Z6II AF-C misses - how to improve

Berend Botje · Dec 23, 2022

ericbowles said:
Berend Botje said:

skyrunr said:

Applying settings to live view OFF is one of the first things to do for flash and lowlight ML shooting. Some have mentioned that higher contrast picture controls can help. It is mentioned in EVERY how to improve AF video/guide. Good catch YAU.

Click to expand...

I have to admit to being confused. Would not turning off live view cancel out any potential benefits of increasing the contrast of the view finder?

Happy Holidays everyone

Click to expand...

Live View is simply a display. Turning it off does not change anything. The EVF mirrors that display. Contrast or picture control adjustments affect the way an image is rendered, what you see in the EVF and LCD (with a slight lag) but not the way the image is captured. On the other hand, having an underexposed image relates to aperture and shutter speed, so that directly affects the amount of light and contrast hitting the sensor.

If the camera does better with more contrast, Nikon would have simply programmed that to be used for focus and then applied normal settings to the image anyway - they only need to show you the result of processing - not the how. You need enough light to have contrast since the camera uses contrast for contrast detect AF adjustments. If you lack adequate light, the camera will struggle to focus. A good AF target is characterized by contrast.

As far as raising ISO or increasing contrast, the feedback is mixed. I have not heard of anyone from Nikon saying you should bias your settings for better AF performance by increasing contrast. Several people I respect (Steve Perry and Thom Hogan) have indicated under some circumstances raising ISO may improve AF performance slightly, but it's hard to test with certainty. They find underexposing with an ISO too low causes slightly worse AF. They don't speak to contrast adjustments of the Picture Control as having any value. A number of people from Nikon and Nikon Ambassadors (Paul van Allen, Mark Cruz, and Reed Hoffman) with extensive testing have indicated they are able to use JPEG's straight from the camera and have accurate and fast focus, so they are not overexposing with ISO or increasing contrast beyond normal user settings.

Thank you Eric, that all makes sense to me - including that Nikon would have optimized the AF independent of the picture control settings.

It is not a serious test, but I can't see much (or any) difference when I try to focus on a family picture at a set distance with a flat or a vivid picture profile - the latter with contrast turned up. The distance at which my Z6 II recognizes faces or eyes makes no difference. The speed with which the AF picks up faces or eyes varies regardless of which settings I dial in. Measuring average times would be the only way to distinguish between these settings.

On the other hand, turning "apply settings to live view" off may free up a bit more processing power for the AF system, and this does make sense to me - in an otherwise technologically uninformed way.

tclardy · Dec 23, 2022

I agree 100%. None of theses are point and shoot. I am just disappointed that the opportunity to fine tune firmware on the II series cameras with double the processing power has not been taken advantage of. Nikon has made a contentious choice not to do so. I am sure it is about not hurting future sales. Some may feel they got played for suckers for sure.

Hendrik_nl · Dec 23, 2022

ericbowles said:
...

ANY camera is going to miss some of the time. The photographer needs to use the right technique and avoid using settings that make things worse. It's pretty easy to get eyes in focus without any Face or Eye technology so don't get so wedded to the technology that you fail to use older approaches to get the photo.

On my Z9 I use AF-S and Single Point AF 99% of the time. I still use these older approaches since I don't trust the new technology.

My suggestion for OP is to use these also if Face Detection fails so often.

aarongarybrooks · Dec 23, 2022

thisisbenji said:
There's ZERO difference between "live view" and the EVF on the Z cameras.

What DOES seem improve AF, is turning off "Apply Settings to LV". Of course, then you lose a lot of the advantages of mirrorless.

Yes, my mistake. This is the setting I intended to refer to.

gumert · Dec 24, 2022

I put my SB700 on the Z6II today for the first time and took a few pictures. I stuck with wide-l and the settings that thisisbenji share . I'll be taking more pictures tomorrow morning and will report results in a few days. I didn't bring the A7III out today, but will tomorrow to try to do some A/B, granted without a flash on the A7III.

I might give subject tracking a try.

tclardy said:
On a whim I saw the Canon R6 on sale and bought one with a 24-105 zoom and a Godox flash. I got it a couple of days ago and have taken about a hundred pictures. All I can say is that I have found my solution to the poor autofocus issue. This things is way beyond to say the least. I am not that good with it yet but it is nailing focus on shots of my hyper granddaughter and dogs. It even picks up the eyes on my black husky/gsd mix dog. The Nikon would never pick them up, it would not pick them up on my black/tan German Shepherd either.

This is about where I would say I am with the A7III - still learning the ins/outs of the camera, but winding up with a 99% hit rate with significantly less effort than the Z6II.

Neither the Z6II or A7III have a problem picking up eyes on my cats (a black tuxedo, a tabby, and a tabbish long hair). Keeping both cameras in "whole sensor" AF, the A7III will pick up faces/eyes before the Z6II. However, if you're willing to do wide-l with the Z6II it will pick up faces and eyes sooner than the A7III, but at these distances it doesn't matter as much as long as the A7III is focused on the human in frame, which it is pretty good at doing. I haven't A/Bed with the A7III in zone mode (Sony's "wide-L" type mode) to see if that puts the Sony back ahead, or at least equal.

Hendrik_nl said:
On my Z9 I use AF-S and Single Point AF 99% of the time. I still use these older approaches since I don't trust the new technology.

My suggestion for OP is to use these also if Face Detection fails so often.

It doesn't fail that often, but when compared to the A7III it's pretty noticeable.

Personally, I prefer to start with eye/face detection and then fall back to single point as needed. It's just not that obvious when I need to do so on the Z6II.

Single point was very manageable on my D40 (3 whole AF points :-D) and not too bad on the D5300 (39 AF points). On both these bodies, my goal was to keep my subject in the same location in the frame, which is where I set the AF point. My subjects were either reasonably static (adult portraits, landscapes) or pretty predictable (cars going around a track). Now I find myself wanting to trade off subject location and background framing. It's OK if the kid walks across the frame, in some instances I would rather not move the camera instead of shooting half into a tree/wall). Doing this manually via single point AF might be possible, but it's a skill I haven't developed.

astirusty · Dec 25, 2022

I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Hendrik_nl · Dec 25, 2022

gumert said:
gumert wrote:.

Personally, I prefer to start with eye/face detection and then fall back to single point as needed. It's just not that obvious when I need to do so on the Z6II.

The problem for me with this approach is that evaluation of sharpness happens often after the shoot or after the moment.

I had great images but with unsharp eyes. Cloning sharp eyes from other pictures is tedious work and renders often not the best results. My experience is that the EVF zoomed to 100% is not that accurate to evaluate critical sharpness. Other option is to use an iPad for evaluation when shooting tethered, but it also breaks the flow when you need to check the sharpness.

wcan · Dec 25, 2022

astirusty said:
I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Totally with you about a comprehensive repeatable set of tests for AF. Nowhere to be found on the web as far as I can tell.

ericbowles · Dec 25, 2022

wcan said:
astirusty said:

I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Click to expand...

Totally with you about a comprehensive repeatable set of tests for AF. Nowhere to be found on the web as far as I can tell.

I understand the need, but there are just too many variables. Steve Perry has a top 10 list about why images are not sharp. Gear and camera are something like number 8 or 9 in importance or likelihood. The others are largely photographer related - or not understanding the gear you have that is working properly. For example, shutter speed is a huge issue.

I'd encourage you to take on a lot more controlled testing under a wide range of scenarios. For example, figure out how different types of lighting affect the hit rate, different poses, etc.

Gabriele Sartori · Dec 25, 2022

Fred Mueller said:
My D750 does not have "eye AF" but it is hands down a better "event" camera than my Z6ii ... it just is ...

The new Z lenses are great, but the Z auto focus is a PIA -

If you try to shoot at an event where you rely on bounced on camera flash with a 24-70 at 5.6 in mixed indoor lighting you are really going to struggle especially if you throw in a little negative exposure comp to drop the ambient level. My 750 in the same circumstance would just nail it using AF C 3D with AF On and back button enabled.

Frankly, I feel like I have been sold a bill of goods and wish I'd had the discipline to wait a bit longer for Nikon to catch up ... problem is you don't really know until you work with a camera ...

astirusty · Dec 25, 2022

ericbowles said:
wcan said:

astirusty said:

I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Click to expand...

Totally with you about a comprehensive repeatable set of tests for AF. Nowhere to be found on the web as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

I understand the need, but there are just too many variables. Steve Perry has a top 10 list about why images are not sharp. Gear and camera are something like number 8 or 9 in importance or likelihood. The others are largely photographer related - or not understanding the gear you have that is working properly. For example, shutter speed is a huge issue.

I'd encourage you to take on a lot more controlled testing under a wide range of scenarios. For example, figure out how different types of lighting affect the hit rate, different poses, etc.

Trust me, I did my do with a 1Ds-Mk3. Lots of controlled AF testing, including different lighting and color temperature. Ultimately, the camera and it's swapped support replacement were lemons. Bad thing for a few other DP members is, I was not alone.

With two 1Ds-Mk3s I had, if you wanted a picture in focus, you turned off AF, and used your eye. Or you took at least 5-shots, and crossed your fingers.

wcan · Dec 25, 2022

ericbowles said:
wcan said:

astirusty said:

I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Click to expand...

Totally with you about a comprehensive repeatable set of tests for AF. Nowhere to be found on the web as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

I understand the need, but there are just too many variables. Steve Perry has a top 10 list about why images are not sharp. Gear and camera are something like number 8 or 9 in importance or likelihood. The others are largely photographer related - or not understanding the gear you have that is working properly. For example, shutter speed is a huge issue.

I'd encourage you to take on a lot more controlled testing under a wide range of scenarios. For example, figure out how different types of lighting affect the hit rate, different poses, etc.

I understand your points, but at some point it "just isn't worth it" e.g. if I am shooting portraits and I know that using single point focus gives me a very high focus hit rate approaching 100%, and eye-AF doesn't seem to come close to that, why bother with eye-AF? For that matter, if eye-AF has a quite low hit rate (my experience) it is sort of useless. Eye-AF has to have a strong hit rate for it be of any use at all.

ericbowles · Dec 26, 2022

wcan said:
ericbowles said:

wcan said:

astirusty said:

I can't tell you how to improve. But your post with all replies and discussion is another reminder as to why we need a standardized Auto Focusing set of tests for digital cameras.

Acknowledging in advance even a set of tests will not cover everyone's style and usage. Still better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Going back to how to improve: To me it would be helpful to see same shots (as close as possible in time, setting, lighting, perspective, lens) taken with A7iii to compare against Z6ii.

Click to expand...

Totally with you about a comprehensive repeatable set of tests for AF. Nowhere to be found on the web as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

I understand the need, but there are just too many variables. Steve Perry has a top 10 list about why images are not sharp. Gear and camera are something like number 8 or 9 in importance or likelihood. The others are largely photographer related - or not understanding the gear you have that is working properly. For example, shutter speed is a huge issue.

I'd encourage you to take on a lot more controlled testing under a wide range of scenarios. For example, figure out how different types of lighting affect the hit rate, different poses, etc.

Click to expand...

I understand your points, but at some point it "just isn't worth it" e.g. if I am shooting portraits and I know that using single point focus gives me a very high focus hit rate approaching 100%, and eye-AF doesn't seem to come close to that, why bother with eye-AF? For that matter, if eye-AF has a quite low hit rate (my experience) it is sort of useless. Eye-AF has to have a strong hit rate for it be of any use at all.

I've been in situations where 95% success with Eye AF was not high enough because of the uncertainty - and as you suggest, I switched to Single or Wide Small because I could control performance more effectively. I tested Eye AF during an awards presentation and was at a solid 95% success or higher, but could not afford to miss a single frame when the winner got their trophy. I've also tested Animal Eye AF and had 100% success - until I had a subject with a bindle coat and odd patterns - and the success rate went to 0%. A friend was using the Canon R6 and had a very high success rate with birds and captive turtles at frame filling distances. Reptiles are biologically related to birds. But when the subject was a snake instead of a turtle, the hit rate dropped near Zero. The same was true for a captive barred owl from a distance of 15 feet - the success rate with the R6 dropped to zero and picked up the breast of the owl instead.

Blaming the camera instead of learning how to optimize performance also doesn't help. It's certainly a choice - but there are plenty of people who have taken the time to understand how and when these modes work. With any camera there are going to be times when AF technologies don't work.

HRS · Dec 26, 2022

(Excerpts from original message)

ericbowles said:
I tested Eye AF during an awards presentation and was at a solid 95% success or higher, but could not afford to miss a single frame when the winner got their trophy.

It's not clear if you consider a 95% hit rate acceptable if you couldn't miss a single shot. (I assume you're using you Z7II.)

ericbowles said:
Blaming the camera instead of learning how to optimize performance also doesn't help. It's certainly a choice - but there are plenty of people who have taken the time to understand how and when these modes work. With any camera there are going to be times when AF technologies don't work.

I am blaming the camera, a Z6ii, which I have had for years. I returned the first sample thinking there was a problem with it. I got another one and it was just as bad.

I understand eye-detect focusing, and have tried every possible remedy for missed shots offered up in this forum without success. I, like some others here, find that feature sub-par and unacceptable for a Nikon product.

j_photo · Dec 26, 2022

Fred Mueller said:
Ever try to do an event with a Z6(ii) ??

Shot a reception and a play with the z6 Ii and z7 just two weeks ago. It went great. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Did I manage to get great results with these two bodies? Yes. Was I able to hand off all focusing to the camera and just point and shoot? No.

briantilley · Dec 26, 2022

HRS said:
I am blaming the camera, a Z6ii, which I have had for years. I returned the first sample thinking there was a problem with it. I got another one and it was just as bad.

I understand eye-detect focusing, and have tried every possible remedy for missed shots offered up in this forum without success. I, like some others here, find that feature sub-par and unacceptable for a Nikon product.

It seems to me that you'd rather blame the eye-detect feature than learn when to use (and not to use) it.

I shot events and stage performances for a couple of years with a Z6 and Z7 (I now use one of those cameras alongside a Z9). With the Z6 and Z7, I never relied on eye-detect, because Single-point AF and/or one of the Wide-area AF modes worked perfectly well for these types of subject. I found I was getting a greater percentage of well-focused keepers than I previously achieved when shooting in the same theatres with a D850 and D5.

ghostfox_1 · Dec 26, 2022

briantilley said:
HRS said:

I am blaming the camera, a Z6ii, which I have had for years. I returned the first sample thinking there was a problem with it. I got another one and it was just as bad.

I understand eye-detect focusing, and have tried every possible remedy for missed shots offered up in this forum without success. I, like some others here, find that feature sub-par and unacceptable for a Nikon product.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that you'd rather blame the eye-detect feature than learn when to use (and not to use) it.

I shot events and stage performances for a couple of years with a Z6 and Z7 (I now use one of those cameras alongside a Z9). With the Z6 and Z7, I never relied on eye-detect, because Single-point AF and/or one of the Wide-area AF modes worked perfectly well for these types of subject. I found I was getting a greater percentage of well-focused keepers than I previously achieved when shooting in the same theatres with a D850 and D5.

There's a lot of people who would rather blame gear than learn how to use it properly, after having unrealistic expectations.

HRS · Dec 26, 2022

Cognitive dissonance strikes again!

ghostfox_1 · Dec 26, 2022

HRS said:
Cognitive dissonance strikes again!

No, it's a statement of fact.

I can acknowledge the z system AF isn't the perfect system (nothing is, btw. Sony and Canon also have flaws), while also acknowledging plenty of people don't use it to the fullest extent, and blame it instead of trying to learn it better.

Case in point, how many people don't read the manual and don't know wide area modes have CSP (or a form of it, I don't quite think it's 1:1 as group in the d series)?

If you refuse to learn the system and use the proper modes for your use case, or have unrealistic expectations (nothing is going to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, for example), then that's a problem on your end, not the camera.

A bad workman blames the tools, a good one understands how and when to use the tools he has for a job.

briantilley · Dec 26, 2022

HRS said:
Cognitive dissonance strikes again!

It does - but maybe not in the way you meant.

Cognitive Dissonance can be described thus:

"According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort"

In this case, your belief is that the Z camera's AF system is ineffective. The new information is that other people get it to work quite acceptably. You clearly struggle to reconcile these two contradictory ideas.

Z6II AF-C misses - how to improve

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts