SCoombs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.10 #20 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
CanadaMark wrote:
If you're having tracking issues, especially in more "normal" situations rather than a torture test like Swallows flying head-on, it's almost always going to be technique or setting related. If one person is getting more out of a lens than someone else on the same camera, it's not likely to be the equipment's fault unless something is defective, which is rare but not unheard of. Especially with something like AF speed, that just isn't something that is typically affected by copy variation. I've used a few copies of the 200-500 and they've all performed broadly the same as far as I could tell.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that....Show more →
In a way I understand why it's so common, but I still think people are too quick to jump to blame the user anytime someone mentions or asks for help with a problem they're having on any of the various photography forums. Like I said, there's a theme out there that people switch to the 500pf or some other lens and their BIF photos start being in focus. It's the same user with the same technique and the settings on their camera.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.
|
I get that it's a test YouTubers like to do because it's something they can assign a number to, but it's not a good representation of what AF speed is like under typical use and is often misleading.