therealthings wrote:
So was this with Pius' 1dx3 or with the A9II?
These were with A9II and A7RIV. I just re-uploaded to show the EXIF so you can see which are which and which lens was used.
I only shot Pius' 1DXIII for a single fly-by of a N. Harrier and I played with watching how sticky the tracking was on a flag waving. Other than that I don't have any more experience with it.
arbitrage wrote:
These were with A9II and A7RIV. I just re-uploaded to show the EXIF so you can see which are which and which lens was used.
I only shot Pius' 1DXIII for a single fly-by of a N. Harrier and I played with watching how sticky the tracking was on a flag waving. Other than that I don't have any more experience with it.
Thanks. I still have the impression that the Sony is capable of more in terms of tracking BIF than the XIII. I don't have the resources nor contacts to test them side by side myself currently, only the a7rIV that i own now, and XIII as soon as I have booked something interesting to shoot. But to do a good comparison I would need the a9(II) as well.
therealthings wrote:
Thanks. I still have the impression that the Sony is capable of more in terms of tracking BIF than the XIII. I don't have the resources nor contacts to test them side by side myself currently, only the a7rIV that i own now, and XIII as soon as I have booked something interesting to shoot. But to do a good comparison I would need the a9(II) as well.
The A9 and A9II (I don't really find any difference between both versions for AF) is significantly better than the A7RIV for tracking BIF (heck even for focusing on perched birds). So yes, to really compare to the 1DXIII you would want an A9 also. The 1DXIII was impressive when I tracked that harrier but I used LV, handholding a 600III/1.4TC, looking at the rear screen without a loupe so it was a messy affair
Looking through the OVF, the first downer is the limited spread of the AF points when one is used to a MILC. Also the AF points aren't lit as good as the 1DXII and the bottom and top rows of the array fade off for some reason. Not a big deal but seemed like a downgrade from the Mark II. But it still sure is nice being able to look through an OVF. I didn't get to try the new AF-ON thumb sensor as Pius had turned it off as even at lowest sensitivity the point was often moving as he'd go to depress the AF-ON button.
arbitrage wrote:
The A9 and A9II (I don't really find any difference between both versions for AF) is significantly better than the A7RIV for tracking BIF (heck even for focusing on perched birds). So yes, to really compare to the 1DXIII you would want an A9 also. The 1DXIII was impressive when I tracked that harrier but I used LV, handholding a 600III/1.4TC, looking at the rear screen without a loupe so it was a messy affair
Looking through the OVF, the first downer is the limited spread of the AF points when one is used to a MILC. Also the AF points aren't lit as good as the 1DXII and the bottom and top rows of the array fade off for some reason. Not a big deal but seemed like a downgrade from the Mark II. But it still sure is nice being able to look through an OVF. I didn't get to try the new AF-ON thumb sensor as Pius had turned it off as even at lowest sensitivity the point was often moving as he'd go to depress the AF-ON button....Show more →
I think my next wildlife camera would be either the A9 or the Canon R5. Although i am going to test the XIII i already have seen and read enough to say that this 7k expense is not going to be justified for what i am going to use it for. Though it is still nice to see for myself how the XIII performs. I might get a used A9 this summer to try it out. Problem is that i use it with adapted Canon lenses, so performance is still not like it should when using native glass. The 600 GM is out of my reach for this year at least, and i don't want the 200-600 even though i have seen nice images taken with it. I'm a big fan of fast glass and thin DOF.
By the way, i tested tracking on the a7rIV (set up like the vid you shared earlier) and my canon 600 F4 II yesterday and have to say it is more consistent than my 1dxII was, so that has to say something about the A9.
Somehow I missed this thread - superb images, Geoff! With that said, the images you posted using the A7r IV and 200-600mm do indicate any AF issues although I could imagine that there would be some OOF images alright. So, did you change your mind about that combo then? BTW, Alex likes that combo and according to him, he didn't experience those issues using 2 separate bodies.
AGeoJO wrote:
Somehow I missed this thread - superb images, Geoff! With that said, the images you posted using the A7r IV and 200-600mm do indicate any AF issues although I could imagine that there would be some OOF images alright. So, did you change your mind about that combo then? BTW, Alex likes that combo and according to him, he didn't experience those issues using 2 separate bodies.
Joshua
I have been able to make the combo work but I still don't trust it for anything moving and even with perched birds it is missing too many IMO. Rory just got the R4 and has similar thoughts to mine.
If we take the opening pintail image in this thread as an example, I think I probably shot around 20 frames in that incoming sequence. No more than 2 were focused on the head. All the rest were on the brighter chest or tail. The A9 would have a lot, lot more on the head. But I'm not really expecting the R4 to nail a head on duck sequence that well anyways. What frustrates me more is when I shoot simple floating ducks or perched birds and it still misses a lot.
I know for sure it isn't a technique or SS issue. I can handhold the R4 with the much heavier 600GM/1.4TC and get way more consistently sharp shots of perched birds and floating ducks. Even using faster SS with the 200-600 can't match the 600GM. Of course when it comes to flight I expect the faster dual linear motors of the 600GM to do a lot better but there really isn't any excuse for the inconsistencies with perched or floating birds.
I also don't buy that there is a variation in copies of the lens or camera where some don't have the problem. This is my 2nd R4 and there is no difference. There are conditions where I can get it to work fairly well. Usually cloudy bright, more even light.
So far, I'm back to my conclusion from last October....which is that I'd prefer to just add an extra TC factor to the lens and shoot it with the A9 (which makes up most of the reach of 1.4 compared to 1.6). But I'm going to keep on trying the combo and see if I can figure anything out with it.
