Which lens choice to increase my range?

[SCoombs]

To help folks reading this thread have some context, what AF settings are you using when you are having this issue?

--Ken

Always AF-C with modes like wide area small, wide area large, and I have a custom 1x1 wide area I use when need be. I've tried it with subject detection set to auto (i.e., animal+people+vehicles) and set to animal only and there's no difference. I've tried setting the subject tracking with lock on at 1, 3, and 5 with no difference. I've tried 3D tracking. It hasn't happened much when in this mode so my memory is least certain here, but I think that if I have 3D tracking on a stationary or slow moving subject and it has the eye but then the animal starts moving faster (i.e., takes off) the 3D tracking reverts to just grabbing the body.

Assuming you're in a mode with subject detection enabled (wide area, auto area, etc), that's possible. It's also possible that the subject isn't exposed enough, or large enough in the frame, to give the camera high enough confidence that it can find the eye reliably. Do you have examples you can share?

Someone on DPR also noticed with his 200-500 it wouldn't focus at times, which I don't really understand (Because it doesn't make sense that the camera would just...not have good af suddenly given the same conditions, just a lens change), so there might be a software bug/quirk with it as well (though this seems less likely to me).

Most of my would-be examples have been deleted since they didn't amount to anything worth saving, but if I scrounge around I can give a few. I've given you all of these uncropped so you can get a sense of the size of the subject when the camera was AFing.

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

This seagull I tracked for a second or two and it actually wasn't flying all that fast because it was really just moving from one spot to another so it never got up to speed. This part of the sequence it was actually moving even more slowly because it was slowing down for its landing. I don't know if it will be visible with the downsizing for the forum, but this one is actually fairly soft and at full resolution it looks like it's probably focused on the wing, which makes sense since as I'm saying it focuses on the body but doesn't grab the eye.

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

In this case it's arguable that geese don't have enough contrast in the face and I suppose that may be the case, but I have to say as long as the lighting is okay and the background is not cluttered (both of which were true here) it picks up geese eyes pretty well for me, and at this size and even smaller, too. In other words, whatever reasons we can find to question whether this situation was too hard for the AF, if the goose was standing or floating there it would have had the eye but it didn't here when it was flying. I tracked this for quite a while actually and it hung onto the body very well the entire time, but never went for the head or eye. For what it's worth, the same applies to the seagulls: when they're not flying it grabs the eyes pretty consistently, even in more difficult conditions than the one pictured above.

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

This duck is another case that is not a super great example, but I post it because it was part of a sequence in which the duck was flying with this background at about this size and where many of the shots before this it was at a different angle and so the eye was visible. I didn't save those because they were not in decent focus.

You can also look at the photo in post #42 of this thread. That bird was gliding nicely and fairly close to me with an uncluttered background and a beautifully stand-out eye.

As I said, I've honestly deleted most of what I would give as examples since, well, they were not worth editing and keeping. However, suffice it to say that the goose and GBH shots are good examples of the general case: a bird flies at a moderate or slow speed, not erratically, across a generally clean background with the head fairly clearly separated from the body of the bird. Replace the goose or GBH with a duck or a green heron or a cormorant or bald eagle (the bald eagle was probably a bit too small so I don't really count it, but if you're curious I'll post it anyways) and the AF grabs and tracks the body but never even picks up the eye for a split second. Put the same bird in a more stationary place and it will get the eye.

Actually, I did find a version of the Eagle from a sequence where it wasn't super small. It may be borderline here, but like the others I'll repeat that there were actually quite a few shots in the sequence where the eagle was a lot closer and larger in the frame but these were just really badly focused so I never imported them.

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

 

[Chappy]

On my Z9 up to FW 3.1 I quit using auto subject tracking and set the camera for wildlife people or objects. I have my banks set to each of those. One for wildlife, sports, landscapes and auto. I haven’t tried the Auto subject detection because auto wasn’t near as good as the individual modes. I set up the z8 exactly the same as the Z9 so I don’t know if the auto detect is any better.

At the distance of your examples I nearly always get the eye including the distance on th Bald Eagle.

Again I would suggest renting a lens your looking at like the 300pf or a 500pf.

 

[SCoombs]

On my Z9 up to FW 3.1 I quit using auto subject tracking and set the camera for wildlife people or objects. I have my banks set to each of those. One for wildlife, sports, landscapes and auto. I haven’t tried the Auto subject detection because auto wasn’t near as good as the individual modes. I set up the z8 exactly the same as the Z9 so I don’t know if the auto detect is any better.

At the distance of your examples I nearly always get the eye including the distance on th Bald Eagle.

Again I would suggest renting a lens your looking at like the 300pf or a 500pf.

Yes, I normally have the auto turned off and the animal specific turned on because a lot of people report it works better. I haven't noticed a difference but mention that I've tried it both way to emphasize that I've covered all bases.

Remind me what you are using for a lens which gives you your reported behavior?

 

[Cameron T]

Always AF-C with modes like wide area small, wide area large, and I have a custom 1x1 wide area I use when need be. I've tried it with subject detection set to auto (i.e., animal+people+vehicles) and set to animal only and there's no difference. I've tried setting the subject tracking with lock on at 1, 3, and 5 with no difference. I've tried 3D tracking. It hasn't happened much when in this mode so my memory is least certain here, but I think that if I have 3D tracking on a stationary or slow moving subject and it has the eye but then the animal starts moving faster (i.e., takes off) the 3D tracking reverts to just grabbing the body.



Most of my would-be examples have been deleted since they didn't amount to anything worth saving, but if I scrounge around I can give a few. I've given you all of these uncropped so you can get a sense of the size of the subject when the camera was AFing.

View attachment 68048

This seagull I tracked for a second or two and it actually wasn't flying all that fast because it was really just moving from one spot to another so it never got up to speed. This part of the sequence it was actually moving even more slowly because it was slowing down for its landing. I don't know if it will be visible with the downsizing for the forum, but this one is actually fairly soft and at full resolution it looks like it's probably focused on the wing, which makes sense since as I'm saying it focuses on the body but doesn't grab the eye.

View attachment 68047

In this case it's arguable that geese don't have enough contrast in the face and I suppose that may be the case, but I have to say as long as the lighting is okay and the background is not cluttered (both of which were true here) it picks up geese eyes pretty well for me, and at this size and even smaller, too. In other words, whatever reasons we can find to question whether this situation was too hard for the AF, if the goose was standing or floating there it would have had the eye but it didn't here when it was flying. I tracked this for quite a while actually and it hung onto the body very well the entire time, but never went for the head or eye. For what it's worth, the same applies to the seagulls: when they're not flying it grabs the eyes pretty consistently, even in more difficult conditions than the one pictured above.

View attachment 68049

This duck is another case that is not a super great example, but I post it because it was part of a sequence in which the duck was flying with this background at about this size and where many of the shots before this it was at a different angle and so the eye was visible. I didn't save those because they were not in decent focus.

You can also look at the photo in post #42 of this thread. That bird was gliding nicely and fairly close to me with an uncluttered background and a beautifully stand-out eye.

As I said, I've honestly deleted most of what I would give as examples since, well, they were not worth editing and keeping. However, suffice it to say that the goose and GBH shots are good examples of the general case: a bird flies at a moderate or slow speed, not erratically, across a generally clean background with the head fairly clearly separated from the body of the bird. Replace the goose or GBH with a duck or a green heron or a cormorant or bald eagle (the bald eagle was probably a bit too small so I don't really count it, but if you're curious I'll post it anyways) and the AF grabs and tracks the body but never even picks up the eye for a split second. Put the same bird in a more stationary place and it will get the eye.

Actually, I did find a version of the Eagle from a sequence where it wasn't super small. It may be borderline here, but like the others I'll repeat that there were actually quite a few shots in the sequence where the eagle was a lot closer and larger in the frame but these were just really badly focused so I never imported them.

View attachment 68050

Yeah, something is definitely weird there. The seagull I'd expect to get the eye. Im not sure how or why it doesn't work as expected though

 

[Chappy]

Yes, I normally have the auto turned off and the animal specific turned on because a lot of people report it works better. I haven't noticed a difference but mention that I've tried it both way to emphasize that I've covered all bases.

Remind me what you are using for a lens which gives you your reported behavior?

I have seen the Auto subject detection not work as well on the 100-400S, 500pf and the 70-200 s. Also, I have my movie record button programmed to toggle between DX and FX as I prefer shooting wide open and I think you give up some AF speed and subject detection with a teleconverter. That is just my opinion.

 

[SCoombs]

Yeah, something is definitely weird there. The seagull I'd expect to get the eye. Im not sure how or why it doesn't work as expected though

I'd be curious if others with the same lens have had similar or different experiences with the subject detection.

 

[SCoombs]

I have seen the Auto subject detection not work as well on the 100-400S, 500pf and the 70-200 s. Also, I have my movie record button programmed to toggle between DX and FX as I prefer shooting wide open and I think you give up some AF speed and subject detection with a teleconverter. That is just my opinion.

I have the movie record button set to turn off subject detection so that when it is grabbing a body (as it does sometimes even for still animals, though not as often) I can manually position a sensor over the head or eye. I do also swap between DX/FX on another button as well, and sometimes go to DX just to improve AF performance.

 

[Chappy]

The auto subject detection was a known problem I believe. It may have been improved with the 4.0 firmware update. I’ve never tried it on the Z8. Also I have my fn.2 button set to dynamic area af on my sports bank. With football you sometimes can’t get the eye so it is very handy for sports. I have struggled with The idea of programming a button to go to dynamic for wildlife so that if I have a problem with pick8ng up the eye because of wings flapping or and animal turns his head I can still be on the animal with dynamic mode. Would use it much less for sports than I do with wildlife.

 

[SCoombs]

Again I would suggest renting a lens your looking at like the 300pf or a 500pf.

Increasingly my main hesitation with the 500 is about the range on both ends. I think there are things I'd miss for not having the zoom and on the other end it's only 500 whereas one of the zooms goes to 600 - though in my more limited experience with 600 it didn't feel like that much greater reach, even as people with much more experience than I often comment that 600 vs 500 is a big deal. That, and I've seen at least some stuff which makes me wonder if the subject detection just uniformly works much better on Z lenses than F-mount lenses no matter how good the F-mounts are (for instance, Mark Smith did a video comparing the 500pf to the 100-400 and had a lot of subject detect misses with the 500.

 

[SCoombs]

The auto subject detection was a known problem I believe. It may have been improved with the 4.0 firmware update. I’ve never tried it on the Z8. Also I have my fn.2 button set to dynamic area af on my sports bank. With football you sometimes can’t get the eye so it is very handy for sports. I have struggled with The idea of programming a button to go to dynamic for wildlife so that if I have a problem with pick8ng up the eye because of wings flapping or and animal turns his head I can still be on the animal with dynamic mode. Would use it much less for sports than I do with wildlife.

I think it was considered to be a lot less perfect early on, but with later firmware releases on the Z9 and everything I've seen of the Z8 it should work well. People posting atomos screen captures from their Z8s get very nice lock on the eyes for BiF.

 

[PhotoLover]

I'll repeat that many well regarded professionals have commented on the lens' AF speed being a limitation for BiF.

This includes the ability of the lens to  maintain focus on a moving subject (to "track"). I've heard comments from professionals that it can't always keep up even if it is able to initially acquire it at some point, and this has been my experience as well. I've consistently found that the focus on a moving subject is a step behind where the camera is putting it.

I also find it noteworthy that you rate the 200-500 as similar in AF speed to the Sigmas, as in my side by side the Sigma was  much faster, not only in terms of acquisition but it also hung on to the subject in tracking better and I found I had much higher rates of accurate focus in bursts of flying birds than with my 200-500. Have you used both lenses, and do you think the Sigma is not supposed to be that much faster? If so, perhaps my lens' AF is not as fast as it's supposed to be. On the other hand, almost everything I've read rates the Sigma and Tamron AF as much faster, so I didn't think it was out of the ordinary.

Perhaps also of note is that I read a lot of people praising the Z8/9 hitting the eyes for BiF, giving the system a key selling point over the already well regarded Nikon DSLRs, whereas I've never once in thousands of shots had it even attempt to grab the eye of a BiF. It just grabs the body and tries to track that, usually, as noted, not yielding many in focus results. I wonder: may my camera not ve trying to grab the eye because the lens is already having a hard time staying with it as it tries to focus on the "coarser" subject?

Either way, I'll repeat my main points: many professionals have commented on the shortcomings of the AF speed for this lens where BiF are concerned, and even using one of the third party lenses of the same class I found the speed to be noticeably much, much faster and more effective. I also find many users comment that moving from the 200-500 to something else they found better success with BiF, and regardless of whatever skill level they may have, results are results. I didn't have use of that Sigma long enough to develop a really comprehensive "portfolio" with it, but in the brief time I did find I'd get more in focus BiF shots even with the lens being markedly more difficult to practice good technique with.

I don't have enough experience with the 200-500 to really comment on it .. and no experience with the Z8. I will say that I did a lot of BIF with a Tamron 100-400 on my D7500 before I got the 500 pf, and yeah, the 500 pf is absolutely better -- sharper, faster AF, obviously 25% more reach.

But it's not like my keeper ratio was low with the (much cheaper ...) Tamron. The vast majority of BIF shots I went for were in good focus with the 100-400. I had to learn a couple of things about that lens (don't know if the 200-500 is as finicky):

1. You have to turn the VR off at high shutter speeds or you lose sharpness .... this is not uncommon apparently (other lens do this) and not required for the 500 pf, but it sure was for the Tamron. This quirk was so annoying .. a perched bird in the shade .. VR on, shutter speed 400, turn VR on .... BIF in flight, shutter speed 2000, TURN THE VR OFF .....
2. Using the distance limiter is a really good idea for initial focus (probably more important with the Tamron than the 500 pf)
3. That lens is sharper at 8.0 than wide open at 6.3. Unlike the 500 pf ... which is always sharp, all the time. So a lot of times I'm shooting at 8.0, which is obviously not desirable.
4. It's a 6.3 lens at 400 (and sometimes I'd stop down). Unless it is really really bright, forget shutter speeds like 4000; the ISO is too high. I'm not shooting with a 600 f/4 lens. I quickly learned that 1600 was fine for larger birds, even Ospreys going after fish. (I tend to do the same with the 500 pf .... it's not an f/4 .. half the light ....).

So I get better pictures with the 500 pf, but I always had good hits rates on BIF with the Tamron (and some of the "sharpness" difference is really not being as close). Unless a particular 200-500 had problems, I'd be really surprised that lens plus a Z8 wouldn't autofocus as well as the Tamron on a Nikon D7500.

I'd rent the 500 pf for a week or two; it's light and easy to use, and known to have fast AF with superior sharpness. If that combination doesn't work well, you know the main problem is not the lens. Take one variable out of the equation by using a known better lens with the same reach. To be really clear, I have no opinion on whether there is an issue with the lens, but there is one way to find out. I'd also expect things like eye focus on the Z8 should work fine with the 500 pf.

There is also an older thread on this topic: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/nikon-200-500mm-af-performance-with-z9.24465/

 

[SCoombs]

I don't have enough experience with the 200-500 to really comment on it .. and no experience with the Z8. I will say that I did a lot of BIF with a Tamron 100-400 on my D7500 before I got the 500 pf, and yeah, the 500 pf is absolutely better -- sharper, faster AF, obviously 25% more reach.

But it's not like my keeper ratio was low with the (much cheaper ...) Tamron. The vast majority of BIF shots I went for were in good focus with the 100-400. I had to learn a couple of things about that lens (don't know if the 200-500 is as finicky):

1. You have to turn the VR off at high shutter speeds or you lose sharpness .... this is not uncommon apparently (other lens do this) and not required for the 500 pf, but it sure was for the Tamron. This quirk was so annoying .. a perched bird in the shade .. VR on, shutter speed 400, turn VR on .... BIF in flight, shutter speed 2000, TURN THE VR OFF .....
2. Using the distance limiter is a really good idea for initial focus (probably more important with the Tamron than the 500 pf)
3. That lens is sharper at 8.0 than wide open at 6.3. Unlike the 500 pf ... which is always sharp, all the time. So a lot of times I'm shooting at 8.0, which is obviously not desirable.
4. It's a 6.3 lens at 400 (and sometimes I'd stop down). Unless it is really really bright, forget shutter speeds like 4000; the ISO is too high. I'm not shooting with a 600 f/4 lens. I quickly learned that 1600 was fine for larger birds, even Ospreys going after fish. (I tend to do the same with the 500 pf .... it's not an f/4 .. half the light ....).

So I get better pictures with the 500 pf, but I always had good hits rates on BIF with the Tamron (and some of the "sharpness" difference is really not being as close). Unless a particular 200-500 had problems, I'd be really surprised that lens plus a Z8 wouldn't autofocus as well as the Tamron on a Nikon D7500.

I'd rent the 500 pf for a week or two; it's light and easy to use, and known to have fast AF with superior sharpness. If that combination doesn't work well, you know the main problem is not the lens. Take one variable out of the equation by using a known better lens with the same reach. To be really clear, I have no opinion on whether there is an issue with the lens, but there is one way to find out. I'd also expect things like eye focus on the Z8 should work fine with the 500 pf.

There is also an older thread on this topic: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/nikon-200-500mm-af-performance-with-z9.24465/

Thanks for the link; that my be helpful I will take a look. I've searched for things like that for a few months but don't recall having come across that one.

I have heard mixed messages about the VR on the 200-500 at high shutter speeds. It's been discussed a lot and lots of people have experimented with it. Thom Hogan, who a lot of people cite when it comes to talking about the high SS VS question in general, has said that it doesn't seem to be a major problem with the 200-500, for whatever that's worth. Either way, I've experimented with it myself and haven't noticed a real difference either way other than that with the VR off there's more of a chance of getting a bad image due to camera shake if I am trying to hold the camera in a particularly unsteady way (to get a photo at a particular angle or something) even at high shutter speeds.

I have also typically shot the 200-500 at f/8 to maximize sharpness and because for a long while I was using it on a DSLR which I just couldn't get to play quite right with it. Lately I've been opening it to 5.6 more because after a lot of messing around I have found it's actually usually pretty sharp wide open, which is one of the things the lens is known for so it makes sense.

I've messed around with the distance limiter, but honestly I've not found it helpful in my use case. I think that may be more a matter of my style or the subjects I'm shooting than anything else, as I know some people find it helpful. I tend to pre-focus to try to get things close to the right point so I think that is one reason why I don't find it necessary.

I agree that faster shutter speeds in lower light are usually not so good, though depending on the exact lighting conditions I've gotten very good results even at pretty high ISOs out of it.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have the movie record button set to turn off subject detection so that when it is grabbing a body (as it does sometimes even for still animals, though not as often) I can manually position a sensor over the head or eye. I do also swap between DX/FX on another button as well, and sometimes go to DX just to improve AF performance.

I had pretty much the same experience with the Nikon 200-500 mine went back to Nikon twice and just after it got back the second time it was recalled for the panning focus issue that many had. After I got it back the 3rd time it worked quite well. I used it in Africa but when I got home my Sigma 150-600 sport arrived and I used it very little. Then I got a great copy of a Tamron 150-600 G2 and the Sigma became my back up lens and I sold the 200-500.

I have also have the movie record button set to toggle subject detect on and off. For birds I am alwasy in animal subject detect. Since I am a run and gun bird ID photographer as noted my subject can be a relatively close sparrow and a second later a distant Peregrine falcon flying by.

As I noted earlier I use the Z800 most of the time with the Z100-400 for flock shots or that rare time I do need/want to go after BIF shots for specific species of Swallows at fairly close range.

With Z9 FW 4.0 especially smaller lower contrast subjects subject detect in the primary AF area modes works noticeably better but I have found it quite good since FW 3.0. Ironically there are times that I toggle subject detect off when I am shooting say a flock of teal or several birds sitting or in flight and I do not want the camera to lock on one eye, but on multiple birds and that also means I have gone up to f/8, f/9 or f/10.

Keep in mind the progression of subject detect focus is body, head then eye and sometimes it is so fast I do not notice the first two steps. If the bird is far enough out in flight or not your depth of field with a lens topping out at 500mm will pretty much take in a whole GBH even if you aperture is wide open there will be focal distance with each lens focal length and distance from the target tha is essentially going to have the whole bird in focus.

I have shutter half press set for AF Area mode custom wide area sized 5x3. I have my focus persistance turned on and use hand off to go to 3d or AF AFarea mode programmed to other buttons and like you I have a button programmed with custom wide area af set at 1x1.

I was a bird and big game hunter for many years and have been finding ways to approach wildlife closer for many years.

When it comes to what I wear it depends on the subject and location. While I frequently wear camo if I am out alone when I am in town along the Boise River greenbelt or other places the birds are used to seeing people in regular clothing I find that actually works better than camo.

Best of luck with your decision and I get the issue with kids at home. Both of my children were born while I was in college so time and finances had a whole different look than they do now at 75 and retired with a granddaughter just starting her master program

I forgot to mention E bird is the best tool I have for finding out where to go look for particular birds.

 

[leoparker]

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM: This is a popular and versatile telephoto zoom lens that is known for its sharp image quality and fast autofocus.
• Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR: This is another excellent telephoto zoom lens that offers excellent image quality and performance.

 

[Cameron T]

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM: This is a popular and versatile telephoto zoom lens that is known for its sharp image quality and fast autofocus.
• Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR: This is another excellent telephoto zoom lens that offers excellent image quality and performance.

Op already has lenses much longer than that. Those are steps backwards

 

[PhotoLover]

Thanks for the link; that my be helpful I will take a look. I've searched for things like that for a few months but don't recall having come across that one.

I have heard mixed messages about the VR on the 200-500 at high shutter speeds. It's been discussed a lot and lots of people have experimented with it. Thom Hogan, who a lot of people cite when it comes to talking about the high SS VS question in general, has said that it doesn't seem to be a major problem with the 200-500, for whatever that's worth. Either way, I've experimented with it myself and haven't noticed a real difference either way other than that with the VR off there's more of a chance of getting a bad image due to camera shake if I am trying to hold the camera in a particularly unsteady way (to get a photo at a particular angle or something) even at high shutter speeds.

I have also typically shot the 200-500 at f/8 to maximize sharpness and because for a long while I was using it on a DSLR which I just couldn't get to play quite right with it. Lately I've been opening it to 5.6 more because after a lot of messing around I have found it's actually usually pretty sharp wide open, which is one of the things the lens is known for so it makes sense.

I've messed around with the distance limiter, but honestly I've not found it helpful in my use case. I think that may be more a matter of my style or the subjects I'm shooting than anything else, as I know some people find it helpful. I tend to pre-focus to try to get things close to the right point so I think that is one reason why I don't find it necessary.

I agree that faster shutter speeds in lower light are usually not so good, though depending on the exact lighting conditions I've gotten very good results even at pretty high ISOs out of it.

I'm a little surprised you don't find the distance limiter useful, at least for BIF. I certainly do, even with the 500 pf. I don't always know where a bird is coming from and it locks on faster and reacquires quicker when the limiter is on. With big slow birds it doesn't matter much, but as they get faster I find it important. My recollection was that the biggest AF weakness for the 200-500 was the initial target acquisition (that's from memory when I was considering buying the lens).

I thought the 200-500 was supposed to be sharp at 5.6, so I'd keep it there if possible. I dislike shooting at 8.0; aside from the ISO and shutter speed implications I am rarely happy with the extra depth of field when shooting birds and such.

One other thing, and I don't know how much of your shooting actually is oriented towards BIF, I was surprised you shot in DX mode. Since I don't have a FF camera, I can't experiment with it, but given a choice I'd much rather shoot in FF mode, given 45 megapixels, and crop versus cropping in camera. Again with BIF, sometimes I wind up "too close" with the 500 pf (or I have the 100-400 but fail to adjust the zoom quickly) and in burst mode have every other shot with clipped wingtips. Or I don't quite frame the way I want to, and the birds head is very close to one side of the frame, leading to poor composition. At the same distance with a FF versus DX, I'd have far better cropping options. The main downside is the extra size of the images, but disk space is relatively cheap now. I know some people like having the subject "magnified" in DX mode, but if the subject is hard to pick out in FF frame, you are not as close as you'd want to be anyway.

 

[SCoombs]

I'm a little surprised you don't find the distance limiter useful, at least for BIF. I certainly do, even with the 500 pf. I don't always know where a bird is coming from and it locks on faster and reacquires quicker when the limiter is on. With big slow birds it doesn't matter much, but as they get faster I find it important. My recollection was that the biggest AF weakness for the 200-500 was the initial target acquisition (that's from memory when I was considering buying the lens).

I thought the 200-500 was supposed to be sharp at 5.6, so I'd keep it there if possible. I dislike shooting at 8.0; aside from the ISO and shutter speed implications I am rarely happy with the extra depth of field when shooting birds and such.

One other thing, and I don't know how much of your shooting actually is oriented towards BIF, I was surprised you shot in DX mode. Since I don't have a FF camera, I can't experiment with it, but given a choice I'd much rather shoot in FF mode, given 45 megapixels, and crop versus cropping in camera. Again with BIF, sometimes I wind up "too close" with the 500 pf (or I have the 100-400 but fail to adjust the zoom quickly) and in burst mode have every other shot with clipped wingtips. Or I don't quite frame the way I want to, and the birds head is very close to one side of the frame, leading to poor composition. At the same distance with a FF versus DX, I'd have far better cropping options. The main downside is the extra size of the images, but disk space is relatively cheap now. I know some people like having the subject "magnified" in DX mode, but if the subject is hard to pick out in FF frame, you are not as close as you'd want to be anyway.

I rarely notice the AF trying to hunt all the way back to minimum focus when shooting BiF - other subjects sometimes, yes, but BiF are usually far enough away initially that it doesn't do this - BUT sometimes they'll fly close enough that if I have the limit on I'll lose them.


I have found the AF does better with the smaller frame, which is one reason I go to DX mode. Perhaps if the AF performed closer to what I think a lot of the discussion seems to expect I wouldn't find it as needful.

 

[PhotoLover]

I rarely notice the AF trying to hunt all the way back to minimum focus when shooting BiF - other subjects sometimes, yes, but BiF are usually far enough away initially that it doesn't do this - BUT sometimes they'll fly close enough that if I have the limit on I'll lose them.


I have found the AF does better with the smaller frame, which is one reason I go to DX mode. Perhaps if the AF performed closer to what I think a lot of the discussion seems to expect I wouldn't find it as needful.

Yeah, it sounds like you are having more trouble with a high-end camera and a decent lens than I have with a D7500 and a Tamron mid-priced lens! I can see why you are frustrated with the results, at least for moving subjects.

I'd definitely want to be able to take advantage of the FF capture area in that camera. I have plenty of tight shots close shots with framing that wasn't quite right .... I mean, the bird was moving fast and I was doing well to keep on it. That's with the distance limiter on .. the 500 pf is 15x magnification on my DX bodies, so a bird of any size getting within 24 foot or less -- the "can't focus" range with the distance limiter on -- is likely to be more than filling the frame anyway. If it's something like a swallow that close I'm probably going to be unable to keep on it. With a zoom you can of course change the zoom as the bird comes in ... I find that I rarely succeed in that effort. I imagine some people are better at it than I am.

 

[Chappy]

I'm a little surprised you don't find the distance limiter useful, at least for BIF. I certainly do, even with the 500 pf. I don't always know where a bird is coming from and it locks on faster and reacquires quicker when the limiter is on. With big slow birds it doesn't matter much, but as they get faster I find it important. My recollection was that the biggest AF weakness for the 200-500 was the initial target acquisition (that's from memory when I was considering buying the lens).

I thought the 200-500 was supposed to be sharp at 5.6, so I'd keep it there if possible. I dislike shooting at 8.0; aside from the ISO and shutter speed implications I am rarely happy with the extra depth of field when shooting birds and such.

One other thing, and I don't know how much of your shooting actually is oriented towards BIF, I was surprised you shot in DX mode. Since I don't have a FF camera, I can't experiment with it, but given a choice I'd much rather shoot in FF mode, given 45 megapixels, and crop versus cropping in camera. Again with BIF, sometimes I wind up "too close" with the 500 pf (or I have the 100-400 but fail to adjust the zoom quickly) and in burst mode have every other shot with clipped wingtips. Or I don't quite frame the way I want to, and the birds head is very close to one side of the frame, leading to poor composition. At the same distance with a FF versus DX, I'd have far better cropping options. The main downside is the extra size of the images, but disk space is relatively cheap now. I know some people like having the subject "magnified" in DX mode, but if the subject is hard to pick out in FF frame, you are not as close as you'd want to be anyway.

I like to use DX mode as a focus assist. As I’ve said before, thi country wher I shoot is flat and vast with very few trees or bushes. Thanked for example prairie dogs. The stay low to the ground and they are close to the same color of the ground. Sometimes there is a weed or grass that is between the camera and the prairie dog that the camera may try to focus on. I can toggle to DX mode and the camera will pick up the eye of eye of the prairie dog. If there is something else going on I can push my fn1 button and go to single point and put the box on the head of the animal. This same thing can translate into other effective uses for DX mode and focusing. Below are a couple of images that i used this technique.

These new cameras have lots of tools and it is up to find ways to make these tools work. In my environment with pastures with tall grass and intermittent trees with sun shining thru tree canopy I have found other ways to get the shot. I would rather worry about getting the shot first and see what I can do in post. Out here the moments are fleeting so you do what you can to get the shots. Sometimes it is easy for me to screw up and not have the right settings or even be in the wrong shooting bank. The other day I was shooting with my Z8 and forgot to change the banks from sports to wildlife and couldn't figure out why i could get the camera to focus on the eyes of hummingbird. It was and "oh crap, you dummy" moment.

1. In the first photo I was not able to get focus lock with eye detect as the wings were moving and head was turning so I was able to put the single point on the birds eye for AF. It was much easier to do this in dx mode and get the shot. Slight cropping was done for composition in LR. Shot with the Z9 and 100-400 S lens

2. The second shot was taken yesterday morning. This gold fronted woodpecker was moving up the tree going between branches and through leaves plus the sun was coming through and in places. It was very difficult to lock on the eye and this time I went to dynamic area focus in dx mode to try and keep the main focus point on his head. Shot with the Z9 and 500pf lens. Second image was straight out of the camera with no edits except to reduce file size for posting here and noise reduction for high ISO file.

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.

 

[PhotoLover]

I like to use DX mode as a focus assist. As I’ve said before, thi country wher I shoot is flat and vast with very few trees or bushes. Thanked for example prairie dogs. The stay low to the ground and they are close to the same color of the ground. Sometimes there is a weed or grass that is between the camera and the prairie dog that the camera may try to focus on. I can toggle to DX mode and the camera will pick up the eye of eye of the prairie dog. If there is something else going on I can push my fn1 button and go to single point and put the box on the head of the animal. This same thing can translate into other effective uses for DX mode and focusing. Below are a couple of images that i used this technique.

These new cameras have lots of tools and it is up to find ways to make these tools work. In my environment with pastures with tall grass and intermittent trees with sun shining thru tree canopy I have found other ways to get the shot. I would rather worry about getting the shot first and see what I can do in post. Out here the moments are fleeting so you do what you can to get the shots. Sometimes it is easy for me to screw up and not have the right settings or even be in the wrong shooting bank. The other day I was shooting with my Z8 and forgot to change the banks from sports to wildlife and couldn't figure out why i could get the camera to focus on the eyes of hummingbird. It was and "oh crap, you dummy" moment.

1. In the first photo I was not able to get focus lock with eye detect as the wings were moving and head was turning so I was able to put the single point on the birds eye for AF. It was much easier to do this in dx mode and get the shot. Slight cropping was done for composition in LR. Shot with the Z9 and 100-400 S lens

2. The second shot was taken yesterday morning. This gold fronted woodpecker was moving up the tree going between branches and through leaves plus the sun was coming through and in places. It was very difficult to lock on the eye and this time I went to dynamic area focus in dx mode to try and keep the main focus point on his head. Shot with the Z9 and 500pf lens. Second image was straight out of the camera with no edits except to reduce file size for posting here and noise reduction for high ISO file.

View attachment 68083View attachment 68084

Yeah, not having the possibility of something like eye detection, I'm still in the dSLR options. I use group area for most BIF. I use single point for things like birds hopping around in trees. Sometimes I'll use a small dynamic area (9 in the 7500, 25 in the D500) when stuff is moving and group area is not quite right.

But presumably the autofocus options on the Z8/9 are superior to what we have on DX dSLRs, once the photographer figures out what works for them. I think it would (will at some point) take some practice to get where I'm able to do things like change focus mode and FF -> DX in a hurry for a given shot. The typical misses I get now are the "too close" with the 500 pf, where being in FF at the same distance would be wonderful, and simply "too fast" where a smaller bird is exceeding my ability (or the camera's ability) track.

 

[Chappy]

The Z8 and Z9 are both wonderful cameras. They will do more than DSLR's ever would but there is one caveat and that is the skill set and experience of the photographer. The Z8 and Z9 have a different learning curve mainly due to the AF settings but experienced photographers will adapt to quicker than most.

I shoot sports, landscapes and wildlife and one of the hardest things for me to photograph is small birds in trees and in flight. The Z8 and Z9 are great for these types of photos but it is still the skill set that defines. The Z9 and Z8 certainly close the gap between what a novice and an experienced photographers images look like. Most of the time the experienced photographers images will stand out more.

Each of us have our own abilities and styles while shooting wildlife. I for one believe that many of the differences is due to the environment where we shoot. As and example, i have developed methods that work best for me while shooting wildlife in the tall grass prairies of the Texas Plains or the animals or birds that land in a cotton field be it small young cotton plants or tall mature cotton. We find solutions that work best for us and in my situation that has to be using single point, or DX mode more than most do. You may not ever need those two abilities programmed into your camera but I do. INMO, that is where the beauty of the Z9 comes into play. We have the ability to program buttons to not just have one or two focus but up to 3 and 4 focus modes as well as other functions at the touch of a button. You might need the focus memory custom setting but I rarely use it. I have certainly tried it but didn't seem to have a use for it. Now, I may see that Steve Perry posts a video on different ways to use the focus memory that may change my mind. Thats one of the things I like about this site and Steve Perry's videos as he seems to always show us new ways of doing things.

 

[PhotoLover]

The Z8 and Z9 are both wonderful cameras. They will do more than DSLR's ever would but there is one caveat and that is the skill set and experience of the photographer. The Z8 and Z9 have a different learning curve mainly due to the AF settings but experienced photographers will adapt to quicker than most.

I shoot sports, landscapes and wildlife and one of the hardest things for me to photograph is small birds in trees and in flight. The Z8 and Z9 are great for these types of photos but it is still the skill set that defines. The Z9 and Z8 certainly close the gap between what a novice and an experienced photographers images look like. Most of the time the experienced photographers images will stand out more.

Each of us have our own abilities and styles while shooting wildlife. I for one believe that many of the differences is due to the environment where we shoot. As and example, i have developed methods that work best for me while shooting wildlife in the tall grass prairies of the Texas Plains or the animals or birds that land in a cotton field be it small young cotton plants or tall mature cotton. We find solutions that work best for us and in my situation that has to be using single point, or DX mode more than most do. You may not ever need those two abilities programmed into your camera but I do. INMO, that is where the beauty of the Z9 comes into play. We have the ability to program buttons to not just have one or two focus but up to 3 and 4 focus modes as well as other functions at the touch of a button. You might need the focus memory custom setting but I rarely use it. I have certainly tried it but didn't seem to have a use for it. Now, I may see that Steve Perry posts a video on different ways to use the focus memory that may change my mind. Thats one of the things I like about this site and Steve Perry's videos as he seems to always show us new ways of doing things.

Oh sure, different technologies, different environments. I switch from group area focus to single point all the time ... much easier on my D500 than my D7500 since I can have button push make the change on the D500. And sometimes as noted I'll stay in the smallest dynamic area, as that allows ... somewhat ... precise focusing while letting me track some birds in flight.

Small birds in flight are hard for anybody I'd think unless you can determine a pattern to their flight and wait for them to appear in/very near a particular spot. That's the only way I've been able to get dragonflies in flight (does the eye detection work for large dragonflies on the Z8/Z9?).

The switching to DX mode is something I've no chance to experiment with. I hate losing the pixels. And I'd wonder, if the area I need is so small that I can't easily put a single point on it in FF mode, am I far enough away with enough DOF that I can get focus almost anywhere on the critter and still get, for example, eyes sharp? But I'm also shooting a DX camera with a 5.6 lens. That's more DOF than a FF shooting say a 4.0 lens, which might drive my perception of the possibilities.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Oh sure, different technologies, different environments. I switch from group area focus to single point all the time ... much easier on my D500 than my D7500 since I can have button push make the change on the D500. And sometimes as noted I'll stay in the smallest dynamic area, as that allows ... somewhat ... precise focusing while letting me track some birds in flight.

Small birds in flight are hard for anybody I'd think unless you can determine a pattern to their flight and wait for them to appear in/very near a particular spot. That's the only way I've been able to get dragonflies in flight (does the eye detection work for large dragonflies on the Z8/Z9?).

The switching to DX mode is something I've no chance to experiment with. I hate losing the pixels. And I'd wonder, if the area I need is so small that I can't easily put a single point on it in FF mode, am I far enough away with enough DOF that I can get focus almost anywhere on the critter and still get, for example, eyes sharp? But I'm also shooting a DX camera with a 5.6 lens. That's more DOF than a FF shooting say a 4.0 lens, which might drive my perception of the possibilities.

My last DSLR 's 2 D500's, D850 and D6. Last DSLR lenses Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma 60-600 Sport, Nikon 500 PF, Nikon 600 f/4E. Group AF in D500, D850 and D6 was my hands down favorite for birds in flight and had been since my D4s.

I am a run and gun birder and my photos are almost all opportunistic as the bird I am seeking or some other bird suddenly presents itself in all types of light and habitat and at considerably variable ranges and from Humming birds to Eagles in size. This was the case with my DSLR's and is now with my Z9's and Z800 and Z100-400.

The Z9's are more complex with a bit steeper learning curve but once they are set up and the buttons and rings on the camera and lense are programmed to what you want them to do the Z's are significantly more efficient than any of my DSLR's were.

I have been all Z system since May of 2022.

 

[PhotoLover]

Always AF-C with modes like wide area small, wide area large, and I have a custom 1x1 wide area I use when need be. I've tried it with subject detection set to auto (i.e., animal+people+vehicles) and set to animal only and there's no difference. I've tried setting the subject tracking with lock on at 1, 3, and 5 with no difference. I've tried 3D tracking. It hasn't happened much when in this mode so my memory is least certain here, but I think that if I have 3D tracking on a stationary or slow moving subject and it has the eye but then the animal starts moving faster (i.e., takes off) the 3D tracking reverts to just grabbing the body.




View attachment 68047

In this case it's arguable that geese don't have enough contrast in the face and I suppose that may be the case, but I have to say as long as the lighting is okay and the background is not cluttered (both of which were true here) it picks up geese eyes pretty well for me, and at this size and even smaller, too. In other words, whatever reasons we can find to question whether this situation was too hard for the AF, if the goose was standing or floating there it would have had the eye but it didn't here when it was flying. I tracked this for quite a while actually and it hung onto the body very well the entire time, but never went for the head or eye. For what it's worth, the same applies to the seagulls: when they're not flying it grabs the eyes pretty consistently, even in more difficult conditions than the one pictured above.

One question about the goose picture -- are you saying the eyes are not sharp enough and thus you assume the AF didn't lock on them, or yeah, they are sharp enough but the you could see (how was this determined .... i don't have a Z8) and you think it should have stayed on the eyes?

 

[SCoombs]

One question about the goose picture -- are you saying the eyes are not sharp enough and thus you assume the AF didn't lock on them, or yeah, they are sharp enough but the you could see (how was this determined .... i don't have a Z8) and you think it should have stayed on the eyes?

The thing I was commenting on was that while lots of people talk about and demonstrate (though video) their Z8/9 locking onto the eyes of birds in flight I have never had my Z8 even momentarily acquire focus on eyes for a bird in flight and it only goes to the level of the body (the system works by detecting the body if it can, and then the head if it can, and then the eye if it can. Often it does this so fast that you only ever see what looks like it going straight to the eye, while other times you'll see it get the body briefly and then move onto the head and then narrow further onto the eye).

People asked for examples of situations where it didn't get the eye. Unfortunately, I don't have many because most BiF photos I've tried with the combo I've deleted for being generally out of focus or having the focus on something that makes for a relatively poor photo like the wingtip. As such, I was really scraping the bottom of the barrel for any examples I have even if they're not great.

The comment you're asking about was me acknowledging a reason why the goose example is not a great example of the phenomenom with the subject detect not getting the eye. In that photo, it did not detect the eye even though I think the subject was framed well enough and large enough that it normally would have. However, the reason I thought it was not the best example is because geese have low contrast around the eye and the system does require contrast to work, so I could imagine somebody not thinking the system should have worked in that case due to the contrast. People's replies seem to indicate that they think it still should have, and my experience with stationary geese suggests likewise.

So I was not commenting on the quality of the photo itself. I think it's not really as sharp as I'd like, but it could be a lot worse. I was only commenting on the fact that as an example of a situation where the Z8 didn't AF on the eye it's not ideal because the black eye on black feathers might just be a case that is not going to normally have a great success rate.