Second is small section. When I upload to pbase, the image looses some sharpness so they are actually a better color and sharper than what I have posted here but the lens and body work well together . No sharpening was done and not much post processing.
Canon 24-70II with 20mm extension tube and auto focus held with one hand. ISO 320.
addendum: took the 24-70II into the field. In practice there are many shots where the lens works and some bewildering times when it is hard to get a focus and there seems to be no good reason why it isn't focussing as the subject often seems to have enough contrast and angles. Well, more experimenting. I made the mistake of setting the white balance to auto. Everything was kind of bleached out, reddish soil was almost grey. I changed it to daylight and then everything looked correct.
Second is small section. When I upload to pbase, the image looses some sharpness so they are actually a better color and sharper than what I have posted here but the lens and body work well together . No sharpening was done and not much post processing.
Canon 24-70II with 20mm extension tube and auto focus held with one hand. ISO 320.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The new A7RII has "on-sensor" phase-detection AF that work with adapters. Its phase detect AF points are accurate because they are on-sensor instead of on a dedicated PDAF module, meaning there is no need to micro-adjust our lenses with the A7RII.
Hi Fred,
I know that this is the theory, that on chip Phase Detect is more accurate. But there are a number of other factors. You know that there is always shot-to-shot variance in any AF system.
I tested my Sony A6000 auto focus. Prior to the A7RII that was the best/ fastest Phase Detect AF that Sony had, and it was not accurate or precise.
These are the results from tests with 2 different lenses on the A6000. I tested with the Sony E mount 50 1.8, and the Sony FE 28-70. (Charts below.)
I have included a test of the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS on my Nikon D5300 for comparison. It was both more accurate and more precise than either lens on the A6000. . Note that the D5300 doesn't support AF micro adjust, so this is the default behavior.
I do plan to test with different settings to see if I can improve the A6000 AF. It would be great to see some quantification of AF data for the A7RII.
Beni wrote:
Pretty damning. Seems like there was rather too much hype.
I think too much hype was a pretty easy prediction to make. The question is the degree of the hype from a personal standpoint-- how much have the second round of experiences (and the coming professional reviews) changed one's view on buying at full price right now?
I'm back on the line.
That said, I tried the A7rII for a few minutes in a local shop, with the 28mm f/2... and under pretty mediocre lighting it was focusing very quickly. The system felt odd to me (used to 5D2+35L and Fuji X-E1 + small primes) because of it's relative density, size, and shape.
I definitely find myself in the camp that feels Sony has some incredible tech, a great sensor, and some photography shortcomings.
I'm still likely to go ahead, but I am back on the line.
Ok so tried with the 500 F4 L USM in bright conditions. AF is unreliable, very unreliable. At first, just like the 70-200 F4 L (non IS, that Fred put on the list as AF works fine, which does NOT with me) it seems to work fine, until you choose a subject that is much closer or further away. Then you have to manual focus within range to help AF lock on again. But when you turn the zoom on the 70-200, let's say from 200 to 150mm and focus, it just bumps the focus back and forth once, and stops achieving focus. The same happens when i turn the focus ring on the 500 F4 L USM, it sometimes just does nothing much. Or confirms focus on an OOF area. And all this is in bright light conditions, with lots of contrast. I won't even talk about what it does inside in low light, horrible to say the least. So, that's my story. So much for DSLR like AF on canon glass.
Until now only the Sigma 35 Art performed well with AF. Did not check how well it focussed on the files yet.
Metabones IV with 0.41 Firmware.
Seems like i have another MF camera just like the A7r then. (aside from the Sigma combo) Will be trying to so some nightshots soon (and seeing the first images with noisy base iso images appearing on the forums doesn't make me too happy either).
I contacted Metabones. They have not checked the IV with the A7RII, as most know. They will be running tests on the A7RII early this week and will see what and if there are any changes they can do. They said they would get back with me on what they find.
Stoffer wrote:
What version is it? I would assume that only the "new" version II would have a decent chance of working good.
Version 1. At the moment i'm not believing any claims of glass working flawlessly anymore. Just left my camera turn into hybernation mode with the sigma. Picked it up again, doesn't AF anymore. In the menu it says i have to put my lens in AF mode when supported. Which it is. Reattached the lens and works again. So not flawless on that lens either.
therealthings wrote:
Version 1. At the moment i'm not believing any claims of glass working flawlessly anymore. Just left my camera turn into hybernation mode with the sigma. Picked it up again, doesn't AF anymore. In the menu it says i have to put my lens in AF mode when supported. Which it is. Reattached the lens and works again. So not flawless on that lens either.
I feel sorry for you then.
I assume that the reason only the newer Canon lenses (after 2006) have a chance of working, is that Canon probably started supporting on-sensor phase detection (and/or hybrid focus) in their USM about that time. It is a fairly new concept after all - especially for Canon.
I assume that the reason only the newer Canon lenses (after 2006) have a chance of working, is that Canon probably started supporting on-sensor phase detection (and/or hybrid focus) in their USM about that time. It is a fairly new concept after all - especially for Canon.
Then explain to me why the 100-400 L IS II doesn't AF at all...
jamato8 wrote:
I contacted Metabones. They have not checked the IV with the A7RII, as most know. They will be running tests on the A7RII early this week and will see what and if there are any changes they can do. They said they would get back with me on what they find.
I suspect everyone is jumping the gun a bit--- because ^^---this ---^^
I still think non-native AF on the Sony A7rII is just going to be a niche use-wise, but until the various adaptor makers get a chance to test, write new firmware, and release it... we really can't judge what's going on.
Does anyone remember early Sigma EF lenses... that would refuse to AF on a Canon unless you sent it back to Sigma to be updated? I think we're seeing a bit of the same here.
Aug 10, 2015 at 06:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Yes, Metabones needs time to see what they can do. They have a good team including Bo Ming who made Contax N lenses work quite well with Canon AF. They also modified the firmware after the A7 II came out so that the adapter works with the IS switch on all lenses with IS. I think we need to give them a chance and see what they can do. I don't think they will be able to get the adapter to work with all lenses, but I would not be surprised if it works with a good number of lenses and works well with those lenses after a firmware upgrade. This will take time, however, so don't expect such an upgrade for at least 3 months and it could easily be 6 months.
justruss wrote:
I suspect everyone is jumping the gun a bit--- because ^^---this ---^^
I still think non-native AF on the Sony A7rII is just going to be a niche use-wise, but until the various adaptor makers get a chance to test, write new firmware, and release it... we really can't judge what's going on.
Does anyone remember early Sigma EF lenses... that would refuse to AF on a Canon unless you sent it back to Sigma to be updated? I think we're seeing a bit of the same here.
I agree it's going to take a little time to settle out. Not sure I would put any lens newer than 2006 on the selling block. I'm sure Metabones at 399.00 would love to sell another 1000 units ASAP. Would not surprise me the engineers working around the clock to get that done either
To confuse you guys even more, my girlfriends 100-400 L USM IS II does AF with the MB IV. But in the same way as my 500 F4 L USM IS I, you have to bring the focus manually within a certain range, close to spot on focus. Then when it finds enough contrast it is able to lock on focus.
therealthings wrote:
To confuse you guys even more, my girlfriends 100-400 L USM IS II does AF with the MB IV. But in the same way as my 500 F4 L USM IS I, you have to bring the focus manually within a certain range, close to spot on focus. Then when it finds enough contrast it is able to lock on focus.
So... hmm...
Yes, it will work on mine, up to 300mm but after that it doesn't work.
