buffalowolff wrote:
Everyone's favorite has a new video
Watching now
I have shot the A9 since it got out almost 4 years ago and they did practically everything opposite of what I would do.
1. I never shoot moving subjects with the 85GM, it's autofocus motor is the slowest of all Sony lenses can't keep up with anything especially up close. Doesn't support 30FPS either.
2. I always shoot in release priority, in fact I never been able to see balanced or AF actually give higher hit rate.
3. And shooting a crow at 200m distance doing hand held slow shutter panning with a 600 F4 lens Where were the tests on BIF at reasonable distance? And no testing with the AF modes we would actually use on A9, like wide / zone / expand flexible spot.
4. I wish they would have used a lens with top AF for their "sport" test, like the 135GM.
So that test gave no information of value to me. I want my 20+ minutes back.
randomguy wrote:
I have shot the A9 since it got out almost 4 years ago and they did practically everything opposite of what I would do.
1. I never shoot moving subjects with the 85GM, it's autofocus motor is the slowest of all Sony lenses can't keep up with anything especially up close. Doesn't support 30FPS either.
2. I always shoot in release priority, in fact I never been able to see balanced or AF actually give higher hit rate.
3. And shooting a crow at 200m distance doing hand held slow shutter panning with a 600 F4 lens Where were the tests on BIF at reasonable distance? And no testing with the AF modes we would actually use on A9, like wide / zone / expand flexible spot.
4. I wish they would have used a lens with top AF for their "sport" test, like the 135GM.
So that test gave no information of value to me. I want my 20+ minutes back....Show more →
Good list, though 2 is news to me: does anyone else have any experience comparing those modes?
Eruditass wrote:
Good list, though 2 is news to me: does anyone else have any experience comparing those modes?
Given how this works, it should be obvious that at least some fraction of the time the camera can not confirm focus, even though the focus is fine. E.g. due to vibration or excessive motion blur, that may or may not affect a shot taken at that time. For the A7R4 you will not get many BIF shots at all if you set this to focus priority. This is worse in low light, and it's likely worse still when using a TC.
Eruditass wrote:
Good list, though 2 is news to me: does anyone else have any experience comparing those modes?
I only shoot in AF, never in releases or balanced. But I don't shoot BIF, so the max. FPS is of no interest to me. I rarely, rarely get misfocused images.
patotts wrote:
“But the emails...” = “But 30 fps at 50mp...” :-) (sorry, I couldn’t resist that joke given that Tony just kept coming back to the 30 fps argument in this “review”).
It is still too early make any informed judgement about the A1 and its performance. We need production copies with final firmware (even if the test units shipped with 1.0 fw). Plus RAWs cannot be processed in Lightroom yet. I know a lot of people are excited about this camera, and expectations are very high, but if we have learned something about gear so far it is that cameras are never as good as the manufacturer’s marketing department or sponsored spokesperson would like us to believe.
Video performance taken out of the equation, it seems like the Canon R5 (along with its RF glass) seems to be holding up rather well compared to the 40% more expensive Sony A1. More to follow. ...Show more →
"Video performance taken out of the equation, it seems like the Canon R5 (along with its RF glass) seems to be holding up rather well compared to the 40% more expensive Sony A1. More to follow. "
Depends on how you test and what you test.
If the test is such, that eye recognition (DL model test) is compared, this doesn't have anything to do with the ability to track, etc.
The 120 AF/calculations per second should make a difference - however, the test scene needs to be able to allow for such differences to be seen.
For me personally it is not the question Canon R5 or Sony A1 – I have the hole Sony stuff and will stay there.
I have the A9II and the RiV – my use cases are landscaping and events and sports.
On the landscaping site I often hesitate to use my A9II as second body, because of the dynamic range and the pixel count.
On the sport and event side I often hesitate to use the RIV as second body, because of the mechanical shutter and the autofocus.
With the A1 I would have in both scenarios a very good 2 camera set up…
randomguy wrote:
I have shot the A9 since it got out almost 4 years ago and they did practically everything opposite of what I would do.
His settings look very naive and look like the first settings you would try if you use a Sony camera for the first time:
- AF tracking, wide area: "I want to track that bird, sounds like the best setting!"
- Priority to AF: "I want all my shots in focus, sounds like the best setting!"
- Push and hold the shutter button until the buffer is full, and then keep holding it
- 1/250s shutter speed, should be fast enough, well to be fair he did use fast shutter speeds too
The fact that he sticked to that indicates that he didn't try many combinations to see which ones work better or worse. To them, it's good because that's how they were able to publish his video before everyone else. But to me, this shows a lack of professionalism.
Daran wrote:
Given how this works, it should be obvious that at least some fraction of the time the camera can not confirm focus, even though the focus is fine. E.g. due to vibration or excessive motion blur, that may or may not affect a shot taken at that time. For the A7R4 you will not get many BIF shots at all if you set this to focus priority. This is worse in low light, and it's likely worse still when using a TC.
Even if the camera confirms focus, it doesn't mean it's in focus, this is called a "false positive", and what you described are "false negatives". Both false positives and false negatives exist. Release has the additional advantage of working at regular intervals, so if you want to show a sequence of images, like a .gif, this is what you need.
Daran wrote:
Given how this works, it should be obvious that at least some fraction of the time the camera can not confirm focus, even though the focus is fine. E.g. due to vibration or excessive motion blur, that may or may not affect a shot taken at that time. For the A7R4 you will not get many BIF shots at all if you set this to focus priority. This is worse in low light, and it's likely worse still when using a TC.
Yeah good points. I also wonder if focus priority somehow uses contrast detection to confirm focus which would obviously slow things down, maybe even notably so.
Stoffer wrote:
Yeah good points. I also wonder if focus priority somehow uses contrast detection to confirm focus which would obviously slow things down, maybe even notably so.
It doesn't, but PDAF has a similar problem and can't confirm focus without a decent edge with sufficient light.
Daran wrote:
It doesn't, but PDAF has a similar problem and can't confirm focus without a decent edge with sufficient light.
With previous cameras (Olympus), I always suspected that Focus Priority could in some cases result in far more out of focus shots. My suspicion was that the time delay between focus confirmation and the shot actually being taken could result in the AF always being behind with a fast moving subject. With Olympus bodies in Focus Priority mode, the shot is not taken until the camera thinks it is in focus. Which might be never. :-)
It may be that the Sony works in a different way. I have heard Mark Smith suggest that out-of-focus images are discarded if they are thought to be not focused. (You might find shots missing at the beginning of yoiur sequence). But I don't know if the Sony really works this way.
turbodude wrote:
the r5 electronic shutter readout is atrocious. every pro sports photog i know thats tried it immediately switched back to their 1dxmk3. the r5 distorts footballs, soccer balls, and basketballs to a level where no editor will take it as a usable frame.
I only know one sports shooter using an r5. I've shot next to him and I think in the 10s of thousands of images have only seen 1 or 2 distorted balls. He shoots for a major national media outlet and has not had any issues with his editors and the r5 files. Another sports guy who shoots for one of the big wires services just got an r5 but I've not seen his work yet.
timgangloff wrote:
I only know one sports shooter using an r5. I've shot next to him and I think in the 10s of thousands of images have only seen 1 or 2 distorted balls. He shoots for a major national media outlet and has not had any issues with his editors and the r5 files. Another sports guy who shoots for one of the big wires services just got an r5 but I've not seen his work yet.
Does he use ES though? I would have thought they'd use the very nice 12FPS MS (EFCS) of the R5. One of the quietest mechanical shutters I've used.
I've always used Release priority for every Canon, Nikon and Sony camera I"ve owned. I just don't believe that the camera won't have a lot of false negatives where it decides not to take the shot. And I'm sure it will have false positives where it does take the shot and it is out. It is just like when you turn on focus point display in reviewing images and a lot of the time there is no correlation between if the point is where you intended and whether the shot is in focus where you intended.
I'd much rather just have the camera do its best AF that it can do and fire at max FPS. I'll sort out the good from the bad later. I'm often working in situations where keepers are based on a millimetre or two of focus over the eye vs 1mm in front or behind the eye. Or for BIF things like 5cm back on the shoulder vs up on the head. There is no way the AF Focus priority knows what I'm after with that precision. So I just use Release, get the max shots I can during a sequence and I'll get my keepers.
I'm sure for other genres where things aren't happening as fast that Balanced or Focus will make more sense. But not for what I shoot.
timgangloff wrote:
I only know one sports shooter using an r5. I've shot next to him and I think in the 10s of thousands of images have only seen 1 or 2 distorted balls. He shoots for a major national media outlet and has not had any issues with his editors and the r5 files. Another sports guy who shoots for one of the big wires services just got an r5 but I've not seen his work yet.
arbitrage wrote:
Does he use ES though? I would have thought they'd use the very nice 12FPS MS (EFCS) of the R5. One of the quietest mechanical shutters I've used.
Yes, he is using ES. I know he has said he does have some issues with scoreboards and their lights so he tries to avoid shooting directly at them or with them prominently in the background.
randomguy wrote:
— cut —
So that test gave no information of value to me. I want my 20+ minutes back.
Agreed but frankly, all the reviews out there won’t sway me one way or the other. I will just wait for my copy to arrive and do my own evaluation. I am more than convinced that it would do a better job than my A9 II in terms of MP and that’s what is sorely missed from the A9 II in MY case. AF-wise, I am perfectly fine with the A9 II and FYI, I have yet to turn the Animal/Bird-AF feature on... so far. Of course, I will do that with the A1 now and I will give it a whirl. But honestly, that feature is not the deciding factor for me. I fully realize that the mileage of some folks may vary in that regard.
I am also convinced that the DR and ISO performance of this camera is approximately the same as the other Sony FF cameras. I am using the term “approximately” as I care less if it is slightly less since under real-world conditions those characteristics do not matter in MY files. So, the A1 could be used just fine for my portrait and landscape camera. In other words, I may get away with just a single camera. Ideally, 2 copies of the A1 would be ideal but, I am not kidding myself. I will keep either the A7r IV for landscape and portrait or the A9 II for wildlife. Which one will remain as the second body will have to be seen later.
I know there are a lot of folks that wait for real-life evaluation other than from those “you-tubers”. I would suggest for those folks to rent the camera and judge for yourself whether it checks YOUR boxes rather than somebody else’s. You can save tons of money if the camera is not for you or you kick yourself for not getting this camera earlier .
randomguy wrote:
It's certainly no Sony stacked sensor:
?t=330
Agreed. One reason I am a Sony guy... But I was just pointing out that some sports guys are using the R5 for sports successfully.
He shoots primarily basketball and football - HS and major D1 - and compared to the soccer balls in the video, they move much more slowly so maybe that is part of the reason he has not had any major issues.
timgangloff wrote:
I only know one sports shooter using an r5. I've shot next to him and I think in the 10s of thousands of images have only seen 1 or 2 distorted balls. He shoots for a major national media outlet and has not had any issues with his editors and the r5 files. Another sports guy who shoots for one of the big wires services just got an r5 but I've not seen his work yet.
hes likely not shooting in electronic shutter. which nets about 12fps. as stated if using electronic shutter, the r5 is almost useless for sports that have a ball. What sport do they shoot? and is it at the Pro level, as in MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA
Where were the tests on BIF at reasonable distance? And no testing with the AF modes we would actually use on A9, like wide / zone / expand flexible spot.
and that’s what is sorely missed from the A9 II in MY case. AF-wise, I am perfectly fine with the A9 II and FYI, I have yet to turn the Animal/Bird-AF feature on... so far. Of course, I will do that with the A1 now and I will give it a whirl. But honestly, that feature is not the deciding factor for me. I fully realize that the mileage of some folks may vary in that regard.