cvrle59
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: After testing Z8 and having focus issues I may go to the Sony A7RV | |
AlphaPhotography wrote:
I'm equally concerned with video AF as photo. Video AF is just much harder to find insight about. I usually try to learn as much as I can on it when it comes up in discussion since so few people seem to shoot video here (compared to photos). Even fewer discuss or even care about autofocus in video.
My use cases are walking and talking clients on a gimbal, sports including football, baseball, and soccer, family videos of my nephews running around or playing, videos of my very fast Australian shepherd running around (they can hit 35mph), our cats, lots of birds in flight and other fast moving wildlife. And then all those same examples in low light, high fps burst photos, and general portraiture.
cvrle59 wrote:
AlphaPhotography wrote:
As a Nikon user I can't get a straight answer from a single Nikon user here. I apparently missed all the drama with regards to this subject that led to people being unwilling to respond with real advice. I've seen a few half answers in other threads but nothing that points to this as being a non-issue. It seems like a very real (albeit rare) issue that I haven't seen any sort of fix on, and one that doesn't seem to occur on Sony or Canon. Apparently the fix is "just learn to use the camera you moron."
1bwana1 wrote:
cmm1398 wrote:
The ol’ “I’m just motivated by the camera hobby” excuse. Because clearly, being a hobbyist means spending a time in Nikon threads knocking down a system you don’t use. Is there an award for "Most Posts Criticizing Nikon While not Actually Owning One"? If so, congrats—you’re in the running.
And sure, nobody’s saying you have to own a Nikon Z to post, but come on—when you’re constantly showing up just to repeat the same “Nikon’s isn’t great, but Sony is soooo good” spiel, it’s hard not to wonder what’s really driving all this. “Constructive”? Yeah, okay. It’s about as constructive as me reviewing a movie I didn’t watch because someone on the internet told me the plot.
Look, if you’re so fascinated by Nikon’s issues, maybe buy one and actually use it instead of turning every thread into a soapbox for secondhand opinions. Otherwise, it just feels like you’re here for the same reason a troll or sock would be: to stir the pot. Maybe thats your "Hobby".
1bwana1 wrote:
cmm1398 wrote:
It’s fascinating how someone who doesn’t own Nikon equipment feels so compelled to dive headfirst into a conversation about Nikon’s AF performance. I mean, who needs actual firsthand experience when you can just weigh in with secondhand opinions and amplify what’s likely a sock or troll post? Truly groundbreaking stuff.
But really, what’s the motivation here? A deep concern for Nikon users? A sudden passion for debating the nuances of AF systems you don't use? Or is it just a case of wanting to run down other systems to prop up their preferred brand? Hard to say, but it’s quite the commitment to champion a conversation started by someone who probably created the thread just to stir the pot.
If the goal is really to help, wouldn’t it make more sense to contribute to discussions about gear you actually own and use? You know, where you can provide meaningful insights instead of fanning the flames of what might be a troll agenda.
1bwana1 wrote:
So, let's get over whether the OP is a troll or not. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. So what? He posted on an issue that many people in this thread confirms exists. Pretty much everyone who has posted on this thread, that shoots both systems confirm that when relying on Eye AF the Nikon Z AF tends to miss focus with some frequency, or is a bit fussy in workflow to improve the hit rate.
They also confirm that the Sony is both easier, and more accurate with a high hit rate even wide open at f/1.2.
For most people I think the issue is more important than the motivations of the OP. Why don't we just address the issue, which appears to be real, and is not subject to speculations on motivation. No one seems able to prove the status of the OP or his motivations. Given this, trying to distract by blaming the motivations of the OP is probably not the most productive path to understanding the issue.
I may have a project coming up where I am trying to decide whether to go all Leica (M,SL) or mix Leica M with Sony A1. Going all Leica would be nice, but Leica SL AF is not even close to Sony A1. For the people portion I just did a series of test using my Sony A1 with a variety of F/1.2 and F1/4 GM primes of different focal lengths and a 24-70 f/2.8 GM and a 70-200 f/2.8 GM Zooms. (the leica SL did OK but not even close to the A1) I shot well over 100 test images using Sony Eye AF in a variety of lighting and movement scenarios. The shooting workflow was just stupid simple. Wide Area focus, point the camera at the subject and shoot. Zooming in to check focus I don't think the Sony missed the pupil even once when visible in the image. Amazing! I agree a simple challenge with decent lighting, easy subjects, not very fast movement, and limited in scope. Conclusion, Sony A1 Eye AF is easy and reliable.
I really don't have access to the equipment to test a Z8/9 on a level playing field. The zoom part would be good, but the Nikon primes would be a problem. I could adapt my GMs but that would not be level either.
So, I will leave it at this. The posts claiming that the Sony AF is simple to use, accurate focusing on the pupil, and reliable, for me are confirmed. The Nikon Z AF judging from the posts in this thread, even from Nikon users, at least has a more difficult workflow, even then may not be accurate at times, even in skilled hands. However, this difference is not likely large enough that either camera system couldn't be used for any purpose/even/project with good result.
Troll or not, the OP's thread has provided at least some visibility into this issue, so has had value.
I am motivated by the camera hobby in general. Simple as that. I didn't post any definitive opinions based on my own testing of this issue with the Z systems, and clearly stated that. Since the thread is about the Z system in contrast to other systems, I did posted by on my experience with the other system. Completely on top and constructive to do that.
The concept that someone must be a user of a Nikon Z system to post in this forum has been debunked many times. I don't understand why people post that instead if just dealing with the subject of the thread. Just seems weak to me.
I've actually owned a number of Nikons since 2011 and still own one. It was my primary camera system for many years. I also bought he first Z7 in my town. Returned it when it turned out to be so far behind in mirrorless. I probably shot the Z9 before anyone else on this forum. A few members here could confirm that. So, yes I have a hobbyist interest in Nikon.
I never said anything negative about Nikon in this thread, unless you consider agreeing with a number of Nikon users that he AF system has a slightly more difficult workflow that some others a negative.
Still wonder why you focus on stuff like that instead of the subject of the thread. Others are seemingly noticing that as well...
As far as I can see, your concern is video, so I'm wondering, what particular video you have on your mind, that eye in perfect focus is so critical.
I can think of only head shot in slow motion, otherwise, who can even notice in a moving scene, if eye isn't perfectly in focus.
Sorry on my ignorance, but I'm just curious..
If I were you, and it's so important to me, I would either buy used equipment, or I would rent it, then test it on my own.
You will never get unified feed back on internet, it doesn't matter where you go.
I've been reading forums for so long to learn, that you're gonna get completely opposite opinion on pretty much anything.
I don't shoot portraits, except casually, but my Z8/400f4.5 has excellent eye AF tracking on birds, as long as they're big enough in the frame, and no heavy obstructions, like branches, or so.
The only weak situation is on water surface, during landing or take off, it will miss sometimes.
|
