SouthFla wrote:
Sorry for the rant, I just feel like venting after looking at my results from yesterday's shoot. I understand that the RIV mega-pixel beast demands the utmost attention to technique with its Uber resolution, and to be honest the results I have gotten shooting landscape, portrait, static subjects and general photography are incredible. In fact, I feel that I have taken more "portfolio-worthy" images with this camera (and lens) more than any other equipment I've had the fortune of owning. But anytime I try capturing moving action (i.e. BIF or aviation photography involving subjects traveling at speed) with the RIV and 200-600 I cannot get anywhere near acceptable results, regardless of whatever myriad of focus settings, tracking modes, or OSS settings I utilize. It's just so bleeping incredibly frustrating...
When the combo correctly focuses on a moving bird or jet the sharpness and results are stunning, but more often than not the results are a muddy soft focus mess. For any other type of photography with the combo the results have been amazing, with crisp images and a high percentage of keepers, so I don’t think it’s faulty equipment. The gear is not mis-focusing or focusing on the wrong part of a moving subject, the results are just “mushy” looking. Yesterday I tried to shoot the Blue Angels: Zone focus, af-c, OSS off, 1/3200 @ f7.1, Hi bursts. Easy stuff with a contrasty subject on a sunny day with low ISO. My keeper rate was maybe 2 in 10, and that’s being generous. And these were with SLOW moving BAs.
While I understand the RIV may not be “right tool” for this type of shoot, it should be able to produce some successful imagery with appropriate camera settings and technique. My RIII and 100-400 at air shows gave me +97% keeper rate and seemingly couldn't miss. Hell I’d take a 50% keeper rate and be thrilled with this combo. It’s SO frustrating as I REALLY love the RIV and all of the improvements over RIII (not to mention the incredible resolution and printing and cropping abilities).
I’ve reached out to Sony months ago, they asked for sample pictures which I sent, but they have not responded since - despite numerous contact attempts
I am so sorry this is not working for you John! I would blame myself 1st if I had this combo and my images were as you describe and posted.
Do you have a trusted friend that can accompany you on a shoot and allow him/her to shoot then evaluate..honestly?
I do NOT own this body or lens...YET! I have kept up with the combos problems! I am sorry Sony has not fixed the problems.
But don't give up yet! I have not read all the replies to your post but I hope it is a technical issue that has yet to be addressed by Sony.
Agree with you. The most annoying part for me is, before purchasing the camera and lens i did a lot of research about the products separately. Never thought there could be a problem with a specific camera/lens combo. I was so tempted to actually buy the A9II but fell for the megapixels...
johnvanr wrote:
Those are great. As you said, though, it's the lack of consistency, which is why it reminds me of Canon 7DII, which could also deliver great results but you couldn't bet on it. I like me and myself to be the weakest link and my gear to be more reliable than I know I am when it comes to this stuff.
I now use the A7R IV with my Canon 500mm f/4 II and it's great but not as fast as a native setup. IQ beats the Sony zoom, especially with background separation.
Just out of curiosity......I don't own yet the Fe 200-600 (just ordered one), but since the results I obtained from my A7R4 and the 100-400 using Mark Smith settings are really excellent, (not so far from the A9 keeping ratio), even adding the TC 1.4 I'm very happy for the pics I got.......I'm wondering if the guys facing troubles with the mentioned combo A7R4+200-600 have tried those settings.
Maybe it can help.
Mark mentioned in one of his videos that the A7R4+200-600 combo doesn't work great for him. I think he uses his R4 with 600GM. When i initially used this combo, the results were horrible..i then followed some tried and tested tips for high MP cameras and other online tips that came up from Stefano..like turning off OS, using higher than usual shutter speeds (>1/2500), use Zone/Wide AF without tracking, short and controlled bursts and refocus after each short bursts etc... there were some improvements when i did all that but still the % of keepers are very low..i get 1 or 2 images in focus in a burst of 8-10 images and that too not always...
Alf70 wrote:
Just out of curiosity......I don't own yet the Fe 200-600 (just ordered one), but since the results I obtained from my A7R4 and the 100-400 using Mark Smith settings are really excellent, (not so far from the A9 keeping ratio), even adding the TC 1.4 I'm very happy for the pics I got.......I'm wondering if the guys facing troubles with the mentioned combo A7R4+200-600 have tried those settings.
Maybe it can help.
gannis wrote:
Mark mentioned in one of his videos that the A7R4+200-600 combo doesn't work great for him. I think he uses his R4 with 600GM. When i initially used this combo, the results were horrible..i then followed some tried and tested tips for high MP cameras and other online tips that came up from Stefano..like turning off OS, using higher than usual shutter speeds (>1/2500), use Zone/Wide AF without tracking, short and controlled bursts and refocus after each short bursts etc... there were some improvements when i did all that but still the % of keepers are very low..i get 1 or 2 images in focus in a burst of 8-10 images and that too not always...
mogul wrote:
Try AF priority & I think you will be pleased...I also use 4 setting on sensitivity
I'll give this a try also. I always have used Release priority on all my systems that had that sort of option. But anything is worth a shot with this combo. I use 5 for sensitivity on the R4 and 1 on the A9II.
Jman13 wrote:
The issues with the 200-600 on the R IV are well documented. It seems to be some sort of incompatibility with the lens and body, which is super bizarre, and I'm shocked they haven't updated firmware to address it yet. I have not heard of any such issues with the R IV and the 100-400. I also don't have any systemicc issues with my adapted sigma 150-600 on my R IV, so length isn't an inherent issue. It is bizarre.
Apologies to all for jumping in and I have not had time to read all posts. However this may be helpful to some? To be very clear, this is not a camera settings issue.
Quick conclusion, this is a body issue, not the lens...Let me explain my reasoning:
I picked up the R4 and 200-600 in early March. I quickly noticed issues when using the extenders, but hearing that a fix was imminent I decided to sit tight rather than sending the gear back. Last week I noticed that the lens alone had far more significant issues than previously realised, so I set up a test range at 5m / around 18 feet. The focus point for the lens alone (no extenders) varied between 0 and 20cm (8") back focused @200mm, with no consistency between shots. Between each shot, the camera was focused to infinity and refocused on a very defined black on white cross, with the centre af point. It was tripod mounted.
I should explain that in 2008 Canon had similar issues with their EOS-1d Mk III, and as I had two of them and knew the engineering team, I spent weeks testing cameras for them.
Conclusions, based on my own testing (YMMV): this is not the 200-600mm lens. I am seeing the same variations with two 'perfect' canon lenses, a 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a 500mm f/4 Mk II. Both are showing random back focus, occasional front focus with the A7-RIV body that I have.
Point 2: I am not aware that any Sony A9 / A9 MkII users are complaining about this lens.
One shot + a diagram to explain my methodology is here, as I don't sell on FM: https://nickwb.com/sony/
The only point of contention is the FE 100-400. I do not have one to test the body with, but if anyone is in south UK and wishes to try, I'm happy to repeat the tests.
Not very hard to get sharper images with the Sony 200600 than your Sigma Sport 150-600. The Sigma is decent but nowhere as good as the Sony. I should know as I had the Sigma adapted to my A7riii via MC11 adapter. It was never sharp, just sharp enough to get by. And I tested 2 copieS when I initially bought it. Get over it man...sony lense are amongst the sharpest in each of their class. OK Vlad?? We know who you are Mr. TROLL
tester_V wrote:
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).
johnvanr wrote:
Those are great. As you said, though, it's the lack of consistency, which is why it reminds me of Canon 7DII, which could also deliver great results but you couldn't bet on it. I like me and myself to be the weakest link and my gear to be more reliable than I know I am when it comes to this stuff.
I now use the A7R IV with my Canon 500mm f/4 II and it's great but not as fast as a native setup. IQ beats the Sony zoom, especially with background separation.
Right now, I prefer the 500 is ii f/4 (w or w/o 1.4x iii tc) over the 200-600 but considering it is an expensive prime it should be superior. Contrast, IQ, and lack of CA is superior, but I wouldn’t go out and spend $ on the Canon lens. The 200-600 is hand holdable, light enough to hike with, and offers more utility. It’s a shame it doesn’t have better af consistency with this body.
armd wrote:
Right now, I prefer the 500 is ii f/4 (w or w/o 1.4x iii tc) over the 200-600 but considering it is an expensive prime it should be superior. Contrast, IQ, and lack of CA is superior, but I wouldn’t go out and spend $ on the Canon lens. The 200-600 is hand holdable, light enough to hike with, and offers more utility. It’s a shame it doesn’t have better af consistency with this body.
True. I only have the Canon 500mm because I couldn’t sell it yet and then decided to keep it while I see what Canon will deliver.
Alf70 wrote:
Just out of curiosity......I don't own yet the Fe 200-600 (just ordered one), but since the results I obtained from my A7R4 and the 100-400 using Mark Smith settings are really excellent, (not so far from the A9 keeping ratio), even adding the TC 1.4 I'm very happy for the pics I got.......I'm wondering if the guys facing troubles with the mentioned combo A7R4+200-600 have tried those settings.
Maybe it can help.
I’m pretty sure I used his settings for a while with the 200-600mm.
Unless another virus is released I'm off for Osprey in a week. I'll be taking the a9 as primary with the 200600 and the Riv as secondary. If the Osprey are there I'll get my keeper (fingers crossed) with the a9 then play with the Riv in Focus priority versus Release priority.
Is there anyone following this thread that owns the Sony 200-600 and also happens to own a Nikon Z7 or Z50 and the Techart FE to Nikon Z converter? I would be very curious to know if the same issues show up on the Z7/Z50 as show up on the A7R IV.
I own the 200-600 and a Z50, but don't own the Techart adapter at this point or I would test it myself.
RoamingScott wrote:
The Canon 500 and R5 body should be a great match here soon...
The EF 500mm f/4 L IS II did not not work well on the EOS-R; it was the main reason I sold the camera so quickly - IS was active all the time the camera was turned on, meaning it could not be carried without the IS protesting. Ditto the EF 70-200 IS II.
On a normal EOS, IS is only active for focus /image capture.
Canon were aware, but did nothing. Perhaps it will change with the R5.....
nw-b wrote:
The EF 500mm f/4 L IS II did not not work well on the EOS-R; it was the main reason I sold the camera so quickly - IS was active all the time the camera was turned on, meaning it could not be carried without the IS protesting. Ditto the EF 70-200 IS II.
On a normal EOS, IS is only active for focus /image capture.
Canon were aware, but did nothing. Perhaps it will change with the R5.....
Canon were not just aware, they first implemented that with the M3 and it's the way it's been for their mirrorless since.
I had a workaround that was still a nuisance:
I'd keep the rear LCD flipped closed as I preferred to use EVF for everything.
It would time out to sleep if I did not come to close to the EVF eye sensor.
The nuisance was that despite having no function assigned to the Multi function bar, accidentally touching it would wake the camera up.
Choderboy wrote:
Canon were not just aware, they first implemented that with the M3 and it's the way it's been for their mirrorless since.
I had a workaround that was still a nuisance:
I'd keep the rear LCD flipped closed as I preferred to use EVF for everything.
It would time out to sleep if I did not come to close to the EVF eye sensor.
The nuisance was that despite having no function assigned to the Multi function bar, accidentally touching it would wake the camera up.
Hmmmm. I keep hanging on to the 400DOii and was thinking the R5 (Geoff's influence) might be a nice body for the DOii. Always something though isn't it.
@MedicineMan404 always. Ultimately we are all going to have to change Canon lenses to seriously adopt the R series bodies, that is why I got the Sony...now I have to dump the A7r4
Has anyone seen any focus issues with the A9 / A9 II though?
