My focus point keeps spazzing out?

I've had my camera for about 3 months and I have never had a problem moving the focus point around, but today, while I was hiking, it started spazzing out. Like when I half press the shutter button, the focus point starts jumping around by itself. Note, this only happens when I'm looking through the viewfinder. If I go into Live mode, I works just fine. I have a D7200 and my only lense is the nikkor 50mm 1.8. Anyone know what the problem might be?

 

EDIT: Sorry, I don't know what section to post this thread.

I'm not familiar with those cameras, but if this is a fault, it should not happen in live mode, simply because live mode uses the sensor to focus. I wonder if it is a fault though. Maybe you accidentally selected a focus mode which lets the camera decide where to focus? Hmm, maybe it is a fault. See if you can find something in the menu that might fix it.

i dont have your camera but i think karim hit it on the nose... check the settings. my canon has a mode that follows as you move and is contantly focusing in n out... very annoying.

I'm not familiar with those cameras, but if this is a fault, it should not happen in live mode, simply because live mode uses the sensor to focus. I wonder if it is a fault though. Maybe you accidentally selected a focus mode which lets the camera decide where to focus? Hmm, maybe it is a fault. See if you can find something in the menu that might fix it.

 

i dont have your camera but i think karim hit it on the nose... check the settings. my canon has a mode that follows as you move and is contantly focusing in n out... very annoying.

 

Yea, I've been looking in the settings for something, and well honestly hoping I accidentally pressed something, because it would suck if It was a problem with the camera itself. :/

If you have 3D tracking turned on in the autofocus mode (and you're in AF-C continuous tracking), the AF point will start where you place it, but then try to track the subject across the frame if it thinks it's moving - or try to stay focussed on the same subject if you focus and recompose. It can sometimes twitch a bit if the autofocus system is confused, such as if the subject isn't very high contrast. The viewfinder shows where the AF point has moved to, so it'll appear to be moving by itself. I suspect you've accidentally enabled this mode - hold down the AF mode button by the front left (from the back) of the lens mount and spin the dials to change it. It's easy to do this by accident during image review if you grip the camera in the wrong way.

 

For what it's worth, I usually use this autofocus mode - it lets you choose what to focus on, but means that if you or the subject moves about, it'll keep tracking.

 

I hope that helps (and wasn't an obvious thing you've already ruled out!) - more importantly, I hope there's nothing wrong with the camera. Good luck.

It sounds as if the camera has been accidentally put into auto-AF point mode, where the camera is free to choose the AF point itself. Or that face-recognition AF has been chosen.

 

I have a D7200, but 99% of the time I use a single AF point fixed at centre frame, so have little practical experience of other AF modes.

 

I seem to remember that when the camera was new it came in a default AF mode that did indeed cause the AF rectangle to 'spazz' about all over the place. And that's why I prefer the single, central AF point. I know exactly where the camera is going to focus. Hold the AF using a shutter half-press, recompose and you're done. No jittering AF.

 

Before declaring the camera faulty, try a 2 button reset. The manual tells you how to do this. You'll lose most of your custom settings, but at least it might save an unnecessary trip to the repairers.

As Andrew, I think you moved from AF-S(ingle) to AF-C(ontinuous), where the camera will automatically try to track objects. Push the button on the AF selector (left front below the lens mount) together with the control wheel (front one, if I recall, but could be the rear one), to switch back to AF-S.

Actually, the continuous AF and AF tracking on this camera is impressive, and definitely worth getting familiar with. It can be massively useful.

The other common error could be your nose or check is hitting the AF selector button. That's a common issue on some of the Nikon cameras and for people who shoot with their left eye.

I think the auto area mode would show multiple AF points selected (all the ones it thinks are in focus) - I've usually seen a cluster on someone's face, for example. But since I almost never use this mode (unless I'm handing the camera to someone else to take the photo) I could be wrong about that. Worth checking, though - and the solution is the same as the other AF suggestion: check which AF mode you're in. And I agree with Wouter that the AF system on the D7200 (roughly the same as all Nikon high-end bodies from 2007's D3/D300 until the D5/D500 launch in 2016, and still used on prosumer bodies) is very capable and worth experimenting with - different modes are genuinely useful for different purposes.

 

I wouldn't rule out the nose thing either (especially with a nose my size), although I'd hope the multi-selector is protuberant and firm enough that you'd detect the pressure on your snozzle. Moving in multiple directions with the nose is quite tricky (without accidentally looping nose hair around the controller, and that thought is just horrifying), although I've often thought that some of Nikon's choices for where to put useful buttons (such as ISO, in the D7200's case) seem to assume a prehensile trunk.

Off topic, is 'spazz' a word we use here? To me, you might as well use the 'n' word.

Off topic, is 'spazz' a word we use here? To me, you might as well use the 'n' word.

 

 

you mean..... nikon?

Off topic, is 'spazz' a word we use here? To me, you might as well use the 'n' word.

 

Good point, although I'd hope some people using it in conversation (I guess often from my generation of Brits, when schoolyard English picked it up) may not be paying much attention to its origin. Despite knowing, I didn't register it as anything but an idiom in this context.

Most Americans aren't that familiar with British profanity or vulgarity. Those words are not use on TV or movies. At least they didn't use to be. I only learned of the word w--k-r two years ago and I am 74 years old. I would suspect, now that it has been brought up, that s---z has something to do with sex.

 

A google search turns up several definitions. = Lose physical or emotional control, A reaction to something crazy or weird, Another word for "freak out", To become more angry than a situation warrants, To twitch.

If you were to title any subject starting with the word "Politics" or "Comedy" any and all word usage would be permissible, or even required.

Unfortunately there are portions of the U.S. population that are perpetually offended and outraged by just about everything.

If you were to title any subject starting with the word "Politics" or "Comedy" any and all word usage would be permissible, or even required.

Unfortunately there are portions of the U.S. population that are perpetually offended and outraged by just about everything.

 

unfortunately its becoming a cancer on society today and new laws are being derived from this lunacy.

 

BTW from my many years on this planet. I always thought spazzing was a slang derivative of spasms.

 

I guess across the pond things are different... must be that long swim. I wish they'd learn anglish.

 

:eek:

I would suspect, now that it has been brought up, that s---z has something to do with sex.

It has to do with “spastic,” a more vulgar alternative in days gone by to “cripple,” as it isolated and denigrated people by their physical gestures and capabilities. I’m born and bred in the U.S. and grew up where “spazz” and “spazzing” were often used as denigrating words to belittle those who weren’t thought of as being as good in sports as others. I, too, looked it up and was surprised to learn it was considered more a derogatory term in Britain than here in the U.S. because I’ve always had negative feelings about the word. I was going to say something about it before this but didn’t want to make the poster who used it self conscious, since it was clearly not meant to deride or offend people or put them down. But, as long as it’s been mentioned, it is nice when language evolves in a way where our use of it shows more and more respect for others. Unfortunately, a word can be said without the speaker meaning to offend and yet still make someone feel bad. As I have a nephew, and many good friends that I’ve met through him, with autism and other developmental and physical challenges, who’s been called a “retard” and a “spazz” more often than I’d care to remember, I’d simply request coming up with alternative ways to describe the focus point on a camera. Words matter and they can communicate things even unintended by an innocent speaker. One of the greatest things about language is that it’s alive and can change and in some respects can reflect the values of a culture.

Unfortunately there are portions of the U.S. population that are perpetually offended and outraged by just about everything.

This is unnecessarily dismissive and unkind in the context of the word being talked about.

I must admit my eyebrows were raised when I saw that word in the question. I've never come across it myself, in nearly 70 years of living in England. There are plenty of things we used to say without much thought, which are now potentially offensive.

 

Lets hope the OP has found the answer to his problem, and isn't too disturbed by our comments as to his choice of word.

:rolleyes:

There actually used to be a UK charity called "The Spastic Society", back in the 1950s/60s. So I'm not sure when it became offensive.

 

I'm pretty sure that recipients of that charity's help weren't offended by the title.

 

Like any other disability, it is pretty offensive to use it as a term of abuse to an able-bodied person. However I'm pretty sure the OP was unaware of the origins of the slang, and that it could be easily taken as short for spasmodic, which it appears to have been defined as in several slang dictionaries.

 

I'm also pretty sure that most people with a disability have a thicker skin and better sense of humour than the rigidly PC brigade give them credit for.

 

I, for one, quickly grew out of being offended by being called 'spex', 'speccy', 'four-eyes' or 'swat' due to needing corrective eyewear.

Edited June 1, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I'm also hoping that Rafael isn't put off by the side discussion.

 

For historical interest, I believe the excessively negative UK connotations of the word came partly from the popular children's program "Blue Peter" airing a segment on Joey Deacon, who had cerebral palsy, in 1981 - I'm of the right generation to remember this. While the programme was sensitive, pre-teen kids aren't, and both his name and terms for his condition got co-opted as insults (which I also remember). Children can be horrible, and some repercussions can be long-lasting. Fortunately the word has dropped out of acceptable use in the UK.

 

I hadn't realised that the term was used, but with less stigma, in the US. The use in this thread is, to be fair, quite an accurate description of the behaviour.

 

Edit: Crossed over with Joe. Wikipedia claims it's from Greek for "shaking uncontrollably". I very clearly (and uncomfortably) remember the term appearing in the playground - it made me uncomfortable even as an eight year old. While I agree that it's easy to get offended on behalf of a community who actually don't mind, I believe, in the UK, the abuse of the term was actually seen as quite offensive by the disabled.

 

Aside: I realise that w****r gets, er, tossed about by Hollywood as an indication that the speaker is British, but in my circles it's really considered quite an offensive insult (albeit with little etymological justification). But these things tend to soften over time.

 

On that note, this might amuse people who've not seen it.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Andrew Garrard

Children can be horrible

Adults, too. :rolleyes:

Off topic, is 'spazz' a word we use here?

 

Probably not usually, but considering this conversation on its merits:

 

I concur with Fred’s fact of etymology. “It has to do with “spastic,” a more vulgar alternative in days gone by to “cripple,” “

 

I also agree – “it was clearly not meant to deride or offend people or put them down.”

 

Clearly there was no intention on the OP’s part for the Opening Post to be intentionally demeaning and James appears relaxed about the conversation’s content: so leaving the thread as it is, may afford readers more awareness and they might in future act on that awareness.

 

***

 

Referring to the comment about the Spastic Society in the UK – the Spastic Centre in Australia was rebranded in 2011 (that’s relatively recently and the Centre carried the original name for more than sixty years): Marelle Thornton, the president of what is now known as the Cerebral Palsy Alliance, stated that the organisation decided to abandon its old name because of increasing sensitivities to the word “spastic”.

 

Her press release stated,

 

"Times have changed and times dictated that our name be changed,"

"Language has changed over that time and there were some negative connotations, as we all know, attached to the word spastic.

"With the use of the word alliance, we want to recognise the wonderful and valuable partnerships that we have with our families, with our clients, with our governments, our sponsors, our donors, our volunteers.

"We wanted to be a more engaging organisation and an organisation with a name that was more inviting and engaging to the general Australian community."

 

WW

Meanwhile back to the focus:

 

If the focus is set to AFC, and the mode to 3D, it will start on the chosen center point, but will show various other focus squares as it tries to track. You'll see the squares jump around.

 

If the focus is set to Auto Area, multiple points will show at once from the first. This may happen either in AFS or AFC (or AFA). Auto area is the only mode in which you should see multiple focus squares in AFS, as all other focus modes except single point are disabled. In AFA the camera will shuttle between AFS and AFC depending on what it thinks is needed. In AFC, only the chosen point is seen either in single point or Dynamic Area modes. Even though in Dynamic Area the focus can move you won't see it in the viewfinder.

Off topic, is 'spazz' a word we use here? To me, you might as well use the 'n' word.

Seems like the PC police will jump on ANYTING these days. How about using "the focusing goes crazy?" Oops, that must offend someone. "Nuts?" You have to be kidding. Reminds me when a super PC woman once jumped on me when I said that the parking lot was being black-topped. I never realized just how degenerate I was.

Seems like the PC police will jump on ANYTING these days.

Same might be said of some of the anti-PC-police! :)

 

Political correctness is a thing. And it's often silly and can be obnoxious.

 

Negative reactions to political correctness can sometimes be very much deserved. But some reactions mistake caring and respect for political correctness. That leads to a breakdown of civility, or in some cases just a lack of basic manners.

 

It's possible to recognize the silliness of the reaction to the term "blacktop", if what you relate is all that occurred, while understanding the difference between that and the way "spazz" has actually been used over many, many years as a specifically derogatory term. Anti-political-correctness makes a lot of sense, when it makes sense, but it doesn't provide an excuse to allow ALL unkind, disrespectful, and mean-spirited language to stand.

 

As with so many human interactions, it helps to be discerning.