Partly as an experiment – and partly because I no longer have a copy of the Nikon Z9 – I recently took a lot of wildlife photos with my trusty Nikon Z7 for our upcoming Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 review. The Z7 isn’t widely known as a camera for fast wildlife photography, and that’s an understatement.
In particular, the Nikon Z7’s autofocus system has major limitations with subject recognition and tracking. Even though the camera’s AF speed and accuracy are actually impressive, the Z7 is pretty bad for following fast-moving subjects.
Or is it? Well, yes. Put the Z7 next to the Z9 (or next to a Canon EOS R5 or Sony A1) and it won’t be a pleasant comparison. Even against a lot of cheaper options, the Z7’s autofocus will usually be the weaker one. I’m not trying to say otherwise with this article.
But “bad” is relative. I finished my recent wildlife photography trip with some newfound respect for what the Z7’s autofocus system can do, even for fast subjects like birds in flight. Once I got the focusing system dialed in (basically just using Wide Area Large and AF-C) sharp photos were the norm.
You might think that I’m a few years late with this news; we already reviewed the Z7 ages ago. But I’m not writing this article about the Z7 specifically. Instead, I have a more general observation today: Your camera is capable of better autofocus than you think.
In other words, if the Nikon Z7 can focus on birds in flight, so can almost any camera. Newer and better focusing systems will always exist, but that’s no reason to feel disheartened by the gear you already have. If you work with your AF system rather than writing it off, you might be shocked at its capabilities.
Here’s one example that shocked me, with a small, fast subject against a chaotic background at ISO 9,000:
Another example, this time in an environment with hardly any light (note the ISO of 25,600 and the 1/125 shutter speed):
All of these photos are with an f/6.3 lens. I’m not feeding the AF system a lot of light here. (Hence the noise in these 100% crops – which haven’t gone through any special sharpening or noise reduction software.) Doesn’t seem to matter.
What about a bird flying directly toward me at high speed? Not a problem.
Here’s a case with some tiny, distant subjects (and a lot of stuff in the background for the AF system to lock onto):
And probably the biggest challenge of all, when something in the foreground was blocking the subject. The Z7’s lowly autofocus system still tracked the bird with no problem.
Thinking back on it, I could say something very similar about the focus system of entry-level DSLRs like Nikon’s cheapest D3400 or D3500. No, they don’t have high-end autofocus. Compared to something like a Nikon D500, it’s nowhere close to a fair fight. But if you master the AF system and understand its limits, you can still get sharp photos of almost any subject.
There are faster birds than the one in the photo above, but this still a bird in flight taken with the Nikon D3400… a camera with 11 autofocus points, one cross-type. It’s only state-of-the-art if you live in the 1990s. Yet the duck’s head is properly focused.
I didn’t do anything special to get the sharp photos you’re seeing in this article. I’m sure that experienced wildlife photographers would have managed a higher keeper rate than I did. But with over a 50% sharpness rate (depending on how extreme I crop it), I can hardly complain.
This isn’t my way of saying that the Nikon Z7 is secretly amazing for wildlife photography. It’s not; most cameras today would have done a better job. But that’s the point. Even though the the Z7 is famously near the bottom of the AF heap, it was still viable for a week of fast-paced wildlife photography.
If that’s all there is to “bad autofocus” in a modern camera, it’s a good time to be a photographer. Whatever gear you have, don’t feel limited by its performance – just go out and shoot! Something better will always exist, but that doesn’t make your current camera any less capable. A bit of effort and practice should be enough for it to shine.
“the Z7 is famously near the bottom of the AF heap” So what is at the top?
The Z9.
Alas. Beyond my means.
If you want something that’s close to the best AF available, and a lot less expensive, a Nikon D500 is the way to go so long as you don’t mind a DSLR. Used ones are especially good values.
Thank you. I shall have a look in the morning.
Interesting article, but it is a known fact… it is all about the photographer, not the equipment. Although this article says nothing to me… you should also share how you set up the camera, which options got you the best results, what tactic or practice helped you the most… that will be more beneficial to us all.
I have a Z7II and it has been a great disappointment. Terrible autofocus, hunting no way to shoot flying birds. Even with static objects it is not good. With native Z lens it is better, but with an F mount 80-409G terrible. My old D7500 did far better.
Tried Nikon support – dismal. Never had any complains with my previous Nicons all the way to D300.
Sometimes when photographing a seagull for example you have too much sky and you can switch to APS-C format to put only the bird in scene! My question is what is better: to shoot directly in APS-C format with 19.5 MP or to crop later in Photoshop to 19.5 MP?
You should crop later for better composition. Theoretically, you are getting same pixels for an equivalent crop. So why not postpone it for flexibility in composition?
Thank you for this. It’s my long held belief and to have someone of your caliber state it so unequivocally helps. Now I can continue struggling with composition!
Struggling with composition is the best part of being a photographer! I hope you keep it up in ’23.
Great article. We are pretty danged lucky these days whatever modern gear we use. I have an old photographer friend who was photographing birds in the 1950s with a maximum 180mm lens, manual focus, manual wind on, max 30 something shots to a roll and a car battery powered flash!
No kidding! That’s quite a setup. It really puts into perspective how much improvement there’s been since then.
Thank you for your article Spencer. I bought a Z7ii last year, and I sold my other Sony and Nikon bodies. My wildlife experience with my Z7ii is far better than with the D750 or Alpha 77ii that I used for years. I never had a D500, D850, Z9, R5 etc. and I know that their AF system are top notch, but I know that Z6/Z7 AF system are very good. I heard or read so bad reviews and user feedbacks concerning Z bodies AF, that I bought my Z7ii with the fear of losing my money. Finally, I succeed into the photos I want to take. Hit ratio of 80% I think. No issue for flying birds, even kingfishers or bee-eaters, I mean no issue with the equipment, of course it depends on the situation and environment parameters.
Maybe those who struggle with their Z7 don’t know yet all advantages and drawbacks of their ML body, or they have another body like D850 and have some habits they expected to find in the Z. The conclusion is that everyone has to find the equipment that fits his/her needs and way of working, and perform with it, while keeping the pleasure of photography. I have it every day using my Z7ii.
Fred, that’s great. I would need more practice before those hit rates are within range for me, but it shows that it’s possible. You do need different habits with the Z7 / Z7 II compared to the typical DSLR.
Great article Spencer!
I´ve been shooting kitesurfers with a Nikon D5100 years ago and today with a Nikon Z6 with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 – yes there are more powerful options these days (Would love to have the Nikon Z 70-200 2.8). But it is as you say – as you know what to do you can get a bunch of crispy sharp pictures. The only thing I hate is the slideshow in the viewfinder of the Z6.
I think the last time I shot with the Z6 kitesurfers I had a hitrate around 75% which I found pretty impressive!
That’s awesome! Sounds like you’ve practiced a lot to get to that 75% hit rate. Results like that are hardly impossible, even though it requires some effort.
Honestly I thought I had much less hits. Thanks to the slideshow in the viewfinder. But it is good to know, that the Z6 still does its work even though you can’t see it!
It’s been a pleasant surprise when I looked through the footage on my computer!
Well I just tried out every single autofocus option 😂
I ended in the same you used: wide large and af-c
I have a D500 for wildlife, and Z6 for “other stuff”. What I have noticed is when I do take the Z6 outside for birds, the “wide area” works about as well as the “group focus” on the D500; meaning it focuses on the closest thing to you, in the “box”.
And the D500 is the premier wildlife DSLR.
Also, there is a hobby paradox that I consider: The more I do something, the more challenging it needs to be to keep me interested. So what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the newer better autofocusing systems, if doing photography just becomes easier? I will lose interest (unless as others may experience, the bar gets higher and we find other ways to challenge ourselves.)
That is a really interesting paradox you mention. It’s very true that the purpose of photography isn’t just to create pretty images, or else we could all sit at home and plug words into an AI processor. The challenge is an important part.
But like you mentioned in a different comment, good equipment can just reveal more subtle challenges at play, even as it makes other tasks easier. Sometimes, I would rather my camera gets out of the way so I can focus on the challenge of composition. Other times, I want the whole process to be a difficult but contemplative endeavor, and that’s when I bring out my large format film gear :)
I’d like to take better pictures, but I feel that “better” subjects would do more for me than better kit, so next years pocket money will be going on travel. In the circumstances it’s very gratifying to read the views you express here – it does help with the chronic GAS…
It was a great idea to include an example using entry level kit, something that is overlooked far too often.
And I really liked your closing shot of the cranes. Well spotted Sir!
Thank you, David! And I’m glad you liked that photo. You’re absolutely right that travel and experiences are more important than gear almost all the time.