Z6II AF-C misses - how to improve

ghostfox_1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Shoot the Z7II next to the new Sony's and you'll soon realize that the Sony is easier to work with regarding the AF.

It's not about "blaming" the gear. The Nikon simply has am inferior interface and just doesn't work quite as well. Sony is still ahead as they've had more time to get this right and have a HUGE R&D capability compared to Nikon.

That's not to say the Z7II is poor. The AF is quite good. The Sony is better. I expect that the next Z8 or Z7III will pull even or perhaps even best the Sony. Nikon knows that they must do that as the Z9 can't be their only model with state-of-the-art AF.

Robert

HRS said:

(Excerpts from original message)

HRS 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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Click to expand...

Normally I'd consider 95% hit rate acceptable, but in this particular case, I was going to get 1-2 frames with the trophy and no retakes as the winner raised the trophy. I expect Single Point would produce 99% for me in the same situation and Wide Small would be potentially much lower since the arm could cross the face.

HRS said:

HRS 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.

Click to expand...

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...

No mode works 100% of the time on any camera. For me, it is more important to find the situation where AF struggles in a particular mode so I can plan an alternate strategy in advance.



--
Eric Bowles

MrHollywood said:

ghostfox_1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Shoot the Z7II next to the new Sony's and you'll soon realize that the Sony is easier to work with regarding the AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, Sony is easier if you put literally no work or effort into it. It's more idiot proof.

MrHollywood said:

It's not about "blaming" the gear. The Nikon simply has am inferior interface and just doesn't work quite as well.

Click to expand...

Only if you refuse to change anything and expect the camera to do all the work. The interface is extremely simple. Use appropriate mode by dialing to it, and then put box on thing you want in focus.

Real tricky for some apparently.

MrHollywood said:

Sony is still ahead as they've had more time to get this right and have a HUGE R&D capability compared to Nikon.

Click to expand...

Still ahead overall? Eh. More idiot proof, yes.

MrHollywood said:

That's not to say the Z7II is poor. The AF is quite good. The Sony is better.

Click to expand...

I don't agree here, but it doesn't get us anywhere

overall, nobody is going to change their opinions here, facts be dammed.

Well, development of cameras over decades has been to make photography easier. When I started photography, there was no metering and AF in camera, and we had to use formulas to come to right aperture and shutter speed, for a given ISO film, and always manually focus on the subject.

Over the years, cameras have made it easier to meter and Auto focus was a revelation. Cameras can even change the aperture, shutter speed and ISO automatically, as per lighting conditions, which was unimaginable then.

Now with Mirrorless cameras, things have moved even further, to make photography easier. You can now even see the effect of metering in your view finder, and camera can find the eye of the subject to focus on, which is the main target of any photographer clicking people or wildlife.

I can say that the real photography was when I used to manually focus, manually calculate the exposure, and manually dial in the required aperture and shutter speed. All the development in the camera to make is simple to use is Idiot proofing it.

However, I love that the camera has taken away many of my time consuming jobs, and i can now concentrate on framing, and the subject. If the camera can track a small fast flying birds eye to focus on, i am happy. It is not idiot proofing. It is making it easy, freeing you up to concentrate on your creativity, than on camera functions. And this idiot proofing will continue with every new camera model.

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 ...

Click to expand...

I imagine you're using a flash which sends out an infrared beam, which the D750 is able to see and focus on, while the Z6II is not.

Since I purchased my Z6II a year and a half ago, I have not used my D750. But looking back through my files, I got some damn good shots with the D750 which nailed focus at a better percentage than my Z6II.

--StevenN

ghostfox_1 said:

MrHollywood said:

ghostfox_1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Shoot the Z7II next to the new Sony's and you'll soon realize that the Sony is easier to work with regarding the AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, Sony is easier if you put literally no work or effort into it. It's more idiot proof.

ghostfox_1 said:

It's not about "blaming" the gear. The Nikon simply has am inferior interface and just doesn't work quite as well.

Click to expand...

Only if you refuse to change anything and expect the camera to do all the work. The interface is extremely simple. Use appropriate mode by dialing to it, and then put box on thing you want in focus.

Real tricky for some apparently.

ghostfox_1 said:

Sony is still ahead as they've had more time to get this right and have a HUGE R&D capability compared to Nikon.

Click to expand...

Still ahead overall? Eh. More idiot proof, yes.

ghostfox_1 said:

That's not to say the Z7II is poor. The AF is quite good. The Sony is better.

Click to expand...

I don't agree here, but it doesn't get us anywhere

overall, nobody is going to change their opinions here, facts be dammed.

Click to expand...

We used these camera on two film shoots with very experienced shooters. Set photography exposes AF troubles pretty quickly.

When I say "experienced" I'm not talking hobbyists. These are pricey productions shooting with very high end gear.

There ARE facts and they are based on direct comparison. Cameras on set were, for example. Sony Venice all the way down to my own Z7II and go pro's. BTS was handled by several mirrorless systems for coverage. Even a lowly Zfc with a kit lens was a handy camera.

But using these cameras side by side, even the Nikon shooters could see Sony had the edge. If anything (look at my old posts) I'm something of a fan for Nikon and that's where most of my investment is. The hit rate with the Nikons is fine, but again, Sony did better. Regardless of modes and settings, the Z7II, Zfc and Z6II all would miss on RARE occasions by confirming focus and then grabbing the background or just missing wildly in challenging light while the Sonys were just about perfect. When two shooters, who've been doing this for 35 years, agree on this issue, and I experience the same thing...I think it's a fact.

In the same conditions the Sony A7III and IV did slightly better and that shooter was less experienced. Working with the Sony myself, I hated the interface and handling (I feel the same way about the Sony cinema cameras btw!), but there's just no doubt that the AF is more advanced.

You can't keep claiming that everyone doesn't know how to use their cameras. I've been playing with the AF on these cameras extensively. It's very good. But it's not equal to Sony yet. That'll change and competition is great.

In my office are a Sony FS5 MKII and FX6. Am I experienced with them? Absolutely not. That's why I have them; to learn them. But that's not the case with the mirrorless systems we used.

Robert

That's exactly what I think is going on ... protecting future sales ...

Fred Mueller said:

That's exactly what I think is going on ... protecting future sales ...

Click to expand...

It could be, but at the same time, Nikon is getting a bad reputation regarding eye-AF. Not sure they would do that on purpose. Could be that they don't have the resources or there is some non-obvious reason why the Z6/7/i/ii cannot be brought up to the level of performance of its rivals. Anything is possible I guess.

Fred Mueller said:

Ever try to do an event with a Z6(ii) ??

Click to expand...

Yes, all the time. I'm a registered photographer with a well-known UK Heritage Charity and do all sorts - both indoors and outdoors.

I came from a 750 to the original Z6 and the improvement was immediately apparent, particularly with my then F lenses (the F 24-120 in particular was chalk and cheese when mounted on the Z6) .

My 850 lasted a bit longer but that went earlier this year and I'm now all in on Z.

The biggest advantage (amongst others) is a totally silent shutter for both wildlife and 'people' events, with a 'night vision' EVF when required.

OFF TOPIC: Right, I had a J5 as well, I forgot about it as I didn't take it seriously. It has a fan following, and I made a decent profit buying and selling it used. I even had the EVF hot shoe for it and mounted my 70-300E on it with the FT-1. I think the cheap feeling shutter and shutter lag was my biggest complaint though. Some said the V3 was much better than the J5. I also had the CP950 which had better focusing than my CP995, and I sure miss that twist form factor. Imagine what they could do with modern components and engineering!

I never complained about the focusing ability of my Z70/D200/D300/D500/D750/D7100. It wasn't as distracting as when ML doesn't focus. Sure, A LOT my DSLR photos were slightly back or front focused, but they were usable and less noticeable. With higher resolution and sharper lenses it is more noticeable. The bar has been raised.



I suspect that showing exposure in the EVF takes up resources. I'm pretty sure I read that using higher contrast picture controls can help too, then shoot RAW and undo them. I just use an SB400/SB500/LED panels when it is that dark. I'll try and test this when I can. I'm already working on an example of how much better my Z30 is at eye-detection than my Z7II. I need to test once and for all if the video AF tracking/speed impact stills. Both Monochrome Memoires and Fro suggested that they do. Speed high and tracking low. They don't have onboard help in them either... LOL

I often shoot JPG, and Sony JPG's were the worst of the big three. Both with color and high ISO noise. Canon's were softer with cooler WB than their RAW images which were too warm. Similar F4 glass on all, and with neutral/flat profiles. All things equal, Nikon still fits my workflow better. Not to mention Sony's CFE-A cards. I tried the A7R2, A7R3, and A7IV. I've also used the Canon R and R7. AF-C is a whole new world, but sometimes it would be too sticky and not on the subject I wanted. This is a very unpopular thought here, but a dedicated $3k camera needs to beat a smartphone. My other big issue with Sony is that the icons and fonts on the LCD were hard for me to read and not always logical. I have very light near/far correction, and much less trouble with Nikon's setup.

None of the manufacturers are using the LCD to make changing settings easier. It is harder than with a DSLR. Nikon doesn't make it easy to switch AF modes or bracketing either. The hardware seems to be great, but the system needs a redo.

• One setting of how you want to focus (type of subject)
• Option to switch to pinpoint+lowlight boost in low light automatically
• One setting for the size of your AF area
• Allow us to lock the AF area
• Enable AF tracking without a button
• Limit the hunting range to +- the initial subject
• Disable or adjust the closest subject bias

This is probably why the Z7II is now selling for $2,000 on ebay. Should Nikon release an Expeed7 grip-less body it will probably drop another $1,000 in a year! The used market can often tell you more about a camera than this forum can.

Nikon better offer a decent trade-up program to the next grip-less Expeed7 body.

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, avoid reply with quote, and RT#M
Use the gear feature not your signature, happy shooting!
'Out of the darkness there must come out the light.' Bob Marley

Yes they are, a friend where I work uses Canon to shoot his kids sports. He asked what I use and I said Nikon and he said he heard they have bad autofocus.



Part of the problem is expectations that were set in the II series cameras by there being so much improvement via firmware on the V1 series cameras. Here we are at our 2 years in and the firmware on the II series cameras is still version 1.x. The 1 series cameras are at 3.x. The expectations that was set right or wrong is that the series II cameras would see a big improvement as well. They did not, the firmware has been very minor in this regard. They doulbing of processor power has not really done anything.

ericbowles said:

None of these cameras are point and shoots. All of them miss some of the time -

Click to expand...

In regards to "point and shoots" getting AF right most of time, then expensive professional camera should get AF right virtually every time.

tclardy said:

They doulbing of processor power has not really done anything.

Click to expand...

Agree with that.

With Z7ii having twice processing power of Z7i; the Z7ii hit rate should have seen a significant increase, like double hit rate. The Z7ii AF hit rate should be nearly as good as Z9.

Leading to a question only Nikon can answer: With Z7ii, what is extra CPU being used for? Or where is all extra processing power going too?

astirusty said:

tclardy said:

They doulbing of processor power has not really done anything.

Click to expand...

Agree with that.

With Z7ii having twice processing power of Z7i; the Z7ii hit rate should have seen a significant increase, like double hit rate. The Z7ii AF hit rate should be nearly as good as Z9.

Leading to a question only Nikon can answer: With Z7ii, what is extra CPU being used for? Or where is all extra processing power going too?

Click to expand...

The Z7ii has double the processing power of Z7. The Z9 has ten times the processing power of Z7. The Z7ii can not be compared to Z9. But yes the question remains, what is the extra processor doing?

H ghostfox_1

There are also a lot of people who would rather blame the photographer than simply admit, "NikonZ is quite complicated if you want consistently good AF results, and it is sometimes easier to get those results with other camera brands"

I only have Nikon, and only the Z50 apart from my
D500, but find I have to work really hard to get good results with wildlife/action. Otherwise it is a super little camera and I love using it.

The same principle applies to many software applications -- I used to work in the printing industry, and we got a fancy programme called 3B2 -- it could do almost ANYTHING, but boy, was it complicated... our company eventually dumped it and went back to Coreldraw and other products.

It will be nice when Nikon eventually get better AF downfiltered from the Z9 so mere mortals can also afford this more user friendly type of Z camera.

Thanks and God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten

Hi briantilley,

Well stated.

But perhaps we are confusing 2 different matters.

Nobody really believes the Z system is useless at focusing. When you put your mind to it, it gives the rewards. That is true.

The other matter is the EASE OF USE, where many newcomers to the Z-system are simply saying they had far less of a learning curve to get similar or better AF results with whatever brand of camera they compared the Z-system to.

Why do we keep fighting against this second valid hurdle that some people come up against? Not everybody pores over the manual, Youtube tutorials and other tips till at last, they get the Z-system to function better than expected.

Nikon has lost many loyal customers to other brands because of this problem. They need to:

1. Give clearer/better instruction and tips on how to maximize on Z AF

2. Develop a user-friendly alternative Z-camera that the average photographer can pick up and use HAPPILY and with minimal fuss...

God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten

Friedrich von Horsten said:

Hi briantilley,

Well stated.

But perhaps we are confusing 2 different matters.

Nobody really believes the Z system is useless at focusing. When you put your mind to it, it gives the rewards. That is true.

The other matter is the EASE OF USE, where many newcomers to the Z-system are simply saying they had far less of a learning curve to get similar or better AF results with whatever brand of camera they compared the Z-system to.

Why do we keep fighting against this second valid hurdle that some people come up against? Not everybody pores over the manual, Youtube tutorials and other tips till at last, they get the Z-system to function better than expected.

Nikon has lost many loyal customers to other brands because of this problem. They need to:

1. Give clearer/better instruction and tips on how to maximize on Z AF

2. Develop a user-friendly alternative Z-camera that the average photographer can pick up and use HAPPILY and with minimal fuss...

God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten

Click to expand...

One aspect mentioned previously…if the camera put a green box around what it was actually focusing on, this I believe would greatly help people understand what’s happening when using modes such as wide area small / large. This should not be tricky to implement.

thanks CliveTJ,

That is an excellent suggestion!

I sometimes bump the rear screen or control button with my nose, and find that the little AF square has inadvertently been moved to a corner of the screen, resulting in very OOF pictures...

Happy New Year,

Friedrich von Hörsten

Friedrich von Horsten said:

Hi briantilley,

Well stated.

But perhaps we are confusing 2 different matters.

Nobody really believes the Z system is useless at focusing.

Click to expand...

My posts in this thread have been in reaction to member HRS - whose many posts on the subject suggest that he does believe his Z camera's AF (or at least, the eye-detect feature) is useless.

Friedrich von Horsten said:

Hi briantilley,

Well stated.

But perhaps we are confusing 2 different matters.

Nobody really believes the Z system is useless at focusing. When you put your mind to it, it gives the rewards. That is true.

The other matter is the EASE OF USE, where many newcomers to the Z-system are simply saying they had far less of a learning curve to get similar or better AF results with whatever brand of camera they compared the Z-system to.

Why do we keep fighting against this second valid hurdle that some people come up against? Not everybody pores over the manual, Youtube tutorials and other tips till at last, they get the Z-system to function better than expected.

Nikon has lost many loyal customers to other brands because of this problem. They need to:

1. Give clearer/better instruction and tips on how to maximize on Z AF

2. Develop a user-friendly alternative Z-camera that the average photographer can pick up and use HAPPILY and with minimal fuss...

God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten

Click to expand...

I'll bet 50% or more of the people I see complaining about AF are using the wrong settings - wrong area AF, wrong target, wrong technique for the target, etc. The offer a generic complaint about focus without supplying settings or what they have done to address the issue. They fail to understand the difference in the EVF view between Mechanical and electronic shutter. They photograph subjects without regard for distance or size of the AF target - expecting to need Eye AF when DOF is 4 feet deep with the lens they are using.

There is a great deal of misinformation. False comparisons are being made without regard to real differences in hardware. I do think Nikon could have done a better job pointing out HOW the dual processors of the Z6ii/Z7ii are being used and the differences compared to the predecessor cameras. The D500 and D850 had majors jumps forward compared to predecessor cameras - partly due to the added processors and partly due to refinement of AF modes.

There is a learning curve with the new cameras and mirrorless in general. No camera is perfect all the time. But there is also a reasonable expectation that the user will take advantage of some of the resources available to improve their ability to use the new features and opportunities with the mirrorless cameras.