Well so far all these reviews have done is convinced me I'm glad I preordered, will 100% be keeping my preorder and I'm even more impatient to get my hands on this camera and point it at the violet-green swallows back to back with my R5 and A9II.
Oh, and of course these videos have once again proven TN is useless....
arbitrage wrote:
Take off of that parrot? is impressive that it didn't loose it right away. Of course flying towards may be more challenging. But side view should be as good or better than it flying away.
I wonder how the bird eye AF will do with a yellow-legs foraging with its head popping in and out of the water, that will be the test Geoff.... If you can get 100 shots in a sequence, in-focus its a keeper...
I almost always look at their post images when deciding on a lens or camera.
The DPReview galleries are low ISO, non-action shots. Not really useful to gauge the difficult shots this camera is meant for but at least they gave the RAW files.
arbitrage wrote:
I think Fro's are some of the best reviews out there for still photographers. Very reasoned, very upfront with how much he was or was not able to test. Shows the live view via the Atmos so we can really see what the focus points are doing. People who ignore his reviews because of his personality are really missing out on some of the most useful review content out there.
I like his videos, but sometimes disagree with some of his stronger opinions, like Sony needs to catch up on the lens front with Canon, because Canon has f1.2 lenses.
I disagree strongly, f1.2 doesn't provide any value per se. My strong believe is the Sony + 3rd party lineup is fantastic. 12-24 GM, 14-24DN, 16-35 GM, 20/1.8, 24GM, 35GM, 35/12.DN, 50/1.4,55/1.8, 85GM,85DN, 135GM etc. are fantastic and no excuse to take inferior images.
I agree that the 70-200GM is clearly weaker than Canikon offerings, though.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I wonder how the bird eye AF will do with a yellow-legs foraging with its head popping in and out of the water, that will be the test Geoff.... If you can get 100 shots in a sequence, in-focus its a keeper...
I have to take some time after work to watch all these videos. Do any mention high ISO performance? I'm curious as to whether I can finally use my 100 STF (T stop 5.6) in low light on a higher MP camera with the a1.
saxguy wrote:
I have to take some time after work to watch all these videos. Do any mention high ISO performance? I'm curious as to whether I can finally use my 100 STF (T stop 5.6) in low light on a higher MP camera with the a1.
Mark Galer provided a Flickr gallery which is linked in his video and on the first page of this thread, 8000 ISO looks way cleaner than the a7rIV
Holger wrote:
I agree that the 70-200GM is clearly weaker than Canikon offerings, though.
I disagree, the 70-200GM is internal zoom which is needed for action. Canon RF 70-200 is external zoom which I do not like, it's like Canon going backwards to a consumer 70-300. Weight is not at all an issue for anyone claiming to be a pro.
Yes I was impressed as well by the second takeoff, but also by the re-acquisition of the first one.
arbitrage wrote:
The 2nd take off of that parrot? is impressive that it didn't loose it right away. Of course flying towards may be more challenging. But side view should be as good or better than it flying away. The first takeoff was a bit of operator error as focus hadn't stabilized on the bird before it took off...but still it recovered quickly and got some shots.
arbitrage wrote:
Well so far all these reviews have done is convinced me I'm glad I preordered, will 100% be keeping my preorder and I'm even more impatient to get my hands on this camera and point it at the violet-green swallows back to back with my R5 and A9II.
Oh, and of course these videos have once again proven TN is useless....
Geoff,
I remember you mentioned something about R5's tracking capability. Can you please repeat that (compared to A9II)? Just a one liner
Another little OT question. What do you think about the bokeh of 200-600 vs Canon 400 DO II especially with TC (560/5.6). If you don't mind please answers these questions. Thanks in advance.
webmstrk9 wrote:
Mark Galer provided a Flickr gallery which is linked in his video and on the first page of this thread, 8000 ISO looks way cleaner than the a7rIV
Fro was shooting up to 12000 if I recall
Keep in mind those are JPEGs from the camera, so noise reduction is likely in play.
Did Tony Northrup get punished by Sony for breaking the review embargo a few days ago? Haven't seen anything from good ol' Tony yet and he should be all over this like butter on corn.
Ah...its good enough...also these reviewers really need to get out of Wide AF if you are targeting a bird in a bunch of branches. There will be methods to get this bird eye af working really well...I already have some ideas....same thing with R5...there are tricks to getting it to work really well. Can't wait to put it through my tests....
webmstrk9 wrote:
Mark Galer provided a Flickr gallery which is linked in his video and on the first page of this thread, 8000 ISO looks way cleaner than the a7rIV
