I do not believe that the D5/D500 is "broken." I believe that with the increase in AF points and AF speed they have simply made it more "hyperactive."
Interestingly, the D5/D500 is now behaving *more* like the description says it should: "Dynamic-area AF: In AF-C focus mode the camera will focus based on information from surrounding focus points if the subject briefly leaves the selected point." (this has always been the description)
There is also a note in the manual in regards to 3D/Auto not being available above f/5.6.
I have found 3D to be better than previous iterations, but not nearly "flawless." There are obviously other factors that affect how accurate it is. I have also used Auto to capture subjects that are almost impossible to acquire/track (chimney swifts).
snapsy wrote:
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?...Show more →
What's to say that you wouldn't want to switch to the second subject? That also happens quite frequently...
I would not say that my success rate has diminished with the D5... just that it was very apparent to me that the behavior is different. It was primarily evident when the D5 would shift focus when earlier cameras would just hang "in limbo." A missed shot due to shifted focus isn't really any worse than a missed shot because "focus" was on blue sky... it's just that when the D5 shifts focus the shot may be more OOF (which may seem like "worse" performance), and it can be harder to re-acquire focus if it has shifted very far.
I should also note that my success rate has not greatly increased w/ the D5 in dynamic modes either... Larger slower action wasn't really a problem previously (i.e. egrets in flight). And I think the really demanding stuff (swifts/swallows/diving eagles/etc) is still pushing the capabilities of AF speed.
I will say that Auto and 3D can be even more impressive for speed/accuracy... and those are modes I *never* used previously.
I agree with Snapsy on this. While I understand and can even appreciate where the new system can be useful, I still think from on overall sense the old system was superior.
If you needed faster target switching, just turn the delay under A3 off and use an area small enough that you can get it completely off the subject as needed.
In fact, if you look at the number of photographers who have started using Group or 3D instead of Dynamic with the D5/D500, it seems as if most people find the new Dynamic modes leave them wanting. Also, look at the sheer number of posters (some very accomplished photographers) who have had difficulty with Dynamic. The sad truth is, I'm not entirely confident just knowing how it works is enough to overcome the change in behavior.
I realize that 3D now does a better job and may be a better choice for the times we used to rely on Dynamic, but 3D comes with its own set of problems. First, you'll drive it insane if the subject and surrounding area are of similar colors. Second, you can't isolate it the way you can Dynamic.
sk66 - even you mention that, while it's not worse, it's not any better either. Why change it if it's not an improvement?
I'll double down on what I said before - if this was a deliberate change, why not leave a legacy mode in place as well?
sk66 wrote:
What's to say that you wouldn't want to switch to the second subject? That also happens quite frequently...
A photographer can switch subjects by pumping AFON (release+repress). Or if some shooters prefer the new behavior, at least an option to switch between the old and new behavior.
My question is, was the old behavior actually any better? I am fairly convinced that with the old system a lot of shots were "luck" with the focus actually at some point other than desired (with demanding subjects)... I've checked many images over the years for critical focus VS reported focus. I think we just won't be getting lucky as often with the new system.
As I noted, with delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic I get a behavior more similar to the old system, and it will only refocus if the selected point is held steady on a new/good subject/point. Even if held perfectly steady on a new point it takes about 2 sec to shift... that's actually quite a bit of time to take a picture in these scenarios. And what are the chances of holding the selected point steady on a new spot if you can't hold it steady where you want it? The delay is *much* longer if the selected point doesn't settle on something good (infinite?). FWIW, with wildlife/birds I am almost always using the 400/2.8 + TC's handheld with the SharpShooter Camera Mount (rifle stock)... the chances of me holding the selected point perfectly steady on anything is pretty remote .
I'm not advocating for the new system per-se... it's confused me which is what lead me to this post. But I'm not ready to give up on it yet either (switch to 3D/Group). Now that I understand the system behavior and how the settings affect it I'll give it some time/experimentation to see what I finally come up with.
I can say that I believe I've had better results with the new system when photographing other subjects (soccer/aircraft/etc)... it's just less notable because those types of subjects are less demanding and the other system did quite well already.
Steve Perry wrote:
I realize that 3D now does a better job and may be a better choice for the times we used to rely on Dynamic, but 3D comes with its own set of problems. First, you'll drive it insane if the subject and surrounding area are of similar colors. Second, you can't isolate it the way you can Dynamic.
You can to an extent... there is a setting for 3D watch area (wide/normal). But I have no idea what that actually means... it's not in the manual.
BTW, I am not aware of a large number of D5/D500 users changing how they use the AF system. When I posted my findings/thoughts in other places I got just about zero response from other users. It seems most of them didn't really exploit/understand the AF system/behaviors to begin with.
I got a lot of "I've always used group" or "I've always used single," etc,... or I shoot Canon .
snapsy wrote:
[q]
A photographer can switch subjects by pumping AFON (release+repress). Or if some shooters prefer the new behavior, at least an option to switch between the old and new behavior.
Yes, there are lots of ways to work the system... I'm still working on whether I can get the new system to work as well or better than the old system. At the moment I think I can... and if I can, I certainly won't want/need an option to revert.
p.13 #10 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
sk66 wrote:
My question is, was the old behavior actually any better? I am fairly convinced that with the old system a lot of shots were "luck" with the focus actually at some point other than desired (with demanding subjects)... I've checked many images over the years for critical focus VS reported focus. I think we just won't be getting lucky as often with the new system.
As I noted, with delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic I get a behavior more similar to the old system, and it will only refocus if the selected point is held steady on a new/good subject/point. Even if held perfectly steady on a new point it takes about 2 sec to shift... that's actually quite a bit of time to take a picture in these scenarios. And what are the chances of holding the selected point steady on a new spot if you can't hold it steady where you want it? The delay is *much* longer if the selected point doesn't settle on something good (infinite?). FWIW, with wildlife/birds I am almost always using the 400/2.8 + TC's handheld with the SharpShooter Camera Mount (rifle stock)... the chances of me holding the selected point perfectly steady on anything is pretty remote .
I'm not advocating for the new system per-se... it's confused me which is what lead me to this post. But I'm not ready to give up on it yet either (switch to 3D/Group). Now that I understand the system behavior and how the settings affect it I'll give it some time/experimentation to see what I finally come up with.
I can say that I believe I've had better results with the new system when photographing other subjects (soccer/aircraft/etc)... it's just less notable because those types of subjects are less demanding and the other system did quite well already....Show more →
A question to ask is what does Nikon accomplish with the new behavior?
Let's say Ann and puffin's description of how dynamic is designed to work is accurate, which certainly seems plausible. This would mean the camera only tracks on the primary AF point and will revert to using non-tracking continuous AF on the adjacent points when the subject moves off the primary AF point. The net result will be that continuous shooting performance will degrade the longer the subject stays on an adjacent AF point, since the photographer is not benefiting from the camera's intelligent tracking during that interval.
So what benefit does the photographer get by the camera deciding it's better to utilize the tracking intelligence of the camera by forcing the issue and switching to a new subject under the primary AF point? Surely the camera will achieve better tracking performance on the new subject. The problem is it will be achieved on a subject the photographer didn't want. Why not just let the photographer decide how diligent he wants to be in keeping his original subject under the primary AF point (with the commensurate benefit of better tracking) and then explicitly decide on a new subject when he wants by cycling AFON?
p.13 #12 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
The net result will be that continuous shooting performance will degrade the longer the subject stays on an adjacent AF point, since the photographer is not benefiting from the camera's intelligent tracking during that interval.
That is not the case... predictive focus is engaged anytime AF-C is in use and the subject (or camera) is in motion. (if single point is in use it is only predicting changes in distance under the AF point)
snapsy wrote:
Why not just let the photographer decide how diligent he wants to be in keeping his original subject under the primary AF point (with the commensurate benefit of better tracking) and then explicitly decide on a new subject when he wants by cycling AFON?
You still have that to some degree with the delay/subject motion settings... just not to the extent it was before.
p.13 #13 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Keiththom wrote:
I'm certainly confused now. How is dynamic any better than single point?
Definitely better than single point with a subject in motion...
If you acquire focus with the selected point, and then it moves away from the selected point, the AF system will engage predictive focus utilizing the other enabled points (distance and direction). As long as you do not hold the selected point steady on a new/good target it will continue to track with all enabled AF points.
How long you have to hold it steady on a new point before it refocuses is modified with the delay/motion settings (seems to be from short to really short).
If you test these behaviors with a tripod, stationary targets, and very good stability it will seem almost pointless, but with the camera or target(s) in erratic/fast motion it makes much more sense... in theory anyway...
p.13 #14 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
sk66 wrote:
You can to an extent... there is a setting for 3D watch area (wide/normal). But I have no idea what that actually means... it's not in the manual.
Yes and no - that setting doesn't really restrict the area, just how far out from the current point the system will watch for the subject. For more erratic subjects, wider is better, for regular subjects, normal is the right call. However, in either mode, the camera can still wander through the entire AF field.
p.13 #15 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
sk66 wrote:
That is not the case... predictive focus is engaged anytime AF-C is in use and the subject (or camera) is in motion. (if single point is in use it is only predicting changes in distance under the AF point)
I was only using previous theories of dynamic operation as the basis. If it is true that the camera can track on any of the dynamic AF points then that's an even stronger arguments against the camera switching to a new subject under the primary AF point.
I'm starting to wonder if this switching behavior is due to limitations in the camera's ability to uniquely distinguish subjects. From what I understand the camera only uses its advanced subject identification and tracking mechanism (including color metering sensor) in 3D mode. This means the camera would have to instead rely on a combination of subject distance, size (how many AF points the subject crosses), and speed (how fast the subject moves between AF points). So maybe it's not that the camera is choosing to switch subjects but that it can't distinguish between them.
p.13 #16 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Basicaly: Dynamic is not designed to TRACK.
Dynamic is designed to allow the photographer to maintain focus on achosen point while he manoeuvrers the camera to keep his primary point on the target. Dynamic provides some extra points to help him recover his target under his original primary Point. The primary point itself never moves from where you first placed it within the frame.
Only two AF modes actually TRACK automatically.
3D Tracking: follows the object which you choose to Lock onto when you first click on whatever is under your Primary point at that moment.
Auto AF also tracks but the camera makes the decision on which object it will track and chooses another target at random when it finds what it considers to be a better target. I have not found a use for Auto AF.
p.13 #17 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
Basicaly: Dynamic is not designed to TRACK.
Dynamic is designed to allow the photographer to maintain focus on achosen point while he manoeuvrers the camera to keep his primary point on the target. Dynamic provides some extra points to help him recover his target under his original primary Point. The primary point itself never moves from where you first placed it within the frame.
I have to disagree... "tracking" is when the focus/active focus point moves with the subject, and that is the case in any of the dynamic modes. And it is always using predictive focus with all enabled AF points.
The main difference between 3D and D153 is that 3D abandons the initial AF point and uses color information from the metering sensor.
p.13 #18 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if this switching behavior is due to limitations in the camera's ability to uniquely distinguish subjects. From what I understand the camera only uses its advanced subject identification and tracking mechanism (including color metering sensor) in 3D mode. This means the camera would have to instead rely on a combination of subject distance, size (how many AF points the subject crosses), and speed (how fast the subject moves between AF points). So maybe it's not that the camera is choosing to switch subjects but that it can't distinguish between them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "advanced subject identification and tracking"... but I'm fairly certain what you are describing are the functions that require color information from the metering sensor (face recognition, 3D).
Other modes of predictive tracking focus only use contrast, distance, direction, and speed.
p.13 #19 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
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?
Because in Dynamic AF, priority is given to the primary AF point. You're supposed to put it where you want it to focus.
The difference from Single Point, is that in Single Point, if the single point (the primary point) losses AF, nothing is in focus. In Dynamic, "the camera will focus based on information from surrounding focus points if the subject briefly leaves the selected point."
Briefly. It tries to use the primary AF point. Don't you want the camera to focus on it's primary AF point when it can? That's what one uses for the target in Single Point or Dynamic. The camera tries to focus where you put that point.
p.13 #20 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
la puffin wrote:
Because in Dynamic AF, priority is given to the primary AF point. You're supposed to put it where you want it to focus.
The difference is that the previous system did not check against the initial AF point unless focus was lost. The system in the D5/D500 does (and rather quickly). If there is nothing good under the initial point it goes back to tracking with the other points (it actually appears to be checking simultaneously).
.