p.10 #1 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
armd wrote:
I appreciate the circumstances when trying to shoot candids (or concerts, etc.) when the subjects are moving, thereby making single point a bit more difficult. For portraits, single point seems to work reasonably well for me. I'm surprised that dynamic was providing such a high hit rate, though my presumption is you were using small or a custom small area? Since tracking is off in that mode, it prioritizes focus on the nearest subject, which is not necessarily the eye (it can be the brow, nose, etc.). There are two other points that I think are worthy of mentioning. First, there is little penalty and in fact I consider it a necessary strategy to take a seemingly excessive number of shots to ensure capturing a few with critical focus. Secondarily, I can't emphasize the importance of ETR and not underexposing to ensure AF, reduce noise, and preserve DR. Glad to hear that you've been able to improve your keeper rate....Show more →
p.10 #2 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
snapsy wrote:
Canon R3 with my Eye AF test. Identifies eyes in very oblique angles like the Z8 but unlike the Z8 at those angles, the R3 focuses on them correctly.
Frankly can't make anything out from this video - nothing appears properly in focus at all, but between dubious print quality of the "eye" and high ISO noise, the whole setup is sketchy.
p.10 #3 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
jlafferty wrote:
Frankly can't make anything out from this video - nothing appears properly in focus at all, but between dubious print quality of the "eye" and high ISO noise, the whole setup is sketchy.
Why do you suppose there are so few (relatively speaking) pros using these Z cameras?
I think it’s the auto focus. The Z8 is spectacular otherwise.
p.10 #4 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ronno wrote:
Why do you suppose there are so few (relatively speaking) pros using these Z cameras?
I think it’s the auto focus. The Z8 is spectacular otherwise.
I have no idea how you go about making such a speculative, unsupported statement but... it is the internet and everyone is given a platform
No pie chart to show the breakdown of people buying Z8/Z9 cameras that I know of, but their success suggests the opposite of your guess:
p.10 #5 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
jlafferty wrote:
I have no idea how you go about making such a speculative, unsupported statement but... it is the internet and everyone is given a platform
No pie chart to show the breakdown of people buying Z8/Z9 cameras that I know of, but their success suggests the opposite of your guess:
I love how people on the internet just make up "facts", that they then emphatically believe. I believe strongly about this thing that I literally just made up! Man the trolls are up early lol
p.10 #7 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
Going from my experience with agencies in New York, California, Europe, ad agencies, Huge commercial, photography, production, studios, sales, figures, etc., etc.
These cameras are a few and far between.
Do you have evidence otherwise? Are you seeing things I am not? Are you commercial photographers?
(I’m talking commercial photography, not hobbyists)
p.10 #8 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ronno wrote:
Going from my experience with agencies in New York, California, Europe, ad agencies, Huge commercial, photography, production, studios, sales, figures, etc., etc.
These cameras are a few and far between.
Do you have evidence otherwise? Are you seeing things I am not? Are you commercial photographers?
(I’m talking commercial photography, not hobbyists)
p.10 #9 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
(Link to my work can be seen in my profile.)
Do you have evidence to the contrary @ the Z cameras Sung?
People don’t want to fight with their cameras, only able to get good results with a bunch of asterisks and babysitting the AF points, unreliable in the dark, etc. etc.
I just wish Canon made bodies that feel as solid as these Zs do. R5 feels like junk in comparison (body materials, LCD screens etc), but it works better.
p.10 #10 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ronno wrote:
(Link to my work can be seen in my profile.)
Do you have evidence to the contrary @ the Z cameras Sung?
People don’t want to fight with their cameras, only able to get good results with a bunch of asterisks and babysitting the AF points, unreliable in the dark, etc. etc.
I just wish Canon made bodies that feel as solid as these Zs do. R5 feels like junk in comparison (body materials, LCD screens etc), but it works better.
What do you mean evidence to the contrary? You're the one coming up with an non supported claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
p.10 #11 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
jlafferty wrote:
Frankly can't make anything out from this video - nothing appears properly in focus at all, but between dubious print quality of the "eye" and high ISO noise, the whole setup is sketchy.
Let me help you then. Here's one of the full-sized OOC jpg's shot from the R3 during that video - all of the exposures captured during that session were transferred in real-time to my system wirelessly over FTP.
p.10 #12 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
armd wrote:
I appreciate the circumstances when trying to shoot candids (or concerts, etc.) when the subjects are moving, thereby making single point a bit more difficult. For portraits, single point seems to work reasonably well for me. I'm surprised that dynamic was providing such a high hit rate, though my presumption is you were using small or a custom small area? Since tracking is off in that mode, it prioritizes focus on the nearest subject, which is not necessarily the eye (it can be the brow, nose, etc.). There are two other points that I think are worthy of mentioning. First, there is little penalty and in fact I consider it a necessary strategy to take a seemingly excessive number of shots to ensure capturing a few with critical focus. Secondarily, I can't emphasize the importance of ETR and not underexposing to ensure AF, reduce noise, and preserve DR. Glad to hear that you've been able to improve your keeper rate....Show more →
I come from a background I'm wildlife where I always found it advantageous to err on exposure to the left. From what I understand this us somewhat more common in that realm and some higher profile folks like for instance Steve Perry I believe like to do it that way. The reason is that exposing to the right can work when you have more confidence in consistent lighting and don't run the risk of overexposing if lighting changes slightly or the animal moves to a different spot that confuses the metering or whatever.
I haven't formally tested it, but I also have found that it seems like when the evf displays the actual exposure that focus is more accurate if it doesn't look too overexposed since even if highlights are not blown, the AF system operates off the evf feed and had a harder time when detail is lacking due to overexposure.
Also remember that dynamic area is not the same as the wide area modes
. Dynamic area is like a single point with a margin of error so I can put the point on an eye but if they move slightly I may still get something.
p.10 #13 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Dynamic area does not prioritise the nearest object. It focuses on the selected point (the center point of the dynamic area) if there is something focusable under it and if the system cannot detect something focusable in that small area, it looks for focusable things under the other points. As soon as the primary point has something under it that the system can focus on, it returns to that. There is no priority for nearer subjects (or farther ones) in the dynamic area modes.
The wide area modes have some nearest-subject priority but it is not very effectively implemented.
Hard nearest-subject priority is available on the DSLRs in group-area and custom group-area modes (D6). ...Show more →
My understanding was that Dynamic AF prioritizes the af point in the center of the area and then if it does not achieve focus, it ooks at surrounding AF points to try to find something to focus upon. Thus, something more contrasty in those neighboring points. Thus something proximate, i.e. larger would be more likely but not necessarily focused upon. But technically, that is correct that it doesn't prioritize proximity. That's especially important when shooting people. It may not recognize the eye as being contrasty and therefore focuses on the lashes/brow, etc.
p.10 #14 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
SCoombs wrote:
I haven't formally tested it, but I also have found that it seems like when the evf displays the actual exposure that focus is more accurate if it doesn't look too overexposed since even if highlights are not blown, the AF system operates off the evf feed and had a harder time when detail is lacking due to overexposure.
You have been told this numerous times in this thread by people who understand the camera better than you.
p.10 #15 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ronno wrote:
(Link to my work can be seen in my profile.)
Do you have evidence to the contrary @ the Z cameras Sung?
People don’t want to fight with their cameras, only able to get good results with a bunch of asterisks and babysitting the AF points, unreliable in the dark, etc. etc.
I just wish Canon made bodies that feel as solid as these Zs do. R5 feels like junk in comparison (body materials, LCD screens etc), but it works better.
I worked in advertising for 12 years at global ad and creative agencies, working on the largest brands in the world, before going freelance as a photographer about 10 years ago in NY.
I've worked on both sides of the lens, production, media, marketing and strategy and have been the client hiring on photographers for global campaigns. Generally pro photographers I know/work with either shoot Canon or Nikon for 35mm, whether it's folks I've hired in the New York, California, Singapore, London, Hong Kong, etc.
p.10 #16 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
SCoombs wrote:
I come from a background I'm wildlife where I always found it advantageous to err on exposure to the left. From what I understand this us somewhat more common in that realm and some higher profile folks like for instance Steve Perry I believe like to do it that way. The reason is that exposing to the right can work when you have more confidence in consistent lighting and don't run the risk of overexposing if lighting changes slightly or the animal moves to a different spot that confuses the metering or whatever.
I haven't formally tested it, but I also have found that it seems like when the evf displays the actual exposure that focus is more accurate if it doesn't look too overexposed since even if highlights are not blown, the AF system operates off the evf feed and had a harder time when detail is lacking due to overexposure.
Also remember that dynamic area is not the same as the wide area modes
. Dynamic area is like a single point with a margin of error so I can put the point on an eye but if they move slightly I may still get something. ...Show more →
ETR doesn't mean blowing out the highlights, though my personal experience - and I would appreciate the input of others - is that the Z8's will better tolerate slight overexposure as opposed to underexposure with respect to apparent AF (that includes the other aspects; DR, noise, etc.)
As I mentioned the issue with DA is that it may not recognize the eyeball as an area of contrast and might instead capture the eyebrow, lashes, etc.
p.10 #17 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
Any talk of "who you know" is firmly in the Tales from My Ass category, whether in attack or defense of Nikon's market share.
What you should know by this point is enough working pros are using Nikon that, if you are unable to adequately shoot/make money with your Nikon setup, the problem IS on you in some way, shape, or form. The edge case discrepancies which bubble up when using ill-suited gear are on the "professional".
p.10 #18 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
RoamingScott wrote:
Any talk of "who you know" is firmly in the Tales from My Ass category, whether in attack or defense of Nikon's market share.
What you should know by this point is enough working pros are using Nikon that, if you are unable to adequately shoot/make money with your Nikon setup, the problem IS on you in some way, shape, or form. The edge case discrepancies which bubble up when using ill-suited gear are on the "professional".
p.10 #19 · Z8 extremely unreliable/inconsistent AF in mildly low light
ingekj wrote:
What do you mean evidence to the contrary? You're the one coming up with an non supported claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
I’ve already described where my statement came from….
Not interested in squabbling about it, all I know is that when there are clients in the room and money on the table, the dozens of commercial photographers I know (clients including Martha Stewart, AT&T, Crate and Barrel, NY Times, Starbucks, Whole Foods, Anheiser-Busch, BMW etc etc) are not interested in fighting with their cameras.
As I said above, with clients in the room and money on the table, the thing just needs to work, without trying to recall all the workarounds and asterisks.
