AnnJS wrote:
------------
Perhaps you misunderstood: my point was that I simply had not noticed that there was any difference because my D5 was performing brilliantly for me anyway!
The difference might be that after 60 years of handling cameras daily in my everyday profession I might have become slightly more adept at handling them and being able to keep a focus point on a target than others with less experience can do?
It also could be that I read the Manual and quickly adopted 3D TRACKING AF when actually tracking fast-moving targets. The Dynamic AF modes are NOT labelled "Tracking" and I am convinced that that was a deliberate decision by Nikon.
I think that photographers have two choices: either practice and become proficient at using a D5 and pushing it to its limits; or revert to a model which is more in tune with your capabilities and which allows you to work employing older, slower-working and ingrained methods with which you have become accustomed.
A D5 is not for everyone and may indeed prove to be "too much camera" for many people.
...Show more →
Well, that pinged the ol' arrogance meter!
Here's another possibility; you don't place as much demand on either camera or skills as do some of us. Your experience is too narrow to understand the problems other photographers outside your limited sphere of competence might face.
For example, that's why you don't realize that 3D is a non-starter when shooting high-traffic, small-area, fast team sports. Why? Because it uses color information to figure out what to focus on (now visualize a hockey game, 10 skaters, five skaters in blue jerseys, all 10 skaters with blue helmets and blue gloves--get it now?) And it's why you don't get why people who shoot into congested scenes might find the time period between dynamic focus point switching so important. (Think about our two hockey teams again; all those sticks, gloves, helmets and uniforms flying into and out of the scene as you try to stay on the action and deal with 10 fps viewfinder blackouts--get it?)
As to why you don't know that predictive tracking is always on when you shoot dynamic in af-c, well, I guess you didn't read that part of the manual.
EdErkes wrote:
I've been reading back through this thread again, and it really seems to me that some people really don't understand why there are different af modes. I picked the quote above as just one example from this thread. The various dynamic af modes are there for situations when it is more difficult to keep the primary af point on the subject. With d25, you should be reasonably able to keep the intended subject (i.e. point of focus) in the central area of the viewfinder. As stated in the D500 manual (p. 103), you would use d153 " when photographing subjects that are moving quickly and can not be easily framed in the viewfinder." Bold and italics were added by me.
If you can keep that one tiny af point out of 153 on the eye of a barn swallow as it twists and turns, feeding on insects over a field or pond (as some in this thread must be able to do quite easily), then you certainly shouldn't be using d153. However, if you are like me and just hope to keep the barn swallow in the frame and under one of the focusing points, then d153 has a purpose. And when I am using d153 on a barn swallow, I don't want the point of AF to be switching back to the primary af point, because,I'm willing to bet that barn swallow won't be there. ...Show more →
I see your intended point BUT the issue is those 153 points aren't tracking that barn swallow anyways unless that barn swallow is against a blue sky then the AF will stay with it as there is no other option to focus on. Dynamic does not do subject tracking like 3D mode does. It relies on predictive algorithms and contrast under its numerous points. With this newer system the extra points will grab something of contrast but you have no control over what that is. Could be a foreground twig, could be a background tree, could be anything and everything that has decent contrast in the frame. The only saviour is the blocked shot response basically delaying a switch as long as possible.
After reading this thread and doing my own testing I see very little practice use case for Dynamic AF mode on the D5/D500.
If someone could tell me what type of situation you would use it in over the other options I would love to know.
For me as a bird photographer primarily this is how I see the modes:
Group AF: Good for tracking flying birds in all situations except where there are contrasty foreground distractions and when the DOF (based on distance to subject, focal length and f-stop) would allow a near wing grab to render the head OOF. However, if the bird is big enough like say a BE or GBH then I think most of us have the skill to keep Group on the head/body most of the time and so I'd still use Group.
Single Pt: Any perched birds (wish Nikon had a smaller spot mode like Canon)
3D: Could be used for BIF, I need to try this mode more and I could see it being useful for tracking a perched bird that takes off. Also may work just as well as Group for all the things I would use Group for.
Auto: Good for things like swallows against sky. Let the camera grab the only contrasty thing out there which should be my blazing fast, swerving swallow. Dynamic may work here also and that might be the only thing it is useful for.
arbitrage wrote:
I see your intended point BUT the issue is those 153 points aren't tracking that barn swallow anyways unless that barn swallow is against a blue sky then the AF will stay with it as there is no other option to focus on. Dynamic does not do subject tracking like 3D mode does. It relies on predictive algorithms and contrast under its numerous points. With this newer system the extra points will grab something of contrast but you have no control over what that is. Could be a foreground twig, could be a background tree, could be anything and everything that has decent contrast in the frame. The only saviour is the blocked shot response basically delaying a switch as long as possible.
After reading this thread and doing my own testing I see very little practice use case for Dynamic AF mode on the D5/D500.
If someone could tell me what type of situation you would use it in over the other options I would love to know.
For me as a bird photographer primarily this is how I see the modes:
Group AF: Good for tracking flying birds in all situations except where there are contrasty foreground distractions and when the DOF (based on distance to subject, focal length and f-stop) would allow a near wing grab to render the head OOF. However, if the bird is big enough like say a BE or GBH then I think most of us have the skill to keep Group on the head/body most of the time and so I'd still use Group.
Single Pt: Any perched birds (wish Nikon had a smaller spot mode like Canon)
3D: Could be used for BIF, I need to try this mode more and I could see it being useful for tracking a perched bird that takes off. Also may work just as well as Group for all the things I would use Group for.
Auto: Good for things like swallows against sky. Let the camera grab the only contrasty thing out there which should be my blazing fast, swerving swallow. Dynamic may work here also and that might be the only thing it is useful for....Show more →
You have completely understood the situation and described the uses that "now" are on option for the D5 and let's not forget the D500 user.
Maybe implementing the predictive tracking on the new 153 point AF system in dynamic mode proved to be a problem for Nikon for whatever reason, let's face it those who designed the system probably designed the D4's system as well.........so there's no doubt that they "were aware" of the D5/D500s shortcomings of the dynamic mode, they were clever enough to implement and flaunt it previously.
Or whether there was a deadline compromise?
I can't wait to get out and do some more testing of both dynamic mode against a clear sky and the 3D mode, which while I haven't used it in anger, doesn't seem to pick up on all the subjects that I place it on!
I think the reason for the new system - if it is a reason and not a glitch - is fairly simple. This system allows you to keep precision focus on a specified area of your target. If the AF area slips off, you can place the primary point back to exactly where you want it and the camera will lock back onto that area again instead of getting "stuck" on the wrong part of the subject.
So, I can see maybe why they did it. However, I still don't agree with it.
In my mind, a very similar thing can be accomplished by using a smaller Dynamic area and an appropriate delay under A3. This is especially true with the D5's d9 Dynamic area (should add one to the D500 - it needs it more due to the larger relative size of the AF field in the viewfinder). Simply keep your smaller AF area where you want it on the target, if it slips off for a second or two the camera waits while you reacquire.
The downside is that instead of actively tracking when you fall off target (like with the new system), you get more of a pause - but only if the subject leaves the entire dynamic area. The upside with the old system of course is that the system isn't looking for new targets all the time. Overall, I think the old system is a better way of doing it - especially if D9 were added to all the new bodies (and updated on the D500) going forward. Best of both worlds.
Rather ironically, I think the "better" tracking of the new system is more suited for slower moving targets since it requires the user to keep the AF point on target more consistently than required in the past.
As for the "just learn to use your camera" crowd, please. How many times have we seen an actual problem with a camera only to have a contingent of people accuse everyone having the problem of simply not knowing what they are doing? (Although, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner in this thread). Remember the D810 left AF issue, the Canon 1DIII issue (that issue brought me over to Nikon BTW)? Why is it so terrible if someone doesn't agree with how a new feature was implemented - especially if it ultimately turns out to be a some sort of glitch?
I personally can track just about anything with just a single point (except swallows and songbirds ), but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that other photographers have different needs, different shooting styles, and shoot different subjects than I do. As I mentioned before, I think the D5/D500 AF system is advantageous to some photographers, and the truth is, it might even be a better system for my personal style of shooting than the old system. However, I think I can accomplish the same thing with smaller Dynamic areas using the behaviour of the old system - without sacrificing one of the benefits (i.e. staying locked on target).
arbitrage wrote:
If someone could tell me what type of situation you would use it in over the other options I would love to know.
I've mentioned multiple situations where the dynamic mode's "distance change" behavior might be beneficial... primarily when the subject is larger in the FOV and easier to track. I.e. it allows the focus to "refine" as tracking is established/stabilized and as the primary point of focus changes (i.e. from "head" to "eye" as the subject gets closer).
A few other things to note:
There isn't really any disadvantage to dynamic modes if you can keep the selected point on target.
d9 is effectively the same as group mode, but even smaller/tighter.
Auto does not simply grab "the closest point." It evaluates many points simultaneously. If the subject is larger with several points of good contrast it will pick your subject and not "a twig" that is closer (but probably not "the eye"). It *might* pick a twig/branch if that's the first thing it can focus on and your subject is still well OOF or if the subject is relatively small in the frame.
3D is similarly not as easily fooled just by "similar color"... but it certainly can be.
All focus modes can benefit from scene recognition which is a function of matrix metering. Previously I was never a proponent of auto or 3D, and I always felt that using more points slowed the system somewhat. Now I'm not so biased... but I don't think 3D or auto is ever likely to become a default setting for me.
Steve Perry wrote:
I think the reason for the new system - if it is a reason and not a glitch - is fairly simple. This system allows you to keep precision focus on a specified area of your target. If the AF area slips off, you can place the primary point back to exactly where you want it and the camera will lock back onto that area again instead of getting "stuck" on the wrong part of the subject.
So, I can see maybe why they did it. However, I still don't agree with it.
In my mind, a very similar thing can be accomplished by using a smaller Dynamic area and an appropriate delay under A3. This is especially true with the D5's d9 Dynamic area (should add one to the D500 - it needs it more due to the larger relative size of the AF field in the viewfinder). Simply keep your smaller AF area where you want it on the target, if it slips off for a second or two the camera waits while you reacquire.
The downside is that instead of actively tracking when you fall off target (like with the new system), you get more of a pause - but only if the subject leaves the entire dynamic area. The upside with the old system of course is that the system isn't looking for new targets all the time. Overall, I think the old system is a better way of doing it - especially if D9 were added to all the new bodies (and updated on the D500) going forward. Best of both worlds.
Rather ironically, I think the "better" tracking of the new system is more suited for slower moving targets since it requires the user to keep the AF point on target more consistently than required in the past.
As for the "just learn to use your camera" crowd, please. How many times have we seen an actual problem with a camera only to have a contingent of people accuse everyone having the problem of simply not knowing what they are doing? (Although, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner in this thread). Remember the D810 left AF issue, the Canon 1DIII issue (that issue brought me over to Nikon BTW)? Why is it so terrible if someone doesn't agree with how a new feature was implemented - especially if it ultimately turns out to be a some sort of glitch?
I personally can track just about anything with just a single point (except swallows and songbirds ), but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that other photographers have different needs, different shooting styles, and shoot different subjects than I do. As I mentioned before, I think the D5/D500 AF system is advantageous to some photographers, and the truth is, it might even be a better system for my personal style of shooting than the old system. However, I think I can accomplish the same thing with smaller Dynamic areas using the behaviour of the old system - without sacrificing one of the benefits (i.e. staying locked on target). ...Show more →
Given Nikon's recent history of failing to cross their i's and dot their t's before releasing a new product, it might've been something prosaic, like installing a much faster processor, but forgetting to update the dynamic code to compensate. Whatever, many thanks for starting the thread and doing the heavy lifting on the problem. Not understanding why I was getting so many OOF images, I had retreated to single point or just not using the D500 at all. Now I think I have enough understanding to go back to dynamic in most situations.
Steve Perry wrote:
I think the reason for the new system - if it is a reason and not a glitch - is fairly simple. This system allows you to keep precision focus on a specified area of your target. If the AF area slips off, you can place the primary point back to exactly where you want it and the camera will lock back onto that area again instead of getting "stuck" on the wrong part of the subject.
So, I can see maybe why they did it. However, I still don't agree with it.
In my mind, a very similar thing can be accomplished by using a smaller Dynamic area and an appropriate delay under A3. This is especially true with the D5's d9 Dynamic area (should add one to the D500 - it needs it more due to the larger relative size of the AF field in the viewfinder). Simply keep your smaller AF area where you want it on the target, if it slips off for a second or two the camera waits while you reacquire.
The downside is that instead of actively tracking when you fall off target (like with the new system), you get more of a pause - but only if the subject leaves the entire dynamic area. The upside with the old system of course is that the system isn't looking for new targets all the time. Overall, I think the old system is a better way of doing it - especially if D9 were added to all the new bodies (and updated on the D500) going forward. Best of both worlds.
Rather ironically, I think the "better" tracking of the new system is more suited for slower moving targets since it requires the user to keep the AF point on target more consistently than required in the past.
As for the "just learn to use your camera" crowd, please. How many times have we seen an actual problem with a camera only to have a contingent of people accuse everyone having the problem of simply not knowing what they are doing? (Although, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner in this thread). Remember the D810 left AF issue, the Canon 1DIII issue (that issue brought me over to Nikon BTW)? Why is it so terrible if someone doesn't agree with how a new feature was implemented - especially if it ultimately turns out to be a some sort of glitch?
I personally can track just about anything with just a single point (except swallows and songbirds ), but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that other photographers have different needs, different shooting styles, and shoot different subjects than I do. As I mentioned before, I think the D5/D500 AF system is advantageous to some photographers, and the truth is, it might even be a better system for my personal style of shooting than the old system. However, I think I can accomplish the same thing with smaller Dynamic areas using the behaviour of the old system - without sacrificing one of the benefits (i.e. staying locked on target). ...Show more →
Hi Steve,
Here I quote from the manual.!
25 point dynamic area AF: Choose when there is time to compose the photograph or when photographing subjects that are moving predictively (runners or race cars on a track)
72 point dynamic area AF: choose when photographing subjects that are moving unpredictably (eg players at a football game)
153 point area dynamic area AF: Choose when photographing subjects that are moving quickly and cannot be easily framed within the viewfinder (eg. birds)
So that's our brief, the question is does the camera perform to those parameters?
In the case of the 153 point area, it states it is there for when it's difficult to keep the square on the bird! Now given that you have at the most 1 second (in AF hold 5. follow even). Is it reasonable to expect the photog to reposition the AF square on this moving bird when the manual states that this mode is there for when it is difficult to do so?
My response would be: Obviously not!
It seems to me that they are talking about the system in the D750/D810 not the D5/500.
What's more:
EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING IS USED FOR THE THREE MODES IN THE MANUAL FOR THE D750!
Only the amount of focal points is different.
So there's the proof!! the description is the same in the manual for the D750 and D500! word for word the same!
So they have changed the dynamic modes but not the wording on what the system does.
Nikon states that you should always read the manual , but with those words of wisdom: THEY HAVEN'T.
Oh the irony, it's supposed to be the same dynamic AF system in the D5/D500 as the D750, it's just it doesn't work!
My statement was not a matter of arrogance but one of exasperation with the Whiners who apparently are not capable of driving a D5.
It was simply a statement that the D5 works and tracks perfectly for me and will do likewise for those who make the effort to learn how to use the new technology instead of indulging in this endless, and pointless complaining.
AnnJS wrote:
My statement was not a matter of arrogance but one of exasperation with the Whiners who apparently are not capable of driving a D5.
It was simply a statement that the D5 works and tracks perfectly for me and will do likewise for those who make the effort to learn how to use the new technology instead of indulging in this endless, and pointless complaining.
p.19 #10 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
My statement was not a matter of arrogance but one of exasperation with the Whiners who apparently are not capable of driving a D5.
It was simply a statement that the D5 works and tracks perfectly for me and will do likewise for those who make the effort to learn how to use the new technology instead of indulging in this endless, and pointless complaining.
Your posts on this thread are akin visiting an online thread about carburetor issues and telling everyone to buy a fuel-injection system instead. It's helpful to post that recommendation once, in case some participants are unaware of the alternative. It's quite another matter to post that recommendation on every page of the discussion, esp when it's clear the participants prefer the way a carburetor works. And worse, to then attempt to hammer them into submission by saying maybe they should buy an easier car to drive. It's not helpful to the discussion.
p.19 #11 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
daves cliches wrote:
Hi Steve,
Here I quote from the manual.!
25 point dynamic area AF: Choose when there is time to compose the photograph or when photographing subjects that are moving predictively (runners or race cars on a track)
72 point dynamic area AF: choose when photographing subjects that are moving unpredictably (eg players at a football game)
153 point area dynamic area AF: Choose when photographing subjects that are moving quickly and cannot be easily framed within the viewfinder (eg. birds)
So that's our brief, the question is does the camera perform to those parameters?
In the case of the 153 point area, it states it is there for when it's difficult to keep the square on the bird! Now given that you have at the most 1 second (in AF hold 5. follow even). Is it reasonable to expect the photog to reposition the AF square on this moving bird when the manual states that this mode is there for when it is difficult to do so?
My response would be: Obviously not!
It seems to me that they are talking about the system in the D750/D810 not the D5/500.
What's more:
EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING IS USED FOR THE THREE MODES IN THE MANUAL FOR THE D750!
Only the amount of focal points is different.
So there's the proof!! the description is the same in the manual for the D750 and D500! word for word the same!
So they have changed the dynamic modes but not the wording on what the system does.
Nikon states that you should always read the manual , but with those words of wisdom: THEY HAVEN'T.
Oh the irony, it's supposed to be the same dynamic AF system in the D5/D500 as the D750, it's just it doesn't work!
The manuals are the the first thing I looked at when I noticed the difference between the two systems a few months ago. I couldn't help but notice they had the same wording too
p.19 #12 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Steve Perry wrote:
The manuals are the the first thing I looked at when I noticed the difference between the two systems a few months ago. I couldn't help but notice they had the same wording too
I think we both know where we are here! Have a good weekend Steve!
Mar 25, 2017 at 12:36 PM
T-O Shooter Offline • • [X]
p.19 #13 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
My statement was not a matter of arrogance but one of exasperation with the Whiners who apparently are not capable of driving a D5.
It was simply a statement that the D5 works and tracks perfectly for me and will do likewise for those who make the effort to learn how to use the new technology instead of indulging in this endless, and pointless complaining.
p.19 #14 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
snapsy wrote:
Your posts on this thread are akin visiting an online thread about carburetor issues and telling everyone to buy a fuel-injection system instead.
It's more like telling someone who owns a modern vehicle to always leave the AWD/4WD selector in auto and traction control on. It works well a lot of the time, but not optimally all of the time, and sometimes it might cause you problems unnecessarily.
p.19 #15 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
It was simply a statement that the D5 works and tracks perfectly for me and will do likewise for those who make the effort to learn how to use the new technology instead of indulging in this endless, and pointless complaining.
No, 3D does not work "perfectly." Eventually you will find that out...
p.19 #16 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Steve Perry wrote:
[ ... ] Finally, keep in mind that this doesn’t mean I personally endorse the new system or even that that the thing isn't broken (I may just be documenting a bug). I'd actually like to see Nikon give us a choice between the two - maybe call the current one “precision dynamic” or something. [ ... ]
Steve, I know it's your nature, but you've been too kind I think. It's a bug. The new mode really isn't useful since other than cycling the focus button, you really don't know when the camera's going to go back to the primary point -- which you'd have to do with the old method. In real-time, I really don't see any way the new system is going to be anything other than a hinderance since reality (you trying to track a subject through the view finder) isn't going to sync with the camera. I.e., the chances the intended subject is going to be under the primary AF point at the moment the Dynamic AF system decides to refocus is going to be low. If that weren't the case, you'd be using spot or group mode from the start.
It's a bug. Bugs happen -- especially for a problem as hard as this one. It's a new AF system that probably because of geometries involved made it hard to port the old code. Handling the four fairly large gaps between the AF point groups must also make tracking in dynamic modes very difficult. (I wonder if those gaps have anything to do with the firmware's decision to refocus?)
From what I've seen of Nikon, I'd give it pretty good odds they will, or already are, working on the problem. Obviously, we need to keep up with at least some pressure for them to keep working on it, and to provide symtoms and ideas back to Nikon. We all want this to get better.
p.19 #17 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
I'm sure Nikon is working on this and it will be included in the D5s and D500s later this year rendering current bodies worthless I kid, I kid......or maybe not....
p.19 #18 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
aflundi wrote:
Steve, I know it's your nature, but you've been too kind I think. It's a bug. The new mode really isn't useful since other than cycling the focus button, you really don't know when the camera's going to go back to the primary point -- which you'd have to do with the old method. In real-time, I really don't see any way the new system is going to be anything other than a hinderance since reality (you trying to track a subject through the view finder) isn't going to sync with the camera. I.e., the chances the intended subject is going to be under the primary AF point at the moment the Dynamic AF system decides to refocus is going to be low. If that weren't the case, you'd be using spot or group mode from the start.
It's a bug. Bugs happen -- especially for a problem as hard as this one. It's a new AF system that probably because of geometries involved made it hard to port the old code. Handling the four fairly large gaps between the AF point groups must also make tracking in dynamic modes very difficult. (I wonder if those gaps have anything to do with the firmware's decision to refocus?)
From what I've seen of Nikon, I'd give it pretty good odds they will, or already are, working on the problem. Obviously, we need to keep up with at least some pressure for them to keep working on it, and to provide symtoms and ideas back to Nikon. We all want this to get better.
Well, no arguement from me That very well may be true.
One thing though - keep in mind that the camera will only give up the primary point if it's not back on target for the duration of the delay. If you revisit the target at any point, the "countdown" starts over. So, you don't need to worry (too much) about syncing the primary AF point with the delay. I hope that makes sense.
But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see this "fixed" in firmware - or an "s" version of the cameras as mentioned above
p.19 #19 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Steve Perry wrote:
[ ... ] One thing though - keep in mind that the camera will only give up the primary point if it's not back on target for the duration of the delay. If you revisit the target at any point, the "countdown" starts over. So, you don't need to worry (too much) about syncing the primary AF point with the delay. I hope that makes sense. [ ... ]
I had missed that part, and just tried it. You're right that does make it much less of a problem for real-world use -- perhaps even to the point of not being much of an issue. It's still a bug, but given this, probably not too pressing.
BTW Steve, how is all this affecting your AF book?
p.19 #20 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
A "Bug" is only a bug when it is NOT working "as designed".
Nikon's response seems to indicate that AF (in both the D5 and in the D500) is working "As Designed" even if the new AF technology may not work in the way that certain users think it should work.
The point is surely that the AF is working in ALL area modes when the photographer makes the correct menu settings; selects an appropriate Area Mode for his purpose; and then understands how to use it?!
I simply don't understand what all this fuss is about.
), but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that other photographers have different needs, different shooting styles, and shoot different subjects than I do. As I mentioned before, I think the D5/D500 AF system is advantageous to some photographers, and the truth is, it might even be a better system for my personal style of shooting than the old system. However, I think I can accomplish the same thing with smaller Dynamic areas using the behaviour of the old system - without sacrificing one of the benefits (i.e. staying locked on target). 
I kid, I kid......or maybe not....