Winter sport. This means that mid Winter at 4pm I'm usually at ISO 12800 and down to 1/500 and the noise is awful. However, the final use of the images will be for the club's social media and website, the players to look at on their phones and not much, if anything else. They will also like them quickly as it is no good sending them images a week or two after the game. Time is of the essence so I aim to send them the images the next day. The Fujis give me 3 auto ISO settings memories. I start with #1 and as the light falls move to #2 and then to #3. In LR I can see where I'm doing this so as I C&P/sync the development settings along the filmstrip I bump up the noise reduction at these points. Is the noise still there? Yes. Does the noise bother the rugby club? Well, I've never had a complaint. They are very pleased with the images I give them.
So getting back to the point (at last), if you are shooting for yourself so want the highest possible quality, as in any action scenario you will have to take lots of pictures and end up with a few keepers - once you have found the AF setting that will give you this result - and maybe you already have. If you are shooting for the fun of it or for the players or their families, less than perfect will be good enough and they will never see what a photographer sees in an image. Many of your images will be perfectly OK for them.
Shooting field sport is like trying to shoot specific birds in a flock - and sometimes when they are flying. You would not expect the AF to work flawlessly for that, would you?
I was using matrix metering but shooting in full manual mode.
Is it possible for you to rent a Z8 for a day and compare the performance?
fcotterill
Well-known member
An interesting discussion about challenging aspects of AF on tricky subjects
bcgforums.com
Z8/9 Auto Focus (C) w/Sub Detection 🐦+👁️=🧐
Hope you see this one Steve… I ran into an annoying issue with auto focus and subject detection. It finds the eye and nails the focus….in the reflection that is closer to the camera. This “yellowleg” is an example (mock-up) of what I occasionally encounter. The calmer the water the more...
bcgforums.com
fcotterill
Well-known member
There are physical limits, which require working around the fundamental differences between Nikon's AF sensors. To quote the explanations by two of the primary engineers who designed the Z9, in response to the following questions:
--If you compare the same lens class, which has the advantage in AF speed, the D6 or the Z 9? Because I feel that the D6 is also quite fast.
Kohama: When we say speed, there are many different elements, such as good acceleration and high maximum speed. Acceleration and response are important in scenes where the shooting distance changes frequently, such as figure skating, but maximum speed is important when the lens needs to move significantly from infinity to the closest point. The Z 9 has an advantage in conditions where you need to track smoothly, but when maximum speed is required, the D6 may have the advantage, depending on the type of AF motor in the lens.
Ishigami: It depends on the lens, but to be honest, the Z 9 has finally come close to being on par with the D6 in terms of overall evaluation. The Z 9 still has room for improvement, and there are shooting conditions in which the D6 has an advantage, so it's difficult to say which is better.
--I was surprised by your answer, which seemed to be a frank admission that the Z 9 still can't be said to be completely superior to the D6 in terms of AF performance.
Kohama: Of course, our goal is to win all the matches, but SLR cameras have an advantage due to the structure of the device, and we are finally beginning to overcome this with the Z 9. AF sensors for SLR cameras have a very wide range in which they can detect focus, while the image plane phase difference sensor of mirrorless cameras has a narrower detection range due to its structure. Therefore, SLR cameras are superior in terms of the speed at which they can bring a subject into focus from a significantly out-of-focus state, and in their ability to detect the subject. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras, which can focus on the image plane, excel in terms of focusing accuracy.
--If you compare the same lens class, which has the advantage in AF speed, the D6 or the Z 9? Because I feel that the D6 is also quite fast.
Kohama: When we say speed, there are many different elements, such as good acceleration and high maximum speed. Acceleration and response are important in scenes where the shooting distance changes frequently, such as figure skating, but maximum speed is important when the lens needs to move significantly from infinity to the closest point. The Z 9 has an advantage in conditions where you need to track smoothly, but when maximum speed is required, the D6 may have the advantage, depending on the type of AF motor in the lens.
Ishigami: It depends on the lens, but to be honest, the Z 9 has finally come close to being on par with the D6 in terms of overall evaluation. The Z 9 still has room for improvement, and there are shooting conditions in which the D6 has an advantage, so it's difficult to say which is better.
--I was surprised by your answer, which seemed to be a frank admission that the Z 9 still can't be said to be completely superior to the D6 in terms of AF performance.
Kohama: Of course, our goal is to win all the matches, but SLR cameras have an advantage due to the structure of the device, and we are finally beginning to overcome this with the Z 9. AF sensors for SLR cameras have a very wide range in which they can detect focus, while the image plane phase difference sensor of mirrorless cameras has a narrower detection range due to its structure. Therefore, SLR cameras are superior in terms of the speed at which they can bring a subject into focus from a significantly out-of-focus state, and in their ability to detect the subject. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras, which can focus on the image plane, excel in terms of focusing accuracy.
Z 9 開発者Special Interview vol.2～光学性能と小型化を追求したZ マウントシステムの開発意図と誕生秘話～ | ニコンイメージング
新次元の光学性能、システムの小型化、そして使いやすさを追求するニコン Z マウントシステム。具体的な製品の誕生秘話まで、Z マウントの開発意図や背景から、光学設計と商品企画プロダクトマネジャーのインタビュー記事をご紹介いたします。
www.nikon-image.com
Last edited:
htom
New member
Same as above, can u rent or borrow a Z8 for a day and test both with identical settings and lens used?
Theoretically I could rent another Z8, but it is costly, a few hundred dollars. Maybe for some that isn't a big deal, but for me it is - and it would on top of everything cut into my ability to replace the current camera in the event that I did find that it was not doing what it ought.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Maybe there is something “ there” though I find is highly speculative. My Two z8 bodies were purchased months apart from two different dealers and yet they behave exactly the same and suffer similar woes. What are the odds?
An update that I'm not especially happy to make, but it is what it is.
Today I had the chance to do some more of this sort of subject matter in a particularly casual environment as the school I work for asked me to take some photos of a field day, so I decided to give another try (since I used to do these things all the time) with some of the common suggestions offered here and on the other thread where this has been discussed. In particular, I went with the 180-600 for the outdoor sports to get larger subjects in the frame and I used custom area boxes with subject detection.
The result was what was easily the worst and most discouraging day of photography I have had in an extremely long time!
One reason for this is something that I can put partially on myself, and this is that with the larger subjects in the frame, just about every shot was missing the ball, cutting off limbs, etc. One of the things I had to really teach myself when shooting this kind of subject matter was to actually shoot *wider*. Possibly because of all my time doing wildlife and heeding Steve's advice to fill the frame, I had to really train myself to zoom out a bit to give room for the action to move around in. With the advice to get much larger subjects in the frame in mind, I really reverted to going much too tight.
That's something I could most fix by making my own adjustments, BUT at the expense of not really following the advice to keep the subjects large in the frame. The reality is that with the unpredictability of sports a little breathing room is required.
But regardless, the more important question is, did the larger subjects help the AF? The answer is that it did not. It behaved the same with subjects much larger in the frame as it did with subjects that are smaller. So the bottom line is that for the use case most of these sorts of photos are intended for, I'm fine with a crop in to 10 - 20 MP if it's going to mean I don't accidentally cut stuff off, and it seems like there is not a hit to AF - or at least not one large enough to be noticed - from keeping subjects smaller like this.
The second reason things were so rough was that subject detection didn't really hang on any better than dynamic area had been, BUT it was slightly less reliable at acquiring focus in the first place. This means that as compared to dynamic area AF, using subject detection meant I was getting fewer shots in focus in the first place and losing just as many to random jumps to the background.
- AND one of the main reasons I started to shy away from subject detect started to crop up again: photos where the camera gave every indication that it had a good focus on the eye of the subject but where it was actually badly out of focus.
Here's a string of 9 very easy, totally motionless, static targets, with the AF-C wide area-AF putting the solid green in focus indicator right on the eye of the target, but where every single photo is badly, badly out of focus. The plane of focus in these shots is several inches in front of them.
Here's another set where the focus is supposed to be on the jumping player (and in camera, the box was green), but where it is actually on the back of the other player. At least in this you can see the other person as something that may have stolen the focus away, even if it should still not be doing it, whereas in the other example there's literally nothing there and it's just inexplicably focused on "nothing."
Today I had the chance to do some more of this sort of subject matter in a particularly casual environment as the school I work for asked me to take some photos of a field day, so I decided to give another try (since I used to do these things all the time) with some of the common suggestions offered here and on the other thread where this has been discussed. In particular, I went with the 180-600 for the outdoor sports to get larger subjects in the frame and I used custom area boxes with subject detection.
The result was what was easily the worst and most discouraging day of photography I have had in an extremely long time!
One reason for this is something that I can put partially on myself, and this is that with the larger subjects in the frame, just about every shot was missing the ball, cutting off limbs, etc. One of the things I had to really teach myself when shooting this kind of subject matter was to actually shoot *wider*. Possibly because of all my time doing wildlife and heeding Steve's advice to fill the frame, I had to really train myself to zoom out a bit to give room for the action to move around in. With the advice to get much larger subjects in the frame in mind, I really reverted to going much too tight.
That's something I could most fix by making my own adjustments, BUT at the expense of not really following the advice to keep the subjects large in the frame. The reality is that with the unpredictability of sports a little breathing room is required.
But regardless, the more important question is, did the larger subjects help the AF? The answer is that it did not. It behaved the same with subjects much larger in the frame as it did with subjects that are smaller. So the bottom line is that for the use case most of these sorts of photos are intended for, I'm fine with a crop in to 10 - 20 MP if it's going to mean I don't accidentally cut stuff off, and it seems like there is not a hit to AF - or at least not one large enough to be noticed - from keeping subjects smaller like this.
The second reason things were so rough was that subject detection didn't really hang on any better than dynamic area had been, BUT it was slightly less reliable at acquiring focus in the first place. This means that as compared to dynamic area AF, using subject detection meant I was getting fewer shots in focus in the first place and losing just as many to random jumps to the background.
- AND one of the main reasons I started to shy away from subject detect started to crop up again: photos where the camera gave every indication that it had a good focus on the eye of the subject but where it was actually badly out of focus.
Here's a string of 9 very easy, totally motionless, static targets, with the AF-C wide area-AF putting the solid green in focus indicator right on the eye of the target, but where every single photo is badly, badly out of focus. The plane of focus in these shots is several inches in front of them.
Here's another set where the focus is supposed to be on the jumping player (and in camera, the box was green), but where it is actually on the back of the other player. At least in this you can see the other person as something that may have stolen the focus away, even if it should still not be doing it, whereas in the other example there's literally nothing there and it's just inexplicably focused on "nothing."
I said above that I would be open to sending it to Nikon, but increasingly I find the sort of sentiments that ajrmd expressed above compelling:
Ajrmd mentioned a thread going on over on DPreview where an apparently fairly accomplished photographer has been having trouble with the AF on his Z9 similarly to a lot of what I have also experienced a lot with the camera (though this thread has focused on a slightly different issue). I had also been following the thread because Nikon had apparently started to look into it and I wanted to see what came of it. A few hours ago he posted what they said, and it was really not encouraging. He said that they told him he should try using back button focus, as if that was the problem. This is one of many reasons that I strongly suspect that sending it in would beyond the downtime really just get me a big bill but no change to actual performance.
I could be wrong, of course... but at this point I've seen enough people who have approached Nikon about this stuff get the same sorts of replies as this other user reported that it makes me pretty wary of spending any money on trying to have them look at it.
Sigh. I'm not sure.
I feel you pain. What frame rares are you using? As I said, for my rugby I use 7/8 fps for general play and 15fps for the set pieces. I mention this as if you are (say) at 20fps it would give the AF more time to do its stuff.
I also use BBF.