jeffbuzz wrote:
It seems possible that the resolving power of the FE 200-600mm is simply approaching the resolution of the a7RIV sensor. I find the a7RIII challenging enough to shoot due to the high resolution sensor. 60+ megapixels seems like it must be much less forgiving.
While I don't rule out the possibility of some weird hardware or software conflict between the 200-600 and a7RIV, it just seems really unlikely.
Every lens has some ultimate resolving power limit. It is rare for any manufacturer to admit that or quantify it. A Fuji manager did recently make an offhand remark that most their current lenses are "are good for about 32 megapixels". Now my questionable equivalency math says that equates to ~64 megapixels of full frame sensor area. My opinion is that most of the higher grade Fuji and Sony lenses are roughly equivalent in optical quality. (I own both systems so don't be too quick to flame me) So I don't think it is a stretch to speculate that some Sony lenses may have a resolving limit of somewhere in the 64 megapixel range. That is really close to what the a7RIV is capable of. ...Show more →
But that wouldn't explain why some images are sharp, would it? If it's resolving power, all images would be unsharp with that lens but that's not the case, it seems.
I also gave up on the 200-600 with the R4. The results were just too inconsistent and had me questioning my skills and abilities to operate a camera. It was a big lump to dish out, but I bit the bullet and bought the 600 GM. It's absolutely amazing how much better the R4 is with this lens. The AF is super fast, snappy and consistent. I just got my RRS replacement foot for it, but have been handholding it exclusively for about a week shooting everything from eagles in flight to static subjects and the lens never missed a beat.
I just sent back a 100-400 because the static images on my R4 shot with the 200-600 are better then the 400 (both taken at 400). At 600 the R4 image is everything I could expect as long as the subject isn't moving! The minute the subject moves you're lucky if you get 1 out of 10 even reasonably sharp. The 200-600 on the A9 is $. I'd rather not keep the A9 just to shoot the 200-600 and I'm not keeping a 100-400 because it works better (somewhat) on the R4. I figure sooner or later Sony will either fix the R4/200-600 combo or come out with a high rez body that AFs with the 200-600.
rd4tile wrote:
I just sent back a 100-400 because the static images on my R4 shot with the 200-600 are better then the 400 (both taken at 400). At 600 the R4 image is everything I could expect as long as the subject isn't moving! The minute the subject moves you're lucky if you get 1 out of 10 even reasonably sharp. The 200-600 on the A9 is $. I'd rather not keep the A9 just to shoot the 200-600 and I'm not keeping a 100-400 because it works better (somewhat) on the R4. I figure sooner or later Sony will either fix the R4/200-600 combo or come out with a high rez body that AFs with the 200-600. ...Show more →
I hope you are right.
The comment on this forum have stopped me purchasing the R4 + 200-600mm combo. I will stick with my R3 + 100-400mm until things get sorted (or not).
One aspect that I still don't understand is , Mark Smith. He has no issues with the R4 + 200-600mm. And I'm sure we all would agree he is an experienced, accomplished bird photographer.
The comment on this forum have stopped me purchasing the R4 + 200-600mm combo. I will stick with my R3 + 100-400mm until things get sorted (or not).
One aspect that I still don't understand is , Mark Smith. He has no issues with the R4 + 200-600mm. And I'm sure we all would agree he is an experienced, accomplished bird photographer.
Dave
Actually he does. Or at least I think I remember in one of Mark's videos he mentioned inconsistencies with the G 200-600 on the A7rIV and switched to the GM 100-400 because he felt like he was getting more shots with the GM. Like others however, he hopped right up to the apparently stellar GM 600/4 which seems to cure all issues seen with the A7rIV + G 200-600.
OTOH, the A7rIV is my only Sony camera at the moment and I continue to use the G 200-600 as my BIF kit. The G 200-600 is an excellent lens in and of itself which can be seen when using with other lenses like the GM 100-400 or used with the A7rIV for slow moving or still targets or even fast action like BIF. But as we all know by now, with the A7rIV, the G 200-600 is however inconsistent AF specifically in burst mode. No matter, I still get plenty of BIF hits with the R4 and A7rIV, but I also miss more than I should outside of human error when using in burst mode.
I think some of us have reported to Sony with evidence some months ago. I would encourage others to do the same. Please submit your findings with FULL EXIF image examples. The more the merrier and if it can be fixed Sony will fix it. Otherwise I just have to work harder and curse more often! For the money the G 200-600 punches way above its zoomy class IMO.
The comment on this forum have stopped me purchasing the R4 + 200-600mm combo. I will stick with my R3 + 100-400mm until things get sorted (or not).
One aspect that I still don't understand is , Mark Smith. He has no issues with the R4 + 200-600mm. And I'm sure we all would agree he is an experienced, accomplished bird photographer.
Dave
Ah, Mark doesn't use the 200-600 with the RIV. He relies on the 600 f/4.
The lens/camera combination for moving subjects is simply too wonky for whatever reason. Lens AF speed, camera sensor read out, processor limitations, faulty algorithms? A week ago, I had a redtail flying by within 30 yards and an unobstructed view. It went 1/20. A couple of days later, similar setting with a goose flying by it was 8/10. My adapted Canon 500 f/4 IS II with a 1.4x TC is a more reliable AF with this body for moving subjects than the 200-600.
I do not own 200-600mm (planning to rent and test it myself) but the images posted here are soft regardless if they have taken with A9 or 7iv. Some are sharp, probably taken from a close distance. They look like taken with a Tamron 150-600MM. Or maybe it is a user "error", I see a lot of pictures taken with the 600mm f4 and they also look like crap. I understand a lot of people hate to hear this and I did not make a lot of friends here but I'm not going to praise something that is not that good. Or maybe it is good. I need to test it myself. IF someone cannot take a good sharp picture with the 600/4, good luck taking it with 200-600mm!
johnvanr wrote:
But that wouldn't explain why some images are sharp, would it? If it's resolving power, all images would be unsharp with that lens but that's not the case, it seems.
Is every image with a given camera+lens system either always sharp? No. There is any number of factors that contribute to unsatisfactory sharpness in any series of shots with a given camera. You'll never have all exactly the same unless the camera and subject are both totally static.
Blurring may be caused by slight image defocusing either due to motion, diffraction or change in subject distance. I believe depth of field plays a role in this. The more pixel dense sensor on the a7RIV has a smaller critical circle of confusion compared to the less dense a7RIII. Therefore, DoF will be shallower when shooting the exact same scene with the same lens on the a7RIV versus a7RIII. The A7RIV would have a CoC of 0.0076mm compared to 0.0090mm on the a7RIII. (https://dofsimulator.net/en/)
The smaller CoC coupled with diffraction due to the resolving power of the lens further reduces your range of acceptable sharpness. Even the slightest subject or camera movement will cause a projected image point to move outside the CoC on the sensor resulting in blurring.
This is a really strange series of posts when this is a known issue with the autofocus system combined with this lens. It has NOTHING to do with skill, technique, or the sensor being too sensitive to technique compared to lower res sensors.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Is every image with a given camera+lens system either always sharp? No. There is any number of factors that contribute to unsatisfactory sharpness in any series of shots with a given camera. You'll never have all exactly the same unless the camera and subject are both totally static.
Blurring may be caused by slight image defocusing either due to motion, diffraction or change in subject distance. I believe depth of field plays a role in this. The more pixel dense sensor on the a7RIV has a smaller critical circle of confusion compared to the less dense a7RIII. Therefore, DoF will be shallower when shooting the exact same scene with the same lens on the a7RIV versus a7RIII. The A7RIV would have a CoC of 0.0076mm compared to 0.0090mm on the a7RIII. (https://dofsimulator.net/en/)
The smaller CoC coupled with diffraction due to the resolving power of the lens further reduces your range of acceptable sharpness. Even the slightest subject or camera movement will cause a projected image point to move outside the CoC on the sensor resulting in blurring....Show more →
Would you be so kind as to post a link to this "known issue described" in detail for this lens? I am behind on this issue a bit and would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. RoamingScott wrote:
This is a really strange series of posts when this is a known issue with the autofocus system combined with this lens. It has NOTHING to do with skill, technique, or the sensor being too sensitive to technique compared to lower res sensors.
tester_V wrote:
I do not own 200-600mm (planning to rent and test it myself) but the images posted here are soft regardless if they have taken with A9 or 7iv. Some are sharp, probably taken from a close distance. They look like taken with a Tamron 150-600MM. Or maybe it is a user "error", I see a lot of pictures taken with the 600mm f4 and they also look like crap. I understand a lot of people hate to hear this and I did not make a lot of friends here but I'm not going to praise something that is not that good. Or maybe it is good. I need to test it myself. IF someone cannot take a good sharp picture with the 600/4, good luck taking it with 200-600mm!
DO101 wrote:
Would you be so kind as to post a link to this "known issue described" in detail for this lens? I am behind on this issue a bit and would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
The comment on this forum have stopped me purchasing the R4 + 200-600mm combo. I will stick with my R3 + 100-400mm until things get sorted (or not).
One aspect that I still don't understand is , Mark Smith. He has no issues with the R4 + 200-600mm. And I'm sure we all would agree he is an experienced, accomplished bird photographer.
Dave
I think he mentioned in his comments that he had the issues too. In any case, he uses the 600mm now.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Is every image with a given camera+lens system either always sharp? No. There is any number of factors that contribute to unsatisfactory sharpness in any series of shots with a given camera. You'll never have all exactly the same unless the camera and subject are both totally static.
Blurring may be caused by slight image defocusing either due to motion, diffraction or change in subject distance. I believe depth of field plays a role in this. The more pixel dense sensor on the a7RIV has a smaller critical circle of confusion compared to the less dense a7RIII. Therefore, DoF will be shallower when shooting the exact same scene with the same lens on the a7RIV versus a7RIII. The A7RIV would have a CoC of 0.0076mm compared to 0.0090mm on the a7RIII. (https://dofsimulator.net/en/)
The smaller CoC coupled with diffraction due to the resolving power of the lens further reduces your range of acceptable sharpness. Even the slightest subject or camera movement will cause a projected image point to move outside the CoC on the sensor resulting in blurring....Show more →
May be too simple, but to me a lens can deal with the resolution or not. That’s something that shouldn’t depend on other factors, just the quality of the lens.
You can easily MF or luck out with AF an A7RIV and 200-600 shot and it looks spectacular. There is no issue with the optics. The lens doesn't resolve as much as the 600 but you will get more resolution than shooting the same shot on a 24MP sensor. Any lens can not be worse on a higher res sensor than it is on a lower res sensor. It could be no better (would have to be a very poor lens) but not worse.
When I first bought an R4 (and then returned it after 2 weeks) I thought it could be a technique issue due to the 61MPs. But I'd used 45 and 50 MPs sensors before handholding long lenses and not had the inconsistency I was getting with the R4/200-600. But when I repurchased an R4 at the same time I got the 600GM, I knew within 5mins of shooting that technique using a 61MP sensor was not the issue. I can handhold 600, 840 and 1200 using the 600GM on the A7RIV and I have great results (not quite as consistent as A9 but up there with some of the most consistent focusing systems I've used over the years).
I have been able to improve my results with the bare lens but once I add the 1.4TC it becomes very difficult to trust it at all (reminds me of a 7D2). Because of that, I usually will just opt for the A9 with the 1.4TC over the R4 with the bare lens. It is only a little bit less reach but the AF consistency you get from the A9 even with the 1.4TC on is still more confidence inspiring than the R4 with the bare lens.
People could comment better if they could see a series of the problem pics and their settings. If the problem only happens with moving subjects, but not still subjects, that suggests either a shaky camera or a malfunctioning OSS.
I'd love to see at least a couple of "spectacular" (sharpness) images taken with this lens, what I see here, on this forum, a lot of very good pictures, just not sharp ones (pages and pages). So far it does not look good (sharpness).
arbitrage wrote:
I was starting to come around to the R4 and 200-600 but then over the past 3 days it has been letting me down again. It has a huge tendency to back focus just slightly behind subject. This morning I made a big mistake thinking I'd mounted my A9II on the 200-600/1.4TC and then found a nicely perched bird I've never photographed before...got two sort of focused shots out of 20. This was a bird on a super isolated clean perch with blue sky background. Absolutely unacceptable.
And it has nothing to do with technique...I easily handhold the much heavier and more unwieldy 600GM with 2xTC at 1200mm on the R4 and get lots of keepers without issue. Even for BIF.
I could get keepers easier with the 100-400GM, adapted 400DOII (even with 2xTC) and of course the best of all 600GM (even with 2xTC).
With bare 200-600 lens on R4 with OSS on 2, 3 or OFF, TS of 5, not using Tracking modes and e-shutter I can get a fairly good hit rate on perched birds. But throw on the TC or OSS 1 and it goes downhill fast. Forget about BIF reliability with it. It is not an optics problem and it isn't a focal length/technique problem....Show more →
Canon would have nailed that bird on the perch....
I mainly photograph wildlife from small perched birds to Peregrine Falcons in flight , the rig I’ve been using for last couple of years has been D850 + 200-500 . I was going to get a 500mm PF but was also really interested in the A7R4 + 200-600 , the extra MP and 600mm would have been handy . After reading a lot of these posts I think I might leave it maybe try the A9 200-600 + x1.4 TC instead , hoping they bring out a fw that sorts the issue
). Because of that, I usually will just opt for the A9 with the 1.4TC over the R4 with the bare lens. It is only a little bit less reach but the AF consistency you get from the A9 even with the 1.4TC on is still more confidence inspiring than the R4 with the bare lens.