Z6II autofocus tracking dreadful

[Lance B]

You say the yellow box flies off the left of the screen. The AF yellow box obviously should not be "flying off the left of the screen" and there must be some reason for this. Maybe you are touching the rear screen with your nose or inadvertently touching/moving the joystick/selector wheel with your nose or other part of your face or whatever which is pushing the tracking box off the screen? Otherwise if you are not touching any buttons or anything inadvertently, then it might be a faulty camera?

Whilst the Z6II/Z7II are not up to the tracking ability of the D850 or D500, you can still get decent results as many have pointed out. This is not a point and shoot exercise and you still need some skills to get the shot. Merely saying autofocus is dreadful on the Z6II is as relevant as saying the Z6II is useless as a toaster. It's one thing to have expectations and another for them to be realised with the equipment you have chosen. I really don't know what your expectations are for tracking birds compared to what the realities are.

Here is a photo of a Peregrine Falcon flying past at a decent clip and the camera tracked it as I expected it should.

Z7II + 500 PF, 1/4000s f/5.6 at 500.0mm iso500

A barn owl at a show coming towards me:

Z7II + 70-200 f2.8 VR S + Z 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/5.6 at 280.0mm iso640

Z7II + 70-200 f2.8 VR S + Z 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/5.6 at 280.0mm iso640

--
Lance B

Lance BB

Explore Lance BB’s 738 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Galleries by Lance B

www.pbase.com

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

When Mirrorless AF cannot detect a subject using artificial intelligence it tends to default to the highest contrast subject within the selected AF area.

This is why mirrorless AF (also DSLR) can sometimes move to an unintended subject either foreground or background - when the intended subject is of lower contrast than the foreground or background.

Those posting successful bird in flight images in this thread primarily photograph front lit or side-lit birds with plenty of contrast within the birds plumage - i.e. relatively high contrast bird subjects.

A combination of back lighting and dark featured plumage tends to be quite a challenge for "historical" auto focus.

With this in mind it helps AF success to concentrate on birds which are front or side lit with a decent amount of feather detail.

It is probable that within the next few months Nikon will launch new "affordable price" bodies with artificial intelligence able to easily recognise birds in flight.

If you can afford and acquire a Z nine the solution is relatively easy.

If not - limiting bird in flight subjects to those with good feather detail and not back lit - where Z7 II AF can perform decently well - should help the success ratio

 

[Gangster Chicken]

Merely saying autofocus is dreadful on the Z6II is as relevant as saying the Z6II is useless as a toaster.

How many times do you people not read what I originally typed I DID NOT SAY THE AUTOFOCUS IS DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said the autofocus tracking is dreadful and THEN I explained why that is my thought in the comment box. Read what I put properly until you understand plain English and if you did read it then stop saying I said something I clearly didn't say. Jeez.

 

[ericlj007]

Merely saying autofocus is dreadful on the Z6II is as relevant as saying the Z6II is useless as a toaster.

How many times do you people not read what I originally typed I DID NOT SAY THE AUTOFOCUS IS DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said the autofocus tracking is dreadful and THEN I explained why that is my thought in the comment box. Read what I put properly until you understand plain English and if you did read it then stop saying I said something I clearly didn't say. Jeez.

I just wish I could see the image you wanted. You can't share anything from the shoot?

 

[thisisbenji]

I just wish I could see the image you wanted. You can't share anything from the shoot?

This seems to be pretty common around here. I'm honestly surprised how few images are shared in discussions given that this is a photography forum.

 

[archerscreek]

How many times do you people not read what I originally typed I DID NOT SAY THE AUTOFOCUS IS DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said the autofocus tracking is dreadful and THEN I explained why that is my thought in the comment box. Read what I put properly until you understand plain English and if you did read it then stop saying I said something I clearly didn't say. Jeez.

From what I’ve seen here and elsewhere it’s actually quite common for many to confuse comments about specific use of the tracking box with the AF’s ability to track generally. Steve Perry is a well respected photographer and reviewer. Even he said use of the tracking box was disappointing. Go to 8:09.

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-z6ii-and-z7ii-wildlife-photography-review/

 

[Mackiesback]

It was just focus tracking that was awful, for cars, people cycling, walking, dogs and cats moving about slowly it's great. But for birds it's as if the Z6II focus tracking modes hate birds it's as if they are predjudice against birds, lol and as soon as I try and track a bird the yellow box flies off to the sides, sometimes left, sometimes right.

Perhaps you thread is mistitled then. If your point is that the Z6ii isn't good for BIF, that's a well known fact. However, just saying "Z6II autofocus tracking dreadful", that's misleading. It's not dreadful and it actually works very well in many circumstances.

IMO, the Z6 and Z6ii are not really sports/wildlife cameras. They're more for shooting portraits and events. Similar to the spot the D610, D750, and D780 filled in the Nikon lineup.

When comparing it to it's similarly priced 24mp full-frame predecessors, the the AF actually is quite good.

When we start comparing it to the sports/wildlife oriented dSLRs, then things start to fall apart.

Oh here we go another person who wants absolutely everything to be politically correct. :-|

"Politically correct" doesn't have anything to do with it. What possibly could be political about this? A Z6ii is more of a stills camera than a sports or birds one, the 70-300p is far from a birding optic, so year, if you want to track and focus on birds your describe ar extremely fast, you have the wrong gear.

In spite of that, people are posting some pretty good examples of what the gear can do. At this point this seems more of a venting exercise rather than a call for help. Another click bait headline, another Wednesday.

 

[archerscreek]

I just wish I could see the image you wanted. You can't share anything from the shoot?

This seems to be pretty common around here. I'm honestly surprised how few images are shared in discussions given that this is a photography forum.

It’s probably because people delete their out of focus images when first reviewing them.

 

[thisisbenji]

I just wish I could see the image you wanted. You can't share anything from the shoot?

This seems to be pretty common around here. I'm honestly surprised how few images are shared in discussions given that this is a photography forum.

It’s probably because people delete their out of focus images when first reviewing them.

Well, I'd say some sort of visual demonstration would still be ideal. I too delete my crap images, but if I was going to post and complain about them I'd probably save some as examples.

 

[thisisbenji]

"Politically correct" doesn't have anything to do with it. What possibly could be political about this? A Z6ii is more of a stills camera than a sports or birds one, the 70-300p is far from a birding optic, so year, if you want to track and focus on birds your describe ar extremely fast, you have the wrong gear.

In spite of that, people are posting some pretty good examples of what the gear can do. At this point this seems more of a venting exercise rather than a call for help. Another click bait headline, another Wednesday.

You know what? That kind of reminds me, when I picked up my 70-200 2.8S to replace my 70-300 AFP lens. I felt like the AF performance of my Z6ii took a significant step forwards.

To be fair though, if I was an amateur birder, I'd just pick up a D500 and a 200-500 and be done with it. Perhaps I'd also consider the 300 and 500 PF glass if my budget allowed.

 

[Mackiesback]

"Politically correct" doesn't have anything to do with it. What possibly could be political about this? A Z6ii is more of a stills camera than a sports or birds one, the 70-300p is far from a birding optic, so year, if you want to track and focus on birds your describe ar extremely fast, you have the wrong gear.

In spite of that, people are posting some pretty good examples of what the gear can do. At this point this seems more of a venting exercise rather than a call for help. Another click bait headline, another Wednesday.

You know what? That kind of reminds me, when I picked up my 70-200 2.8S to replace my 70-300 AFP lens. I felt like the AF performance of my Z6ii took a significant step forwards.

To be fair though, if I was an amateur birder, I'd just pick up a D500 and a 200-500 and be done with it. Perhaps I'd also consider the 300 and 500 PF glass if my budget allowed.

I would too, until Nikon comes out with a Z that is the D500 replacement. The D500 is still the king of affordable bodies for this stuff.

 

[Berend Botje]

Like I mentioned above yes. You said if the subject changes but slow moving objects change too and it tracks slow moving objects ok. It's just fast moving objects it refuses to keep tracking.

Idk, I use my Z6ii to shoot cycling sometimes and it nails the focus 99% of the time. I'd say after having my camera for nearly two years at this point that in most scenarios the AF works VERY VERY VERY well compared to the dSLRs I had previously. There are some scenarios where it's not the best, but I've never been in a situation where I thought "dang, if my camera had better autofocus I'd have got that shot".

I was kind of hoping to hear that being reinforced. Selling off my Leica SL2 gear with the Z7ii in mind (or perhaps I sit on my hands for a while and see if Nikon follows up with a more portable version of the Z9). While the SL2 is pleasant, it is too large, and it weighs a ton (nevermind the $$).

I am enjoying the Z6 II, including its AF system which is much more versatile than that of the D7100 which the Z6 II replaced. For fast moving subjects - motor sports, BIF - there are probably better options, but for street, landscapes, portraits the Z6/7 II AF is just fine IMO. And with some education and practice you can shoot fast moving subjects too.

That said, in the situation you describe I would be interested to learn whether Nikon is going to launch new cameras/updates in the next few months. By October the Z6/7 II will be "out" ("announced" is better) for 2 years, so updates or a new model camera may be around the corner - if covid/supply issues are not still interfering with Nikon's planning. This may also affect the price of the Z7 II as the Z7 now seems to be discontinued.

 

[Berend Botje]

It was just focus tracking that was awful, for cars, people cycling, walking, dogs and cats moving about slowly it's great. But for birds it's as if the Z6II focus tracking modes hate birds it's as if they are predjudice against birds, lol and as soon as I try and track a bird the yellow box flies off to the sides, sometimes left, sometimes right.

Perhaps you thread is mistitled then. If your point is that the Z6ii isn't good for BIF, that's a well known fact. However, just saying "Z6II autofocus tracking dreadful", that's misleading. It's not dreadful and it actually works very well in many circumstances.

IMO, the Z6 and Z6ii are not really sports/wildlife cameras. They're more for shooting portraits and events. Similar to the spot the D610, D750, and D780 filled in the Nikon lineup.

When comparing it to it's similarly priced 24mp full-frame predecessors, the the AF actually is quite good.

When we start comparing it to the sports/wildlife oriented dSLRs, then things start to fall apart.

Oh here we go another person who wants absolutely everything to be politically correct. :-|

How do comments like this help you resolve your problem? :-(

 

[Berend Botje]

How many times do you people not read what I originally typed I DID NOT SAY THE AUTOFOCUS IS DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said the autofocus tracking is dreadful and THEN I explained why that is my thought in the comment box. Read what I put properly until you understand plain English and if you did read it then stop saying I said something I clearly didn't say. Jeez.

From what I’ve seen here and elsewhere it’s actually quite common for many to confuse comments about specific use of the tracking box with the AF’s ability to track generally. Steve Perry is a well respected photographer and reviewer. Even he said use of the tracking box was disappointing. Go to 8:09.

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-z6ii-and-z7ii-wildlife-photography-review/

Yes, Steve Perry concluded that the Z6/7 II 2D subject tracking cannot hold up with erratically moving birds like terns.

I viewed his video before purchasing the Z6II, and had no expectations the camera would have better subject tracking in my hands than in those of Steve Perry - who is a widely recognized expert in Nikon's AF systems.

I am not fully convinced that the camera could not do better with a FW update, but so far we haven't seen it.

 

[Lance B]

Merely saying autofocus is dreadful on the Z6II is as relevant as saying the Z6II is useless as a toaster.

How many times do you people not read what I originally typed I DID NOT SAY THE AUTOFOCUS IS DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said the autofocus tracking is dreadful and THEN I explained why that is my thought in the comment box. Read what I put properly until you understand plain English and if you did read it then stop saying I said something I clearly didn't say. Jeez.

LOL. Nice try at trying to defend your flawed position. Here is exactly what I said without it being taken out of context:

"Whilst the Z6II/Z7II are not up to the tracking ability of the D850 or D500, you can still get decent results as many have pointed out."

In the very same paragraph is when I went on to say the excerpt you linked to above in order to disparage my helpful comment and bolster your flawed argument. When all read in conjunction with the whole paragraph - which links the thoughts together - it is alluding to AF tracking, not just AF as a whole. So, I agree with your emoji.....



--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[cna]

Those birds are quite fast, move erratically and can be challenging for a tracking system, especially when they are coming right towards you....

Taken with a Z7II (same AF as the Z6ii) and with the Nikon 100-400 f4s

AF mode : AF-C / Wide area AF

My AF success rate was about 80-90 %; agreed, those were taken against a clear sky, and the AF tracking of the Z6II is certainly not on par with that of the Z9/A1/R3, but telling that it is dreadful is pure non sense.

For my information : could you please tell me how you can take a picture of the BIF using the AF-S mode

 

[Mister tee]

These new bodies are beyond the capabilities of so many users. Most never take the time to learn or even read the owners manual. They just start pushing buttons and complaining when all the magic doesn't happen as imagined.

 

[cna]

Same setup (Z7II + 100-400).

This time with a non uniform background .. and still no problem to track the bird

 

[johnanderson]

Not True, Your indicting a camera based on generalizations and quite frankly you have not put in the time to learn the camera, the focus system, and the settings correctly. I get fantastic focus performance with the Z7II, Z6II, and the Z9. I have learned and tested for months on end on MANY use cases and I created a spreadsheet with my best settings for those use cases, just like Nikon has done with the Z9.

When you make a statement like; "Autofocus tracking dreadful", you had better have a powerful argument to back it up.

I know how to use my camera and I understand the setting, many people have had problems with autofocus tracking with birds in flight not just me. I already said for anything moving slowly the tracking is ok.

As for me saying the tracking is dreadful I explained it already in my first post, read it again until you understand what I said. I said WITH FAST BIRDS IN FLIGHT!!!!!!

I am not all amused with some of the heat in recent forums. Really, if there is a valid point to be made, there is no need to shout.

I recently loaned a good friend my 500PF for use with his Nikon Z7. Now, most would agree that the Z6ii has superior focus and tracking to the Z7.

Attached is a shot Graeme took with a Z7 + 500PF + FTZ adapter of a fast flying peregrine falcon. I hope this example is acceptable to you. If you know of any faster flying birds, do let me know.

Graeme is a skilled photographer who knows his craft and his equipment well. I think that is the key. Now, what was that saying about "a bad tradesman blames his tools"?


Peregrine falcon Nikon Z7+500PF+FTZ 1/4000 sec, f7.1, ISO 720, distance 20 meters approx.

A d200 could have got that shot. A bird on a totally blue background moving sideways is how you test an af system nowadays? Come on.

 

[johnanderson]

Does anyone else have experiences with the little yellow tracking box suddenly flying off to the left side of the screen all the time? I managed to get the yellow box on birds today and kept hold of the AF-On button while tracking the bords but within a second of having the yellow box on the birds the box flew off to the left side of the screen every single time and absolutelty would not track the birds at all. The only success I had was when I used AF-S and tracked the birds keeping the little box on the birds. That nailed focus.

I've tried both gens of camera now and the af is just duff for anything that moves. The folk covering this up here really have no clue what they are talking about...or are blinded by rage from buyers remorse. Keep saying it's good and eventually it'll be good.