nw-b wrote:
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....Show more →
I still believe both parts (the lens and the body) in combination are at fault. Not just one or the other.
Why?
Because...
200-600 on my A9 and A9II has been flawless, as good for AF as my 100-400 and 600.
My 400DOII adapted to my RIV was much more consistent nailing focus for perched birds.
My 600 and 100-400 (although my use of 100-400 has been minimal) have been excellent even with 2xTC on the 600 on the A7RIV.
So I do not believe this is a general problem with solely the camera or the lens. Both parts come into play. On top of that, two of the things that improve the issue for me are changing the OSS mode to anything but Mode 1 (lens issue) and using e-shutter (body issue). There are also other factors more related to the body like playing around with AF sensitivity (basically dead opposite of my A9 setting) and not using Tracking AF modes.
I do find that it is almost always a back focus when it misses and that the focus consistency improves a lot in cloudy conditions compared to sunny conditions that produce more highlights/contrast in backgrounds (more of a body issue).
So yes, my findings show a lot more potential body issues than lens issues but I don't know how to explain away how good the A7RIV does with other lenses in order to conclude it is only a body issue. If it was only a body issue, everyone would be ditching their A7RIVs.
Lastly, thanks for sharing your testing. For your testing, why did you choose to shoot at such an angle to the target instead of the traditional testing that we are all used to for AFMA on DSLRs where it is ideal to shoot perfectly in line with the target and then check for front/back focus on the ruler? I just think shooting at that angle is going to throw things off in the test more often. But maybe I'm wrong. All I know is when doing DSLR AFMA tests shooting anything but perfectly square to the target pattern can really throw off the results.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
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.
That should be a great combo. I thought long and hard about keeping the 400DOII and get the R5, but the R5 is going to be one expensive body, and then, will the sensor ever be anywhere near as good as the Nikon Z7 sensor?
I used the EOS-R for two weeks, and the sensor was ok. but the Z7 sensor really puts a smile on your face, and without an AA filter too. I don't doubt the R5 sensor will be better than the R sensor, but still, having left Canon behind now and looking back, they have left me with the impression of being more of a sports or news or wedding photography brand. Nikon has impressed me with their dedication to wildlife and nature shooters.
After all, 4000,- is a lot of money and will take me a nice way along to a 500mmf4E FL, which I could handhold as the lightest of the 500mmf4 primes... You know, I like a bit of weight in the hand
nw-b wrote:
@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?
No, I've seen no issues what so ever with the A9/A9II unless I use the 2xTC on the 200-600 and then it starts to have more consistency issues. But that is an f/13 combo so I don't expect miracles.
I find that I'm much more confident in nailing my shots, especially BIF with the A9/A9II 200-600/1.4TC than I am with the A7RIV, 200-600 (no TC).
I lose a stop of light but the A9 can make up for that extra stop of ISO I have to use. I lose a little bit of "reach" as the A7RIV's resolution is 1.6x compared to 1.4x of the TC. But the A9's "reach" ends up on a FF sensor with bigger pixels and the A7IV's reach ends up on a APS-C sized sensor with small pixels. I always will prefer 24MPs on a FF sensor compared to 24MPs on an APS-C sensor despite the higher ISO.
If someone was choosing between A7RIV and A9(II) to use with the 200-600 I would recommend buying an A9 or A9II and the 1.4TC over the A7RIV. The A7RIV/200-600 performance gets considerably worse with the 1.4TC....IF the A7RIV, 200-600 and 1.4TC worked as well as the A7RIV/200-600 does then I wouldn't recommend the A9 combo as confidently for people mainly shooting perched and floating birds. But adding the 1.4TC to the lens on the A7RIV is just not good enough for me.
The A7RIV is reserved for my 600GM at this point because with that lens I can put 1200mm on a 61MP sensor and that is the most reach I've ever owned and works a heck of a lot better than the reach runner up I used to own (5DSR/7D2, 600II, 2xTCIII).
arbitrage wrote:
Lastly, thanks for sharing your testing. For your testing, why did you choose to shoot at such an angle to the target instead of the traditional testing that we are all used to for AFMA on DSLRs where it is ideal to shoot perfectly in line with the target and then check for front/back focus on the ruler? I just think shooting at that angle is going to throw things off in the test more often. But maybe I'm wrong. All I know is when doing DSLR AFMA tests shooting anything but perfectly square to the target pattern can really throw off the results....Show more →
Traditionally with a ruler, the camera is straight and the ruler is at 45 degrees as you say. I used a really big, clear and unmistakable target, so mis-focus is impossible. The ruler/ scale is still at 45 degrees! The fence behind is a slightly annoying confusion. I wanted to be able to repeat at 10m / 30 feet (well 33ft) so the setup worked at 600mm + extenders (work in progress) so outdoors was the only option.
Talking with a friend, I am hearing of slightly erratic focus with busts on the A9 (original), and erratic results with focus where a bird is flying over brightly lit grass - anyone else?
"and erratic results with focus where a bird is flying over brightly lit grass - anyone else?"
My experience is in flat or soft light the A7rIV and 200-600 work well. Not A9ii level but a good % of keepers. It is in harsh or bright light, especially side or backlit, that it seems to fail. Since this realization I usually carry both bodies with one in a LensCoat Molle Pouch attached to my belt (or coat pocket in cold weather).
smhoer wrote:
"and erratic results with focus where a bird is flying over brightly lit grass - anyone else?"
My experience is in flat or soft light the A7rIV and 200-600 work well. Not A9ii level but a good % of keepers. It is in harsh or bright light, especially side or backlit, that it seems to fail. Since this realization I usually carry both bodies with one in a LensCoat Molle Pouch attached to my belt (or coat pocket in cold weather).
Yes..this is exactly what I'm finding recently also. The bright light is a big part of the issue. Cloudy and cloudy/bright conditions go a long way in making the combo perform acceptably.
Of course that said, I just spent 1/2hr challenging myself shooting the RIV/200-600/1.4TC in full sun and for whatever reason it was hitting fairly well....go figure...but I was shooting at fairly close distance to my feeder perches so that may have something to do with the relative success today.
nw-b wrote:
Traditionally with a ruler, the camera is straight and the ruler is at 45 degrees as you say. I used a really big, clear and unmistakable target, so mis-focus is impossible. The ruler/ scale is still at 45 degrees! The fence behind is a slightly annoying confusion. I wanted to be able to repeat at 10m / 30 feet (well 33ft) so the setup worked at 600mm + extenders (work in progress) so outdoors was the only option.
Talking with a friend, I am hearing of slightly erratic focus with busts on the A9 (original), and erratic results with focus where a bird is flying over brightly lit grass - anyone else?...Show more →
I've used the 200-600 on both the A9 and A9II. I've had very consistent focus for BIF, even with swallows.
As far as erratic over bright grass...well that can be an issue with almost every camera system out there (and I've owned most of them). I don't know if I feel the Sony cameras have a significant issue with that type of shooting. If you try to acquire the bird and it jumps focus to the grass instead then you are done for on the Sony system for that sequence. However, if you either get the bird tracking before it flies over the grass OR the camera successfully "sees" and locks on the bird as it is over the grass then the A9 and A9II will hold it better than any other system I've used. But to actually acquire the bird while already over bright contrast grass I will say that Nikon's DLSR system is better for that. But it will still have more inconsistency over all.
They have ditched the Multi Function bar which would solve the problem for me.
The R has some goodness:
I much prefer their EVF. I believe they used the same 3.7MP display as in the Sonys but Canon have it set up less contrasty and it's a far more natural look IMHO.
If the R5 has the same 5.7MP EVF of the A7RIV and Canon use the same secret sauce for the display, I'd be very happy.
@arbitrage Hello Geoff, Have you tried using the R4+200-600 combo in crop mode? Just want to know if that makes any difference at all..I am caught in my home town and don't have the gear to test now.
-Ganesh
arbitrage wrote:
I've used the 200-600 on both the A9 and A9II. I've had very consistent focus for BIF, even with swallows.
As far as erratic over bright grass...well that can be an issue with almost every camera system out there (and I've owned most of them). I don't know if I feel the Sony cameras have a significant issue with that type of shooting. If you try to acquire the bird and it jumps focus to the grass instead then you are done for on the Sony system for that sequence. However, if you either get the bird tracking before it flies over the grass OR the camera successfully "sees" and locks on the bird as it is over the grass then the A9 and A9II will hold it better than any other system I've used. But to actually acquire the bird while already over bright contrast grass I will say that Nikon's DLSR system is better for that. But it will still have more inconsistency over all....Show more →
Wow, so glad I didn’t bother with the A7RIV. Honestly thought it would do very well with the 200-600, although the lens is not the fastest focuser. Unfortunately unlike the 100-400 which uses a combo of linear and SSM motors 200-600 only uses SSM and it’s noticeably slower and a silly decision in this class of lens. I would have gladly payed a few hundred more for a linear motor and faster AF. IMO it’s not as fast as the Nikon 200-500 and that’s not a particularly fast focusing lens. Still it works great on the A9 and ok on the A7RIII when I need some more reach.
gannis wrote:
@arbitrage@ Hello Geoff, Have you tried using the R4+200-600 combo in crop mode? Just want to know if that makes any difference at all..I am caught in my home town and don't have the gear to test now.
-Ganesh
I shoot in crop mode a lot of the time...at least 50/50. Anytime I don't need the full FOV I have my C1 to toggle into and out of crop mode. I like crop mode as when using Small Flex Spot, the size of the square doesn't change in the EVF but the bird is magnified to just show its size over the APS-C area and not the FF area. This essentially allows a more precise position to the AF point...creating a smaller, pin-point AF point.
But back to your question, no there is no difference I can find using crop mode vs FF mode.
RoamingScott wrote:
Trying to imagine a viewfinder at 600mm with no OSS is a no for me
I was doing surfing shots last week and tried the last 45 minutes with OSS off to see how it would go, and frankly I barely noticed, not what I expected.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Wow, so glad I didn’t bother with the A7RIV. Honestly thought it would do very well with the 200-600, although the lens is not the fastest focuser. Unfortunately unlike the 100-400 which uses a combo of linear and SSM motors 200-600 only uses SSM and it’s noticeably slower and a silly decision in this class of lens.
since you tried to compare sony with nikon, i'll point out that nikon doesn't have any 20fps lenses, in any mount.
nikon uses older ring swm in your 200-500(sony version of that is rdssm), vs. the linear ddssm that's in the 200-600, so there isn't any basis for claiming that the 200-500 focuses faster... especially given that it was designed for dog-slow dslrs, that can barely muster 12fps af-c in real-world use... fe100-400 uses rdssm, not linear ddssm.
This combination continues to amaze and disappoint and Geoff’s analogy with the 7dmkii is adept. A couple of weeks ago I had a nice red tail take off from about 50 yards away in solid afternoon sunlight against a blue sky. It flew right past me and though I am proficient with panning and tracking, not a single image was in critical focus. Perhaps one image of the 20+ had acceptable focus after heavy processing in Topaz. In contrast last evening in fading, overcast light the a7riv + 200-600 were nailing every sandpiper and sanderling along the beach whether they were running in the surf or taking wing at ISO’s of 1600-3200 to achieve a Tv>1/2500. Frustrating is an understatement.
@armd My sentiments exactly - I was determined to return the camera this week , but shooting a commercial project over the last two days with the 24-105mm zoom has completely changed my view: when it works well, there is nothing to touch it. When it is bad, it is really bad though.
UPDATE
Camera has gone: one more test, static bird. Focus 10-15cm / 4-6" behind for each refocused frame, zero out of 10 frames sharp at 10m / 30 feet. Single & flexible point focus, locked on. EOS-R5 arriving soon
They have ditched the Multi Function bar which would solve the problem for me.
The R has some goodness:
I much prefer their EVF. I believe they used the same 3.7MP display as in the Sonys but Canon have it set up less contrasty and it's a far more natural look IMHO.
If the R5 has the same 5.7MP EVF of the A7RIV and Canon use the same secret sauce for the display, I'd be very happy.
You can adjust the EVF contrast and sharpness by using a different picture profiles. I find If I dial the sharpness down a few notches it makes things much more natural.
Timothy OConn wrote:
You can adjust the EVF contrast and sharpness by using a different picture profiles. I find If I dial the sharpness down a few notches it makes things much more natural.
Shooting RAW only, Picture Profile will not be applied to RAW, correct?
It seems that is what the User Manual states... RAW: Digital processing is not performed on this file format. Select this format to process images on a computer for professional purposes.
(I convert ARW to Tiff using Sony Imaging Edge then edit in CS)
Choderboy wrote:
Shooting RAW only, Picture Profile will not be applied to RAW, correct?
It seems that is what the User Manual states... RAW: Digital processing is not performed on this file format. Select this format to process images on a computer for professional purposes.
(I convert ARW to Tiff using Sony Imaging Edge then edit in CS)
The EVF displays the JPEG image and the JPEG histogram, which reflects the choice of profile. The RAW file is RAW.
Excellent. Contrast -2, Saturation/Sharpness -1 and I see those changes displayed on right side of LCD.
I have read many opinions that people don't like Sony menus. I don't mind the menu but I think user manual could be improved.
armd wrote:
This combination continues to amaze and disappoint and Geoff’s analogy with the 7dmkii is adept. A couple of weeks ago I had a nice red tail take off from about 50 yards away in solid afternoon sunlight against a blue sky. It flew right past me and though I am proficient with panning and tracking, not a single image was in critical focus. Perhaps one image of the 20+ had acceptable focus after heavy processing in Topaz. In contrast last evening in fading, overcast light the a7riv + 200-600 were nailing every sandpiper and sanderling along the beach whether they were running in the surf or taking wing at ISO’s of 1600-3200 to achieve a Tv>1/2500. Frustrating is an understatement....Show more →
Yes so frustrating. I should now amend my post from May 14th....when I actually got those images back to the computer (from the 2-6 with 1.4TC) the critical hit rate was actually pretty bad. Every miss was back focus. Not a single front focused shot. And all just slightly back focused where the perch was almost always perfect and back of the bird. But eyes/head were always out. I guess stopping down for more DOF would help some??
The more and more I try this combo, the more I confirm that it is best in cloudy light. In bright light it usually back focuses by just enough to ruin most shots. TC makes this "feature" worse
Thinking about it, this combo would be the perfect thing for an AFMA feature. I know Canon and Nikon have left AFMA in their MILCs which seems like it shouldn't need to be there but it seems this lens would do well with a -10 adjustment on the R4.
