My question is, was the old behavior actually any better? I am fairly convinced that with the old system a lot of shots were "luck" with the focus actually at some point other than desired (with demanding subjects)... I've checked many images over the years for critical focus VS reported focus. I think we just won't be getting lucky as often with the new system.
As I noted, with delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic I get a behavior more similar to the old system, and it will only refocus if the selected point is held steady on a new/good subject/point. Even if held perfectly steady on a new point it takes about 2 sec to shift... that's actually quite a bit of time to take a picture in these scenarios. And what are the chances of holding the selected point steady on a new spot if you can't hold it steady where you want it? The delay is *much* longer if the selected point doesn't settle on something good (infinite?). FWIW, with wildlife/birds I am almost always using the 400/2.8 w/ TC's handheld with the SharpShooter Camera Mount (rifle stock)... the chances of me holding the selected point perfectly steady on anything is pretty remote .
I'm not advocating for the new system per-se... it's confused me which is what lead me to this post. But I'm not ready to give up on it yet either (switch to 3D/Group). Now that I understand the system behavior and how the settings affect it I'll give it some time/experimentation to see what I finally come up with.
I can say that I believe I've had better results with the new system when photographing other subjects (soccer/aircraft/etc)... it's just less notable because those types of subjects are less demanding and the other system did quite well already.
Mar 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM
Previous versions of sk66's message #13968339 « UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue »
.