1bwana1 wrote:
I have also believed that mirrorless cameras don't need to be fine tuned. I have never done it, and have never noticed a need for it.
However, the makers of FoCal, an AF fine tuning system, have published an article on the Z9 saying that improvements can be had by fine tuning both F and Z mount lenses for use on your Z(and presumably all your mirrorless cameras). They claim to have collected a lot of data confirming this need. Whether this is an attempt by them to keep their product relevant in the age of mirrorless cameras I don't know. But it may be where agrumpyoldsod gets his information regarding this issue.
Their findings show that Z mount lenses either need no adjustment or a 1 point adjustment that they write is probably not needed as the difference is unlikely to be perceivable.
Their findings show that Z mount lenses either need no adjustment or a 1 point adjustment that they write is probably not needed as the difference is unlikely to be perceivable.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's also worth noting that the data is supplied by users. So none of this is under controlled conditions, and is self reported by people who have already made a purchasing decision to get the focus calibration kit.
Heck, I used a Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM with the Fotodiox Fusion adapter on my Z8 today, and it was 100% spot on with AF at f/1.2. (and as an aside, that combo was incredibly impressive, both in AF and in image quality, with a lens that is like half the size and 3/4 lb lighter than the Nikon, so I honestly think I'm going that route for my fast 50mm).
Eye AF worked fine too, though a couple misses, but overall good accuracy when testing it out with the adapter, which I was surprised about. Quick sample in the store:
I’ve been wondering about the fotodiox adapter. It looks like the construction is more robust than megadapt. Have you tested any other lenses?
Jman13 wrote:
It's also worth noting that the data is supplied by users. So none of this is under controlled conditions, and is self reported by people who have already made a purchasing decision to get the focus calibration kit.
Heck, I used a Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM with the Fotodiox Fusion adapter on my Z8 today, and it was 100% spot on with AF at f/1.2. (and as an aside, that combo was incredibly impressive, both in AF and in image quality, with a lens that is like half the size and 3/4 lb lighter than the Nikon, so I honestly think I'm going that route for my fast 50mm). ...Show more →
Jman13 wrote:
It's also worth noting that the data is supplied by users. So none of this is under controlled conditions, and is self reported by people who have already made a purchasing decision to get the focus calibration kit.
Heck, I used a Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM with the Fotodiox Fusion adapter on my Z8 today, and it was 100% spot on with AF at f/1.2. (and as an aside, that combo was incredibly impressive, both in AF and in image quality, with a lens that is like half the size and 3/4 lb lighter than the Nikon, so I honestly think I'm going that route for my fast 50mm).
Eye AF worked fine too, though a couple misses, but overall good accuracy when testing it out with the adapter, which I was surprised about. Quick sample in the store:
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I’ve been wondering about the fotodiox adapter. It looks like the construction is more robust than megadapt. Have you tested any other lenses?
That’s why I got the Fotodiox too. I’ve also heard of a lot of failures with the Megadap over time.
I tried the 50/1.4 GM, the 50/1.2, and the Sigma 85/1.4 DN.
All worked decently, but the 50/1.4 for whatever reason seemed to need to boot up. When turning the camera on, it would show as a manual focus lens for like 7-10 seconds, then it would kick on and work fine. The AF was fairly slow with the 50/1.4, but accurate and sure once the focus got there. The 85/1.4 had moderate focus speed and good accuracy, but certainly not speedy. The 50/1.2, though, felt native. Very quick AF, no delay when turning the camera on. It probably doesn’t focus as well as on a Sony body, but it was quite quick and snappy, and probably equal in speed to my 50/1.8 S.
Switching from Canon, my one lens I’ve been dreading letting go of is my RF 50/1.2L, which is the best 50 I’ve ever used. I am not super pleased with the rendering of the Nikon 50/1.2 (I think the 50/1.8 has nicer bokeh, and it’s weird since one of the things I’ve loved about my Z lenses is how generally good the bokeh is)…and it’s SO flipping huge. The Sony working this well is great, and will make it not painful at all to swap away from my 50L.
I tried your settings today when taking shots of my daughter before her first day of school, and it seemed to work quite well. Nothing obviously missing focus at all in the shots I took this morning. Thanks!
CanadaMark wrote:
Would you prefer that those of us having no issues at all make up stories claiming that we are having issues? What purpose would that serve? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it doesn't automatically make it untrue.
I know wedding photographers using Z9's and now Z8's that do not have any issues, and they are shooting all day long at wide apertures. Professional reviews have mentioned they were not having issues. I personally cannot replicate the issue on my Z9. I guess that's BS though because we're all a bunch of liars :
)
"Wide apertures" meaning f/2.8. The Z9 has struggled at anything less than f/2.8 and absolutely struggles with lenses like the 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8.
It's common knowledge that the R3/R5 are running circles around Nikon for eye AF. It doesn't mean the Z9/Z8 can't perform. It just means they struggle to perform. The Z system struggles in general.
Generally you can be liars, yes. A perfect example of liars below:
agrumpyoldsod wrote:
You indicated that you "picked up" a 105/1.4 to rent so an F-mount lens not a z-mount.
I found that all my f-mount lenses benefitted (needed) some AF fine tuning on my Z9. Some needed a significant adjustment. Do not believe those who claim it is mirrorless and so no AF-fine tuning is "needed". There is vast evidence that such responses are not supported by data.
I suggest you test the accuracy of the focus calibration - use a tripod and a simple ruler on a slope and a target next to the ruler.
Z-mount Nikkor lenses are much more accurate.
I mean... come on. I know you BSG folks are pushing hard to sell Nikon Z gear, but claiming F mount lenses are less accurate on phase detection autofocus systems than native Z mount is like trying to claim that your Toyotas out perform my 599 GTB.
Which is why I said this forum has changed in the last ten years from being useful to useless.
OhSnap wrote:
"Wide apertures" meaning f/2.8. The Z9 has struggled at anything less than f/2.8 and absolutely struggles with lenses like the 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8.
It's common knowledge that the R3/R5 are running circles around Nikon for eye AF. It doesn't mean the Z9/Z8 can't perform. It just means they struggle to perform. The Z system struggles in general.
Generally you can be liars, yes. A perfect example of liars below:
I mean... come on. I know you BSG folks are pushing hard to sell Nikon Z gear, but claiming F mount lenses are less accurate on phase detection autofocus systems than native Z mount is like trying to claim that your Toyotas out perform my 599 GTB.
Which is why I said this forum has changed in the last ten years from being useful to useless....Show more →
A Z9 struggling with a lens like a 400/2.8? Do you even believe what you write?
Funny, you're the only one who seems to possess this "common knowledge". I don't know a single person including myself having issues with anything you describe.
By your own logic, if anyone experiences an issue that you are not personally having, that must mean you yourself are obviously lying. What a depressing way to view the world.
For someone who finds this forum so "useless" you sure do like spending time here spreading blatant misinformation, building on your 14-post count (all in the Nikon forum). I think there's a word for that....
I think most of you know that in general I strongly object to the term troll being applied to members of the FM community who engage in discussions on these boards. I believe everyone has the right to respectfully post their opinions on all boards here without being labeled and attacked personally. However, in the case of OhSnap, based on his short tenure, and disrespectful and rude posts (not to mention factually incorrect), I think the term Troll may be justified. In my opinion the sooner his account is closed, the better it will be for the community.
Unfortunately since a while ago the forum has occasionally been logging me out and then I have to login again. In those instances I can see some of those posts I never wanted to see.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
It’s my first time making use of the “Hide” function. Nice.
CanadaMark wrote:
Would you prefer that those of us having no issues at all make up stories claiming that we are having issues? What purpose would that serve? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it doesn't automatically make it untrue.
I know wedding photographers using Z9's and now Z8's that do not have any issues, and they are shooting all day long at wide apertures. Professional reviews have mentioned they were not having issues. I personally cannot replicate the issue on my Z9. I guess that's BS though because we're all a bunch of liars
Remember this, where you claimed you have never experienced the same issue Jan had ? You eventually back-tracked on that position in your later posts.
CanadaMark wrote:
I've never understood these "more workflow" comments, as it does not match my experience and I can't seem to replicate some of the issues people talk about, even when specifically trying. If someone can't get the AF to work a certain way but another can, unless they have a magical camera, it all but confirms a user issue or a settings/technique issue. I like to use car analogies because they're easy, and if 2 people driving the same cars are getting different lap times, assuming no hardware issues, what do you think that difference is most likely to be explained...Show more →
It seems hard to believe that anyone with any brand of mirrorless camera has not experienced, in some form or another, the same issue Jan had - given that neither the Canon or Sony cameras are totally immune to that problem either - this simply doesn't sound plausible.
While no camera is 100% perfect, I never had issue with eye focus on Z8 or Z9 with any lens
including 85/1.2S, 50/1.2S or any F mount lense such as 58/1.4, 105/1.4e, 200/2 Vr ii. Heck, even Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 with F to M mount adapter then M to Z Techart adapter still focus on the eyes perfectly enough that
if there is any random out of focus shots, the number is insignificant enough that as a big picture, I don't notice any problem. Last night, I was curious enough to see if I can replicate some of the problems that were reported on this forum, I tried 85/1.2S with Z8 for tight headshot at very close to minimum focusing distance at f1.2 under artificial light in a restaurant with a friend across the table from me and of the casual 7-8 shots that I tried, I did not get any eyelash insteda of eye or out focus eye at all.
Interestingly enough, my setting was similar to what Bernard recommended as I used those setting for erratic bif shots.
I'm wondering, if anyone else noticed the difference between video and stills?
I was sitting on river bank yesterday evening watching a great egret walking on the other side, trying to catch a fish.
It was about 40-50m away, and there was no chance my z8 with 400f4.5 would recognize it that far, in stills. It was set to L-area.
But when I switched to video, and DX mode, it found it imidiately, even the eye box was dancing around it's head.
The video was set to auto area.
When I looked the video after, the bird was in focus, even the background was very busy with grass and foliage.
I just can't understand what Nikon is doing differently in video
I'll pay more attention to this in video mode.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes, there are certainly several areas where it is quite a bit better, which is why I was drawn to it. Overall, I’m still very happy with the camera, but I do hope Nikon can tweak the EyeAF algorithms via firmware to make the Z8 all it can be.
This seems to be a common problem with all mirrorless Nikon cameras. I have issues with my Z5. But that's an old camera. Many people are having issues with their Z8s and Z9s. Chris & Jordan, Tony Northrup, FroKnowsPhoto etc, all say they get a lot of eyelashes with the Z8.
People who claim a 99.7% hit rate on the eyeball probably don't shoot closeups like in your examples. If you shoot at a wedding from a distance then it's not going to matter, because the whole face will be in focus anyway.
jaygould wrote:
This seems to be a common problem with all mirrorless Nikon cameras. I have issues with my Z5. But that's an old camera. Many people are having issues with their Z8s and Z9s. Chris & Jordan, Tony Northrup, FroKnowsPhoto etc, all say they get a lot of eyelashes with the Z8.
People who claim a 99.7% hit rate on the eyeball probably don't shoot closeups like in your examples. If you shoot at a wedding from a distance then it's not going to matter, because the whole face will be in focus anyway.
This is correct in my case, in a typical image there are several people in the frame. I am not far away though, but often shoot with a wide angle or normal focal length. The image is more often than not about interaction between people and not a single person's face. I do head shots as well but the aperture in those cases would unlikely be larger than f/3.5.
Having used the Z6 II for a few years I can say the Z8 does a much better job focusing especially for subjects that move. For static subjects the Z6 II with wide area large with subject detection works very well though. Where the Z6 II failed for me was when subjects are approaching the camera, something the Z8 handles excellently.
The most practical way to improve results with these Nikons has been for me to limit the area within which it searches for subjects. The Z8 offers a great deal of flexibility in this respect.
For tight wide-aperture portraits of individuals with a fast prime, there might indeed be consistency problems. Howver, to me this does not lead to aesthetically pleasing result. I use wide apertures a lot, but not with a tight framing of the face. More like 2/3 or full body shots which is where the wide aperture can help clear complex backgrounds and depth of field at these magnifications is adequate. A head shot at f/1.4 can still be done but with a slightly reduced consistency of focus in some situations. But these images seem to me like taking an overdose of drugs - the depth of field is too shallow and the background becomes almost completely featureless.
In the studio I typically use f/11 for head shots, sometimes f/13. In this case the viewer can actually see what the person looks like and the main attraction is not just an optical effect.
Do you even believe what you write?