p.4 #1 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
I don't think its copy variation. I think its an AF issue with the r4 combo. I manually focused the lens on some tests when I got home, and the images looked good with the r4. I really think its got to be an AF issue on the r4 +200-600 combo.
p.4 #2 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
buffalowolff wrote:
A7info will show the focus point, and what focus settings were used, if eye af was active, and if eye af acquired the target. The app is English despite the German site.
p.4 #3 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
GregS wrote:
I don't think its copy variation. I think its an AF issue with the r4 combo. I manually focused the lens on some tests when I got home, and the images looked good with the r4. I really think its got to be an AF issue on the r4 +200-600 combo.
Well FWIW, the AF on the A9 is much lauded but I find it's somewhat less accurate than my D500 and sometimes flat out fails. That's with the 100-400, 200-600, and 400, all with a 1.4 TC.
There's possibly two things involved. The PD sensors are line-type only. And on-chip PDAF is said by the likes of Thom Hogan still not to be as accurate as module PDAF.
p.4 #4 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
While some claim to have no issues with the 100-400 - there are others like myself who first noticed this shooting perched birds with R4 + 100-400.
As others have also noticed, when using the small spot on a perched bird, there were multiple focus points acquired and displayed, but the camera didn't default to the closest, instead sometimes it seems it goes to the point with the most contrast which is often the back edge of the bird. Even when using tracking, as the image (and bird) moved around, you could see that the tracking really wasn't on the bird, but on the background.
While the R4 acquires focus on moving targets better than the R3 - my R3 seemed to have more accurate focus with still targets. With the larger aperture of the 100-400, there is only a few cm of critical focus depth wide open at the 3m range - and with the R4 this misselection of focus results in a lot of back focused shots. Also there seemed to be some intermittent IS issue - where at times I would need to shoot at 1/2500 to get shots I could handhold at 1/500 with the R3.
After some frustration, I acquired an A9 which seems to work better with the 100-400, however the lack of crop-ability of the small bird images would require I add the 1.4x or consider a 200-600.
p.4 #5 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
GregS wrote:
I don't think its copy variation. I think its an AF issue with the r4 combo. I manually focused the lens on some tests when I got home, and the images looked good with the r4. I really think its got to be an AF issue on the r4 +200-600 combo.
Agreed. It works perfectly on my A9. So its not the lens and therefore I don't think its copy variation. Similarly, I have no issues with other lenses on the A7R4. So it is also not the camera. Its the combination of the two....which hopefully means it can be fixed via firmware update.
Disappointing to see the note about the 100-400. I was going to try that out on the R4.
p.4 #6 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
For those who are using Son's program there is a "bug" in the A7RIV module which doesn't display all of the AF points correctly. He has assured me that the actual AF point as indicated by the "target" is accurate and he'll address the issues in the next release.
I've included a sample from the other day; on top is the 500 IS II + 1.4x III TC. Of a series of several dozen shots every single one had the target on the eye or immediately adjacent. With the 200-600, the actual AF points were all over the place; sometimes on the face, the body, or even adjacent sky. It wasn't as though I was moving more with the 200-600 (I would suspect less as it is much lighter and more compact). What is strange is that the OSS appears to be effective in the EVF, but perhaps it isn't working in the lens? Perhaps there is some discordance between the IBIS and OSS? Alternatively, I looked at the variation in focus distance between the two lenses and there is virtually no difference between shots with the 500 IS II/TC combo, but significant variation between the focus distance with the 200-600 between the various focus points.
p.4 #7 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
GABarber wrote:
While some claim to have no issues with the 100-400 - there are others like myself who first noticed this shooting perched birds with R4 + 100-400.
As others have also noticed, when using the small spot on a perched bird, there were multiple focus points acquired and displayed, but the camera didn't default to the closest, instead sometimes it seems it goes to the point with the most contrast which is often the back edge of the bird. Even when using tracking, as the image (and bird) moved around, you could see that the tracking really wasn't on the bird, but on the background.
While the R4 acquires focus on moving targets better than the R3 - my R3 seemed to have more accurate focus with still targets. With the larger aperture of the 100-400, there is only a few cm of critical focus depth wide open at the 3m range - and with the R4 this misselection of focus results in a lot of back focused shots. Also there seemed to be some intermittent IS issue - where at times I would need to shoot at 1/2500 to get shots I could handhold at 1/500 with the R3.
After some frustration, I acquired an A9 which seems to work better with the 100-400, however the lack of crop-ability of the small bird images would require I add the 1.4x or consider a 200-600. ...Show more →
I've spent a good deal of time on this A9 focus failure with Spot areas, with both the long zooms - on small birds in mid ground or further.
My tests showed that when it failed to focus, it defaulted to infinity and the EXIF data recorded no areas in focus at all.
Mathieu Gasquet puts it down to Spot using CDAF. I'm not sure. In my tests there was plenty of light and contrast and no lock was registered. Preferring a distant focus is however consistent with my experience of the Panasonic G9 that only has CDAF. Thom Hogan says hybrid AF will first use PD for speed and then CD to refine the position. CDAF in my experience has trouble when the light and contrast aren't good and when the subject is in midground or further esp when there's a busy background.
p.4 #8 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Ziggy99 wrote:
I've spent a good deal of time on this A9 focus failure with Spot areas, with both the long zooms - on small birds in mid ground or further.
My tests showed that when it failed to focus, it defaulted to infinity and the EXIF data recorded no areas in focus at all.
Mathieu Gasquet puts it down to Spot using CDAF. I'm not sure. In my tests there was plenty of light and contrast and no lock was registered. Preferring a distant focus is however consistent with my experience of the Panasonic G9 that only has CDAF. Thom Hogan says hybrid AF will first use PD for speed and then CD to refine the position. CDAF in my experience has trouble when the light and contrast aren't good and when the subject is in midground or further esp when there's a busy background.
I've found the RIII has a similar weakness....Show more →
OK, I'll grant you that for spot, but are you claiming that zone and wide work the same way? This image of a series in zone center has the af away from either subject in good light, clean background and the squares were lighting up the bird...
p.4 #9 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
armd wrote:
For those who are using Son's program there is a "bug" in the A7RIV module which doesn't display all of the AF points correctly. He has assured me that the actual AF point as indicated by the "target" is accurate and he'll address the issues in the next release.
I've included a sample from the other day; on top is the 500 IS II + 1.4x III TC. Of a series of several dozen shots every single one had the target on the eye or immediately adjacent. With the 200-600, the actual AF points were all over the place; sometimes on the face, the body, or even adjacent sky. It wasn't as though I was moving more with the 200-600 (I would suspect less as it is much lighter and more compact). What is strange is that the OSS appears to be effective in the EVF, but perhaps it isn't working in the lens? Perhaps there is some discordance between the IBIS and OSS? Alternatively, I looked at the variation in focus distance between the two lenses and there is virtually no difference between shots with the 500 IS II/TC combo, but significant variation between the focus distance with the 200-600 between the various focus points....Show more →
Interesting.
What fps with the 200-600?
Added: don't mean to teach you to suck eggs but I'd be using 1/3200 or faster on BIFs.
p.4 #10 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
armd wrote:
OK, I'll grant you that for spot, but are you claiming that zone and wide work the same way? This image of a series in zone center has the af away from either subject in good light, clean background and the squares were lighting up the bird...
I don't know how the hybrid AF works with Zone. There have been occasions when Zone, AFC and single shot drive on a perched bird in mid-ground would work when Spot or Centre didn't.
I haven't had flat-out failures with BIFs and Zone, but nor is the A9 as tack sharp as often as the D500.
Jan 14, 2020 at 06:32 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.4 #11 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Ziggy99 wrote:
Well FWIW, the AF on the A9 is much lauded but I find it's somewhat less accurate than my D500 and sometimes flat out fails. That's with the 100-400, 200-600, and 400, all with a 1.4 TC.
a9 af is much lauded because it's better overall than anything else on the market; the d500 is primitive at best, not at all in the same class.
you are basing your opinion on using the 1.4x with supertelephoto lenses, which is a niche use case, and as far as the a9/200-600/1.4x, i agree that it has issues... i've used that combo three times in demanding sports scenarios, and there were far too many back-focused shots, when using tracking, i'm still trying to sort it out.
that is literally the only unreliable af scenario that i've ever seen with the a9, and i've owned the a9 since it was first released, using all of the firmware versions.
if i remove the 1.4x tc, the a9/200-600 focuses accurately, and the 200-600 lens itself is a big step up from everything else in it's class, so i'm not about dump it... i do question the 1.4x tc, in part because it's stupidly overpriced, and the only compatible lenses for it are the supertelephoto lenses... if we could use it with the fe135, or even the fe90, it would be a far more worthwhile purchase.
Jan 14, 2020 at 06:41 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.4 #12 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Ziggy99 wrote:
My tests showed that when it failed to focus, it defaulted to infinity and the EXIF data recorded no areas in focus at all.
if you have it set for locked on(1), the bullseye in the soen software may be positioned over nothingness like the sky, but that does not mean that it's changed the focal plane to infinity... what happens is that it keeps the focal plane where it was last focused.
if you have the camera set to release no matter what, it will of course take a photo even when it thinks that the shot isn't focused, and that may result in strange focus point data in the soen software.
Ziggy99 wrote:
Gasquet puts it down to Spot using CDAF. I'm not sure. In my tests there was plenty of light and contrast and no lock was registered. Preferring a distant focus is however consistent with my experience of the Panasonic G9 that only has CDAF.... CDAF in my experience has trouble when the light and contrast aren't good
cdaf has traditionally been rated as being the best choice for extreme low-light shooting:
"...in very dim conditions with low contrast subjects, the PDAF sensors may cease to function, at which point the camera reverts to CDAF. This is, of course, better than giving up entirely, as CDAF will continue to function when PDAF fails.
In fact, it's CDAF that gives the a7S its low light AF sensitivity, which we measured to focus in conditions even dimmer than Sony's claimed -4EV, below the point at which the a7R II will give up.2 However, we found this incredible sensitivity of the a7S to practically be of limited use for quick shooting or moving subjects, because of the slow speed due to the lack of PDAF." https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance
Ziggy99 wrote:
Hogan says hybrid AF will first use PD for speed and then CD to refine the position.
thom hogan is not a credible source for sony milc info, to put it mildly.
sony does advertise "hybrid af", but there are many shooting situations where it does not use cdaf trimming at all... for example, try putting a canon-brand dslr lens on an a9/mc-11, then notice how the menu item to choose pdaf or cdaf is enabled, you can't use both, it's either/or, and a9 ospdaf by itself is stunningly accurate, no need for the cdaf trim step.
or use 20fps af-c on the a9, there simply isn't enough time for the camera to be doing a cdaf trim for every shot.
p.4 #13 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
osv2 wrote:
a9 af is much lauded because it's better overall than anything else on the market; the d500 is primitive at best, not at all in the same class.
you are basing your opinion on using the 1.4x with supertelephoto lenses, which is a niche use case, and as far as the a9/200-600/1.4x, i agree that it has issues... i've used that combo three times in demanding sports scenarios, and there were far too many back-focused shots, when using tracking, i'm still trying to sort it out.
that is literally the only unreliable af scenario that i've ever seen with the a9, and i've owned the a9 since it was first released, using all of the firmware versions.
if i remove the 1.4x tc, the a9/200-600 focuses accurately, and the 200-600 lens itself is a big step up from everything else in it's class, so i'm not about dump it... i do question the 1.4x tc, in part because it's stupidly overpriced, and the only compatible lenses for it are the supertelephoto lenses... if we could use it with the fe135, or even the fe90, it would be a far more worthwhile purchase.
I've done scores of thousands of bird shots with both and call bulldust on your statement. The D500 will lock onto a small perched bird in mid distance reliably, the A9 and RIII will fail often enough to lose shots - and others have had the same experience; there's enough posts on the web now. I've replicated the fault in simple tests so it's repeatable.
I take both out on pelagic cruises and record around 1500 shots with each, then go over the images on the computer. The D500 returns a higher rate of tack sharp.
I had the 200-600 and sold it. With the 1.4 TC it's just a consumer-grade lens.
p.4 #14 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Ziggy99 wrote:
I've done scores of thousands of bird shots with both and call bulldust on your statement.
no offense, but i think that your posts regarding thom hogan, cdaf behavior, d500 fanaticism, etc., indicate a lack of experience with sony.
Ziggy99 wrote:
The D500 will lock onto a small perched bird in mid distance reliably, the A9 and RIII will fail often enough to lose shots - and others have had the same experience; there's enough posts on the web now. I've replicated the fault in simple tests so it's repeatable.
fyi, the a7riii does not have a stacked sensor, and is therefore not in the same class as the a9.
there are *many* posts about sony a9 af superiority, it's not arguable... the d500 is primitive, it's saddled with dslr failures like af fine-tuning, no eyeaf capability, no wysiwyg, etc.
Ziggy99 wrote:
I take both out on pelagic cruises and record around 1500 shots with each, then go over the images on the computer. The D500 returns a higher rate of tack sharp.
funny how we have so many people on this forum who choose the a9 over nikon dslrs ;-)
if you were recording 1500 shots for both cameras, you did it wrong, because the a9 is 20fps capable, so you should have had 3000 a9 shots to choose from, vs. 1500 for the d500.
Ziggy99 wrote:
I had the 200-600 and sold it. With the 1.4 TC it's just a consumer-grade lens.
all slow superzooms are consumer-grade lenses... if you had actually used the 200-600, you would have known that it has advantages like a short zoom throw, af button on the barrel, internal zoom, and it's 20fps af-c capable, which no other consumer-grade superzoom can match.
p.4 #15 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
I happened to run into Art Morris shooting pelicans at La Jolla Cove this afternoon. He is a very well known bird photographer who has migrated his whole kit to Sony.
I asked him about the Sony 200-600. He shoots it regularly on his a9/a9II bodies where he says it is an excellent lens. However, he says he has tested it extensively on the a7RIV and found it all but useless on that body. Completely unreliable autofocus. He said he has posted about it thoroughly on his blog. I have not had a chance to go there and read the posts, but thought you all might find it useful.
p.4 #16 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
armd wrote:
For those who are using Son's program there is a "bug" in the A7RIV module which doesn't display all of the AF points correctly. He has assured me that the actual AF point as indicated by the "target" is accurate and he'll address the issues in the next release.
the yellow boxes show what the camera is focused on.
armd wrote:
I've included a sample from the other day; on top is the 500 IS II + 1.4x III TC. Of a series of several dozen shots every single one had the target on the eye or immediately adjacent. With the 200-600, the actual AF points were all over the place;
is that 750mm vs. 600mm? when the target is bigger in the frame, the focus indicators are more accurate, so what you are seeing there would be due to focal length differences.
you can duplicate that with the 200-600, with and without the 1.4x tc... not on the a7riv, of course, unless you use the other software program in that thread, if it works, it should show the boxes.
p.4 #17 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
I'll chip in here. I own the a9 and a7RIV. I owned both the 100-400 and 200-600. Sadly, I sold my 100-400 because I thought the 200-600 would be a good replacement for it since I do a lot of nature photography and find myself wanting some more reach outside of cropping. My a9 paired with the 200-600 has been great! Minimal misses and mostly tack sharp BIF photos. My RIV paired with the 200-600 is a totally different story. Sometimes it's great and sometimes it's God awful. It couldn't focus on a snowy owl that was less than 15' away from my person. Every single shot was out of focus in my 30 or so minutes with the bird. No exaggeration. I'm on my phone so I can't post sample photos but it seemed to front/back focus every photo no matter what focus setting I used. Center, zone, flexible,tracking. Now this was at sunset so that could be an issue too, but today while shooting bison I had about a 60% hitrate with my shutter speeds from 1/1000-1/3200 with ISOs from 400-1250. Luckily Topaz could "save" my snowy photos but I'm seriously regretting my decision to sell the 100-400. I'm sending an email to my Sony rep to get some information on if they plan on addressing this combo.
p.4 #18 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
IllinoisWedges wrote:
I'll chip in here. I own the a9 and a7RIV. I owned both the 100-400 and 200-600. Sadly, I sold my 100-400 because I thought the 200-600 would be a good replacement for it since I do a lot of nature photography and find myself wanting some more reach outside of cropping. My a9 paired with the 200-600 has been great! Minimal misses and mostly tack sharp BIF photos. My RIV paired with the 200-600 is a totally different story. Sometimes it's great and sometimes it's God awful. It couldn't focus on a snowy owl that was less than 15' away from my person. Every single shot was out of focus in my 30 or so minutes with the bird. No exaggeration. I'm on my phone so I can't post sample photos but it seemed to front/back focus every photo no matter what focus setting I used. Center, zone, flexible,tracking. Now this was at sunset so that could be an issue too, but today while shooting bison I had about a 60% hitrate with my shutter speeds from 1/1000-1/3200 with ISOs from 400-1250. Luckily Topaz could "save" my snowy photos but I'm seriously regretting my decision to sell the 100-400. I'm sending an email to my Sony rep to get some information on if they plan on addressing this combo. ...Show more →
This is why I switch to manual focus whenever I have time to, which sometimes includes a small bird hopping around, but staying in a general area and stopping occasionally.
This includes when using either body with the 600gm, since AF, on small targets, just isn't perfect.
I have moved from using small, flexible point to zone AF with the Riv/400gm combo and am getting better results. As I said earlier on this thread and other threads, even when I have the complete small square of the small flexible point solely on the bird sometimes the camera (even the A9, occasionally) will focus on clutter next to the bird, whether closer or farther back.
After a while you can get pretty good at using MF for getting perfect focus.
As for the 200-600 being the only combo having the issue that is not what I am seeing. When I first got the 7Riv I put it on my 100-400 w/tc and took some shots of a nice Reddish Egret. I was very careful about putting the small flexible spot on the bird's head. I posted the best image on the original 7Riv images thread, complaining about the quality of the image and that I couldn't get clean shots at the same shutter speed as my Riii. Someone pointed out that it was just out of focus. Since I thought it couldn't be out of focus, since the small square was totally on the head, mainly over the eye, I went back to the same place the next day, found the egret and used MF to fine tune the focus. Tack sharp.
I also took several more shots with AF and did get some that were sharp, but not all of them.
On the other hand, when I started using zone, if the little boxes that show what is in focus in the zone are flashing in the bird, the shot is good. I still will either review the image or, using two custom buttons, go to MF and magnify, to make sure there is not a small piece of branch or grass that I could not see when taking the shot.
p.4 #19 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Had my fourth outing with the A7R4 and 100-400 - didnt notice any issues with missed focus that were not caused by my own errors - very accurate, and was able to get consistent shots at 1/400. The senario was a parrot feeding on tree blossoms, so not a BIF, but the birds where constantly jumping around the follage. Much better performance that the A7R3.
I think the only real issues I am seeing are with the 100-400 + 1.4x TC and when using wide area AF - I was photographing some waders on a lake, and was expecting that the camera would be able to pick out the birds among the water waves, but the camera was consistently trying to focus on waves closer to the camera than the birds. When I moved to expand flexible spot, it nailed them everytime.
I would have thought that black and white birds with red legs would be picked up by the AF more than the reflections on the waves, but I guess until Sony's AF can identify bird shapes I will have to wait.
p.4 #20 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
I have not had any focus issues with the A7R4 and the 100-400...I used that combo often on a recent trip to New Zealand (pelagic birds), and the lens performed just fine...fast to focus and sharp...Out of Focus area rendering fine albeit it is F5.6 (so extra DoF appreciated in other situations).
It is the A7R4 with the 200-600 that is giving everyone fits. It back focuses, front focuses...seemingly independent of where the photographer puts the focus circle...no matter what focus mode selected. This happens with stationary subjects and birds in flight.
And yes my experience mirrors yours 100%: both the A7R4 and the A9 if given horizontal waves (lines) in the background will often go right past the main subject no matter how white or contrasty against the background. I had the problem with Gannets when I was shooting down at them (returning to a nesting colony) - if the ocean waves were in the background...either camera would choose that as the correct focus spot and I could blow off 6-8 (A7R4) or up to 20 (A9) images - the camera would not "recover" and focus on what I wanted. This occurred with the 100-400...I did not take the 200-600 lens with me on that trip, thankfully.
