p.2 #1 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
So as to my post earlier about trying out OSS 1 again as I still believe that is the biggest issue with the RIV/200-600....well it only took me 10 mins to figure out that when I switched to OSS 1 and shot perching birds in my backyard that they were all slightly OOF. Immediately switched to OSS 3 as I was shooting 1/250 and they were all sharp. I went back and forth a few times and the findings continued. OSS 1 barely a sharp image, OSS 3 mostly all tack.
So from that limited testing I will say that the new FW did not fix the 200-600 issues. However, I'm more and more confident that the settings I've settled on in the past couple weeks make this a very useable combo. I still need to do more BIF testing but even that was doing very well the past weekend. I still feel that the most important setting to change is the OSS Mode. Use 3 or OFF and you can get very consistent perched bird focus.
p.2 #2 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
So as to my post earlier about trying out OSS 1 again as I still believe that is the biggest issue with the RIV/200-600....well it only took me 10 mins to figure out that when I switched to OSS 1 and shot perching birds in my backyard that they were all slightly OOF. Immediately switched to OSS 3 as I was shooting 1/250 and they were all sharp. I went back and forth a few times and the findings continued. OSS 1 barely a sharp image, OSS 3 mostly all tack.
So from that limited testing I will say that the new FW did not fix the 200-600 issues. However, I'm more and more confident that the settings I've settled on in the past couple weeks make this a very useable combo. I still need to do more BIF testing but even that was doing very well the past weekend. I still feel that the most important setting to change is the OSS Mode. Use 3 or OFF and you can get very consistent perched bird focus....Show more →
Thank you for working on this issue and keeping us informed.
p.2 #3 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Thanks for the update. I was using OSS 3 the other day with decent results (for the first time ever). I'm going to continue to test it but at least I know it's now usable for perched subjects and the results are pretty great if I can keep the ISO low.
arbitrage wrote:
So as to my post earlier about trying out OSS 1 again as I still believe that is the biggest issue with the RIV/200-600....well it only took me 10 mins to figure out that when I switched to OSS 1 and shot perching birds in my backyard that they were all slightly OOF. Immediately switched to OSS 3 as I was shooting 1/250 and they were all sharp. I went back and forth a few times and the findings continued. OSS 1 barely a sharp image, OSS 3 mostly all tack.
So from that limited testing I will say that the new FW did not fix the 200-600 issues. However, I'm more and more confident that the settings I've settled on in the past couple weeks make this a very useable combo. I still need to do more BIF testing but even that was doing very well the past weekend. I still feel that the most important setting to change is the OSS Mode. Use 3 or OFF and you can get very consistent perched bird focus....Show more →
p.2 #4 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
So as to my post earlier about trying out OSS 1 again as I still believe that is the biggest issue with the RIV/200-600....well it only took me 10 mins to figure out that when I switched to OSS 1 and shot perching birds in my backyard that they were all slightly OOF. Immediately switched to OSS 3 as I was shooting 1/250 and they were all sharp. I went back and forth a few times and the findings continued. OSS 1 barely a sharp image, OSS 3 mostly all tack.
So from that limited testing I will say that the new FW did not fix the 200-600 issues. However, I'm more and more confident that the settings I've settled on in the past couple weeks make this a very useable combo. I still need to do more BIF testing but even that was doing very well the past weekend. I still feel that the most important setting to change is the OSS Mode. Use 3 or OFF and you can get very consistent perched bird focus....Show more →
Hello Geoff,
I am sure you probably mentioned this somewhere already. Aside from OSS mode 3, what are the settings you have been using the last few weeks? You seem to be much happier with the consistency of this combo as of late.
p.2 #5 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
robert614 wrote:
Hello Geoff,
I am sure you probably mentioned this somewhere already. Aside from OSS mode 3, what are the settings you have been using the last few weeks? You seem to be much happier with the consistency of this combo as of late.
Robert
OSS 3 or OFF (I'm still not sure on OSS 2). Tracking Sensitivity at 3 (I don't think this setting matters much). AF-C Release Priority (not sure if this matters or not). Using ES as much as I can but MS seems okay also and I have to use it for flight to avoid distortion. The other change I made was to stop down to f/8. I think that is just catching slight misses with the little extra DOF. (but yesterday evenings tests I did at wide open and the OSS 3 was still working out okay).
I still can't say definitely what change makes the biggest difference and I still won't say for sure that FW 1.2 had no affect on the combo. I will do lots more testing on Friday and see what I come up with.
p.2 #6 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
OSS 3 or OFF (I'm still not sure on OSS 2). Tracking Sensitivity at 3 (I don't think this setting matters much). AF-C Release Priority (not sure if this matters or not). Using ES as much as I can but MS seems okay also and I have to use it for flight to avoid distortion. The other change I made was to stop down to f/8. I think that is just catching slight misses with the little extra DOF. (but yesterday evenings tests I did at wide open and the OSS 3 was still working out okay).
I still can't say definitely what change makes the biggest difference and I still won't say for sure that FW 1.2 had no affect on the combo. I will do lots more testing on Friday and see what I come up with....Show more →
p.2 #7 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Agree! My A7RIV and 200-600mm is getting along a lot better after doing the FW update. Even when using my 1.4 TC has improved. Tracking and using Hi Drive is working a lot better. Many more keepers than before doing the update. Now my A9 can take a break and quit being overworked.
p.2 #8 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
I've had a few good BIF sessions with the A7rIV ver 1.20 firmware update and the G 200-600 now and I can't say I find any repeatable evidence the AF in high burst mode is any better than before v 1.20.
As I wrote previously, we can all still get our high burst mode AF shots, but we may miss more than expected or more than we should otherwise = a little more work and a little more BIF frustration than usual
After way too many months of fiddling, I posted the camera and lens settings I settled on months ago in the other thread ( see below) and for me Mode 3 ( for longer distance BIF), AF Wide and AF Tracking Sens: 5(Responsive), still seems to result in the best BIF keeper rate for this combo for me both pre and post firmware v 1.20.
p.2 #10 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Would like to see people posting the actual AF points along with the images. As I indicated in many earlier threads, the actual AF points are frequently away from the subject in spite of the EVF (or LCD screen) indicating that the camera was tracking or following the subject by the illumination of the green AF boxes. One can easily check this a variety of ways. First on the back of the camera by hitting zoom in the review mode which magnifies the image to the af point used in the image or by employing an exif reader such as the one created by Wolfram Sons (http://www.soens.de/downloads/)
It would be helpful to see if the hit rate has improved with the new firmware in addition to the subjective opinions. For example, this was a series of four images captured earlier this year of a shorebird scampering in the surf. The initial AF point grabbed the birds legs (go figure) and it wandered away from the subject in typical fashion.
p.2 #11 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
@arbitage some lenses have a larger curvature to their front elements and thus a slightly different distance to the sensor depending on what aperture is being used. Sony's solution is to focus through an aperture closer to the taking aperture to reduce this difference compared to wide open. Some lenses are worse than others. IE 24-70 GM focuses through a 5.6 aperture. The A7r IV I believe allows you to turn on or off stop down AF which in theory will improve low light AF and likely AF speed but may yield a slightly lower keeper rate if you are focusing wide open but shooting several stops down.
p.2 #12 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
So, will anyone share some RAW images with me like the series above so I can look at the AF points and see if they are improved and tracking more appropriately on target with the FW update? Alternatively, throw a few $ to Wolfram, download his software and post the results here. Don't cherry pick the images, but show a sequence. Thanks!
p.2 #13 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
So, will anyone share some RAW images with me like the series above so I can look at the AF points and see if they are improved and tracking more appropriately on target with the FW update? Alternatively, throw a few $ to Wolfram, download his software and post the results here. Don't cherry pick the images, but show a sequence. Thanks!
The reason the AF points don't meet up with the intended target is that there are delays between
A) taking a preview
B) evaluating the preview to find the subject
C) focusing at that area
D) taking the image
The time delay may be around 1/20s and should be reasonably constant (as it is mostly due to hardware limitations). So whenever you let the target move across the frame while lining up your shot, there will be an according movement between the AF point and the subject in the resulting image. This distance is precisely as far as your aim is poor.
This is also rather easy to verify with your own shots: if you precisely follow a constant movement (e.g. a car), the focus rectangle in the resulting image will also be consistently on top of that car. If you deliberatly don't follow the car, the focus rectangle will show lag depending on the cars speed.
It seems unlikely that the firmware change has significantly reduced the lag. It does seem likely that the majority of people improve their aim the more they shoot.
p.2 #14 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Daran wrote:
The reason the AF points don't meet up with the intended target is that there are delays between
A) taking a preview
B) evaluating the preview to find the subject
C) focusing at that area
D) taking the image
The time delay may be around 1/20s and should be reasonably constant (as it is mostly due to hardware limitations). So whenever you let the target move across the frame while lining up your shot, there will be an according movement between the AF point and the subject in the resulting image. This distance is precisely as far as your aim is poor.
This is also rather easy to verify with your own shots: if you precisely follow a constant movement (e.g. a car), the focus rectangle in the resulting image will also be consistently on top of that car. If you deliberatly don't follow the car, the focus rectangle will show lag depending on the cars speed.
It seems unlikely that the firmware change has significantly reduced the lag. It does seem likely that the majority of people improve their aim the more they shoot....Show more →
That might be true in the event of static focus points such as were available in old DSLR's. The a9 and a7riv are supposed to be able to track subjects across the frame accounting for errors in panning, hand shake, etc. The a9 doesn't have a problem though the a7riv struggles with the 200-600. The a7riv will demonstrate proper tracking in the EVF as evidenced by continual af point illumination following the subject and then afterwards, it is clear the actual af point is somewhere else. So, again, I would ask will people post sequences demonstrating the improvement of the a7riv af point tracking after the FW update?
p.2 #15 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
That might be true in the event of static focus points such as were available in old DSLR's.
A DSLR can not visually track subjects at all. It also has some lag as it can not make any AF measurements while the mirror is moving. The a9 and a7riv are supposed to be able to track subjects across the frame accounting for errors in panning, hand shake, etc. The a9 doesn't have a problem though the a7riv struggles with the 200-600. The a7riv will demonstrate proper tracking in the EVF as evidenced by continual af point illumination following the subject and then afterwards, it is clear the actual af point is somewhere else.
Your expectations seem unreasonable, possibly due to accepting marketing speak verbatim. The A7R4 can track just fine as long as the subject is visually obvious and not jumping too fast. The A9's AF is three times faster and not a meaningful comparison when talking about lag. Also, when moving the camera e.g. in fast circles around the subject, the AF indicators lag is visible in the EVF. So, again, I would ask will people post sequences demonstrating the improvement of the a7riv af point tracking after the FW update?
I'd be happy to supply sample RAWs, but I have nothing that demonstrates what you ask. I don't expect anyone else has, either.
Overall I'm reasonably happy with my A7R4 & 200-600G. It does not match the A9 for AF, but it also has much better resolution when it hits. For BIF: I disable IS, use zone AF (without tracking) and put effort in mechanically clean tracking of the bird (using a gimbal seems to help). While my hit rate is still somewhat poor, AF isn't my primary concern (rather opportunity, distance, light, movement blur, thermal air, operator error, etc).
p.2 #16 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
My Sigma MC-11 works fine with nearly all my Canon lenses from 16-35 f/4L IS to 500 f/4L IS II, but it woeful with the 300 f/2.8L IS v1 even with newest fw. The metabones V works fine with all my Canon glass no exceptions.
p.2 #17 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Would anyone here still recommend an A7RIV over an A9ii if one body only? I am stuck as I love the A9ii speed is just incredible. My only concern is missing resolution and slight dynamic range hit (14EV vs 14.8EV) and 10fps vs. 20Fps blackout free. Ugh...decisions . Not fun
LBJ2 wrote:
BTW, I can't find anything to enjoy about testing lenses. So might as well have some fun along the way.
p.2 #18 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Maxxus46 wrote:
Would anyone here still recommend an A7RIV over an A9ii if one body only? I am stuck as I love the A9ii speed is just incredible. My only concern is missing resolution and slight dynamic range hit (14EV vs 14.8EV) and 10fps vs. 20Fps blackout free. Ugh...decisions . Not fun
What are your subjects you want to shoot and are you only using the 200-600 lens?
For my use where I do go after challenging BIF, I would still choose the A9(II) with the 200-600 and add the 1.4TC for extra reach.
That said, the RIV seems to be doing a lot better for me these last few weeks so if one was not doing a lot of BIF photography or only doing larger, slower BIF then I could see going with an RIV if it made sense for other types of photography you do.
p.2 #19 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Hey there! I tend to shoot Ospreys, hawks, eagles ,herons etc... that said i also enjoy the occasional landscape and car shows. After some tests I find the A9ii can do all of the above rather well...and if i am shooting a landscape im on a tripod anyway and I bracket for more than 15 stops of dynamic range. As much as I liked the A7RIV image quality at low ISO im not convinced I need that high resolution anymore. I'm getting great results with the A9ii for sure. Thanks!
arbitrage wrote:
What are your subjects you want to shoot and are you only using the 200-600 lens?
For my use where I do go after challenging BIF, I would still choose the A9(II) with the 200-600 and add the 1.4TC for extra reach.
That said, the RIV seems to be doing a lot better for me these last few weeks so if one was not doing a lot of BIF photography or only doing larger, slower BIF then I could see going with an RIV if it made sense for other types of photography you do.
p.2 #20 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Maxxus46 wrote:
Would anyone here still recommend an A7RIV over an A9ii if one body only? I am stuck as I love the A9ii speed is just incredible. My only concern is missing resolution and slight dynamic range hit (14EV vs 14.8EV) and 10fps vs. 20Fps blackout free. Ugh...decisions . Not fun
I have no problem recommending the A9II as a one body only camera vs the A7rIV. The A9's 24MP sensor is Plenty to cover multiple applications to include cropping in post, and the A9's silent shutter IQ plus 20FPS AF is pretty fantastic too. Oh and the A9(II) Rocks on the G 200-600.
