RoamingScott wrote:
For the umpteenth time, if a reviewer insists on using 3D tracking, they are not getting the most out of the AF system. Fro is the worst offender time after time.
Except he didn't insist on using 3D tracking. He switched between 3D an Auto Area AF throughout the video. And he got excellent results from the camera nonetheless.
suteetat wrote:
The most important question in my mind regarding AF is that if the AF is good enough for your use or not.
If it does the job well, who cares if bran A, B, C or D has better AF, afterall you can't get more keeper regardless. If brand A AF is not good enough then move on to the next brand. Nobody is going to stay with a brand if they keep struggling and could not get a picture that they want when they are better choice around.
Some of the stress test that Flo uses to demonstrate difference in AF, I have ot ask, in the real world, who is shooting like that. Certainly not me and his result is absolutely irrelevant and his conclusion is not applicable to what I need. But I have to admit if I often shoot a crazy man pirouetting like mad, covering face and trying to fool a camera as much as possible, yeah some cameras are better than other and Nikon may not be the best choice. Does anybody still brag to another person that his/her car is better because their car can got 350 mph rather than the other person's 300 mph when they only drive in heavy traffic, congested city? ...Show more →
The video demonstrates a variety of AF scenarios, presumably for the reasons you list - not everyone has the same AF demands. As for the brand exasperation comments, I'm not sure how or why that enters into the discussion here.
This kind of discussion justifys his existence and his YT brand, let's put it that way.
He loves when his video sparks it around the internet, and his conraversy.
He sits back and he laughs, "I did it again"!
I watched him in past, but not any more, I don't want to support that kind of content.
snapsy wrote:
I'm not sure we could find many who could agree the Z8/Z9 AF's is better than the A1/A9 III, or many who would say the Z8/Z9 is even equal to those cameras. My experience with the R3 tells me Nikon is still behind Canon in AF.
I've not used the R3, just some time with the R5/R6 so you may be right. The Sony and Nikon I have hundreds of thousands of shots with both. If the a9iii beats the Z8/Z9 it's not by much. In the month I've been shooting with the a9iii, there are times it has been outstanding and times it has struggled when it shouldn't. Both systems have strengths and some weaknesses. The A1 I can pretty confidently say is now behind the Z8/Z9, and don't think it would be hard to find many shooters who would agree with that. It's still a really good camera, but it's subject detection needs really obvious subjects that are close and isolated for it to be reliable; even then it can fail to pick up in some pretty obvious scenes. The Z8 picks up subjects much further away in busier scenes and tracks them much better in my experience.
RoamingScott wrote:
For the umpteenth time, if a reviewer insists on using 3D tracking, they are not getting the most out of the AF system. Fro is the worst offender time after time.
What is the best use of it then?
3D tracking is nails for me on what I need it for-
Steve Perry reviewed the Z9 after the latest fw and said the fw was as good and in some cases even better than the Sony A1..so there are indeed people who did compare and test the 2 cameras. Problem is, people just pick a very niche use case and try to conclude one way or the other, not that it isn’t useful but it is extremely important to define the specific use case where camera A is better than B and so on and this way anyone who has that use case can accordingly make a decision. Anyone that’s making a generic claim on AF being superior/ inferior from comparable cameras from different brands are either too attached to their brand or have a different agenda…
nhmorgan wrote:
I've not used the R3, just some time with the R5/R6 so you may be right. The Sony and Nikon I have hundreds of thousands of shots with both. If the a9iii beats the Z8/Z9 it's not by much. In the month I've been shooting with the a9iii, there are times it has been outstanding and times it has struggled when it shouldn't. Both systems have strengths and some weaknesses. The A1 I can pretty confidently say is now behind the Z8/Z9, and don't think it would be hard to find many shooters who would agree with that. It's still a really good camera, but it's subject detection needs really obvious subjects that are close and isolated for it to be reliable; even then it can fail to pick up in some pretty obvious scenes. The Z8 picks up subjects much further away in busier scenes and tracks them much better in my experience. ...Show more →
In my opinion we have reached a place where the AF from each of the big three camera manufacturers has reached functional equivalence for most use cases. One should choose their system based on other preferences. This is a very good thing.
1bwana1 wrote:
In my opinion we have reached a place where the AF from each of the big three camera manufacturers has reached functional equivalence for most use cases. One should choose their system based on other preferences. This is a very good thing.
1bwana1 wrote:
In my opinion we have reached a place where the AF from each of the big three camera manufacturers has reached functional equivalence for most use cases. One should choose their system based on other preferences. This is a very good thing.
There are too many common use cases where NIkon falls short before we can say that's true, including eye AF and low-light focusing at smaller apertures.
I have a friend, lifelong Canon shooter. Works at a very high level, really competent commercial photographer. A few years ago, as everyone was singing the virtues of Sony’s AF, begrudgingly he switched to Sony, in large part because Canon had nothing to offer in that space. After several months of using it on assignment, I asked him how is it? He said the AF is often magical, just couldn’t make shots he was getting before he had the Sony. But he also said “sometimes I want to throw it out the window, it just randomly jumps to nothing important. For no reason. I’m changing literally nothing. It’s a photo of someone seated, in a reasonably well lit space, and it goes from their eye to a bookcase nearby or a plant.” He shared some examples that were baffling.
When the R5 came out, he sold all of his Sony gear and jumped back. Couldn’t be happier. I share this because I think Sony gets some exaggerated praise, and Nikon & Canon don’t get the credit they deserve. I’m sure there’s narrow use cases where each camera manufacturer edges out the others. Personally you couldn’t pay me to shoot Sony for their UI and hotshoe failings. They make an electronic device that behaves like a camera, but Nikon & Sony feel like well developed, highly competent cameras and - more importantly for me - production ecosystems.
snapsy wrote:
There are too many common use cases where NIkon falls short before we can say that's true, including eye AF and low-light focusing at smaller apertures.
snapsy wrote:
There are too many common use cases where NIkon falls short before we can say that's true, including eye AF and low-light focusing at smaller apertures.
Right and after all these years, exactly how many people discovered during their regular usage and complained about this specific scenario. This would fall in the catergory
certain specific niche use. When Steve Perry shows subject recognition on Z9 (a year or two ago) was superior than A1 as A1 could not detect a blurry shorebird in the back of the scene where Z9 recognized it and grab on it immediately or when
Tom Hogan said that on his safari trip, Z9 gave him almost perfect result and he was very happy about its AF result.
How many Sony fanboys came over here and said, oh that was too easy, their opinions are irrelevant despite these findings
were made under the scenario where an average user is more likely to encounter than small apertures low light.
But oddly for somebody, they just kept using those rare scenarios as a benchmark. Personally, I don't really care, as long as I go out with
my Nikon and am able to get the shots that I need, why would I care what other reviewers, youtubers etc said how poor Nikon
AF is.
suteetat wrote:
Right and after all these years, exactly how many people discovered during their regular usage and complained about this specific scenario. This would fall in the catergory
certain specific niche use. When Steve Perry shows subject recognition on Z9 (a year or two ago) was superior than A1 as A1 could not detect a blurry shorebird in the back of the scene where Z9 recognized it and grab on it immediately or when
Tom Hogan said that on his safari trip, Z9 gave him almost perfect result and he was very happy about its AF result.
How many Sony fanboys came over here and said, oh that was too easy, their opinions are irrelevant despite these findings
were made under the scenario where an average user is more likely to encounter than small apertures low light.
But oddly for somebody, they just kept using those rare scenarios as a benchmark. Personally, I don't really care, as long as I go out with
my Nikon and am able to get the shots that I need, why would I care what other reviewers, youtubers etc said how poor Nikon
AF is.
How many people complained about Nikon's eye AF? Quite a few. I'm speaking to human subjects, where the camera has a propensity for focusing on the eyelash instead of the iris. As for the low-light AF, there have been complaints about that as well, so much so that I even came up with a workaround that I recently posted a video about:
snapsy wrote:
How many people complained about Nikon's eye AF? Quite a few. I'm speaking to human subjects, where the camera has a propensity for focusing on the eyelash instead of the iris. As for the low-light AF, there have been complaints about that as well, so much so that I even came up with a workaround that I recently posted a video about:
Yeah, and I don't have any problem with eye lashes. No idea or explanation why some people have that problem. I don't see pictures in any image thread in Nikon forum full of eye lashes in focus, do you?
jlafferty wrote:
I have a friend, lifelong Canon shooter. Works at a very high level, really competent commercial photographer. A few years ago, as everyone was singing the virtues of Sony’s AF, begrudgingly he switched to Sony, in large part because Canon had nothing to offer in that space. After several months of using it on assignment, I asked him how is it? He said the AF is often magical, just couldn’t make shots he was getting before he had the Sony. But he also said “sometimes I want to throw it out the window, it just randomly jumps to nothing important. For no reason. I’m changing literally nothing. It’s a photo of someone seated, in a reasonably well lit space, and it goes from their eye to a bookcase nearby or a plant.” He shared some examples that were baffling.
When the R5 came out, he sold all of his Sony gear and jumped back. Couldn’t be happier. I share this because I think Sony gets some exaggerated praise, and Nikon & Canon don’t get the credit they deserve. I’m sure there’s narrow use cases where each camera manufacturer edges out the others. Personally you couldn’t pay me to shoot Sony for their UI and hotshoe failings. They make an electronic device that behaves like a camera, but Nikon & Sony feel like well developed, highly competent cameras and - more importantly for me - production ecosystems.
I agree Canon doesn't get enough credit. They're sort of the stodgy stalwart but their dual-pixel AF works remarkably well even on slower sensor readouts and avoids the pitfalls of the metal-masked on-sensor AF pixels used by everyone else.
suteetat wrote:
Yeah, and I don't have any problem with eye lashes. No idea or explanation why some people have that problem. I don't see pictures in any image thread in Nikon forum full of eye lashes in focus, do you?
I don't, but I also don't imagine many would post such photos. I was skeptical about the complaints too, so I recently did my own comparison:
I’m sorry but mannequin “tests” are utter BS IMO. Get a person under the same lighting scenario and show it side by side and if the results are the same, I’ll take my words back, but anything based on a mannequin is silly. Mannequins offer near zero that’s instructive about people photography, even something as base as lighting technique.
Problem is that you pick on issues that may happen in small numbers of cases, either in small niche use or for whatever reason is an issue for some users but is not really the normal experience by majority of users and claim that to be the benchmark. There are plenty of people who shoot portraits on this forum. Yes, I noticed some people share similar observation. Many also don't share that observation.
If I go out and shoot a portrait session and found that I get more eyelashes then eyes in focus, I certainly would complain, not just on this forum but directly to Nikon and to someone who has more direct line into figuring out and solving the problem as well. But what can I say, I don't have that problem and it is not surprising that many other people don't have the same problem and are quite sick and tired of some people insisting that this is because of Nikon's inferior AF.
I had an opportunity to spend a few hours in Himba village last week and I was shooting lots of portrait there. To my amusement, my Z8 was struggle once in awhile to detect face and eyes of those people with all their head dress, decorations, hairdos and reddish skin color from their mud/herb stuffs they put on their skin. Was there an easy work around for that, yes. Does this mean that Z8 face/eye detection is really poor? I don't think so. Too bad, for once, except for a Q3, everybody else were shooting Nikon on the trip so no idea how other cameras would handle these people.
