Pretty sure she’s talking about what we’d been discussing in the previous 10+ Posts: the switch from firmware version 3 to 4.
And when I go back and look at my sequences testing subject walking/toddling/running toward the camera, I also find AF accuracy best at closer distances, which is surprising given the distance changes on the focus would be greater from shot to shot closer to the camera. I will also try to inspect this further w fw 4, which is not something I’d previously noticed w fw 3.
zeitlos wrote:
Which firmware version do you use? And what do you mean by saying "before" => before = the older firmware version?
numbertwo wrote:
Pd again: Sony colors are horrible period. Cold days like usually here in Hong Kong, the pictures are too magenta. Then when the light is warmer, the Sony is too warm. There's never a good balance in the colors of the pictures with Sony. Canon colors are so much better, my boyfriend still asks me why I sold the eos r and kept the Canon everyday I take a pic of him and he (quite dark skin) see himself in those dreadful Sony colors instead of how good he looked in the Canon... And I try to fix that but it's a nightmare xD. Canon please release a body with ibis soon! ...Show more →
I don't know. I hate saying it's user error especially in something as subjective as color, but I've checked most of the samples you posted in this thread and for some reason almost every single one of your photos look off, color-wise, where the other samples show great colors in my opinion. They're either too green or too amber. I feel like you're going overboard trying to capture 'canon colors', whatever those are. Now if you're mostly dealing with grim, overcast days then I understand you don't have great light to work with (you took some wedding shots and the skin tones there looked great) but I think you're going overboard adjusting the colors. I doubt the R would give you much better results, or any camera really, at least in Raw.
I'd probably suggest some kind of color checker as a base reference point, if you're doing a lot of portrait work but are struggling with color.
derKoekje wrote:
I don't know. I hate saying it's user error especially in something as subjective as color, but I've checked most of the samples you posted in this thread and for some reason almost every single one of your photos look off, color-wise, where the other samples show great colors in my opinion. They're either too green or too amber. I feel like you're going overboard trying to capture 'canon colors', whatever those are. Now if you're mostly dealing with grim, overcast days then I understand you don't have great light to work with (you took some wedding shots and the skin tones there looked great) but I think you're going overboard adjusting the colors. I doubt the R would give you much better results, or any camera really, at least in Raw.
I'd probably suggest some kind of color checker as a base reference point, if you're doing a lot of portrait work but are struggling with color....Show more →
Thank you so much for your honest appreciation.
I've posted here some out of the camera pictures, some with some of my "presets" in Lightroom, some a bit color graded in Lightroom and some edited in capture one. I'm never happy with the colors and that's why I keep on trying to improve them... But to my eyes, most of the pictures i see from Sony users look worse regarding skin, so I think it might be also a matter of taste.
I did had the Canon eos R for a couple of weeks and it was much better every single time, and the af was quicker and more accurate always as well for my use (no sports, no quickly moving things).
If you mean the color checker to make a profile, I've tried making a lot of those with the Adobe tool, with the color checker tool and with lumariver profile designer, and I don't like them. I've paid for huelight profiles, eoshd presets for jpg, and tried also Mauricio pirazzini profiles, fredmiranda tweaks, and I don't like them.
I think there's just something in my eyes and Sony colors that looks bad to me and even in raw, it's very difficult to correct.
I shot side by side the eos r and the a73, and even in raw, with the same lens, it's impossible to make two pictures the same. Canon just look better to my eyes. But the ibis specially made me sell the Canon and keep the Sony...
- I will quarantine my tests foe yesterday night as they were shot at a step angle to a calendar in low light and the front focus issue could be due to the lens picking things with more contrast than the day of the month I was shooting near the corner of the small square flexible spot, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
- today at the customer service I explained again my issue and showed them how a big percentage of my pictures from yesterday outdoors were oof, and I tested the lens there. Again, near 100% in focus in the eye at close distances, and then we went to a corridor (still indoors, 1/250 iso 400 f1.4, so medium light) at full body distance and further, and again near 100% hit rate in that light.
So maybe it's the very bright diffuse light outdoor what confuses the lens the most? Maybe the 1.4 aperture is gathering so much light than the sensor or the af system has troubles with accuracy?
Anyone in the room with experience in focusing systems?
Pd: on July 3rd I'll go again and test my lens together with a golden copy they'll have by that date, to see if there are significative differences.
General questions for those who updated the firmware to Version 4: Would you say it's better to stay with version 3 since some are indicating problems that occurred with version 4 that hadn't been there before updating?
When I tested the samyang outdoors my main issue was when I went very tight for headshots and it missed most of the focus but it certainly is not related to the sensor or af having problems with the 1.4 light gathering (A7R3) as both the sigma art and GM were both spot on numbertwo wrote:
Little update on my samyang adventure.
- I will quarantine my tests foe yesterday night as they were shot at a step angle to a calendar in low light and the front focus issue could be due to the lens picking things with more contrast than the day of the month I was shooting near the corner of the small square flexible spot, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
- today at the customer service I explained again my issue and showed them how a big percentage of my pictures from yesterday outdoors were oof, and I tested the lens there. Again, near 100% in focus in the eye at close distances, and then we went to a corridor (still indoors, 1/250 iso 400 f1.4, so medium light) at full body distance and further, and again near 100% hit rate in that light.
So maybe it's the very bright diffuse light outdoor what confuses the lens the most? Maybe the 1.4 aperture is gathering so much light than the sensor or the af system has troubles with accuracy?
Anyone in the room with experience in focusing systems?
Pd: on July 3rd I'll go again and test my lens together with a golden copy they'll have by that date, to see if there are significative differences. ...Show more →
zeitlos wrote:
General questions for those who updated the firmware to Version 4: Would you say it's better to stay with version 3 since some are indicating problems that occurred with version 4 that hadn't been there before updating?
I think you should update, I can still see an improvement even if it's far from perfect. My front focus issue is mostly due to low light and sharp black and white lines from a calendar and the very step angle. Other objects I tried and more today look fine. Even infinity focus is fine in continues (being this the issue with the Samyang 45).
Anyways, if you try and are not convinced, you can go back to the other firmware as soon as you still have the file and rename it...
numbertwo wrote:
Little update on my samyang adventure.
- I will quarantine my tests foe yesterday night as they were shot at a step angle to a calendar in low light and the front focus issue could be due to the lens picking things with more contrast than the day of the month I was shooting near the corner of the small square flexible spot, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
- today at the customer service I explained again my issue and showed them how a big percentage of my pictures from yesterday outdoors were oof, and I tested the lens there. Again, near 100% in focus in the eye at close distances, and then we went to a corridor (still indoors, 1/250 iso 400 f1.4, so medium light) at full body distance and further, and again near 100% hit rate in that light.
So maybe it's the very bright diffuse light outdoor what confuses the lens the most? Maybe the 1.4 aperture is gathering so much light than the sensor or the af system has troubles with accuracy? ...Show more →
Thank you, really appreciate your efforts in testing the lens so extensively and documenting your "adventure"!
Now that you mention it, high-contrast scenes also appears to be more problematic for me too. I'm entirely speculating but it is as though the high contrast is dominating the AF and the eyes gets missed.
p.28 #10 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
This is confusing. Samyang already had posted firmware v04 on April 29th so I updated my lens to the latest version almost a month ago!
What is the deal with the newly released firmware v04??
p.28 #11 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is confusing. Samyang already had posted firmware v04 on April 29th so I updated my lens to the latest version almost a month ago!
What is the deal with the newly released firmware v04??
What I can tell is that the old version was .04 where as this one was 4. The old description mentioned that they were working on improving burst for A9 so now is the final version I suppose.
p.28 #12 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
Marky12 wrote:
What I can tell is that the old version was .04 where as this one was 4. The old description mentioned that they were working on improving burst for A9 so now is the final version I suppose.
The one from April 29th was named: AF85F14_v04.hex (I always save these firmwares)
And the new firmware file has the exact same file name! (AF85F14_v04.hex)
However, the new one is 617KB and the old one was 609KB! If does look like they are different in size but Samyang should have called it v0.41...My dock station won't let me update from v04 to v04!
They are shot in JPEG, unedited. You can zoom in or also download them. As I said, maybe they don't tell much since they are similar, but I thought I'll share them with you.
However, one can see the different grade of blur (1.4/1.6 vs. 1.8/2) and of course that the Samyang is warmer. Also, the Background of the Batis is busier however, might also be attributed to the different aperture (but I'd still say it tends to be busier.
What is still impressive: the Batis features much more contrast when you shoot against the sun for example.
p.28 #14 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
Interesting, my old file was 04 while the new ones 4 and I was able to update it. I did update yesterday so maybe they changed it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The one from April 29th was named: AF85F14_v04.hex (I always save these firmwares)
And the new firmware file has the exact same file name! (AF85F14_v04.hex)
However, the new one is 617KB and the old one was 609KB! If does look like they are different in size but Samyang should have called it v0.41...My dock station won't let me update from v04 to v04!
p.28 #15 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is confusing. Samyang already had posted firmware v04 on April 29th so I updated my lens to the latest version almost a month ago!
What is the deal with the newly released firmware v04??
The one released on April 29th was the 03, maybe after you tested the 02 and you didn't like it, you found the 01 and renamed to 03 so that you could install, and then you renamed the real 03 to 04? Idk
p.28 #16 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
Two pictures from the series I linked above, that show that 1.4 vs 1.8 can make a (small?) difference.
The Samyang blurs the bush in the background nicely. The Batis still does a good job, but of course, it's less blurred. The biggest difference, however, in total I think is the colour cast that is quite different in some pictures. Also interesting. When the Batis 85 sometimes only focused on the face of the doll, the Samyang still focused on the eye.
p.28 #17 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
I remember on one of my tests the samyang was indeed more affected by sunlight then the GM and the best was the sigma which looked like it was not affected on that particular test shot I did. So yes, your experience aligns with mine. zeitlos wrote:
Some shots comparing my Batis 85 1.8 with the Samyang 1.4
Not sure if they are significant in any way . But for those of you who are interested, you will find them here:
They are shot in JPEG, unedited. You can zoom in or also download them. As I said, maybe they don't tell much since they are similar, but I thought I'll share them with you.
However, one can see the different grade of blur (1.4/1.6 vs. 1.8/2) and of course that the Samyang is warmer. Also, the Background of the Batis is busier however, might also be attributed to the different aperture (but I'd still say it tends to be busier.
What is still impressive: the Batis features much more contrast when you shoot against the sun for example. ...Show more →
p.28 #20 · Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699)
zeitlos wrote:
General questions for those who updated the firmware to Version 4: Would you say it's better to stay with version 3 since some are indicating problems that occurred with version 4 that hadn't been there before updating?
Honestly didn't notice any real difference. Mine has never been perfect when it comes to hit rate. Have some time this weekend. I want to mess with the dock and test to see if making any adjustments + or - really does anything or not.
Took out the old truck tonight since it is suppose to rain all weekend
. But for those of you who are interested, you will find them here:
