arbitrage wrote:
I'm not totally sure about Fact 2. It seems to do fine on A7RIII based on a few first hand experiences in this thread. Also a friend has the lens on A7III and is loving it. He is posting lots of great shots and has been very happy with it. Although this is his first Sony system and he was previously using 7D2 and 100-400II for many years.
Personally I can't say about the A7III and A7RIII as I've only shot the lens on A9, A9II and two copies of the A7RIV.
As I said before, the 200-600 was insanely sharp on the A7RIII for two of my last airshows last year. Bought the RIV to replace the RIII before the bald eagle season started, got some sharp BIF shots too at 600mm and 840mm, I would say 3-4 out of 10 were sharp. Tried the same combo for the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds flyover two weeks ago, I was shocked by the less than satisfactory results. The jets were relatively slow and I used 1/2000 shutter speed, which was more than enough, AF was not demanding for this kind of flyover. I have shot over 50 airshows so I would imagine I knew what I was doing. Something is not right.
tester_V wrote:
To arbitrage:
you just proved my point, your "spectacular" images have good colors and bokeh but sharpness is missing. And as I said before (but you chose to ignore it), sharpness is not the main quality of a lens but for the 'wildlife" lens it is. And this one is not there. Or maybe it is a user fault but the fact is still here. Images are soft, all of them.
Okay, we have a different view of what is a sharp image or not. No point arguing it further. I love sharp images for my bird photography but I don't think sharpness is what makes a truly good bird image. FWIW, I wouldn't really say any of the three "sitting duck" images I posted are great images as they are rather boring. But I do think they are very sharp not even taking into consideration that there is a 1.4TC on a f/6.3 zoom lens.
Anyways here is a shot with the 2xTC on the lens....still not sharp?
Could the reason that it does better on the a9 is because most of you shoot with the electronic shutter with it, and not the mechanical shutter like I'm guessing you do with the a7R4?
Yes, the 200-600 can produce sharp images on the a7riv, I don't think anyone who is reasonable can assert otherwise. The problems seem to occur when the two are paired together on moving subjects. One can't easily explain the love/hate relationship with this lens. Perhaps it is the relative compactness, internal zoom, and easy hand holdability of this lens which makes it so attractive? That wonderfulness is quickly offset by the tendency to CA and the cheap hood, but what the heck it's a $2k lens! It's not that one can't take an in focus shot of BIF, but more often than not, the images will lack critical focus. Admittedly, one has to push the Tv up by at least another f-stop or two to minimize shake but even then, more often than not, many images are simply OOF. Analyzing the images active AF point hasn't been illuminating, switching off the OS hasn't helped, changing the AF settings haven't made much of a difference either. If the lens performed this way on the a9, one could conclude that it was simply the deficiency of the lens but that's not the case. Perhaps it is simply a limitation of the read out speed or calculation ability when using a 60+ mp sensor with current processors?
Hand held, small .jpgs on FM - original razor sharp
Hand held, small .jpgs on FM - original razor sharp
davev wrote:
I don't have either the 200-600 or the a7R4.
Could the reason that it does better on the a9 is because most of you shoot with the electronic shutter with it, and not the mechanical shutter like I'm guessing you do with the a7R4?
It is part of the reason...or at least it does have some affect. I have now switched to using the e-shutter on the A7RIV for all of my non-flight work and that is one of my many small changes to my shooting workflow that I believe has had a positive affect on my success with the A7RIV and 200-600. But it isn't the full solution and isn't the entire cause of the issue.
arbitrage wrote:
It is part of the reason...or at least it does have some affect. I have now switched to using the e-shutter on the A7RIV for all of my non-flight work and that is one of my many small changes to my shooting workflow that I believe has had a positive affect on my success with the A7RIV and 200-600. But it isn't the full solution and isn't the entire cause of the issue.
When you are referring to the e-shutter do you mean real e-shutter, mechanical with EFCS, or total mechanical? The scan rate of the e-shutter on the a7riv is too slow for fast moving objects. Why do you believe that e-shutter has made a difference? You are probably shooting at Tv's greater than those where shutter shock is an issue.
armd wrote:
When you are referring to the e-shutter do you mean real e-shutter, mechanical with EFCS, or total mechanical? The scan rate of the e-shutter on the a7riv is too slow for fast moving objects. Why do you believe that e-shutter has made a difference? You are probably shooting at Tv's greater than those where shutter shock is an issue.
Real e-shutter. Not sure why, just assume it is something to do with the shutter shock. I have experimented back and forth...I put in in mechanical and shot a series of 20 shots of a perched birds, switch to e-shutter and shoot another 20 shots. With e-shutter the % of acceptably sharp shots is higher. This still seems to be happening even when I'm up shooting at 1/1000 or faster sometimes.
The scan rate is why I said I only do it for non BIF work. But actually I've experimented with some BIF in e-shutter and for larger birds with slower wing beats and choosing full wing down or full wing up frames there actually isn't any visible distortion going on most of the time.
I don't know the nature of the issue with the 200-600 an the a7RIV, and I don't shoot with that combo. So, I have no personal experience with the issue.
However, as I have previously posted, I did ask my area Sony Sales Rep about the issue since it has shown up in so many threads. His reply was that Sony was aware of the issue, and was working on a fix. I have not heard of any official acknowledgement of this. But my reporting of what the Rep said is absolutely correct. I have not spoken with the Rep since so I have no further information.
The only thing I can think of is: Given that the "problem" with this combo is with birds in flight, planes in flight, and cats in flight , are you all turning the OSS to the off position given the high shutter speeds you would naturally be using?
None of this is really surprising - it's actually surprising this doesn't happen more often.
With all of the MFRs getting into "AI-powered autofocus" or whatever marketing term they want to use, it's a wonder they get any of this to work close to like it should with the crazy complexity happening between the camera's AF routines and the lens's firmware.
Software development can be a bear, especially when you're dealing with non-homogeneous configurations (in this context: multiple bodies and lenses) -- hopefully Sony is able to deliver a fix. I don't have a dog in this fight but interested in the outcome.
And honestly, I have to wonder if this is why they killed the camera apps capability -- going back to homogeneous setups and software dev (in this context: cameras that may or may not have additional software installed) -- having unanticipated interactions between a module and camera firmware must've been a nightmare to troubleshoot.
Colin F wrote:
The only thing I can think of is: Given that the "problem" with this combo is with birds in flight, planes in flight, and cats in flight , are you all turning the OSS to the off position given the high shutter speeds you would naturally be using?
Trying to imagine a viewfinder at 600mm with no OSS is a no for me
It's a very compelling lens at the price point, I almost got one myself with the A7RIV. I have to admit that the reports on (relatively) weaker performance at larger distances close to infinity as well as inconsistent AF with the A7RIV put me off, but I also would never expect expensive prime lens IQ and performance in what is essentially, by the laws of physics and economy, a consumer superzoomlens. I don't really understand why neither Sony, nor Nikon or Canon, make a high quality 600mm f5.6 prime lens for those that don't persé need the f4 aperture at 600mm. So below the giant and véry expensive 600mm f4 lens, you inevitably end up with compromises. It could be very different, but no camera company has any interest.
I can understand that the majority of 200-600 users will prefer the zoomlens though.
johnvanr wrote:
I used to have the 500PF and I have a Canon 500mm f/4. They’re both better than the 200-600mm on the A7R IV but comparable in sharpness to the 200-600mm on the A9. The micro contrast and bokeh are better with those lenses than the Sony, as is to be expected. I’ve also shot with the Canon 100-400 II and the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm. The Sony is as sharp as that Canon and much better than the Tamron and Sigma. It’s an amazing lens for the money.
Colin F wrote:
The only thing I can think of is: Given that the "problem" with this combo is with birds in flight, planes in flight, and cats in flight , are you all turning the OSS to the off position given the high shutter speeds you would naturally be using?
It is not just a problem with BIF, PIF and CIF. It is also a problem just shooting a BOAS (Bird on a Stick).
As far as OSS, OSS is a factor for sure and I think using OSS modes other than OSS 1 certainly makes a difference. However, even putting OSS to OFF with fast SS for BIF does not magically correct the ongoing issue. Also when using the 200-600 on the A9 and when using the 100-400 and 600/4 on the A7RIV and A9 I never switch off OSS and I just leave OSS in Mode 1 all the time no matter what I'm shooting. When I shot Canon I left IS on Mode 1 all the time, with Nikon I left VR on Sport all the time. I'm not one to fiddle with OSS modes or turn it off.....until I got this R4 and 200-600 combo which seems to actually make a difference. But it isn't a magical solution that fixes the issue. It helps more for shooting the BOAS than it does the BIF...the BIF stuff with this R4/200-600 is still a pretty big crap shoot even with all my changes I've made....not impossible to get some keepers but I still can't trust it to not miss that critical shot.
Caveat....now I know I'm probably not the one to talk as it has been pointed out that all my shots are soft anyways so probably best to not listen to anything I say
For A7rIV and G 200-600. I leave lens OSS on 100%. Usually Mode 2 on the lens for normal distances and Mode 3 for longer. This seems to work best for me. OSS /IBIS A7rIV combo on this kit has proved to work very well for me too at the slower shutter speeds hand held.
But as many have attested, enough is enough and fiddling with all these settings and combos of settings and recommendations can drive you mad. Which is why I gave up testing. It is what it is. You'll get some excellent shots with this kit, and miss some too. You'll question yourself every time you miss a shot...then one fine day you'll find the cash and go for the 600/4 and then realize it's all a marketing scheme...( sarcasm)
ChrisMak wrote:
It's a very compelling lens at the price point, I almost got one myself with the A7RIV. I have to admit that the reports on (relatively) weaker performance at larger distances close to infinity as well as inconsistent AF with the A7RIV put me off, but I also would never expect expensive prime lens IQ and performance in what is essentially, by the laws of physics and economy, a consumer superzoomlens. I don't really understand why neither Sony, nor Nikon or Canon, make a high quality 600mm f5.6 prime lens for those that don't persé need the f4 aperture at 600mm. So below the giant and véry expensive 600mm f4 lens, you inevitably end up with compromises. It could be very different, but no camera company has any interest.
I can understand that the majority of 200-600 users will prefer the zoomlens though.
Of course, the lens is not up to the standard of an f/4 or a $3500 f/5.6 PF, but it's fast and, most importantly, sharp on the long end wide open, which can't be said of the Tamron and Sigma. The Nikon 200-500mm is pretty decent as well.
I agree with you in that I don't get why there aren't f/5.6 long lenses available. I bought my Canon 500mm f/4 in 2015 because at the time there were no good lenses longer than 400mm available at decent prices. It was either paying a fortune for stellar quality or buying a lens that underperformed compared to its specs. Nikon changed that with the 200-500mm to an extent, than with the PF to a large extent, in MFT Olympus added a very sharp 300mm f/4 (equivalent 600mm f/4) and Sony did so with the 200-600mm to the extent that it made me buy the A9 to use with that lens. My later addition of the A7R IV I now kind of regret, since I use MFT for most other stuff and only bought the A7R IV to be able to crop. So, I'm now using the A7R IV with my Canon lens and waiting to see what happens with Canon and Sony.
But, yes, I'd love a stellar lens at f/5.6 for a decent price. It's hard to swallow $10k for nice pictures of birds.
arbitrage wrote:
It is not just a problem with BIF, PIF and CIF. It is also a problem just shooting a BOAS (Bird on a Stick).
As far as OSS, OSS is a factor for sure and I think using OSS modes other than OSS 1 certainly makes a difference. However, even putting OSS to OFF with fast SS for BIF does not magically correct the ongoing issue. Also when using the 200-600 on the A9 and when using the 100-400 and 600/4 on the A7RIV and A9 I never switch off OSS and I just leave OSS in Mode 1 all the time no matter what I'm shooting. When I shot Canon I left IS on Mode 1 all the time, with Nikon I left VR on Sport all the time. I'm not one to fiddle with OSS modes or turn it off.....until I got this R4 and 200-600 combo which seems to actually make a difference. But it isn't a magical solution that fixes the issue. It helps more for shooting the BOAS than it does the BIF...the BIF stuff with this R4/200-600 is still a pretty big crap shoot even with all my changes I've made....not impossible to get some keepers but I still can't trust it to not miss that critical shot.
Caveat....now I know I'm probably not the one to talk as it has been pointed out that all my shots are soft anyways so probably best to not listen to anything I say...Show more →
I think your photos are very good and often point others to them. Thanks for your contributions on this subject. I have the combination and have tried some of your suggestions but have not shot a lot with them so far.
LBJ2 wrote:
You'll get some excellent shots with this kit, and miss some too.
If one is being totally honest, you can make the same broad statement for virtually every camera on the market... except for maybe the A9/A9 II, which has spoiled us through its use of sorcery.
If Sony could combine the A9's AF speed and eye-detection with Panasonic's subject recognition algorithm and back-button Near-AF, it would be a perfect birding camera.
Given we're in an age of wild conspiracy theories, perhaps Sony borrowed Canon's cripple hammer to protect sales of the A9 and its reputation as an action camera. ; )
not necessarily for birds in flight...but a lot depends upon how "busy" the background is...I remember shooting Harlequin Ducks on a fairly calm wave day at Barnegat NJ...almost all images were out of focus! We had a big discussion back then (January?) about this...it seems sometimes horizontal lines (as in background waves) throw off the AF; or bare branches in the background (or foreground) of perched birds...so to optimize, have a "clean" background. Others have reported that Sony AF is just as susceptible to vertical lines in the background of the main subject...
Whatever you are shooting - shoot many frames! Unfortunately, in the field, it can be difficult to judge with 100% accuracy if the image one just took is critically sharp.
