Nikon Z AF

Thanks @AnotherMike, you're really kind !!!

Is lack of cross AF sensors a factor here?

If Z7 is doing bad with brightly lit static subjects in studio - I can't imagine Z9 will do any better.

Z9 should do better with moving subjects I imagine.

I occasionally shoot in the studio with my Z6 II and Z 7. I admit that I find both less reliable with focus than I had expected. If there were ever a good reason for face/eye detect I would think this would be it. I make it work, but it's harder than I think it should be.

I have never shot with the Z9, nor with a D850. I would say compared to my last DSLR, the D800, my new Z's are about the same in studio work in terms of reliably acquiring focus. However, once focused both Z's are much, much more consistently accurate.

On the other hand, in my theater photography, my two Z's are miles ahead of my previous DSLRs in terms of focus reliability, exposure, and general image IQ. I can shoot thousands of images and normally encounter no more than two or three with missed focus.

I wouldn't for a second doubt the systems are different, that much is obvious; but I'd give it about the same level of credance that someone of anothermike's level knows which af mode to use and would have tried everything possible before forming his conclusion as he has. The right mode thing was an overplayed dpreview card to make excuses for the af system. Doesnt focus? User error. Every time. Sooner or later that was clearly seen as a fallacy. I'll doubt the z6 is any better in the studio for that reason. The z7 certainly has noteable issues in this regard (and tracking subjects etc) and I believe its the same af system between the two, correct me if I am wrong on that.

Yes and they don't have cross points etc. But the 'point' here (see what I did) is that the folk I am referring to are in the right modes. They are high level studio shooters, not the average Joe's with a popup flash asking about red eye. None of the modes fix this particular issue. Nor do any of them reliablely track fast moving subjects etc esp moving towards camera at any rate with fast glass, which for example the r5 does with ease (even with some 1.2 glass which I found phenomenal in its ability to do that). I'll be interested to see if the z8 manages to match an r5. Hopefully it will as the r5 has been out for several years now. Hopefully the z9 is doing this already. Ps nikon also have to simplify their ml af system. Canon's and Sony's just works and tracks. There isn't this "am I in the right mode" pandemonium. Learn the af system yes; but there is more going on here...certain brands are just a good bit better and I look forward to the z8 / future cameras making a large stride to resolving this.

[quote="@Dibyendu"]
If Z7 is doing bad with brightly lit static subjects in studio - I can't imagine Z9 will do any better.

I have both Z6 and Z7. Never tried Z9. I have photographed in studio since 1980 with 4X5, 6X7, many 35mm, digital since 2000, the last DSLR was D810. In studio with strobes its was problem in the beginning with Z, AF hunted with AFC + eye, aperture 5.6. Many people says they have trouble with Zs in studio, but I didn't hear how much EV they need to get properly AF. After a year experience, I found the EV in studio has to be at least in 7-8 area to get eye phase fokus work perfect. It's a lot of light in studio. Sorry for my English, its not my first language

As evidenced, the post didn't get pulled because it is him posting it. You guys have somehow fabricated the narrative that all your posts are being pulled because Amazon is telling DPR that they need to sell more Z cameras and to pull everything negative. I find it quite comical that you think your posts are that important and that that is the reason. The reason your posts got pulled was because of how you and TO interact with people. Hell, TO lasted about 15 minutes at Miranda, many people there said they came to Miranda to get away from people like you guys. So if you need conspiracy theories to explain why your posts got pulled, knock yourself out. Just be aware that a lot of people don't see it that way.

Hell, in your OP, if you had just posted the 2nd paragraph and not the first, you would have gotten honest answers. But no, you gotta do you. Tossing out terms like fanboy etc. Ugh

I think that your findings make sense.

Either its not enough light, or not enough contrast - especially if facing issues with static subjects. It might be worth trying single point contrast detect if subject is static.

I did notice with the Z9, and 58mm f1.4 F lens, I have some issues when the subject is close and I am trying to get eye focus. Further away its been fine.

See here dprevived.com/t/af-accuracy-z-lenses-vs-f-lenses-on-z9/917/post/28050/

Here are three examples of Z6 with the 28mm f2.8 Z mount lens in relatively low light.

All 1/30s f2.8 ISO 1800.

My observation here is that when the subject is looking at the camera, it did a better job. So this is related to image contrast and detail in low light.

I do not see the point of you repeating your Nikon's bad and Canon & Sony are good ad infinitum. So far no value is added by your posts; might be better to do some tests with Z7 and share your results / help people analyze what it going wrong.

If you and Lance are not comfortable with the question/s, why don't you just stay out of the thread? Neither of you are contributing anything towards answering the question, so why be here?

Well, at 1/30th you're going to get motion blur, which isn't a good test of anything related to sharpness. If you're in af-s, any movement could also change the sharp area easily.

You should try doing a better test with higher shutter speeds (and, imo, a better lens).

Yes motion blur is a possibility, although here I think it was just focus accuracy.
These were real pictures taken in quick succession at the same spot, not tests as such.
AF mode was AF-C and eye detect was on as you can see.

In those pictures, nothing appears to be sharp at all, which says to me the problem was motion blur (or wildly off focus, or an extremely unsharp lens).

I didn't say I was uncomfortable with the questions. Where is that evident? However, you are contributing nothing useful either except the animosity you have fostered from your time at DPR. Not only that, but you want to control who can post and control the narrative. Just like you were at DPR.

What you call a problem did not have to be denied - because it did not exist!

The explanation was quite simple, and I was quite happy to demonstrate to "complainers" how to prove they were wrong by getting there D 800 to work!

There was a relative weakness in that either far outer row of AF points did not read detail parallel to the long dimension of the frame – OUTSIDE the centre of the AF rectangle - a bit like though not exactly same as Mirrorless without AI - though detail at the centre or inside was detected with relative ease.

To repeat - detail on the outside of centre - left or right AF of an outer row point was not detected - though detail at the centre was!

I presume you did not test sufficiently thoroughly to find out your opinion was on quicksand as the same limitation applied left or right.

It is not for me to explain why you cannot get as good an AF performance from current Nikon equipment as most other Nikon users can.

The great majority of users, who get better results than you report, are likely to regard your comments as similar to some YouTube posters – who give a clear impression of not knowing how handle equipment to a good standard.

You are entitled to post your generally unproven opinions.
The significant majority capable of getting much better results than you are free to disregard your views on the grounds that, like a near empty kettle when heated, you make a lot of noise - and the noise does not arise from a problem with the kettle.