CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse? | |
I'm surprised to see that we are still seeing threads like this and with such an inflammatory title. Of course, if you go to the Canon boards, Canon AF is the best. If you go to Sony boards, Sony AF is the best. I'm sure Nikon AF is the favorite of Nikon owners. Who is going to invest $10-20K++ on gear after a bunch of research and tell you it sucks? The grass always seems greener regardless of what 'fence' you're looking over if you sample biased sources. To me, that is just further evidence that all top tier AF systems are about equal, and any differences people notice (or think they notice) are very minor and much more likely to be based on individual preferences or very specific shooting scenarios rather than actual camera capability. I have spent so much time now with all the flagships and I truly cannot tell a meaningful difference in AF performance for things like BIF. Slight differences here and there in specific situations, sure, but overall hit rates are so high it simply does not matter. If you are noticing a huge disparity, it's either a settings issue or a skill issue.
AF is impossible to evaluate objectively, most scenarios people care about are impossible to perfectly replicate, and there are way too many variables to control for. Because of that, people love to throw around opinions presented as fact, and those opinions will almost always favor the gear they own. There is also a tendency to think that if *they* can't get a certain shot, it must be the equipment's fault - I think that's something we're all guilty of times and is not limited to photography. It sucks to miss a shot. More skilled photographers are always going to get higher keeper rates and have an easier time getting really difficult shots. It's exceedingly rare to find a situation where the camera is the weak link, especially with the bodies we have access to today.
Even in this thread there is someone saying they don't even own a Nikon camera, but somehow they know it's "not as good" as the other brands. For a moment I thought I was in the DPR comment section. Classic case of someone posting in bad faith or trying to feel better about their own purchase decisions, and of course zero context/evidence is offered - wouldn't want to ruin the narrative  The problem with BS on the internet is that it's so easy to spew, but takes far more effort to disprove. Thankfully it's easy to spot.
If you aren't getting roughly ~85-90% hit rates with any of the higher-end modern bodies, the problem is either behind the camera or with the camera setup (assuming no defective product of course). End of story. Even the best cameras can't read your mind or perform miracles - you need to have a deep understanding of how each AF setting works, and you need to understand when and how to intervene. That doesn't happen after trying out a friends' camera for a couple hours or whatever, which seems to be how many of these 'comparisons' are being done on forums, YouTube, etc.
In my own experience, the one area I have noticed Nikon's AF stand out in is with perched birds in especially challenging environments (branch/leaf obstructions, etc.) It can seemingly find anything, even with similar shapes/tones present, and I have now done quite a bit of side by side testing in the field with Sony/Canon folks that I run into regularly in my go-to birding spots. While interesting, those are not scientific tests, and it's still kind of a moot point because if there are obstructions it's a throw-away image 99% of the time anyway. Further, a quick adjustment on the Sony/Canon bodies to a "dumb" spot AF point will get you the exact same picture with very little effort, which is something I keep set to a Fn button on my Nikon bodies as well. Maybe, in someone else's hands, it wouldn't have been an issue at all. In more normal scenarios involving perched birds, even the most entry level MILCs have no problem finding the eye virtually every time.
Here are a couple examples of (unedited, throw away) photos from a recent outing that we could only get the Z9 to lock on to using subject detection (other bodies in this case were A9III and R5):
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6xKsDzb/0/MXLRppvK7HCwkxw8dsFGP5tpkdttQZ9ZWQ5z3Jbdq/L/i-6xKsDzb-L.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fz7bQSd/0/KnWbNTjqv3FsWWPhNLj32mXz2tXBTVPw9rTQrtDNq/M/i-fz7bQSd-M.jpg
Regarding long-necked birds, we don't have too many in my area, but Herons, Swans, Grebes and Cormorants are absolutely no problem even at long distances. AF sticks to the eyeball like glue. I haven't done a ton of testing with Egrets, but I have encountered them at zoos and on vacation and never had problems with AF - small sample size there though. Flamingos and Gannets also were not a problem.
Regarding nailing a human iris on wide aperture lenses, my fastest lens at the moment is F1.8 and even with the FTZ adapter it hits the iris almost every time as long as I'm doing my part. I don't notice it having a tendency to grab eyelashes or eyebrows. Every camera I've ever used will occasionally miss critical focus the iris with really wide apertures (probably my fault some of the time), but hit rates in general are outstanding with all brands in this area in my experience. People seem to be one of the easiest subjects for the modern AF systems to deal with as they are slow moving and are easily recognizable to the AI algorithms (far less variation than animals).
For BIF or fast action, if you set the AF up properly and can keep the subject in the viewfinder (by far the hardest part) hit rates are easily in the 85-90% range on any of the stacked sensor bodies currently available. The AF systems these days have never been more complicated and understanding the nuances of how everything works will almost certainly increase your hit rate.
The tell tale sign of someone posting in bad faith or looking for brand validation is when they claim significant or hyperbolic differences between two cameras that are well known to perform similarly. "Camera A blows camera B out of the water" or they try to veil their bias with a compliment to make it sound more believable "Camera A is great, but it has a lot of work to do to match camera B". Rarely if ever are those comments backed up by context, specific examples, or comparisons. It's also a strong indication that they haven't actually used the cameras they are comparing either at all, or for any meaningful length of time. To claim that they can tell the difference between, say, 89% and 91% hit rates, reliably, and that it makes a difference to their photography is all the evidence you need to not take them seriously.
If I were buying into a camera system today, I would be looking at the lens system in relation to what subjects I shoot (by far the #1 factor), ergonomics, how FW updates are handled, and to some extent, cost. That's about it. If you aren't getting an extremely high keeper rate with any of the modern bodies, rest assured the gear is not the problem.
|
