AnnJS wrote:
So sorry: That was a MAJOR error: I did mean to write "Focus" and have no idea why I didn't!
I must have cut and pasted without looking?! Or I needed another cup of coffee?
(I have now corrected it.)
Ann, very soon after buying the D5/D500 bodies I went to a standard setup where I am always shooting in AFC with "Trap Focus" enabled. The AF on these bodies is so good that there is only the rare burst where you have a stutter in the high speed sequence.
As to the coffee thing, if Starbucks would deliver to the marshes of central Florida, YNP or similar places, they would get a big tip from me.
At least with the older system, the problem with using focus priority is that many images may actually be in focus even though the AF system does not recognize it. And it is equally as likely to report something as being in focus even if it is not (at least not where you want it).
As I still can't view what AF point is actually used/reported with the D5, I'm uncertain as to how much the accuracy/reliability has changed.
EdErkes wrote:
I think this is an excellent description of how dynamic af modes seem to be working with the D500. What I still seem to be missing is how some people see this method as advantageous in some situations. To me, it seems logical that you would want the system to focus just as accurately and remain on the intended subject just as long when there is a busy background as when there is a clean blue sky background. The fact that it doesn't seem to do it as well seems a total disadvantage in all situations. If you are able to keep your selected sensor on your subject(say the head of an egret) then use single point. If you have a little more of a problem maintaining the sensor on the subject, use group or d25. If you have even more issues with maintaining focus, use d72 or d153. That's how I interpret the D500 manual's description on using the AF modes. With the system as it works now, the more peripheral af points of d72 and d153 seem to have little practical use. If the head of the egret gets to one of the outer sensors in d153 mode, the photographer is probably not going to get the primary af point back on the egret's head before the camera reverts to the primary af point and focuses on the background or another part of the bird. Yet it is precisely those situations-- when the subject may stray to the outer sensors-- that you want to use d153 and you want the focus to stay there with the subject. And you want it to stay there whether the background is clean or busy. ...Show more →
I don't like the phrase "I couldn't agree more" but.....................
I basically now have 4 single point AF choices 1 pt, 25 pt, 72 pt, and 153 pt All except the 1 point is slightly enhanced as the remainder gives you a couple of seconds or so to get the primary focus point back on target before wandering off wherever.
I find it very difficult to believe that Nikon would build the system like this intentionally, as it seems like it would be an extremely niche market. Even more so for the D500. Which is the one I have.
I wasn't even aware that the AF had changed materially — except for 3D AF becoming so amazingly fast to lock-on and tracking so reliably (which it did not do on earlier cameras).
I have been shooting my D5 for almost a year now and its AF on fast-moving creatures and flying birds has worked almost flawlessy: it is so quick to grab a lock (even in really dim lighting in a jungle after sun-set!) that I continue to be amazed by its capabilities.
Perhaps, it's just a question of adopting a slightly different approach, (and maybe I just did it instinctively?) but I have no complaints at all about the way the D5 handles AF.
I have never shot a D500 but imagine that it behaves similarly.
AnnJS wrote:
I wasn't even aware that the AF had changed materially — except for 3D AF becoming so amazingly fast to lock-on and tracking so reliably (which it did not do on earlier cameras).
I have been shooting my D5 for almost a year now and its AF on fast-moving creatures and flying birds has worked almost flawlessy: it is so quick to grab a lock (even in really dim lighting in a jungle after sun-set!) that I continue to be amazed by its capabilities.
Perhaps, it's just a question of adopting a slightly different approach, (and maybe I just did it instinctively?) but I have no complaints at all about the way the D5 handles AF.
I have never shot a D500 but imagine that it behaves similarly. ...Show more →
What percentage of your shots are with the D5's dynamic AF mode?
For anything that moves, I use 3D AF as my first choice.
It is only when I am using a TC-20 on my 300mm PF or on my 200-400 VR (which I frequently do) that I use Dynamic 25 but Dynamic works perfectly well for me.
I find 3D is far superior when Tracking but it is not available when the effective aperture is smaller than f/5.6 so then I use Dynamic instead.
I also use Single Point (especially on more stationary subjects) but have little use for Group AF — and none for Auto AF.
AnnJS wrote:
For anything that moves, I use 3D AF as my first choice.
It is only when I am using a TC-20 on my 300mm PF or on my 200-400 VR (which I frequently do) that I use Dynamic 25 but Dynamic works perfectly well for me.
I find 3D is far superior when Tracking but it is not available when the effective aperture is smaller than f/5.6 so then I use Dynamic instead.
I also use Single Point (especially on more stationary subjects) but have little use for Group AF — and none for Auto AF.
Thanks. Of the subset of photos that you used D25 for, what percentage would you say fell on alternate AF points within the dynamic group vs the initial AF point?
p.12 #11 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
I have absolutely NO idea: I don't pixel-peep in View NX!
Shots are either sharp or they are not: if the whole burst holds focus, the camera is doing its job.
I'm asking because if those shots aren't relying on the alternate AF points within the group then the camera is acquiring them in a fashion no different than single-point continuous and thus your usage doesn't intersect with the issue described in this thread.
p.12 #12 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
All that the camera is required to do, as far as I am concerned, is to lock-on to a point on a fast-moving target and then hold its position and follow that object throughout a continuous burst.
The D5 does exactly that for me and it seems to do it in Dynamic as well as in 3D.
But 3D is much the easiest because the operator has no need to physically keep an object under a selected point: once you have clicked on the target, the camera does the work for you. Well it certainly does for me.
Dynamic works in the D5 (which IS the kernel of the discussion in this thread) but it works slightly differently from the way that it did in earlier cameras and I have no problem with using it in the new form — in fact it seems to work faster and more efficiently than it did previously.
Perhaps its just a case of adapting to it?
Meanwhile, 3D AF is totally brilliant so why not try using it?
Simply move your Primary point to wherever you want it in the frame; swing the camera so that your chosen Primary point it over your target; Click and hold; and the point will follow your subject wherever it goes .
p.12 #13 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
All that the camera is required to do, as far as I am concerned, is to lock-on to a point on a fast-moving target and then hold its position and follow that object throughout a continuous burst.
The D5 does exactly that for me and it seems to do it in Dynamic as well as in 3D.
But 3D is much the easiest because the operator has no need to physically keep an object under a selected point: once you have clicked on the target, the camera does the work for you. Well it certainly does for me.
Dynamic works in the D5 (which IS the kernel of the discussion in this thread) but it works slightly differently from the way that it did in earlier cameras and I have no problem with using it in the new form — in fact it seems to work faster and more efficiently than it did previously.
Perhaps its just a case of adapting to it?
Meanwhile, 3D AF is totally brilliant so why not try using it?
Simply move your Primary point to wherever you want it in the frame; swing the camera so that your chosen Primary point it over your target; Click and hold; and the point will follow your subject wherever it goes .
There are accomplished and experienced Nikon shooters who are having to fight their D5/D500 in dynamic mode in situations where their previous bodies yielded a high percentage of keepers. Many have already adapted to using Group and 3D instead, partly because (as you indicated) those modes have improved significantly from the previous generation but also partly because of their issues with dynamic. You can see proof of this adaptation in the absence of widespread discussion of the issue in the year these models have been on the market, not to mention how most photographers rate the D5/D500 as the best autofocusing camera they've ever used. But there are still scenarios where dynamic is preferable and there are still experienced users having trouble getting the camera to reliably track in that mode. Either those photographers don't know what they're doing or there is a real issue with the camera. Thousands of successful photos with the D5/D500 in Group/3D (or in dynamic mode where the original AF point could be kept on the subject) doesn't provide a convincing argument against the existence of the issue.
Mar 19, 2017 at 11:40 PM
brian_sp Offline • • • • [X]
p.12 #14 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
[
There are accomplished and experienced Nikon shooters who are having to fight their D5/D500 in dynamic mode in situations where their previous bodies yielded a high percentage of keepers. Many have already adapted to using Group and 3D instead, partly because (as you indicated) those modes have improved significantly from the previous generation but also partly because of their issues with dynamic. You can see proof of this adaptation in the absence of widespread discussion of the issue in the year these models have been on the market, not to mention how most photographers rate the D5/D500 as the best autofocusing camera they've ever used. But there are still scenarios where dynamic is preferable and there are still experienced users having trouble getting the camera to reliably track in that mode. Either those photographers don't know what they're doing or there is a real issue with the camera. Thousands of successful photos with the D5/D500 in Group/3D (or in dynamic mode where the original AF point could be kept on the subject) doesn't provide a convincing argument against the existence of the issue....Show more →
i don't see it as she is arguing any of whats being discussed here, she is using what works for her and she is happy with it, hard to call that an arguement
p.12 #15 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
In Dynamic, the PHOTOGRAPHER has to keep his target under the Primary point physically himself.
Perhaps it takes a bit of practice with a camera like a D5 which is focussing much faster than people are used to?
In 3D, the CAMERA does the work of keeping the primary point on the target: that is the difference.
I believe the answer lies in using a Delay if someone is unable to follow the target in Dynamic; or in adapting to using 3D instead.
Group AF is a BAD choice because if any point of the diamond touches something which is closer to the camera than the intended target, the focus moves to the closer object.
p.12 #16 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
But there are still scenarios where dynamic is preferable and there are still experienced users having trouble getting the camera to reliably track in that mode. Either those photographers don't know what they're doing or there is a real issue with the camera.
It's not that they don't know what they're doing, but they don't understand how Dynamic AF works in this new AF module. It's not the same. They key is that the extra points don't track, merely briefly try to achieve focus if the primary AF point can't. As soon as the primary AF point can achieve focus again, t hat's the point the camera will use, whether you have it on your intended target or not. It doesn't track an object. You still have to track the target of the primary AF point.
p.12 #17 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
la puffin wrote:
It's not that they don't know what they're doing, but they don't understand how Dynamic AF works in this new AF module. It's not the same. They key is that the extra points don't track, merely briefly try to achieve focus if the primary AF point can't. As soon as the primary AF point can achieve focus again, t hat's the point the camera will use, whether you have it on your intended target or not. It doesn't track an object. You still have to track the target of the primary AF point.
That's fine, and consistent with Steve's findings. The question is whether the camera is reacquiring different subjects via the primary AF point so quickly that the functionality of the dynamic mode has diminished to being no more useful than single-point continuous. And a corollary question to that is why did Nikon consider it useful for the camera to acquire a different subject on its own (esp so quickly) without direction of the photographer to do so?
p.12 #18 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
The D5 only "acquires a different subject on its own (esp so quickly) without direction of the photographer" when the photographer is too slow to keep up with the action!
However Nikon does provide slowly-reacting photographers with the Delay function as a crutch.
I am very sure that, with a little practice, most people should be able to adapt to the new system and will then realise just how good it is.
As I mentioned previously: 3D AF is the ONLY AF mode to which Nikon applies the label "Tracking".
I believe Nikon have done that for a very good reason.
p.12 #19 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
The D5 only "acquires a different subject on its own (esp so quickly) without direction of the photographer" when the photographer is too slow to keep up with the action!
However Nikon does provide slowly-reacting photographers with the Delay function as a crutch.
I am very sure that, with a little practice, most people should be able to adapt to the new system and will then realise just how good it is.
As I mentioned previously: 3D AF is the ONLY AF mode to which Nikon applies the label "Tracking".
I believe Nikon have done that for a very good reason.
Spot on. With this new AF system, the primary AF point (if cross point) is so fast, this is a real advantage - if you're fast enough to get it where you want it to be.
p.12 #20 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
la puffin wrote:
Spot on. With this new AF system, the primary AF point (if cross point) is so fast, this is a real advantage - if you're fast enough to get it where you want it to be.
I'm not following why a faster focusing speed would necessarily translate into the AF system deciding to revert back to the primary AF point faster for dynamic mode vs previous bodies. For example, once the D4s starts tracking on the primary point the incremental time for a tracking focus movement is likely just a few hundred milliseconds. Even if the D5/D500 is able to achieve this adjustment in half that time why would that necessarily translate into camera switching back from an adjacent AF point to the primary AF an order of magnitude faster than the D4s?
For example, let's say you start tracking a bird on the primary AF point. The bird moves off the primary AF point and on to an adjacent point. For now lets assume both the D5/D500 and D4s would use that adjacent point for one time interval. Then while that bird is still on an adjacent point a different bird flies onto the primary AF point. Let's say the D4s is able to acquire focus on this new bird on the primary AF point in 200ms (1/5 second) and the D5/D500 can do it in half the time of 100ms (1/10 second). Although the D5/D500 can achieve this focus twice as fast, the D4s could still switch back to the primary AF point fast enough to effectively mimic how fast the D5/D500 is choosing to do so, ie nearly instantaneously as far as human perception is concerned. Yet the D4s keeps tracking on the adjacent AF point, and rather successfully at that. Why would Nikon choose not to do this as well on the D5/D500, esp since their dedicated AF processor would allow them to evaluate multiple AF sensors more quickly than the D4s?
Almost makes one nostalgic for the old N60 and its single focus point. 