saxguy wrote:
Hiked to the summit of a mountain today (I'm going to be quite sore tomorrow) and took the 100 STF GM and the iv. I love the ability to crop more with the added resolution. In the last two images of the same photo the first is a light crop, the second a bit heavier.
Ha, before I even read your description I saw the bokeh and thought 'that looks like the 100 STF' and, sure enough. Love that lens for context in landscape usage. Looks like it performs well on the IV! How is the AF the the STF?
Dave Sanders wrote:
Ha, before I even read your description I saw the bokeh and thought 'that looks like the 100 STF' and, sure enough. Love that lens for context in landscape usage. Looks like it performs well on the IV! How is the AF the the STF?
So far so good on the a7r iv. I had it set to eye AF and when it couldn't pick up the eye it reverted to face detect and locked on pretty quickly. I keep telling myself I don't need the STF but I can't seem to sell it - for daytime shooting it's almost always in my bag. I put my Leica Q2 up for sale and think I'm going to use the 24GM with the iii or the iv instead - I like having two bodies with mounted lenses with me so I may either pick up another iv or wait to see what the a9ii brings to the table and then sell my iii.
Been using the CV 75/1.5 with the A7r4 this past weekend. I feel it handles M Lenses better than the a7r3. Will start a thread on it soon, I have some shots to show the resolution off center vs. center frame. Here’s a couple with the CV75/1.5 wide open.
Thought I would show the range of the Sony 100-400 when using the R4 in crop mode. So two shots - 100mm full frame and 600mm (equivalent) crop mode shot from same spot.
From one day out on the beach, I am finding that the A7R4 could prove to be a bit frustrating, OR I am having issues with my 100-400GM and 1.4 teleconverter.
With the help of my patient assistant, Mr. Reddish Egret, I got this nice shot, but when I started pixel peeping, I was a little concerned with the area around and in front of the eye. The head and neck feathers look great even at 1:1, but the area around the eye and in the eye seem a little blurry. Using a monitor, see second image which is a 100% crop of the first.
This has been sharpened and highlights reduced, with a little bit of of clarity (+10).
I don't show it in the crop, but the body feathers have exquisite detail. I am suspecting either, that is the way this fellow's eyes look, OR the DOF is so shallow that the eye area is slightly OOF. ??
The third image is straight out of camera, just cropped a little - and shows good promise.
But, when it is cropped and looked at at 100%, it shows slightly OOF and a bit of lack of contrast. I found this on a lot of images today. Could be lighting? It does remind me of using my A7Riii for birds, where I always got my best images by switching to MF and fine tuning the focus.
This is my first day out with the camera, so take it with a grain of salt.
Looks OOF to me, especially when you look at how razor thin the DOF is on the rocks the bird is standing on. I don't see anything around the neck that makes me think it was movement based.
kimknapp wrote:
From one day out on the beach, I am finding that the A7R4 could prove to be a bit frustrating, OR I am having issues with my 100-400GM and 1.4 teleconverter.
With the help of my patient assistant, Mr. Reddish Egret, I got this nice shot, but when I started pixel peeping, I was a little concerned with the area around and in front of the eye. The head and neck feathers look great even at 1:1, but the area around the eye and in the eye seem a little blurry. Using a monitor, see second image which is a 100% crop of the first.
This has been sharpened and highlights reduced, with a little bit of of clarity (+10).
I don't show it in the crop, but the body feathers have exquisite detail. I am suspecting either, that is the way this fellow's eyes look, OR the DOF is so shallow that the eye area is slightly OOF. ??
The third image is straight out of camera, just cropped a little - and shows good promise.
But, when it is cropped and looked at at 100%, it shows slightly OOF and a bit of lack of contrast. I found this on a lot of images today. Could be lighting? It does remind me of using my A7Riii for birds, where I always got my best images by switching to MF and fine tuning the focus.
This is my first day out with the camera, so take it with a grain of salt.
mogul wrote:
I think that the size of the autofocus point comes into play...you really need small with 60mpix and get it only on the eye.
No question about that. I have found that to be the case with my A7rIII with my 200-600mm G lens with the 2X TC (1200mm) at f13 especially at only 1/125 seconds on a tripod.
Using the Riv with the EOS 400DO ii via Sigma MC-11 (updated last night).
So far really enjoying this new crop body from Sony.
Shot in APS-C mode.
Processed RAW via ACR's Beta profile for the Riv.
Sony ILCE-7RM4
DT 400mm F4 SAM
ƒ/8.0 400.0 mm 1/1600 400 Flash (off, did not fire)
