p.5 #1 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Hmnn...why not invest in a 600F4 GM? Your giving up better AF for extra pixels and shorter reach (500 vs. 600). Cropping comes into play when you dont have enough focal length to start with. Good luck
johnvanr wrote:
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.
p.5 #2 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Seems like quite a few folks have been successful with the A7riv and 200600 combo since FW 120, enough so that I may pick up an R4 again. Anyone else perform additional testing for BIF? Hoping more folks chime in with their own results, opinions. Thanks
p.5 #3 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
I’m stilll waiting to see a few images with the af points over the subject thereby demonstrating an improvement. My a9 and R5 exhibit that most of the time.
p.5 #4 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Maxxus46 wrote:
Seems like quite a few folks have been successful with the A7riv and 200600 combo since FW 120, enough so that I may pick up an R4 again. Anyone else perform additional testing for BIF? Hoping more folks chime in with their own results, opinions. Thanks
I am confident I don't see any evidence v 1.20 improved A7rIV + G 200-600 AF while in high burst mode. I posted settings which seem to work better and frankly with these settings and practice there is a chance to increase the hit rate while in high burst mode with the A7rIV. I’ve been using the G 200-600 since it first came out so I’ve plenty of practice with this lens. It’s a very, very good lens at its price point and FL. I highly recommend even with the A7rIV.
As I posted before. If I could have only one camera, the A9II is plenty, the A7rIV however is a very good pair to the A9/II. Many of us have proven anyone can get high burst mode shots with the A7rIV + G 200-600, you just have to work harder than with the A9/II and may have a lower hit rate. What does make the RIV + extra effort worth it for wildlife and BIF is the ability to crop dramatically which is often the case with wildlife and BIF.
p.5 #5 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
I’m stilll waiting to see a few images with the af points over the subject thereby demonstrating an improvement. My a9 and R5 exhibit that most of the time.
Did you develop this app that you have recommended or do you know the person that did develop this app? Just curious to know how accurate the app is in indicating the focal point in an image. Have you had the opportunity to compare with C1 focus area identifier ?
p.5 #6 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
LBJ2 wrote:
Did you develop this app that you have recommended or do you know the person that did develop this app? Just curious to know how accurate the app is in indicating the focal point in an image. Have you had the opportunity to compare with C1 focus area identifier ?
Wolfram Sons was the developer (I have no association) and from what I can tell, it is fairly accurate. The only way I can compare it is to the results that one achieves in body. Supposedly, if one clicks "magnify" on the body it enlarges the image to the active af point which was registered. I did that alongside the program - opened the same image in both - and they seemed to correspond. Perhaps you can email him with your questions?
In terms of C1, I'm not familiar with the focus area identifier. Is that a tool which highlights the parts of the image which are in greatest focus? If so, those are usually contrast based.
p.5 #7 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
I’m stilll waiting to see a few images with the af points over the subject thereby demonstrating an improvement. My a9 and R5 exhibit that most of the time.
LBJ2 wrote:
Did you develop this app that you have recommended or do you know the person that did develop this app? Just curious to know how accurate the app is in indicating the focal point in an image. Have you had the opportunity to compare with C1 focus area identifier ?
armd wrote:
Wolfram Sons was the developer (I have no association) and from what I can tell, it is fairly accurate. The only way I can compare it is to the results that one achieves in body. Supposedly, if one clicks "magnify" on the body it enlarges the image to the active af point which was registered. I did that alongside the program - opened the same image in both - and they seemed to correspond. Perhaps you can email him with your questions?
In terms of C1, I'm not familiar with the focus area identifier. Is that a tool which highlights the parts of the image which are in greatest focus? If so, those are usually contrast based....Show more →
No offense, but why does it matter to you? You sold the A7r IV already and you bought a Canon R5, right? Whether the A7r IV has been fixed or not, should have not any consequences to you.
p.5 #8 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
AGeoJO wrote:
No offense, but why does it matter to you? You sold the A7r IV already and you bought a Canon R5, right? Whether the A7r IV has been fixed or not, should have not any consequences to you.
I would like to see if Sony fixed the problem. Like many photographers, I am seeking the best possible platform. There were many things I liked about the a7riv, the af/tracking not one of them and the inability for it to play well with the 200-600. While the a9 rocks, I’m looking for a camera with more MP for cropping (this is where the a7riv excels). The R5 is an interesting camera, though the number of RF lenses are limited, they don’t hav anything like the sharp 200-600, and quite frankly the IQ is leaving me questioning whether the R5 is less than forthcoming or is being throttled in software. If Sony fixes the issues with the a7riv I would certainly reconsider the body.
p.5 #9 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
I would like to see if Sony fixed the problem. Like many photographers, I am seeking the best possible platform. There were many things I liked about the a7riv, the af/tracking not one of them and the inability for it to play well with the 200-600. While the a9 rocks, I’m looking for a camera with more MP for cropping (this is where the a7riv excels). The R5 is an interesting camera, though the number of RF lenses are limited, they don’t hav anything like the sharp 200-600, and quite frankly the IQ is leaving me questioning whether the R5 is less than forthcoming or is being throttled in software. If Sony fixes the issues with the a7riv I would certainly reconsider the body. ...Show more →
p.5 #10 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
According to Arbitrage there is a definite improvement with FW 1.20. He tested quite extensively...id suggest asking him for more details
LBJ2 wrote:
I am confident I don't see any evidence v 1.20 improved A7rIV + G 200-600 AF while in high burst mode. I posted settings which seem to work better and frankly with these settings and practice there is a chance to increase the hit rate while in high burst mode with the A7rIV. I’ve been using the G 200-600 since it first came out so I’ve plenty of practice with this lens. It’s a very, very good lens at its price point and FL. I highly recommend even with the A7rIV.
As I posted before. If I could have only one camera, the A9II is plenty, the A7rIV however is a very good pair to the A9/II. Many of us have proven anyone can get high burst mode shots with the A7rIV + G 200-600, you just have to work harder than with the A9/II and may have a lower hit rate. What does make the RIV + extra effort worth it for wildlife and BIF is the ability to crop dramatically which is often the case with wildlife and BIF....Show more →
p.5 #11 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
armd wrote:
I would like to see if Sony fixed the problem. Like many photographers, I am seeking the best possible platform. There were many things I liked about the a7riv, the af/tracking not one of them and the inability for it to play well with the 200-600. While the a9 rocks, I’m looking for a camera with more MP for cropping (this is where the a7riv excels). The R5 is an interesting camera, though the number of RF lenses are limited, they don’t hav anything like the sharp 200-600, and quite frankly the IQ is leaving me questioning whether the R5 is less than forthcoming or is being throttled in software. If Sony fixes the issues with the a7riv I would certainly reconsider the body. ...Show more →
I finally got around to downloading the focus point program and had a scan through my really good A7RIV day from Aug 23rd. Let me know what you want me to tell you. I found that on BIF both A7RIV and A9II focus points were off the bird in the sky somewhere near the bird in most of the shots. I'm only looking through my keepers as all my rejects are long gone but rejects weren't just for focus but for head/wing positions etc.
Now with my herons, shorebirds, oystercatchers foraging/feeding along the shoreline I'm seeing most of the A7RIV images with the circle and squares on the head and sometimes when the bird is perfectly side profile on the side of the body. I had a few shots saved of a GBH where I used Tracking (which only shows the circle (no squares)) and it was right on the head. My foraging shorebirds (small Western and Least sandpipers) shot mostly in Zone showed the squares and circle on the head most of the time.
Maybe I should just send you a Drive folder with a selection of the shots or something because not sure how my describing what I'm seeing is helping you compare to past results??
p.5 #14 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
And now for the fun stuff....these killdeer were all acceptably sharp on the head when culling at 1:1 in LR. The only two that maybe weren't critically sharp were the two that don't show red squares.
These are not the full frame (nor are the previous examples). These were in Zone...not sure what it means when it doesn't show any red boxes in Zone?
p.5 #16 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Geoff @arbitrage,
I used my 200-600mm some 99.9% of the time on my either A9 or A9 II previously. As such, I didn’t notice any AF performance issues of that combo. After the FW update, I deliberately went out and used that lens on my A7r IV. I am pleased with the results but I am not in the position to render any opinion on that.
In a few words, do you still believe that the AF performance of theA7r IV has improved after the FW update, like you mentioned previously?
p.5 #17 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
Hi Geoff, many thanks for providing the extensive portfolio of images with the associated FP's. It appears to me that for the static birds, the AF points are registering much more accurately with the vast majority being over the intended target. I think this may represent an improvement, at least my experience with the combination yielded more variable results with the old firmware. Perhaps it might be helpful if you look back to earlier images and do a similar analysis and see if there is a difference between the firmwares?
For the BIF, it appears that the FP's are "off target" more frequently than not. This is something which I saw with my a7riv quite frequently, though it was difficult for me to know how to interpret this. Was the FP actually locked on target and what we see as the FP appearing off target artifact or due to lag, subject movement, camera movement, etc.? I can't say conclusively although it seems that many times the af appears "acceptable" even though the recorded af point appears off target. This leads me to conclude that perhaps, what we are witnessing is the result of lag. In other words, when we look through the evf and see the little squares dancing on target and press the shutter button, the camera initially autofocuses properly, but the lag is such that when the actual image is recorded, the subject has moved beyond the original FP. For subjects traveling along a line largely parallel or slightly oblique to the camera, one would expect that the subjects would continue to be in focus and that may be what we are seeing here?
As a reference, my R5 images' recorded af points register effectively on target and correspond with appropriate af. When I get home, perhaps I can post a few of those for reference? Again, many thanks for providing that information.
p.5 #18 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
AGeoJO wrote:
Geoff @arbitrage@,
I used my 200-600mm some 99.9% of the time on my either A9 or A9 II previously. As such, I didn’t notice any AF performance issues of that combo. After the FW update, I deliberately went out and used that lens on my A7r IV. I am pleased with the results but I am not in the position to render any opinion on that.
In a few words, do you still believe that the AF performance of theA7r IV has improved after the FW update, like you mentioned previously?
I've been happy with it my last few times out but haven't used it since the 23rd outing shown above. I'm not sure if the FW had anything to do with my recent success as I was already seeing good results just before the FW came out after tweaking my settings as described earlier in this thread.
I'm probably going to move on to the R5 for my high MP camera soon so I'm not too concerned one way or the other about the A7RIV anymore. I don't sit around in a system for very long....when something tests better I'm off and the R5 tests noticeably better than the A7RIV for AF in my hands.
I still much prefer just shooting my A9II on the 200-600 and 600GM with TCs as needed so that will remain my Sony combo.
p.5 #20 · A7rIV & 200-600 looks like issues may have been resolved
@arbitrage "I found that on BIF both A7RIV and A9II focus points were off the bird in the sky somewhere near the bird in most of the shots."
This is a fantastic observation Geoff! I was testing the Sony A9 with the 200-600 for BIF and found the same. The focus boxes (and the green circle) are not exactly on the subject or where i thought the focus was compared to what i saw through the viewfinder, but slightly off. Many times the focus points were completely off the subject and i thought the images were still acceptably sharp because there was not a drastic change in the focal plane. I somehow thought the focus point on an image is where the subject was just a micro second ago. I initially thought it was because i am new to the sony system or because I was using a 200-600 lens which does not have dual motors. I am still very new to the sony system and have got more testing to do.
It will be nice to see what the BIF images (AF points) from a 600GM looks like.
arbitrage wrote:
I finally got around to downloading the focus point program and had a scan through my really good A7RIV day from Aug 23rd. Let me know what you want me to tell you. I found that on BIF both A7RIV and A9II focus points were off the bird in the sky somewhere near the bird in most of the shots. I'm only looking through my keepers as all my rejects are long gone but rejects weren't just for focus but for head/wing positions etc.
Now with my herons, shorebirds, oystercatchers foraging/feeding along the shoreline I'm seeing most of the A7RIV images with the circle and squares on the head and sometimes when the bird is perfectly side profile on the side of the body. I had a few shots saved of a GBH where I used Tracking (which only shows the circle (no squares)) and it was right on the head. My foraging shorebirds (small Western and Least sandpipers) shot mostly in Zone showed the squares and circle on the head most of the time.
Maybe I should just send you a Drive folder with a selection of the shots or something because not sure how my describing what I'm seeing is helping you compare to past results??
Here are the GBH shots I had saved for now: ...Show more →
