I assume you mean single point focus or do you mean spot metering?I had exactly the same issue with my Z8 when the reflection pond was still. I switched to spot focus.
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).
I assume you mean single point focus or do you mean spot metering?I had exactly the same issue with my Z8 when the reflection pond was still. I switched to spot focus.
No, no changing modes that fast All I mean is that quite a bit of the success for a diving bird lies in the photographer keeping it in the same place in the frame as much as possibleSteve, can you explain the technique? Are you saying that between the time a bird hits the water, when the camera looses autofocus, and when the bird emerges with a fish, you change autofocus modes? I am lucky to keep the camera on the subject during that time.
Again, for a vertically diving bird, I've been surprised how well the Z8 follows the bird and depending on the splash, it can maintain focus through the dive, through the splash, and then during the recovery on the surface (think pelicans). Where I am encountering the unexplained AF behavior, namely sudden loss of af before the strike, is on birds who dive through the catch, namely Osprey and Eagles. The AF doesn't appear to be grabbing a more contrasty or distracting element, rather it appears to pulse oof for a couple frames and then recovers back on after the strike (see the earlier images I posted). Again, I haven't seen this oddity with my Canon or Sony rigs and I am beginning to wonder if it is a lens issue, a lens/body communication issue, or something else.No, no changing modes that fast All I mean is that quite a bit of the success for a diving bird lies in the photographer keeping it in the same place in the frame as much as possible
You own a Z9?My observations are with the Z8 and I am unable to comment regarding the Z9's performance in these situations.
Looking at those shots, it's almost like the camera is anticipating the bird getting closer and then correcting when it doesn't happen. Almost like an error with predictive tracking.Again, for a vertically diving bird, I've been surprised how well the Z8 follows the bird and depending on the splash, it can maintain focus through the dive, through the splash, and then during the recovery on the surface (think pelicans). Where I am encountering the unexplained AF behavior, namely sudden loss of af before the strike, is on birds who dive through the catch, namely Osprey and Eagles. The AF doesn't appear to be grabbing a more contrasty or distracting element, rather it appears to pulse oof for a couple frames and then recovers back on after the strike (see the earlier images I posted). Again, I haven't seen this oddity with my Canon or Sony rigs and I am beginning to wonder if it is a lens issue, a lens/body communication issue, or something else.
Today, I was shooting osprey close to the water (unfortunately, no strike sequences) and didn't witness this phenomenon. Maybe something was fixed in FW 2.1?
Also in this case the bird if far enough away that depth of field has the whole bird eye and all in focus. I used single point focus for many BIF in my DSLR days. Only started using group for some with the D4S so thousands before that. Single point is still effective for me when needed with Z9.I also thought the same way until three days ago when I accidentally shot, hand holding Z9 with 400TC, a diving Osprey with Single Point in AF-C mode and 15 consecutive frames leading to Osprey's entry to water were all in focus. Initially I was shooting a Yellow-rumped Warbler on a tree. It was a cloudy dark day; I was using 1/600s shutter speed and single point AF. But then the Osprey suddenly appeared, I forgot to up the shutter speed and switch to Wide-L to track it down to water. Later I was surprised to see them all coming in focus. Then it hit me. AF-C, by definition, should keep focus on a moving subject as long as one starts with the focus on the subject. Here's the last full frame before the Osprey disappeared in water, compare the relative position of the focus point (red square) against the subject - interesting, isn't it?
Makes sense, but why would the camera do predictive adjustments when it can calculate AF at 120fps?Looking at those shots, it's almost like the camera is anticipating the bird getting closer and then correcting when it doesn't happen. Almost like an error with predictive tracking.
Because it has to move the AF to where it thinks the subject will be, otherwise it'll constantly be behind?Makes sense, but why would the camera do predictive adjustments when it can calculate AF at 120fps?
I assume subject detection bird was turned on ... in Z9 and I assume Z8 the sequence is body, head, eye ... it happens so fast I frequently miss it. But if there are contrast issues ie. the bright ness of the white on the bird it can have issues. I would guess the histogram would show the right side climbing the wall. Also the strike point is behind the wave at the moment of impact. The vagaries of subject detection can be a mystery.OK, my apologies for the divergence though I wanted to address the issue of loss of AF capture/integrity, or however one would like to describe it for diving birds who are moving roughly parallel (or tangential to the plane of the sensor). If there is enough interest, I would be happy move this to another thread. Since updating to FW 2.0, I've noticed that the Z8 AF has improved significantly. Specifically, it performs better for diving birds such as pelicans , terns, etc. who dive fairly vertically and splash into the water as opposed to eagles and osprey who move through a catch. For the former birds, the AF stays locked on through the dive and after the bird hits the water. In contrast for the later striking birds, I've noticed that AF tracking suddenly gets wonky as the bird nears the water; it loses AF capture for a few frames usually just before the strike and it continues to mis-focus for a half dozen to a dozen frames and then reacquires the AF sometime later in the sequence. This has been a frustrating issue as I have not experienced this with most of my Canon and Sony gear and it doesn't seem to be amenable to changing AF modes (AA, WL, WS, etc.) or AF settings such as AF priority, AF speed, tracking sensitivity, etc. - believe me when I say I've tried nearly every combination and as my example sequence shows, there aren't any apparent confounding factors such as another more contrasty object in the frame, splashes, etc. This phenomenon is repeatable and consistent, occurring about the same time in every strike.
Anyhow, I've been experimenting with stopping the continual AF by releasing the BB as the bird nears the water and while that can help as long as one has sufficient DOF, in real life at 20 FPS, it is more challenging that it seems. Nonetheless, I would be curious to hear how others are overcoming this apparent conundrum. Do you see this in the field and if so, how are you able to overcome this? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
As for the images, it is difficult to include huge sequences which contain 100-150+ images. These frames aren't cropped and are the actual size of the subject and AF point as displayed in Nikon NxStudio. For brevity, I started midway through the dive as the bird nears the water (labeled frame "one") and one can see the sequence proceeding in the filmstrip at the bottom. The preceding frames were in focus and tracking was working perfectly. The next frame, "two" the AF suddenly is "lost" and appears front focused as it does for the next 7-8 frames, missing the strike, though the AF recovers on image "nine" and sticks with the bird as it emerges and flies away for another 50-60 shots in the sequence.
View attachment 87599View attachment 87600View attachment 87601View attachment 87605View attachment 87606
I do not have a Z8 but were there any notes in what updates were made with 2.1 ... was 2.0 when bird was added as a subject detection choice in the Z8? Also I and many with more expertise than I have noticed that almost every firmware update with the Z9 has included AF improvements and sometimes they are not even mentioned in Nikon info on the update.Again, for a vertically diving bird, I've been surprised how well the Z8 follows the bird and depending on the splash, it can maintain focus through the dive, through the splash, and then during the recovery on the surface (think pelicans). Where I am encountering the unexplained AF behavior, namely sudden loss of af before the strike, is on birds who dive through the catch, namely Osprey and Eagles. The AF doesn't appear to be grabbing a more contrasty or distracting element, rather it appears to pulse oof for a couple frames and then recovers back on after the strike (see the earlier images I posted). Again, I haven't seen this oddity with my Canon or Sony rigs and I am beginning to wonder if it is a lens issue, a lens/body communication issue, or something else.
Today, I was shooting osprey close to the water (unfortunately, no strike sequences) and didn't witness this phenomenon. Maybe something was fixed in FW 2.1?
And at that point the target fish is behind a good sized wave with reflection of the Osprey on top of the wave.Looking at those shots, it's almost like the camera is anticipating the bird getting closer and then correcting when it doesn't happen. Almost like an error with predictive tracking.
Why wouldn't Dynamic area AF mode work here? If you stay focused on the sitting bird, then focus should not jump away. I use dynamic area AF mode all the time for basketball to ensure that the camera stays focused on a particular player when there is a gaggle of players around the ball. Just wondering...It was really weird. I’ve had the sub-det box bounce around a bit when a bird turns its’ head and the camera is hunting focus. It locks on odd stuff occasionally and gets confused. Here’s another example that occurred a couple weeks ago. I was locked down on the female osprey’s eye as the male came to the nest. She dropped her head behind a branch and the yellow sub-det box bounced around and locked on a white round object to the right. No problem here as both were in the same focus plane but the reflection issue is another matter. It might be best just to cut off the sub-det….
View attachment 87279
Why behind? Isn’t 120 calculations / adjustments per second more then enough to use the live data and apply it to 20fps?Because it has to move the AF to where it thinks the subject will be, otherwise it'll constantly be behind?
Because the lens has to move elements to focus.Why behind? Isn’t 120 calculations / adjustments per second more then enough to use the live data and apply it to 20fps?
Yes, that might work just fine. I had recently encountered this anomaly of the subject detection locking on the eye and jumping forward to the reflected image which was not in the focus box. The upside of this is the f/6.3 with the Z600PF has a broader depth of field than a f/2.8 or 4 so slight focus errors are not as critical. Your suggestion has merit and I will give that a try. I’ve used the dynamic focus area before with very good results. The new stuff keeps coming with the firmware and I like to see if it’s useful.Why wouldn't Dynamic area AF mode work here? If you stay focused on the sitting bird, then focus should not jump away. I use dynamic area AF mode all the time for basketball to ensure that the camera stays focused on a particular player when there is a gaggle of players around the ball. Just wondering...
Appreciate the thoughts, though short of some sort of lens/camera communication/operational issue, I tend to side with Steve's explanation involving predictive AF. Why? This AF error is repeatable and situational. The panning technique appears appropriate from the context that the subject remains large in the frame and is relatively in the same position, thereby minimizing user disturbance in the AF point. Also, if you look closely at the sequence - and my apologies for not posting more images though I am trying to be respectful of the forum - the AF plane doesn't appear to move to the bird's reflection in the wave, rather it is several feet in front of the bird where it remains for several frames and then it resets back onto the subject. One of the challenging aspects of deconstructing these sequences is the lack of information of the true AF point. The reliability of the AF point displayed in NxStudio remains debatable, however from the sequence presented, it doesn't appear to deviate significantly.And at that point the target fish is behind a good sized wave with reflection of the Osprey on top of the wave.
| Image one | Image two | Image three | Image four | Image nine |
Focus Distance | 49.17 | 49.17 | 49.17 | 49.17 | 49.17 |
Lens Position | 1241 | 1302 | 1326 | 1326 | 1278 |
AF Area X position | 3699 | 3946 | 3989 | 4279 | 4452 |
Focus position H | 2L of Center | 1L of Center | 1L of Center | 2D of Center | 1R of Center |
AF Area Y position | 3355 | 3129 | 3000 | 3226 | 3549 |
Focus position V | 3D of Center | 2D of Center | 1D of Center | Center | 3D of Center |
AF Area Width | 344 | 494 | 494 | 430 | 430 |
AF Area Height | 344 | 494 | 494 | 430 | 430 |
Focus Result | Focus | Focus | Focus | Focus | Out of Focus |
….didn’t think I was the only one to experience this….thank!I had exactly the same issue with my Z8 when the reflection pond was still. I switched to spot focus.
I’m getting it, I just try to get a better deepper understanding.Because the lens has to move elements to focus.
If the camera sees something in the past (which it does, even if it's only very very slightly) it might be oof. It has to move the elements to keep up in real time and know where the subject is going to move them correctly. Thus, it has to predict it. I'm not sure how to explain this to you.
No, the element speed wasn't the problem in OPs example. The problem is the camera was focused in the wrong place. Where that fault lies is the question we need to know first, and then can go from there.I’m getting it, I just try to get a better deepper understanding.
Basically, The bottleneck is the motor not able to move the focus element quick enough? Hmm, the amount of movement is so tiny. With 120 calculations per second, Whats the physical limit the AF motor can move the elements in tiny increments per second?
I agree @Steve's thoughts on predictive AF seem quite plausible.Appreciate the thoughts, though short of some sort of lens/camera communication/operational issue, I tend to side with Steve's explanation involving predictive AF. Why? This AF error is repeatable and situational. The panning technique appears appropriate from the context that the subject remains large in the frame and is relatively in the same position, thereby minimizing user disturbance in the AF point. Also, if you look closely at the sequence - and my apologies for not posting more images though I am trying to be respectful of the forum - the AF plane doesn't appear to move to the bird's reflection in the wave, rather it is several feet in front of the bird where it remains for several frames and then it resets back onto the subject. One of the challenging aspects of deconstructing these sequences is the lack of information of the true AF point. The reliability of the AF point displayed in NxStudio remains debatable, however from the sequence presented, it doesn't appear to deviate significantly.
As a consequence, I tried to dissect the situation further by looking at the images AF information in exiftool and have included a portion of it here to spur further conversation. To recall, the sequence was comprised of 70-100 images shot continuously as the osprey was swooping in for a catch. I labeled the image taken immediately before the camera lost AF as "one" and provided several sequential oof images, labeled "two" through "four", and skipped the additional oof images until the camera regained AF several frames later in image "nine". The summary of information is listed in the table below:
Image one Image two Image three Image four Image nine Focus Distance 49.17 49.17 49.17 49.17 49.17 Lens Position 1241 1302 1326 1326 1278 AF Area X position 3699 3946 3989 4279 4452 Focus position H 2L of Center 1L of Center 1L of Center 2D of Center 1R of Center AF Area Y position 3355 3129 3000 3226 3549 Focus position V 3D of Center 2D of Center 1D of Center Center 3D of Center AF Area Width 344 494 494 430 430 AF Area Height 344 494 494 430 430 Focus Result Focus Focus Focus Focus Out of Focus
Looking at the data, there are several interesting observations. First, the focus distance is recorded as the same in all of the frames. I'm not certain whether this is a function of exif tool, a recording issue in the exif, or an indication of something more ominous, i.e. the camera/lens is not responding/recording properly. What I find more revealing is the lens position information. When the bird was in focus, the lens position was indicating "1241", it then jumped significantly to another position for the OOF frames and then returned to a reasonable compromise in frame "nine". The AF area X/Y information is difficult to interpret, although the focus position H/V didn't change that much suggesting that the subject was kept relatively centered in the frame. What I find more interesting is that the recorded "focus result" does not correspond to the actual image. The OOF images are regarded by the camera as being in "focus" while ironically, all of the images (not just image "nine") where the camera regains AF are regarded as "out of focus".
While one can look at the tabulated results and make some observations, I am left pondering as to what is really occurring. Is the camera and/or lens malfunctioning or miscommunicating? Is there a problem in the tracking software? I wish that I could reach out to a Sony engineer for further exploration.
This is a classic case of a busy background and a subject that is hard to identify. The camera will often struggle with this kind of scene since the bird is hard to recognize as a bird, and the background has distracting high contrast detail. I've run into this scenario in the past. When I have run into this issue, it was a specific subject and background causing the problem, and changing backgrounds made a big difference. That may not be possible - but could be an alternative with a busy background like this.Yes that is most often the case for diving birds that are far away. For a close-up subject not sure why this happens sometimes. Here's an example of two consecutive full frame shots of a diving Osprey, the subject was close and nothing much changed in terms of light etc. yet, the first frame was in focus but not the next one - the focus shifted to the background for no apparent reason. I was using Z9 + 400tc, in Wide-L and Bird subject mode. Maybe it all comes down to shooting techniques, but when a large number of users is having similar problem, it generally indicates some sort of shortcomings in the camera itself. View attachment 87803View attachment 87804
One hundred and twenty calculations per second may seem like a lot, but consider the speed our subjects might be approaching. Not even getting into airplanes and racing cars it's easy for a bird to be flying at us at 50 kilometers per hour (approximately 31 mph) and that's on the slow side as Ospreys have been clocked at 80 mph, Pronghorn Antelope can run at 60 mph and a Peregrin Falcon in a dive at close to 240 mph but dives aren't generally right towards us. Still, speeds can be fast even for live animals and a lot faster for other photo subjects.I’m getting it, I just try to get a better deepper understanding.
Basically, The bottleneck is the motor not able to move the focus element quick enough? Hmm, the amount of movement is so tiny. With 120 calculations per second, Whats the physical limit the AF motor can move the elements in tiny increments per second?