groob
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera! | |
1bwana1 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
sum1sgrampa wrote:
CanadaMark wrote:
duncang wrote:
It seems hard to believe that anyone with any brand of mirrorless camera has not experienced, in some form or another, the same issue Jan had - given that neither the Canon or Sony cameras are totally immune to that problem either - this simply doesn't sound plausible.
To clarify, as I see how my comment may have been confusing to some - I have never experienced ridiculously long periods of the AF failing to grab the subject, like in Jan's video. I have of course experienced brief moments where the AF takes a second to "wake up" or acquire the target (as with every MILC I have ever used to varying degrees), but Jan's video shows a ~15 second sequence where the AF isn't grabbing the bird and no, I can honestly say I have never experienced anything that extreme in similar shooting conditions. I can't say it will never happen, only that I haven't seen it yet. In that situation, a quick twist of the MF ring to help bring the AF closer would have very likely corrected the issue right away rather than wasting shots for 10+ seconds - as far as I can tell in his video he did not try that either. He was also switching between 3 different AF modes rapidly during that sequence and that was only making things worse as he had his single point AF all over the place, often on the waves. If for whatever reason the camera was confusing the bird for waves, simply switching the camera to closest subject priority would likely have also solved his problem, especially for slow birds with a predictable flight path like that. FW 3.X seems a bit snappier and more confident overall compared to 1.X but I haven't noticed dramatic night & day differences in terms of subject acquisition, at least in the conditions I shoot in which is all I can speak to.
That video mirrors the "issue" that some users here have brought up and also what I've seen in other reviewer's videos. In all those instances the photographer is attempting to grab focus on an erratic subject that is very small in the frame. Too small in my opinion. Jan's point is not really relevant in real world situations. Unless of course you're attempting to shoot a bird that takes up such a ridiculously small part of the frame. Which is kinda pointless as far as I'm concerned. I'm assuming he made no attempt to simply twist the MF ring to give the camera a bit of help in order to show how long the body struggled. Again, not a real world situation. These aren't point and shoots. I've got no problem with a bit of user input.
Gary
Totally agree and this was my point, why would you even try to use AF when the subject is so small in the frame? It will never be that great of a shot and you learn to use AF when it will work well and that seems to be for many many situations with modern MILC cameras and all the modern MILC do well in real world conditions where the subject is the reasonably large in the frame.
I think you guys may be misunderstand what Jan was demonstrating. He was not trying to take an image of a small object, far away, against a poor background. Of course no wants such an image. He is also operating from a point of reference of shooting other systems that may have less problems acquiring such subjects.
What he was attempting to do was acquire the subject while it was still small in the frame. In some systems that do lock on to small distance subjects far away, this makes tracking the subject in easier and more reliable. The sooner you lock on to a subject the better in my experience.
Jan wanted to track the subject in across multiple backgrounds while maintaining focus. Obviously it is better if the camera stays locked on the subject on the way in rather than getting ADD and focusing on backgrounds or other distractions It was Jan's opinion that the Z9 doesn't do this as well as some other systems, and gets distracted more easily. His experience from shooting multiple systems.
Jan wanted to keep the subject in focus across the entire sensor the entire time. It is easier to keep the subject in the focus frame when that frame covers the whole sensor. Having to shrink the focus area to acquire subjects far away, then switch the focus area to wide, and tracking mode to 3D on the way in is a heavier work load than some other systems require. Jan prefers to not do that.
Finally, when the subject is close enough, the background is attractive enough, and the pose is interesting enough, take a high quality, interesting image. The difference in Jan's opinion that the workload on the Z9 until this point was heavier than on some other systems.
There are many videos, discussions, and articles on how to configure the Z9 buttons to make these changes and hand offs easier, and faster. Once Jan had figured out how to do this he was able to solve for his needs (preferences) in getting this done. He is far from alone in this experience. Managed correctly however, the Z9 will get as many high quality images as the best other systems out there. This has been Steve Perry's, Thom Hogan's, Hudson Henry's and many other very experienced photographers experience as well.
Sure, you can just set the Z9 AF to wide, make other settings per preference, and the Z9 will work at a very high AF level. But it seems compared to other systems that the Z9 will have to wait for a larger/closer subject, and will have some level of proclivity to lose track and focus on other distractions. Pick your compromises, and shoot the way that works best for you.
I agree that tracking a bird from further away is always preferable, and Jan was likely trying to do just that. But I have never needed to track a bird that far away to attain focus as it gets closer. That was an extreme case, and even if another brand can track the bird in that circumstance a little better, I just don’t care. It won’t affect the photos I’m going to get. Now, Geoff is likely correct that it will make shooting a swallow more difficult, but they are in a class by themselves.
|
