htom
New member
Just to clarify: have you set that to Delayed (5) or Quick (1)? Based on my understanding "to quickly get off the background and back to onto the subject" would require to set the BAFSR to 1 and not 5.
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).
Strange indeed. As I noted in my response to Cameron, there are two very different experiences people are reporting in terms of some of the basic functionality. For instance, in this thread alone there is you and a few others who have not experienced any of this, but there are in addition to myself another three or four people who have said they have had similar experiences to myself, and this is consistent with the same pattern I've seen over hundreds if not thousands of posts (and videos) I've seen of people discussing the same sorts of things.
I saw the thread - and regard it as what in the UK would be called "cheesecake" subject matter.
I know there can be limitations with Sony and Canon as well as Nikon
I note what you say.
My photography goes back to 1963.
Not for me.
As an example I photographed a jazz festival in the local church this afternoon - the first time I have done anything like less since pre-Covid. For those raising eyebrows there was a gospel choir for morning service.
Less than 3% of images were out of focus this afternoon, though about 5% were in much lower light on Friday.
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.
I have had the Z8 for a year and a half and the Z9 since it came out. I have shot thousands of images of football basketball and baseball as well as wildlife and hav.e not seen the defiances that are being mentioned. The biggest problem I have seen is having a bird on a fence post and can’t focus on it as it is focusing on the background. My simple fix is to push fn 1 button which puts me in single point with af on.
Last night I shot the Texas Tech vs Baylor football game with a z8 and very large percentage of of my photos were in focus and sharp and this was in manual mode and Auto ISO. I was using a 100-400 s lens on a cloudy day starting at 3 and game ended after sunset. Most of the shooting was done from ISO 1600 to 3200 with a 1/1600th of a second shutter wide open.
If you are not happy with the camera then send it into Nikon and have it checked out. If you are still not happy then maybe your best bet is go to a camera you think will fit your needs better. I’ve done it before and will do it again if necessary.
I have had more than one case that I thought the camera or lens was malfunctioning only to realize it was user error.
tomcat
Member
I apologize for my error. It is the setting of 1 for Quick! Sorry for this silly mistake. I’m still sometimes existing in the DSLR world and it’s the reverse
I'm open to the possibility of user error which is why I asked the question about what to do differently, but the only things people have suggested are things I've already tried thousands of times, many of which involve behaviors with very minimal user input and so very little room for user error.
I have been open to sending it in, but at this point there are dozens of other people reporting that their units behave exactly the same way. It's hard to think they all just have defective units. Many of them are also accomplished with decades of good results to prove their skill, which also makes it hard for me to think user error.
Plus, we have more than a few people who have sent their camera in and had Nikon's reply that it was working normally, the most decent of which was is a guy working for Sports Illustrated who sent in pretty clear evidence and Nikon's response was to tell him to try back button focus.
I do agree with you to a point here: I think the likelihood is that avenues of possible solution have been exhausted. It is what it is at this point. What's convinced me of that is the dozens of people corroborating my experience with their own. Why there are these two radically different experiences out there I don't know. Maybe someone has the Rosetta stone for this and if so I'd love to hear it!
Otherwise, you're right that moving on is the best option, but what that means I don't know. Swap brands? Financially impossible right now. It would be a $14-$16,000 endeavor and even selling current gear isn't going to go far enough. On top of that, when I look into it the lens selection looks like a downgrade in a lot of ways. Nikon's focal and aperture ranges are just unmatched. Many of the alternatives are also far fewer MP than I'd like.
So do I wait and hope for new firmware? A pretty high risk and a lot of frustration while I wait.
Maybe I take a long shot and go for a Z9. It saves the lens selection and in spite of their supposing to br the same thinf, I haven't seen as many reports of these issues with the Z9 - though the SI photographer that's been discussed is using a Z9.
Downgrade to DSLRs? A D850? Maybe. Probably could do it for even money on the Z8 and lenses, but I'm at 275,000 snaps in a bit over a year and a half on this Z8... I'd be burning through DSLRs' shutters, and there's a real value in trying to stay with more current gear as the DSLR ecosystem is left behind by the manufacturer.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Appreciate the perspective and while the subject matter in that thread may not be everyone's cup of tea, I understand and share his frustration. No one has said that Canon and Sony are without deficiencies in their AF systems too. For example, my Canon gear did not focus as well on aircraft compared to the Z8. The cockpit recognition of this camera is second to none on all kinds of fixed wings, jets, props, you name it. The Z8 is an absolute joy to use at airshows and for vehicles. Also, the R5 had its challenges with subject recognition on occasion, long necked birds from a distance (think sandhill cranes), elephants, hippos, ungulates, etc. Likewise, it was challenged at times with small birds in trees/thickets. For some sports, particularly football (US), SD didn't work well at all, and other AF modes were more advantageous. I recall one wedding in low light that SD wasn't working well, so likewise I had to switch to different AF modes. The R3 was a little bit better than the R5 in all respects of AF. What the R5/R3 and Sony gear I've used did comparatively better with SD/tracking was once it was acquired AF it didn't inexplicably drop the subject, nor did they exhibit some of the weird things described. Again, it's not an issue regarding adapting, using other settings/modes when required, its' these weird nagging things like dropping AF in a sequence of an osprey/eagle strike just before the bird hits for no explicable reason. It's the situations of achieving af as confirmed in the viewfinder and finding that it focuses on the contralateral eye or is simply OOF. It's watching the SD easily detect the subject's eye and then seeing the AF square jumping to another part of the body even with a Wide small AF mode. Sean, Tvstaff, and I are not the only ones experiencing these unusual behaviors.
Congratulations on your photographic journey and longevity. I should be as blessed.
You sort of tangentially reinforce a point that I hope I've made clear here: my struggle or frustration here is not that one particular mode on the Z8 doesn't do everything, or that the more "magical" modern features like subject detection aren't perfect. I'm very open to switching modes as necessary, and falling back on more basic modes if the fancier modern ones are having difficulties in a given situation.
My frustration is that it doesn't seem like there is anything I can fall back to that works well when the preferred options don't. In fact, the overwhelming advice in these two threads has been not to use the older, more basic modes and that the "modern magic" of subject detection is what I should count on if I want success!
So my frustration/struggle here is that when subject detection isn't working - which I find to be a good share of the time - the "dumb" old fashioned modes aren't working either.
Give me a camera that has subject detection that works and tracks only 30% of the time BUT which can focus very well when I fall back to one of the manually more difficult "dumb" modes and I'll be extremely happy. When the "fall back" stuff isn't working either is where I have an issue.
tomcat
Member
While I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest and compassion for all of us, I felt the need to share some AF issues I've had with dynamic area AF losing it's target while shooting bursts.
1. I had to stop using BBF because I discovered that every time I pressed that AF-on button, it generated a pitch and yaw movement in my camera body because my thumb was pressing the camera ever so slightly downwards and to the left. This movement was imperceptible to my eyes, but the AF target box was always shifted towards the left and downward from my intended target position on the subject. In my mind, that's the only thing that could cause such a consistent movement of the camera body, thus moving the focus target box.
2. I also disabled the Fn buttons on my lenses (set the buttons to "none" ) because sometimes I was inadvertently pressing them while shooting, invoking whatever the setting was that I had made or invoking the factory default mode, even to the point of causing the lens to shift focus. I know this may sound nuts to some of you, but too many buttons or switches on a lens are a bain to me. I had to put a large rubber band around my 70-200 lens because I was constantly hitting the VR switch on the lens barrel and turning it off. With every new lens, I am learning where NOT to place my fingers so that I don't re-focus the lens during capture bursts. With an AF lens, I find that I don't need that focus ring unless I am manually fine-tuning it. I am placing a very wide rubber band around the focus ring and have it overlap onto the lens barrel so that the focus ring won't accidentally be moved by my straying fingers
3. For those of you that have these focus issues with your Z8/Z9 cameras, have the issues always been there from day 1 or did they start after a firmware upgrade? Just wondering if a firmware update could have caused these issues?........just wondering
1. I had to stop using BBF because I discovered that every time I pressed that AF-on button, it generated a pitch and yaw movement in my camera body because my thumb was pressing the camera ever so slightly downwards and to the left. This movement was imperceptible to my eyes, but the AF target box was always shifted towards the left and downward from my intended target position on the subject. In my mind, that's the only thing that could cause such a consistent movement of the camera body, thus moving the focus target box.
2. I also disabled the Fn buttons on my lenses (set the buttons to "none" ) because sometimes I was inadvertently pressing them while shooting, invoking whatever the setting was that I had made or invoking the factory default mode, even to the point of causing the lens to shift focus. I know this may sound nuts to some of you, but too many buttons or switches on a lens are a bain to me. I had to put a large rubber band around my 70-200 lens because I was constantly hitting the VR switch on the lens barrel and turning it off. With every new lens, I am learning where NOT to place my fingers so that I don't re-focus the lens during capture bursts. With an AF lens, I find that I don't need that focus ring unless I am manually fine-tuning it. I am placing a very wide rubber band around the focus ring and have it overlap onto the lens barrel so that the focus ring won't accidentally be moved by my straying fingers
3. For those of you that have these focus issues with your Z8/Z9 cameras, have the issues always been there from day 1 or did they start after a firmware upgrade? Just wondering if a firmware update could have caused these issues?........just wondering
ajrmd
Well-known member
Precisely, it's not an issue of switching to appropriate modes if those modes deliver! Quite candidly, I haven't shot enough sports (yet-need to reactivate my creds) with the Z8 to be able to comment conclusively regarding its capabilities, though I can validate the af challenges in other settings. For portraits, I've just resigned myself to shooting 30% more images as an insurance policy. Perhaps, someone like "Chappy" who has shot thousands of basketball and football images and who was on the sidelines of the TT/Baylor game can chime in more conclusively about his settings, keeper rates, foils, tips, etc. In the old days, when I was actually making some $ shooting sports we had SportsShooters to exchange information. Those were the days of the Canon 1d(II, IIN, III, etc.) and it was very helpful. We didn't have subject recognition, good high ISO, etc. though it was relatively easy to capture things in focus.
Another possibility. Since you are using BBF is a6 set to Shutter/AF-ON or AF-ON? I use BBF and have a6 set to AF-ON because my thumb is pretty much continuously pressing the AF-ON button. My thinking is if a6 is set to Shutter/AF-ON and both buttons are held down at the same time is it possible that the camera continues to reinitiate focus? Is the camera cycling from the AF-ON button to the Shutter release continuously and each time reinitiating focus?
Just another thought!
Just another thought!
I always use BBF with the shutter completely turned off from activating the AF (though I guess it's become more popular in the last year or so for people to do Shutter/AF-On).
I would also think that if this were at fault, I'd expect that it would be causing out of focus shots a lot more consistently.
I wish I had one of those recorders so I could make a few videos of the camera's viewfinder while using it, as I think it would help the discussion a lot. I tried doing it off of the rear LCD, but that attempt was disastrous in a whole range of ways!
Cameron T
Well-known member
Something I found over time (and I believe Steve and a few others have mentioned it too in various places) is that if you're shaky the worse it is, the less consistent the AF can be. How much this applies I'm not sure.
I'm sure you mentioned it somewhere @SCoombs, forgive me for not digging back through the topic, did you only use normal vr, sport, or off completely?
I'm sure you mentioned it somewhere @SCoombs, forgive me for not digging back through the topic, did you only use normal vr, sport, or off completely?
A good comment that raises an interesting point that may have gotten lost somewhere: I did discover playing around with it one day that when moving the camera slowly to follow a moving target, the AF would tend to hang onto the target much better, but if I move it suddenly, the AF will let go right away. So for instance, if someone is walking across the frame slowly and I put a dynamic area center box on them and then pan with them and intentionally let the center box fall off but keep the helper points on, it does maintain focus, at least a lot of the time. If on the other hand someone moves suddenly so I have to move suddenly and keep the helper point on the target, it lets go immediately and refocuses on the background (this is true regardless of how a3 is set to steady vs erratic).
This might tie into what you're saying about being "shaky." What does it mean to be shaky, after all? It means that you are making a lot of sudden movements in different directions.
The problem is with things like animals darting off or birds taking flight, or a goalkeeper diving for a shot or an athlete breaking suddenly for the ball you have to move the camera suddenly and quickly. In these cases, it's not "being shaky" - it's just the nature of trying to follow the subject which has moved quickly and suddenly. (If using a custom area box with subject detect on or off, it tends to let go and refocus very nearly immediately either way, which makes sense since there is no margin for error built into those modes).
This may explain why some people over on DPR are posting a lot of stereotypical soccer "tracking shots" that look like this one and saying that they don't have any problems:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
When you are just following players down the field, you can move the camera at a fairly steady, not sudden pace.
When you want to get a goalkeeper making a stop on the ball or a heron pouncing after a fish a few meters away, then even if you do a perfect job following them - indeed, even if you can anticipate the movement and can get the camera moving a split second early to make sure you're staying with it - you are going to be moving it very suddenly and quickly, and this is the situation where it seems to lose focus almost every time.
Regarding VR, I have tried it in sport and off (and a little bit in regular just for the sake of completeness) to see how much of a difference it might make. I didn't notice one.
I have been shooting football with the Z8 and the 100-400 S much of the season. I don't have a 400 f2.8 lens or the funds to get one and the 100-400 works well enough most of the time. While sometimes I shoot handheld most of the time I am using a monopod. I have noticed my keeper rate is higher with the monopod. I assumed it was because much of the time I put the camera down and raise it quite often and i know that I have some misses when raising the camera and acquiring focus. With the monopod there is not as much movement of the camera.
Also in Basketball I usually use the 70-200 f2.8 for far end and 24-70 f2.8 for near end shooting. I switch the lenses on the Z8 and Z9 regularly. I started this process when I had a Z6II instead of the z8 to go with my Z9. Of course the Z9 had a great deal more keepers than the Z6II. After switching to the Z8, Ive always felt the Z8 was just slightly slower than the z9 in both initial acquisition and tracking. The difference was very slight.
So with this said, I would try shooting a match with a monopod. I know that might seem like a little overkill but I see student photographers using monopods with 70-200 lenses on the field quite often. I even asked a student at one point and the instructor directed the students to use monopods. The monopod might slow your movement as well as add a little more stability while following the action.
I don't really have a problem with the camera moving around while tracking action - not with the 70-200 certainly. When I do lose focus is when I need to move the camera quickly or suddenly because the subject moves quickly or suddenly. In these cases the camera is not unstable and it does not shake - it is just a small fraction of a second behind the player movement so that for one or two frames at 10 - 20 fps a custom area box will drift off the subject or the dynamic area medium center box will drift off the target while the helper points stay on him, and that's when it ignores the helper points and focuses on the background.
That seems to be the real problem area here: when the camera has to move suddenly and quickly - even if stably. I've done a bunch of controlled tests with this and it's definitely the quick, sudden movement that makes the logic decide it should not maintain focus for whatever reason. I just don't see a monopod changing that since it is not going to change how suddenly or quickly the camera has to move to follow a player who moves that suddenly or quickly.
Apart from your final sentence I find this a good summary of some of the skills needed to take advantage of improved camera auto focus tracking.
While I agree suddenly jerking the camera can lose auto focus (EDIT - Nikon mention this can happen - and it happened often for me with the Z7) - I do not have your "almost every time" issue.
Broadening the topic out, my sports results might be because I primarily photographing cycle racing - an activity I actively participated in for 20 years.
Because of my cycle racing participation I usually "instinctively" know what is about to happen; a nd I am prepared.
Going back to the era of film and manual focus I "annoyed" other photographers as I often got about 30 out of 36 images sharp with cycle racing - and they could not.
Knowing my sport (or bird etc) and being able to anticipate what is about to happen helps my keeper percentage.
As an example birds take off into the wind and flex certain muscles as they prepare for take-off.
If you are ready for this - you may have to watch for an hour first - then you have a better chance of being pre-focussed on the bird and with smooth subject following obtaining several good sharp shots.
Taking photographs alongside groups of 20 or more Nikon uses I have only encountered one that had an AF problem.
He had sent a lens back to Grays of Westminster and they had found no problems.
When he showed me his images of squirrels it became obvious he did not have a clue as to what type of subject any auto focus system has trouble locking on (black subjects with no contrast etc) – and his perceived problem images were this type.
While the problem images being posted are of subjects where I would expect auto focus to work reasonably well, it is sometimes reported Sony is easier to set up on "automatic AF" and Nikon with many AF options offers more flexibility offset with an increased risk of not using appropriate settings.
While I have not tried the specific bodies my experience is either the bodies are defective or they should perform well - though as you report being able to constantly follow action rather than putting the camera down and picking it up the camera/lens in general improves the keeper percentage.
I have previously suggested letting another experienced Nikon user try either camera to see how they get on - with the aim of helping identify any specific camera or lens issue.
The problem is that if sudden movement causes the AF to detach from the subject and focus on the background then anticipating the motion will not be able to avoid the problem because even if you anticipate sudden movement, the movement is still sudden. You may be able to get a jump on it and improve your odds of manually tracking the subject more closely, but you will still have to move the camera at the same rate of speed to follow the motion.
This is in addition to the reality that many movements in sport are not predictable in the way that a bird taking flight can be.
At this point there have been several dozen people who have reported the same kinds of experiences that I have had with the AF system, many of them relatively accomplished. I must take this as strong evidence against the possibility that my camera has some kind of unique problem.
In 2004 nobody was griping about SD and tracking and were getting great images. Steve was following BIF and keeping the focus point on the eye manually and nailing it. What's wrong with wanting to use something that works?
Seems to me that in 2024 people are over-reliant on the camera AF and tracking modes. Next you will be typing words into software and won't need a camera.
If buying a Z8 is going to give me all of this hassle I think I'll stick with my Z6ii and Fuji kit.
My experience is the opposite.
It is not following as smoothly as possible fast movement that is the AF challenge.
The challenge I find for AF, that successful users of Nikon AF seem able to achieve, is to avoid as much as possible significantly jerking the active AF point across the viewfinder.
Again my experience is the opposite.
Anticipating what is about to happen if you specialise is often relatively straightforward.
It often takes the subject 1 or 2 seconds to get from a standing start to up to full speed - and with smooth tracking of the subject in the viewfinder I find Z8 & 9 AF easily achieves this - often with the bonus of tracking (or detecting) the subject outside the selected AF zone.
My experience is some rather than many movements - if you know your sport.
I take a different point of view.
If something I buy does not perform as I should I either return it (an almost automatic refund situation in the UK) - and perhaps if appropriate get another person to try it to see if they have the same issue.
That a few report problems on the web has no direct connection with whether or not your camera has a unique problem.
Neither has that many thousands of Nikon users seem not to have your problems.
I would never use equipment that I could not get good results from for several months without getting it checked out at an early stage to establish if it has a fault.
I consider it difficult to give you further guidance if you do not as a priority get your camera checked for a possible fault.
htom
New member
Thanks for the clarification!
I think it's clear from the original examples I posted that the AF point had not been jerked across the viewfinder. Remember: I'm talking very specifically here about cases where the AF point moves so little that in dynamic area small or medium the center point goes off the subject but the helper points stay on it.
Anticipating is not a problem. The problem is that even if you anticipate the movement the movement is still ar whatever speed it is. The acceleration of human beings can be quite brief as outside of people pacing for long distance running we tend to go from a standstill to some final speed very quickly.
If I had an Atomos I'd be love to demonstrate what I'm talking about here.
There have been multiple people on forums who have had Nikon look at their Z8/9 with these kinds of reports and been told they were fine. I think ajrmd is right: enough people have found the same behavior that it seems like this camera behaves this way because that's just how these cameras work.
If I could bring the camera to some local service center and have it evaluated for free or for a small fee so that I could get it back within 48 hours it is something I'd consider, but I can't afford two weeks of downtime for a cost of several hundred dollars when there are many strong indications it will come back as in spec.
PFP
New member
Ciao Scooby, non sono nessuno per mettere in dubbio quello che affermi, ho la Z8 da qualche giorno quindi prendi con le pinze quello che dico. Sto solo cercando di capire, nel manuale Nikon c'è scritto che le prestazioni dell'AF con riconoscimento soggetto e senza, possono diminuire con vari fattori, soggetto troppo piccolo, troppo grande, quando si muovono troppo velocemente , ecc. inoltre c'è scritto questo:
Le prestazioni di rilevamento del soggetto potrebbero diminuire:
[English translation - Moderator]
Hi Scooby, I'm nobody to question what you say, I've had the Z8 for a few days so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just trying to understand, in the Nikon manual it says that AF performance with and without subject recognition can decrease with various factors, subject too small, too large, when they move too fast, etc. Also it says this:
Subject detection performance may decrease:
When capturing frames at high speed +, why not lower the frame rate from 20 to maybe 10? perhaps this way the camera has more time to recalculate the position and give more accuracy in focusing.
Le prestazioni di rilevamento del soggetto potrebbero diminuire:
- durante l'acquisizione di fotogrammi ad alta velocità +, perché non provvedere ad abbassare il frame rate da 20 a magari 10? magari così la macchina ha più tempo per ricalcolare la posizione e dare più accuratezza nella messa a fuoco.
[English translation - Moderator]
Hi Scooby, I'm nobody to question what you say, I've had the Z8 for a few days so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just trying to understand, in the Nikon manual it says that AF performance with and without subject recognition can decrease with various factors, subject too small, too large, when they move too fast, etc. Also it says this:
Subject detection performance may decrease:
When capturing frames at high speed +, why not lower the frame rate from 20 to maybe 10? perhaps this way the camera has more time to recalculate the position and give more accuracy in focusing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe because of the factors mentioned here, I've found subject detection to be a little harder to get good results from sometimes. That's why in this discussion I have largely focused on the dynamic area mode and the difficulty getting it to work as documented. You are right that Nikon says these things, and I've also seen that they suggest using the "older" modes like dynamic area when conditions are such that subject detection has problems.
I have found very little difference with dynamic area whether the subject was larger or smaller and whether the frame rate was lower or even very low.
----
Forse a causa dei fattori menzionati qui, ho riscontrato che il rilevamento del soggetto è un po' più difficile da cui ottenere buoni risultati a volte. Ecco perché in questa discussione mi sono concentrato principalmente sulla modalità area dinamica e sulla difficoltà di farla funzionare come documentato. Hai ragione quando Nikon dice queste cose, e ho anche visto che suggeriscono di utilizzare le modalità "vecchie" come l'area dinamica quando le condizioni sono tali che il rilevamento del soggetto ha problemi.
Ho riscontrato poca differenze nell'area dinamica se il soggetto era più grande o più piccolo e se il frame rate era inferiore o addirittura molto basso.
Last edited:
ajrmd
Well-known member
Stick with me for a moment and I'll throw another confounding variable into the mix. Walked over to the pond yesterday to see my Trumpeter friends, who graciously agreed to another photo shoot (this one terminated early by an inconsiderate lady "walking" her dog off the leash). This time I had the 186 on one body and the 70-180 f/2.8 on the other. Both bodies were configured the same way and had both lenses dialed into 180mm f/6.3. Starting again in AA mode, SD, I observed some interesting behavior. The 186 locked on right away and stayed there. The 70-180 SD indicated finding the eye by the white box and when I pressed the BBF button the green box would occasionally oscillate between the eye and a larger box on the body. I switched to dynamic small and both lenses behaved similarly with the white box appearing on the eye followed by the green box when the BBF was pressed. To confirm, I swapped the respective lenses, and the behavior was exactly the same, indicating that the bodies were behaving identically, and the observed differences were attributable to the lenses. Next, I moved 1/2 the distance closer and dialed back the FL on the 70-180 so that the bird was the same size in the frame as it was at 180mm. Repeating this experiment, the Z8 70-180's SD instantly recognized the eye with the white box, but pressing the BBF resulted in a greater likelihood of oscillation of the green box. To me, this suggests that some part of the AF process is linked to FL? Unfortunately, again I was unable to test other AF modes/settings due to the friendly dog walker.