p.4 #1 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
AGeoJO wrote:
K-H., yes, that stands for Optical Steady Shot, which was set to “3” on the lens. Although the results are fine but the viewfinder was jerky on that mode. I left the setting at “3” the whole afternoon.
p.4 #2 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
I got to try my friends A7R4 200-600 yesterday, he tried my A9ii 200-600 too. I had the lens OS on 3 , the camera uses latest FW , must admit I was really struggling with it for BIF. The blackout was a little annoying but I guess you can work with that but AF accuracy seemed off . I’d have liked more time to get used to it with only going to mirrorless a few weeks ago although really enjoy using the A9ii .
For BIF my D850 200-500 is far more consistent, I’m still trying to decide on a 500mm pf to go with my D850 or a A7R4 to go with my A9ii , hopefully get chance to try his A7R4 again . My friend did message me later and said he now wants a A9
p.4 #3 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
multibit wrote:
I got to try my friends A7R4 200-600 yesterday, he tried my A9ii 200-600 too. I had the lens OS on 3 , the camera uses latest FW , must admit I was really struggling with it for BIF. The blackout was a little annoying but I guess you can work with that but AF accuracy seemed off . I’d have liked more time to get used to it with only going to mirrorless a few weeks ago although really enjoy using the A9ii .
For BIF my D850 200-500 is far more consistent, I’m still trying to decide on a 500mm pf to go with my D850 or a A7R4 to go with my A9ii , hopefully get chance to try his A7R4 again . My friend did message me later and said he now wants a A9 ...Show more →
Like you my Sony MILC adventure started with an A9....once you've used an A9 it is really difficult to accept anything else as a viable camera for AF and EVF shooting experience. The R5 is the only thing that has come close so far.
p.4 #4 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
The more I use the R5 the more impressed I am with many aspects. Unfortunately, I don’t have any long RF primes or zooms with which to compare against my a9. Mind you, I’m using adapted ef lenses against an a9/200-600. Against the a7riv there is no question that the R5’s af is superior, though I don’t have enough experience to make conclusive statements regarding a comparison for BIF against the a9. The limited experience suggests that the a9 is a bit more sticky against busy, similar plane subjects. For BIF, I think they acquire equally quickly and track accurately for near subjects while for more distant subjects, with an adapted lens the R5 demonstrated the well described MILC failure to rack completely. Though I’ve owned every Canon dslr with the exception of the 1dxii and iii, the R5 is the most accurate af’ing Canon I’ve owned....Show more →
I agree that the R5 is a great camera, no doubt about it. Its combination of high resolution, amazing low light performance, overall great AF, decent body ergonomics etc. make it an easy winner. What I'm talking about is a very narrow use case and the one that determines whether I feel comfortable ditching the A9 at this point, namely raptors in action at locations I can't get any closer to them.
What struck me yesterday was that when a bird flew over the Hudson River against a clear sky, my combo of the R5 and the 500mm in zone AF wouldn't always immediately focus on the bird and instead would not find focus at all. EyeAF doesn't work at that distance either. These are not distances I'd shoot at, but distances I start tracking the birds as they approach. All my previous fast cameras would have focused on that bird over the river. Likewise, the combo didn't acquire focus on a peregrine coming in really close at high speed. The D500 and A9II other photographers were using did focus, though they weren't sure how sharp their images were. There are tons of other situations where the R5 did just great, but I'm worried about the speed with which it will for example lock on a diving eagle and stick with it as it fishes a fish out of the water. And that's where my doubt about getting rid of the A9 comes from.
Now, I don't rule out user error as I'm still getting used to the camera and its settings and I also don't know to what extent the adapted lens makes a difference. But if it's the adapted lens, I'm back to square one, which was my plan to ditch my 500mm lens because adapting it would slow down performance and I'd be better off switching to a completely native mirrorless setup.
p.4 #5 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
Like you my Sony MILC adventure started with an A9....once you've used an A9 it is really difficult to accept anything else as a viable camera for AF and EVF shooting experience. The R5 is the only thing that has come close so far.
p.4 #6 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
johnvanr wrote:
I agree that the R5 is a great camera, no doubt about it. Its combination of high resolution, amazing low light performance, overall great AF, decent body ergonomics etc. make it an easy winner. What I'm talking about is a very narrow use case and the one that determines whether I feel comfortable ditching the A9 at this point, namely raptors in action at locations I can't get any closer to them.
What struck me yesterday was that when a bird flew over the Hudson River against a clear sky, my combo of the R5 and the 500mm in zone AF wouldn't always immediately focus on the bird and instead would not find focus at all. EyeAF doesn't work at that distance either. These are not distances I'd shoot at, but distances I start tracking the birds as they approach. All my previous fast cameras would have focused on that bird over the river. Likewise, the combo didn't acquire focus on a peregrine coming in really close at high speed. The D500 and A9II other photographers were using did focus, though they weren't sure how sharp their images were. There are tons of other situations where the R5 did just great, but I'm worried about the speed with which it will for example lock on a diving eagle and stick with it as it fishes a fish out of the water. And that's where my doubt about getting rid of the A9 comes from.
Now, I don't rule out user error as I'm still getting used to the camera and its settings and I also don't know to what extent the adapted lens makes a difference. But if it's the adapted lens, I'm back to square one, which was my plan to ditch my 500mm lens because adapting it would slow down performance and I'd be better off switching to a completely native mirrorless setup. ...Show more →
Precisely what I encountered. Clear sky, distant subject, lens focused near or intermediate distance, the R5 and adapted 500 with a 1.4x didn't attempt to AF. If one would MF or AF on a large distant subject (say a tree, etc.) first, then the camera would AF quickly and accurately on the subject. At one level, this makes sense because the lens is so OOF that the subject doesn't appear in the EVF, so there is no contrast to even attempt to focus upon. This is a common behavior observed in MILC, and one I frequently encountered with the a7riv, though not something I experienced with the a9. I am wondering whether changing the focus menu setting to "continuous" for these situations would obviate that, though I haven't had the opportunity to experiment yet? Alternatively, perhaps rather than using zone, one should employ spot and quickly switch over to tracking? I would be curious to hear how other people overcome this? Agreed, that this is the one sticking point which is concerning me the most about the camera.
p.4 #7 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
Precisely what I encountered. Clear sky, distant subject, lens focused near or intermediate distance, the R5 and adapted 500 with a 1.4x didn't attempt to AF. If one would MF or AF on a large distant subject (say a tree, etc.) first, then the camera would AF quickly and accurately on the subject. At one level, this makes sense because the lens is so OOF that the subject doesn't appear in the EVF, so there is no contrast to even attempt to focus upon. This is a common behavior observed in MILC, and one I frequently encountered with the a7riv, though not something I experienced with the a9. I am wondering whether changing the focus menu setting to "continuous" for these situations would obviate that, though I haven't had the opportunity to experiment yet? Alternatively, perhaps rather than using zone, one should employ spot and quickly switch over to tracking? I would be curious to hear how other people overcome this? Agreed, that this is the one sticking point which is concerning me the most about the camera....Show more →
I experience that problem with all MILCs including my A9/A9II. Most frustrating when I've focused out at a higher tree in my backyard to shoot a bird and then one lands on my nearby perches. I can just make out the OOF perch in the EVF but the cameras have no clue. This often requires one to just point the camera at the ground or at a much larger structure near the perch to get it to drive focus. Different AF modes can make this better or worse. If you try Zone and it has some of that distant background in focus it will never come to the perch. If you use a Small or Expand Flex it has a better chance.
When I used the R5 we tested this against the 1DXIII and the Sonys. The 1DXIII would drive in if in Auto mode (but not in Expand) where as the Sonys and the R5 wouldn't even try. We did it with a pretty extreme example with pre-focus well out at infinity and the perch only 30 feet away. In my backyard my Nikon DSLRs will drive in fairly consistently. I find that to be the one and only advantage to DSLR AF vs MILC AF (when comparing the top end systems from either type).
p.4 #8 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
I experience that problem with all MILCs including my A9/A9II. Most frustrating when I've focused out at a higher tree in my backyard to shoot a bird and then one lands on my nearby perches. I can just make out the OOF perch in the EVF but the cameras have no clue. This often requires one to just point the camera at the ground or at a much larger structure near the perch to get it to drive focus. Different AF modes can make this better or worse. If you try Zone and it has some of that distant background in focus it will never come to the perch. If you use a Small or Expand Flex it has a better chance.
When I used the R5 we tested this against the 1DXIII and the Sonys. The 1DXIII would drive in if in Auto mode (but not in Expand) where as the Sonys and the R5 wouldn't even try. We did it with a pretty extreme example with pre-focus well out at infinity and the perch only 30 feet away. In my backyard my Nikon DSLRs will drive in fairly consistently. I find that to be the one and only advantage to DSLR AF vs MILC AF (when comparing the top end systems from either type)....Show more →
You are echoing the advantage of cross point AF...my 99ii has no problem going from far to near with not much to work with while the A9 can struggle. The 99II also has no problem with focusing in almost total darkness, not so with A9. Over all though, those are niche focusing circumstances & the A9's focusing accuracy is phenomenal.
p.4 #9 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
I experience that problem with all MILCs including my A9/A9II. Most frustrating when I've focused out at a higher tree in my backyard to shoot a bird and then one lands on my nearby perches. I can just make out the OOF perch in the EVF but the cameras have no clue. This often requires one to just point the camera at the ground or at a much larger structure near the perch to get it to drive focus. Different AF modes can make this better or worse. If you try Zone and it has some of that distant background in focus it will never come to the perch. If you use a Small or Expand Flex it has a better chance.
When I used the R5 we tested this against the 1DXIII and the Sonys. The 1DXIII would drive in if in Auto mode (but not in Expand) where as the Sonys and the R5 wouldn't even try. We did it with a pretty extreme example with pre-focus well out at infinity and the perch only 30 feet away. In my backyard my Nikon DSLRs will drive in fairly consistently. I find that to be the one and only advantage to DSLR AF vs MILC AF (when comparing the top end systems from either type)....Show more →
Yup, from far to near, briefly focusing on the ground and using center focus seems to work best for my A9.
p.4 #10 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
mogul wrote:
You are echoing the advantage of cross point AF...my 99ii has no problem going from far to near with not much to work with while the A9 can struggle. The 99II also has no problem with focusing in almost total darkness, not so with A9. Over all though, those are niche focusing circumstances & the A9's focusing accuracy is phenomenal.
How did the A99II achieve that? Doesn't it use on-sensor AF also with the light going through the semi-translucent mirror? I wonder why they haven't been able to replicate that in the pure MILCs
p.4 #11 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
arbitrage wrote:
How did the A99II achieve that? Doesn't it use on-sensor AF also with the light going through the semi-translucent mirror? I wonder why they haven't been able to replicate that in the pure MILCs
The A99ii uses both types of AF - dslr-type AF sensor and OSPDAF. They combine both to achieve higher sensitivity at the center point, for example.
p.4 #12 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
The 99II has 2 sets of phase detect AF which work together, the off set which the mirror directs and on sensor. The off set has a lot of cross points but where the on sensor meet (line detect) the offset, a cross detect is created. Also the center is a double cross f2,8 which allows for low light focusing.
p.4 #13 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
With dlsrs, the optics in the AF sensor module have a high f mumber. Something like f/20 to f/30. That means that the out-of-focus image is always more visible to the sensor than that for on-sensor pdaf. I think that's why on-sensor pdaf has this problem.
I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed with my A9 II when I came across this problem and it is my main source of missing the shot. I'm getting used to pre-focusing more often but when I'm surprised by a close subject, I will oftem miss it.
I presume this problem gets more acute the larger the aperture you have. The 600mm f/4 must be more prone to it than the 200-600.
p.4 #14 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
somersettr wrote:
With dlsrs, the optics in the AF sensor module have a high f mumber. Something like f/20 to f/30. That means that the out-of-focus image is always more visible to the sensor than that for on-sensor pdaf. I think that's why on-sensor pdaf has this problem.
I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed with my A9 II when I came across this problem and it is my main source of missing the shot. I'm getting used to pre-focusing more often but when I'm surprised by a close subject, I will oftem miss it.
I presume this problem gets more acute the larger the aperture you have. The 600mm f/4 must be more prone to it than the 200-600....Show more →
Briefly manually focusing the lens to near also seems to work.
p.4 #16 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Why would you even consider getting rid of an A9?? Its still the pinnacle of AF systems.
johnvanr wrote:
I agree that the R5 is a great camera, no doubt about it. Its combination of high resolution, amazing low light performance, overall great AF, decent body ergonomics etc. make it an easy winner. What I'm talking about is a very narrow use case and the one that determines whether I feel comfortable ditching the A9 at this point, namely raptors in action at locations I can't get any closer to them.
What struck me yesterday was that when a bird flew over the Hudson River against a clear sky, my combo of the R5 and the 500mm in zone AF wouldn't always immediately focus on the bird and instead would not find focus at all. EyeAF doesn't work at that distance either. These are not distances I'd shoot at, but distances I start tracking the birds as they approach. All my previous fast cameras would have focused on that bird over the river. Likewise, the combo didn't acquire focus on a peregrine coming in really close at high speed. The D500 and A9II other photographers were using did focus, though they weren't sure how sharp their images were. There are tons of other situations where the R5 did just great, but I'm worried about the speed with which it will for example lock on a diving eagle and stick with it as it fishes a fish out of the water. And that's where my doubt about getting rid of the A9 comes from.
Now, I don't rule out user error as I'm still getting used to the camera and its settings and I also don't know to what extent the adapted lens makes a difference. But if it's the adapted lens, I'm back to square one, which was my plan to ditch my 500mm lens because adapting it would slow down performance and I'd be better off switching to a completely native mirrorless setup. ...Show more →
p.4 #18 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
AGeoJO wrote:
I normally nudge the AF ring toward the direction it has to be close and so far, it zips right to the target.
I do nudge the MF ring on the 600GM when in DMF mode but the 200-600 needs DMF setup via the camera and I don't like the implementation so I don't have that on the 200-600.
p.4 #19 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
somersettr wrote:
With dlsrs, the optics in the AF sensor module have a high f mumber. Something like f/20 to f/30. That means that the out-of-focus image is always more visible to the sensor than that for on-sensor pdaf. I think that's why on-sensor pdaf has this problem.
I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed with my A9 II when I came across this problem and it is my main source of missing the shot. I'm getting used to pre-focusing more often but when I'm surprised by a close subject, I will oftem miss it.
I presume this problem gets more acute the larger the aperture you have. The 600mm f/4 must be more prone to it than the 200-600....Show more →
Comparatively, my a9 with a 200-600 rarely exhibits the failure to focus in contrast to my a7riv. The R5 with a long prime is better than the a7riv though not quite as good as my a9.
p.4 #20 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Maxxus46 wrote:
Why would you even consider getting rid of an A9?? Its still the pinnacle of AF systems.
Because even though the 200-600mm is a great lens, the Canon 500mm f/4 I own is better. Also, if I can get good-enough AF in a 45-mp camera, I’ll take that over a lower-res camera so I can crop.
