p.2 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I've seen some reviews of the R5 II where it failed to keep focus on subjects when something would walk in front. The reviews are mostly positive on the new R1 and R5 II, but there are some issues, like every camera. So, it is what it is.. I wouldn't switch systems for a small improvement, if any improvement at all.
p.2 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I am a wildlife photographer and my main subjects are birds. Before I changed to the Nikon, I used Sony A1 and Sony FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS. Now I have Nikon Z8 and Z9 and using Z 400 f/2.8 TC, Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 and Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 lenses. In my experience AF subject bird eye focusing works better with Nikon. If the bird is far away and small in the viewfinder, the Sony A1 focus will lock and keep bird significantly better. Especially in BIF situations. But it is not important for me to photograph birds that are very far away and small in the picture, so Nikon's AF works better for me.
The Sony A1 AF works better in snow and rain situations, where the Nikon struggles quite often.I hope Nikon can improve this in the future.
p.2 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
I have no idea how a camera could be materially better at shooting perched birds than a Z9. I’m not sure I have a single out of focus photo of a perched bird with the Z9, or even a woodpecker moving all around a tree. And again, the Z9 will pick out a tiny bird on a stick in a busy woodland setting at ~40 yards. If you want more than that, I’d suggest changing your shooting style.
I'm glad that Z9 is working so well for you. No need to look elsewhere. I've yet to find a camera (including an R5II) that can nail the eye on a perched bird 100% of the time. Since you have that going for you consider yourself a lucky guy. It would be my nirvana. As you say, it is probably my shooting style holding me back from that nirvana.
p.2 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
The expectation that cameras should get it 100% right all the time in any situation is irrealistic.
Why so? Because their AI based image recognition algorithms are trained on a limited set of data focused on what manufacturers expect photographers to try to do in order to create interesting photographs.
A brown bird hundred meters away in front of a busy tree background or a perched bird that is hidden by so many leaves it’s hardly visible by a human do not fall in that category.
Benchmarks need to drive manufacturers in useful directions to generate improvements that actually contribute to create great photography more easily.
I am actively against using small brown birds on busy backgrounds as a measure of AF performance. And if Canon thinks their resources are best used to help photographers achieve perfect focus on such images so be it. I prefer Nikon to work on something useful.
p.2 #5 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
RoamingScott wrote:
This has been the case for YEARS. If you're still making a lame thread like this in nearly 2025, you need to just bail from photography altogether, it's not for you.
When it comes to camera gear, we have been living in the Age of Sufficiency for about a decade.
Edit: However, professional and skilled amateur photographers have been making compelling photographs and amazing art since the beginning years of camera technology. So, maybe every generation of photographers have been living in the Age of Sufficiency.
p.2 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I don't shoot BIF much at all these days but there's enough people who have responded to that. I also think there's enough reviews out there from reputable enough folks (plus enough more helpful responses on this board) to conclude that all of the best equipment are within the same range of each other to the point that AF should not be the defining factor. They have different quirks, there may be subtle advantages, but overall AF should no longer be the defining factor when choosing brands between at least the top 3.
I'll add that the Z8 has been phenomenal for my purposes. I will use a 400mm f2.8 with an ftz when capturing ironman athletes cycling at me 30-40km/hr and the eye AF is successful the great majority of time even with tightly framed shots. Sure it misses some, but it's rare and usually related to my handling of the lens. I recently also used a Sigma 135mm in a darker gym with kids basketball......not a crazy test of the system, but interesting given it's a Sigma on an FTZ in darker conditions with a bunch of kids crossing in front of each other. The eye AF was very good still.....nowhere around 100% but I still had a surprisingly high number of keepers. Good enough for me to not "need" the plena for my use.....for now lol.
If people aren't getting fantastic results with a Z8 or Z9, they should exhaust their cAF options / techniques before considering other gear. Also, we shouldn't worry if the AF box isn't on the eye for distant subjects......at the aperture likely used and with greater distances, the odds that you have a bird's body in focus but not the eye isn't that high. Like others have said, get to know the system and enjoy....the grass isn't always greener and you're likely trading one problem for another when switching.
p.2 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I've used the Canon bodies and there is little to no difference between what I was able to shoot in focus over what I get on the Z8 & Z9. Canon's AF system is perhaps slightly easier to understand and manipulate in terms of getting the right focus point where you want it (excluding eye-af tech). I sometimes find the Z system's AF modes convoluted or fiddly to change in the heat of a shoot. Whatever the case, the difference between the two systems is very minute whereas the performance gulf between them and Fujifilm is a real big one.
p.2 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I picked up an R5II to mess around with and just yesterday I was trying to shoot a Bluejay sitting on a stump about 20 feet from me. I was using the 70-200 2.8 and the camera thought there was an eye on the stump somewhere and kept jumping off the bird. So none of them are perfect. I have the z8/9 with both Super Tele TCs and they work just fine. I live near the Rappahannock river and we get some of the best Osprey and Eagle fishing in the spring shad run. Neither camera has let me down but both have missed shots in challenging situations. Nikon makes the best Super teles so I have no doubts the next gen Z8/9 will be amazing and i already have the glass.
p.2 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I've never shot canon for any length of time. I have hundreds if not millions of shutter clicks with Nikon and Sony. I've shot a lot with the A1, A9iii, Z8 and Z9. No the Nikon AF is not worse. All four of those cameras can still stumble at times, and all do better and worse in certain situations. I think that the Nikon 3d tracking works better than the Sony. Certainly better than the A1, if not better than the A9iii, at least one par. In low light I would take the Nikon every single time. I shot a halloween 5k last month where I had to set up at the finish line and all I was allowed was a little rapid box soft box. Runners were all finishing in the dark, running in fast, in costume (a lot of obscured faces, etc) and really really low ambient light to work with. I used the 85mm 1.2 and got a crazy high keeper rate. I've shot in similar situations with the a9iii and it could get keepers, but not nearly as consistently as the Nikon.
p.2 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Dont really know if Nikon AF is really that much worse. All I know is that it is perfectly good for my use
that I don't feel I need to look elsewhere. Sure I still miss shots here and there but much of it is also my fault.
Some of it has to do with learning curve in new situations where I don't have much experience before.
However, Nikon's lens choice, all the supertele, 135 Plena,
85/1.2s, ability to use other lenses that Nikon does not have such as Sony 14/1.8GM, Nikon's color,
Nikon's ergonomic (it just fit my hands better), etc etc kept me entrenched in the Nikon's camp for now.
p.2 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I was gonna say, if your pockets are full of cash, and you're not comfortable with what you have, just keep switching, otherwise, enjoy the photography..
p.2 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
In my opinion, when I switched from Canon to Nikon, the Z8/Z9 were not even close to the R5 in capability. They were also behind the A1. So with the new R5II out, and the A1 II on the way - I expect that gap to widen further.
So yes, Nikon is pretty far behind the others.
That being said, all of the AF capabilities are so good nowadays that even if you're using the "worst" brand for AF, if you're missing shots - it's most likely a skill or setup issue, not the equipment's fault.
I can still get the majority of my images in focus with Nikon, I just have to use 8 buttons, 6 AF modes, and handoffs to get it right.
Whereas with Canon, I only used a single AF mode and it was always right.
People go to Nikon for PF/TC lenses, third party lens options, and the ability to use Sony E ecosystem lenses. Not for AF.
p.2 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
nmerc_photos wrote:
I can still get the majority of my images in focus with Nikon, I just have to use 8 buttons, 6 AF modes, and handoffs to get it right.
This is insanity.
Since 2.0 (Z8) and 4.1 (Z9), area AF with subject tracking has been nails.
p.2 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
nmerc_photos wrote:
In my opinion, when I switched from Canon to Nikon, the Z8/Z9 were not even close to the R5 in capability. They were also behind the A1. So with the new R5II out, and the A1 II on the way - I expect that gap to widen further.
So yes, Nikon is pretty far behind the others.
That being said, all of the AF capabilities are so good nowadays that even if you're using the "worst" brand for AF, if you're missing shots - it's most likely a skill or setup issue, not the equipment's fault.
I can still get the majority of my images in focus with Nikon, I just have to use 8 buttons, 6 AF modes, and handoffs to get it right.
Whereas with Canon, I only used a single AF mode and it was always right.
People go to Nikon for PF/TC lenses, third party lens options, and the ability to use Sony E ecosystem lenses. Not for AF....Show more →
Have to echo Scott. I have no idea why you’re making things that complicated. Auto area should work for 99% of stuff and 3D or single point/small custom areas should work for the rest.
p.2 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
RoamingScott wrote:
This is insanity.
Since 2.0 (Z8) and 4.1 (Z9), area AF with subject tracking has been nails.
groob wrote:
Have to echo Scott. I have no idea why you’re making things that complicated. Auto area should work for 99% of stuff and 3D or single point/small custom areas should work for the rest.
I'll certainly go out and test it again in the backyard, but I've never had good luck with auto area
at least for BIF, it often grabs things in the background and ends up sticking to them more than the actual subject
maybe it's the nature of small birds in wooded areas
p.2 #19 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
nmerc_photos wrote:
I'll certainly go out and test it again in the backyard, but I've never had good luck with auto area
at least for BIF, it often grabs things in the background
This was very largely resolved with the firmwares I mentioned. I've shot thousands on thousands of BIF since then, it's great. Won't jump to momentary foreground objects as much either.
I know you shoot a lot in blue hour, not sure how it performs there.
You have to be smart to a degree...area won't work if you're shooting a small bird that's 5% of the frame, of course, but a smaller area box should be more than sufficient. Trying to remember, I think Nikon claims bird AF can detect an object that's only 3% of the frame. I've not found it to be THAT sensitive, but it's really damn good.
