p.6 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
armd wrote:
It depends on the AF mode used but in Wide, the camera focuses on the most forward part and usually that includes the eye. The Red Headed WP's that I posted were quite close and you can tell me whether the eyes are in focus or not. For birds traveling at a right angle to the viewer, usually focusing on the body is sufficient. The greater challenge is when they are flying right at you or tangentially. As I've mentioned in other posts, depending on the subject, speed, etc. SD may help or hinder.
Here's an example of something easy with the Z8 where SD works fine. Alternatively, one could have turned SD off and probably achieved similar results https://i.postimg.cc/0y9hbksp/SD.jpg...Show more →
"It depends on the AF mode used but in Wide, the camera focuses on the most forward part... " basically it is the same AF algorithm as the 1000 years old $ony a9 has. And that is the point of this topic. Nikon needs to improve AF performance. It is not bad but not as good as the competition.
p.6 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
As a former A1 owner, I am going to disagree. Currently shoot a Z8 and I am very happy with the AF system vs. my previous A1 body. The reality is that the AF is much closer than you think, and yes the Nikon AF system has a slightly higher learning curve but it is just as effective. I can get any shot with my Z8 that I could with my A1 (and I shot the A1 for several years ). That said, there are situations where one camera beats the other but it's not night and day like some like you to believe. Bottom line, These are both high end bodies and will more than get the job done
tester_V wrote:
"It depends on the AF mode used but in Wide, the camera focuses on the most forward part... " basically it is the same AF algorithm as the 1000 years old $ony a9 has. And that is the point of this topic. Nikon needs to improve AF performance. It is not bad but not as good as the competition.
p.6 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Maxxus46 wrote:
As a former A1 owner, I am going to disagree. Currently shoot a Z8 and I am very happy with the AF system vs. my previous A1 body. The reality is that the AF is much closer than you think, and yes the Nikon AF system has a slightly higher learning curve but it is just as effective. I can get any shot with my Z8 that I could with my A1 (and I shot the A1 for several years ). That said, there are situations where one camera beats the other but it's not night and day like some like you to believe. Bottom line, These are both high end bodies and will more than get the job done
Same experience comparing Z8_Z9 to a9III. There are cases where the a9III is amazing, and then cases where it just doesn't find the subject and doesn't even attempt to focus.
I got overall more keepers with the Nikons contrary to the hype. That was on fast moving people at f1.2 with native lenses.
p.6 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
It really depends on 2 things, Long necked birds approaching directly at your camera, need to use wider aperture whereas with raptors, it is generally fine. For birds flying sideways, it’s a bit tricky to just turn off subject detection as it can focus on the wings. I try to keep the Wide-L box more towards the neck of the bird and avoid the wings. But this gets particularly challenging when you are filling the frame with a 400/F2.8 or 600/F4.
I use Auto area AF assigned to shutter AF so that’s always my starting point. If I see the subject detection struggling, i immediately use the AF-ON button to which i assigned Wide-L. I also use the Lens fn ring to turn the subject detection on or off using RSF hold.
Alistair1 wrote:
A question for those not using SD for BIF, does that not result in soft eye focus as the subject gets closer?
p.6 #5 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Maxxus46 wrote:
As a former A1 owner, I am going to disagree. Currently shoot a Z8 and I am very happy with the AF system vs. my previous A1 body. The reality is that the AF is much closer than you think, and yes the Nikon AF system has a slightly higher learning curve but it is just as effective. I can get any shot with my Z8 that I could with my A1 (and I shot the A1 for several years ). That said, there are situations where one camera beats the other but it's not night and day like some like you to believe. Bottom line, These are both high end bodies and will more than get the job done ...Show more →
My experience is with mostly Nikon, with some Panasonic, Fuji, and Olympus for special applications. Although I would agree that in the Z6II generation, the camera wasn't really able to keep up a fast-approaching subject and there were a lot of issues with backlit subjects etc., for mostly static or slowly moving people subjects I didn't have any issues (using the wide-area large with subject-detection). The Z8 is fast enough to get similar percentage of keepers than D6 even in indoor sports (which is very high), but it has a few quirks. The Z8 sometimes can lose the main subject (in my case, a figure skater) when spinning and focus on the background where the spectators are, and if the camera is set to a very fast frame rate (15-20) then it might not return to the main subject during the burst, if it gets lost to the background. I think this case of a spinning subject is something that it would be great if Nikon could improve the algorithms for. However, if I slow down the fps rate to 10 fps then usually it does keep up and if it slips into the background, it does return quickly. This issue comes up typically a couple of times in a shooting day of a 5-hour event if photographing on ice level. This is something that a DSLR like the D6 does not do, when properly set up (for distant subjects, group-area with subject-detection); even when the subject is spinning, it stays on it. However, the DSLR is not quite as accurate at very near and very far subjects, and that's where the Z8 has the edge. And it gives more detailed images at medium ISO (due to the 45 MP sensor). I find that I only get a few shots per thousand that are out of focus in typical cases and that's a huge improvement over what I had available 10 years ago (where I could easily get 30% out of focus when shooting with the 200/2 in similar conditions). So I don't go along with the complaints here. There are areas where Nikon has room for improvement but mostly I'm happy with their progress and photography of action subjects today is fantastically easier than it was just 10-15 years ago. One thing that I like about Nikon's approach to AF is that one can make custom AF areas (custom wide area) which are rectangular areas within which the subject-detection and focus can work. This allows me to precisely define which part of the frame the subject is to be in focus, and I've found this to work very well both for situations that involve one person or subject, but especially when there are multiple subjects and I need to exercise control over which subject is focused on, but also give myself some compositional freedom. Custom wide-area modes allow me to balance between control and freedom in a nice way. It's a pity that this forum is so inundated with complaining about what I see as really minor things and exaggerating their significance. The kit today is just amazing how far it's come.
p.6 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Not true…Sony A9, although a ground breaking camera, was no way as good as the latest generation cameras from any brand…I owned one and always felt the AF was either front focusing or back focusing a bit when photographing action. Nikon has some room for improvement with Z8/9 but remember it is only when you compare it with the latest generation competitor cameras like the A9III or Canon R1 and only with very specific use cases. I am confident they’ll catch up and maybe surprise us with some AF features in their next generation cameras (Z9ii/z8ii) Honestly, I can just live with my Z9/8 for the rest of my life and be happy with it. Most of the updates we are seeing with other brands are just some incremental updates or some refinements and nothing game changing.
tester_V wrote:
"It depends on the AF mode used but in Wide, the camera focuses on the most forward part... " basically it is the same AF algorithm as the 1000 years old $ony a9 has. And that is the point of this topic. Nikon needs to improve AF performance. It is not bad but not as good as the competition.
p.6 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
gannis wrote:
Not true…Sony A9, although a ground breaking camera, was no way as good as the latest generation cameras from any brand…I owned one and always felt the AF was either front focusing or back focusing a bit when photographing action. Nikon has some room for improvement with Z8/9 but remember it is only when you compare it with the latest generation competitor cameras like the A9III or Canon R1 and only with very specific use cases. I am confident they’ll catch up and maybe surprise us with some AF features in their next generation cameras (Z9ii/z8ii) Honestly, I can just live with my Z9/8 for the rest of my life and be happy with it. Most of the updates we are seeing with other brands are just some incremental updates or some refinements and nothing game changing.
p.6 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I don’t think you can call it marginal if your camera is focusing on eyebrows, cheeks, etc. instead of eyes while you’re doing portraits. This is important and a big problem of this is what you shoot.
From other lengthy threads on this topic, it seems that the faster lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) do OK; It’s the slower lenses (i.e., f/4 zooms) which don’t do well in lower light situations - focus box confirmed on the eyeball, but actual focus is elsewhere - either in front of or behind the target.
I was hoping that they would put more firmware out to address this, but they haven’t.
groob wrote:
The differences are certainly going to be marginal. Armd has brought up the diving bird issue several times, but other people shooting the same subjects at the same locations don’t have those problems. I also don’t have an eyelash issue, even on my 50mm f/1.2. And I have no issue photographing landing/splashing ducks. I have never had a problem with a perched bird. My Z9 will grab focus on a sparrow sitting on a limb at 49 yards through vegetation. It’s ridiculously good.
The one thing I’ll agree with Armd on is long-necked birds. Auto area is a little finicky with them, but switching to 3D has worked perfectly for me over the past several months. ...Show more →
p.6 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
ronno wrote:
I don’t think you can call it marginal if your camera is focusing on eyebrows, cheeks, etc. instead of eyes while you’re doing portraits. This is important and a big problem of this is what you shoot.
From other lengthy threads on this topic, it seems that the faster lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) do OK; It’s the slower lenses (i.e., f/4 zooms) which don’t do well in lower light situations - focus box confirmed on the eyeball, but actual focus is elsewhere - either in front of or behind the target.
I was hoping that they would put more firmware out to address this, but they haven’t.
Not sure that 2 guys on a forum doing weird, largely inapplicable things is something to get worked up about. The “problem,” if it even exists, seems to fit very much in the definition of marginal.
p.6 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
Not sure that 2 guys on a forum doing weird, largely inapplicable things is something to get worked up about. The “problem,” if it even exists, seems to fit very much in the definition of marginal.
The focusing was not good enough for my needs, and I was not one of the two guys doing the testing in a forum.
It was my real world use where the auto focus stumbled, in low light, and especially with video.
I think with enough light it’s probably pretty good…
p.6 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
the answer is simply No.
i was just got a Z8 the other day. dialing it in to be my Z9's compatriot camera. subtle differences but not enough to make cross handling an issue. going to be an excellent tool to work with. so, i'm not one to "worry".
p.6 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
tester_V wrote:
"i was just got a Z8..." that is why you still not worrying...
“I do not own Nikon or A1 but I shot it“, is this you? For a guy with near zero Z9/8 experience you sure do live in these type of topics. Troll on.
p.6 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I've owned A1's, the A9III, Z8/Z9, and R5/R3/R1....None of them are perfect but all of them are exceptional at autofocus. If you cant get the shots with any of them you need a new hobby.
p.6 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I don't chime into these conversations much but figured I would. I lead bird photography tours around the country. Most clients have a Z9/Z8 combo, R5(or ii now) and R3 (or R1 now) combo, or A1and A9iii combo. I will say that it is very rare that anyone misses a shot with any of the gear. When it happens it is almost surely down to user error of some sort because they were not paying attention or were shaky or something. All of the systems are great. There have been 3 occasions where a Z8 shooter struggled and I did not with my Sony gear. One morning during a Utah workshop we were photographing Cliff Swallows at very close range against a distant background of sand or sagebrush depending on where they were. These were birds moving at full speed and super close so that was about as difficult of a situation for any autofocus system. My A9iii was flawless in how it tracked and grabbed focus. An R5 shooter had some success as did the Z8 shooter. An Olympus shooter really struggled. Same thing happened in NYC photographing some Rough-winged Swallows at super close range against a background of a field of wild flowers. The A1 performed better than the Z8. The third time was in Florida while the group was photographing Florida Scrub Jays in flight at very close range. 4 of the people on the trip were using Z8's and they struggled a few times to get focus as the birds flew around. My A1 had zero issues tracking the jays at almost minimum focus distance. The background was typical green Florida scrub habitat with mixed in Saw Palmetto. Again these are rare occasions under super taxing autofocus situations. Close birds moving super fast against varied (non sky) backgrounds. For every other situation my groups have encountered the Nikon AF has been outstanding.
As an aside I think that the tech is so good now with all brands that there is very little skill involved in taking photos. The skill is knowledge of your subjects, reading the light, scouting, field craft and so on. Once we press the shutter the skill is all but gone in my opinion because the tech is just that good. If people love the Nikon lenses then stick with Nikon and in all but maybe the most taxing situations you will be fine. This is in no way meant to be a pro Sony post. I am just addressing the Z8 question that was posed.
p.6 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
aboutthelight wrote:
I don't chime into these conversations much but figured I would. I lead bird photography tours around the country. Most clients have a Z9/Z8 combo, R5(or ii now) and R3 (or R1 now) combo, or A1and A9iii combo. I will say that it is very rare that anyone misses a shot with any of the gear. When it happens it is almost surely down to user error of some sort because they were not paying attention or were shaky or something. All of the systems are great. There have been 3 occasions where a Z8 shooter struggled and I did not with my Sony gear. One morning during a Utah workshop we were photographing Cliff Swallows at very close range against a distant background of sand or sagebrush depending on where they were. These were birds moving at full speed and super close so that was about as difficult of a situation for any autofocus system. My A9iii was flawless in how it tracked and grabbed focus. An R5 shooter had some success as did the Z8 shooter. An Olympus shooter really struggled. Same thing happened in NYC photographing some Rough-winged Swallows at super close range against a background of a field of wild flowers. The A1 performed better than the Z8. The third time was in Florida while the group was photographing Florida Scrub Jays in flight at very close range. 4 of the people on the trip were using Z8's and they struggled a few times to get focus as the birds flew around. My A1 had zero issues tracking the jays at almost minimum focus distance. The background was typical green Florida scrub habitat with mixed in Saw Palmetto. Again these are rare occasions under super taxing autofocus situations. Close birds moving super fast against varied (non sky) backgrounds. For every other situation my groups have encountered the Nikon AF has been outstanding.
As an aside I think that the tech is so good now with all brands that there is very little skill involved in taking photos. The skill is knowledge of your subjects, reading the light, scouting, field craft and so on. Once we press the shutter the skill is all but gone in my opinion because the tech is just that good. If people love the Nikon lenses then stick with Nikon and in all but maybe the most taxing situations you will be fine. This is in no way meant to be a pro Sony post. I am just addressing the Z8 question that was posed. ...Show more →
I doubt you know, but it would be interesting to know if they were on FW 2.0, as Bird AF greatly improved there. Still plenty of times my Z9 subject detection freaks out but once it locks on, it's rare it misses the shot.
p.6 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
RoamingScott wrote:
I doubt you know, but it would be interesting to know if they were on FW 2.0, as Bird AF greatly improved there. Still plenty of times my Z9 subject detection freaks out but once it locks on, it's rare it misses the shot.
I am not sure of the numbers but all situations mentioned were with the update that brought subject detection.
p.6 #19 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Problem is, there are comments in this thread saying "it's so perfect you're dumb for even making this thread" and "well, I do have XYZ problem". Those can't both be right (well, I guess, they can be if you've checked and things are a wash because Sony and Canon both have XYZ problem too...but even there I'd argue that's not a "there's no reason to worry about or discuss AF performance" state of affairs).
On the other hand, I can say without having used any of the (current) Nikon, Canon, or Sony that all three are faster than my GFX 100, so I suppose there's that.
p.6 #20 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Of course, just stating “all these cameras are good and if you can’t get the picture, then you are the problem” does not serve anyone’s purpose. It obviously glasses over the fact that some cameras are better at focusing on a human eye, for example, example.
Such statements are especially silly because they’re often written by people only do one thing, birds and flight for example. They don’t shoot video, etc. etc. and then claim all cameras are comparable.
Even if they’re comparable at birds or what not… some of the differences affect some photographers / subjects a lot more than others.
