So you have problems with both long focal lengths? Do you have any other experience with those? Many first time shooters are rather surprised the first time they notice air quality degrading their long range shots.
Yes about 7 years. I shoot the 400 DO II with 2X all the time at similar distances.
That sounds normal and unrelated to the lens.
I do it all the time on my 5DIV and 400 DO II with 2X with good results. I'm not trying to push the slider to the extreme.
Did those have strong back lighting?
No but in the sky. The sun wasn't behind them. You always get poor results when those are the circumstances.
.
This again sounds like air quality rather than a focus issue. Find a good static outdoor target with direct sun and compare shots at 25m to 50m to 100m (tripod or cam laying on a hard surface, self timer with hands off, lens wide open, iso320 or lower). Depending on time of day, wind and heat raising from the ground the 100m shots may be horrible, even if focused manually. I've spent days near lakes where *all* long range shots were soft due to too much humidity raising from the water....Show more →
I don't have any trouble with static object at 25, 50, 100 or 135 mm. They are super sharp and I love it with my Canon L glass in those ranges. It is only on long lenses I have issues and with tracking. I am having some better luck with using the wide Focus mode on birds and the spot metering has improved my exposure. Also, on the long lenses and static subjects, I'm using a tripod and gimbal. I'm still working on getting better results and learning it but I think results should at least equal what I've been accustomed to using 3 year old gear. Just for reference, recently I've been shooting wildlife with a Canon 5DIV and 100 400 II with a 1.4 X and 400 DO II with and without a 2X III. I've owned several 1D cameras. I am older and petite so I have to stay with gear I can handle.
I don't have any trouble with static object at 25, 50, 100 or 135 mm. They are super sharp and I love it with my Canon L glass in those ranges. It is only on long lenses I have issues and with tracking. I am having some better luck with using the wide Focus mode on birds and the spot metering has improved my exposure. Also, on the long lenses and static subjects, I'm using a tripod and gimbal. I'm still working on getting better results and learning it but I think results should at least equal what I've been accustomed to using 3 year old gear. Just for reference, recently I've been shooting wildlife with a Canon 5DIV and 100 400 II with a 1.4 X and 400 DO II with and without a 2X III. I've owned several 1D cameras. I am older and petite so I have to stay with gear I can handle. ...Show more →
Hi Kathy, like you I have little trouble with the a7riv and static subjects. The detail is simply outstanding. My experience with tracking of wildlife has been generally quite poor and I've abandoned the tracking modes completely. Using it on large slow moving subjects with a small spot, the af selection would always jump off of the eyes/face and lock onto something else. Tracking in zone, wide, center, etc. was no better with a poor percentage of keepers. In the end, I've achieved best results with zone, wide for moving subjects and selectable spot (s, m) for static or barely moving targets.
Similarly, I moved from Canon to Sony and am a bit flummoxed by the lack of successful tracking with this camera. The Canon gear wasn't perfect but I was accustomed to achieving great results most of the time with long lenses and TC's. Shooting at 700mm, 1000 mm or more wasn't uncommon and my hit rate with a 5dmkiv was around 70% whereas my 1dx was 90+%. The biggest area of struggle for Canon DSLR's was in tracking objects coming directly at the camera.
My success with pairing Canon lenses on the Sony body via an MC-11 adapter has been by-in-large poor. The optics are fine, though the long lenses do not work well and my 500 is II f/4 won't rack. Best of luck.
Using the Riv in our new splash studio. New in that in this image the drop for collision is shot from below, versus the typical scenario where a drop is released from above.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Using the Riv in our new splash studio. New in that in this image the drop for collision is shot from below, versus the typical scenario where a drop is released from above.
Here are a few shots from yesterday's Nashville to New York: An Intimate Evening with Hit Songwriters at The Cutting Room in New York City. Singer/Songwriters were Gary Burr, Georgia Middleman, Sharon Vaughn, and Gary Nicholson.
If anyone is ever in NYC, this is an excellent place to stop, take in a show, and get a meal all at the same time.
Just picked up an A7R IV from a fellow FM'er this week. My plan is to use it to shoot song birds and use my A9 2 for BIF etc. Been out the last few days pursuing Blue-Gray Gnatcatchers. Initially was using my 200-600 with the 1.4X but found out a couple of things . First of all the A7R IV doesn't focus as well with the 1.4 as the A92 does which is not a shocker.. Secondly with all of those MP's you don't need the 1.4 as the cropping is insanely good. Here are a couple of shots I took today at the Salt River outside of Phoenix
sparadise wrote:
Just picked up an A7R IV from a fellow FM'er this week. My plan is to use it to shoot song birds and use my A9 2 for BIF etc. Been out the last few days pursuing Blue-Gray Gnatcatchers. Initially was using my 200-600 with the 1.4X but found out a couple of things . First of all the A7R IV doesn't focus as well with the 1.4 as the A92 does which is not a shocker.. Secondly with all of those MP's you don't need the 1.4 as the cropping is insanely good. Here are a couple of shots I took today at the Salt River outside of Phoenix
When I had the R4, I found that I preferred shooting the A9 with the 1.4TC over the R4 without it. After figuring that out, I returned the R4 as the difference between the R4's 1.6x pixel reach and the 1.4TC reach wasn't worth it.
Are you finding the R4 with bare lens better than using the A9II with the 1.4TC?
I'm actually thinking about getting another R4 to try again with but I think the R4 is best suited for the 400 and 600GM.
arbitrage wrote:
When I had the R4, I found that I preferred shooting the A9 with the 1.4TC over the R4 without it. After figuring that out, I returned the R4 as the difference between the R4's 1.6x pixel reach and the 1.4TC reach wasn't worth it.
Are you finding the R4 with bare lens better than using the A9II with the 1.4TC? Only for small songbirds in the wild. . The most significant advantage it is a lot easier to get them in the viewfinder and then crop vs the need to shoot tighter with the A9. Have spent two days and still not one good shot of a Ruby Crowned Kinglet. The gnatcatchers sit still for 1/2 second . The Kinglets never stop moving.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
It's been since last year I saw a Harrier at Bosque. This year it was a Fowler Beach Delaware. I suppose I'm lucky to see one a year
Sony ILCE-7RM4
FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter
ƒ/9.0 840.0 mm 1/2000 640
Was fooling around with my Canon lenses attached to the a7RIV this am in the backyard. 500 f/4 IS II + 1.4x III TC + MC-11. Unfortunately, these lenses won't rack the whole way but if one gets it most of the way there, it locks on with laser precision. I wish the 200-600 combination worked better because who has $13k laying around for a Sony 600 f/4? Ran through some Topaz Denoise/Sharpen AI. Super sharp and beautiful feather detail in the original. Doesn't downsample as well.
A little messy, but only requires the help of my assistant.
