Stoffer wrote:
Does that sound like a regression compared to the A9 II to you? Haven’t seen the video yet.
Certainly I don't have any issues with the 200-600 on my A9II for fast BIF...and much smaller and faster than the hawks he was shooting....but.....
.. if viewing a 50MP files at 1:1 you may start seeing some micro blur that you don't see on an A9 file because you can't zoom in as much. If you view that 50MP file at 1:2 then it may look identical in sharpness to the A9 file. But if that is the case then you aren't getting the cropping advantage for that image....ie you aren't gaining resolution. You aren't any worse than an A9 image but you aren't any better. You may have to increase your SS to start benefiting from the 50MPs for very fast BIF.
However, there still could be something to the slower focus motors in the 200-600 as Mark theorizes. Mark wants to test further as he only had the limited time with the hawks and no other small fast birds over the days he had to test. Mark also talks about that he wants to try the 100-400 because it does have the linear motors. IMO the 100-400 is going to become a more popular birding lens on the A1 than it has been on the A9.
Mark says he is keeping his A9II until he further tests the 200-600 on the A1. But he is getting an A1.
arbitrage wrote:
He did have a little caution about his very fast bird results with the 200-600. However his greyhounds and martial arts shots were perfect with the lens. The 200-600 worked fine with the larger eagles, but the smaller hawks gave him a bit of pause. That is a little worrisome.
I do wonder if his problem with the 200-600 was atmospheric distortion. The shots were taken at a greater distance than the tethered birds and it looked to be in the middle of the day with bright sunshine.
I will point out a few errors I found in Mark's video when he does a little comparison against the R5...I think that is one part of the video that he should have stayed away from as he has never shot an R5.
He says the scan speed is 15x the R5....that is incorrect...we assume the A1 is 1/240 (at least 1/200) and the R5 has been tested to be ~ 1/60. So we are more like a 4x increase. The R5 doesn't distort as bad as the golf swing image...that is more like an A7RIV at 1/15s. Also when he says the R5 has blackout that isn't really correct. At H+ in 12FPS MS or 20FPS ES the R5 does not have blackout. What Mark should say is the R5 does not have a live feed. The R5 is doing a slideshow but at 20FPS it is almost as good as the A9/A1 if you hold the shutter down...however if you go on and off the shutter you get the stutter as you drop out of slideshow mode and back into the live feed. That is the advantage of the A9/A1 over R5...not blackout.
AJay wrote:
I do wonder if his problem with the 200-600 was atmospheric distortion. The shots were taken at a greater distance than the tethered birds and it looked to be in the middle of the day with bright sunshine.
That is possible....at first I thought the kites were at the rehab but I just went back and saw that you are correct... the kites were wild I think and the bokeh has a bit of that funky mid-day atmospheric look. Even Mark says the verdict is still out on the A1/200-600. He had lots of good results on all other subjects with the A1/200-600.
arbitrage wrote:
I will point out a few errors I found in Mark's video when he does a little comparison against the R5...I think that is one part of the video that he should have stayed away from as he has never shot an R5.
He says the scan speed is 15x the R5....that is incorrect...we assume the A1 is 1/240 (at least 1/200) and the R5 has been tested to be ~ 1/60. So we are more like a 4x increase. The R5 doesn't distort as bad as the golf swing image...that is more like an A7RIV at 1/15s. Also when he says the R5 has blackout that isn't really correct. At H+ in 12FPS MS or 20FPS ES the R5 does not have blackout. ...Show more →
Noticed those too, but difference between blackout vs. frame insertion is nonexistant. You will not have updated video in EVF no matter which the camera is doing.
It's technically still a blackout, just a "Live feed blackout". Blackout here just means that you're not able to see what's happening anymore, and that's true for the R5 since you're seeing the previous frame instead.
arbitrage wrote:
That is possible....at first I thought the kites were at the rehab but I just went back and saw that you are correct... the kites were wild I think and the bokeh has a bit of that funky mid-day atmospheric look. Even Mark says the verdict is still out on the A1/200-600. He had lots of good results on all other subjects with the A1/200-600.
I’ll be watching that closely as the 200-600 is the lens I use. I’m hopping it’s atmospheric conditions or early firmware. I also wonder if the OSS setting would matter more, like what you experienced on the A7RIV. Maybe with the higher resolution OSS is just not able to be perfect and we’ll have to go mode 3 or shut it off for faster BIF.
tn1krr wrote:
Noticed those too, but difference between blackout vs. frame insertion is nonexistant. You will not have updated video in EVF no matter which the camera is doing.
I see your point, but when I shoot the R5 at 20FPS and hold down the shutter it is dead simple to keep panning with a fast flying small duck. If I take a short burst as the duck is further out and then pause for a second to wait for another short burst as it gets closer that is where the issue of the slideshow comes into play. But if you just hold the shutter down then the 1/20s delay of the previous image doesn't hamper your tracking at all. It is as easy as an A9 for me. Granted, I haven't yet tested the R5 on my most erratic, small, fast swallows...just a few weeks to go for that one. It may not succeed as well as the A9 for that. I have shot some small birds IF with the R5 like Brewer's Blackbirds, Dunlin and Black Turnstone and succeeded. But I still feel the A9 is better on those subjects for quick acquisition, ease of tracking with the true live feed and a bit higher hit rate. Although I have seen the R5's Eye-AF activate on a small blackbird IF so that is impressive. I don't think the A1 is going to be able to do that but then again it probably doesn't matter as even the A9 in plain old Wide or Zone gets me a better hit rate than the R5 doing Eye-AF. So as long as the A1 hasn't regressed from the A9 in the regular modes it won't matter if the Eye-AF can't do fast BIF.
arbitrage wrote:
That is possible....at first I thought the kites were at the rehab but I just went back and saw that you are correct... the kites were wild I think and the bokeh has a bit of that funky mid-day atmospheric look. Even Mark says the verdict is still out on the A1/200-600. He had lots of good results on all other subjects with the A1/200-600.
Did he compare the experience he had with the A9ii vs. A1 regarding the one sequence he showed with the 200-600, when being at 20 vs. 30 fps or 20 vs. 20 fps?
arbitrage wrote:
I see your point, but when I shoot the R5 at 20FPS and hold down the shutter it is dead simple to keep panning with a fast flying small duck. If I take a short burst as the duck is further out and then pause for a second to wait for another short burst as it gets closer that is where the issue of the slideshow comes into play. But if you just hold the shutter down then the 1/20s delay of the previous image doesn't hamper your tracking at all. It is as easy as an A9 for me. Granted, I haven't yet tested the R5 on my most erratic, small, fast swallows...just a few weeks to go for that one. It may not succeed as well as the A9 for that. ...Show more →
This sounds reasonable, the most frustration I've had with A7R-series burst is with acrobatic/fighter planes on high magnification, high angular speed and direction changes and slideshow effect often overpower my tracking skills/instincts.
No exact data on the A1 yet, but the assumption is 1/240 for now.
A1 has to be faster than 1/200 since that is the ES flash sync speed. Given that Sony says 50% faster than A9 that puts it to around 1/225 - 1/240, since most measurements put A9 into 1/150-1/160
Compressed RAW buffer test by Alex Phan, impressive!
Keep in mind he is crop mode (see the icon lower right corner) and he is in H (not H+). So yeah, in crop mode at 20FPS to a CFe-A the buffer is unlimited. That doesn't surprise me.
Definitely something to watch though as this is pretty similar to how I would describe the r4+200-600 issue. Hopefully just conditions, but it seems like it might be the 200-600 again. That said, I had issues on the r4 even on still subjects (in af-c). Af-s would resolve it instantly. I ditched my 200-600 last April and switched to the 100-400 as it compliments the 600GM better for me anyway, but I'd rather everything work as intended.
arbitrage wrote:
That is possible....at first I thought the kites were at the rehab but I just went back and saw that you are correct... the kites were wild I think and the bokeh has a bit of that funky mid-day atmospheric look. Even Mark says the verdict is still out on the A1/200-600. He had lots of good results on all other subjects with the A1/200-600.
buffalowolff wrote:
Definitely something to watch though as this is pretty similar to how I would describe the r4+200-600 issue. Hopefully just conditions, but it seems like it might be the 200-600 again. That said, I had issues on the r4 even on still subjects (in af-c). Af-s would resolve it instantly. I ditched my 200-600 last April and switched to the 100-400 as it compliments the 600GM better for me anyway, but I'd rather everything work as intended.
I also had issues with RIV/200-600 on static subjects. So hopefully this potential issue isn't anywhere near the RIV issue. Of course I also found some pretty good settings to make the RIV/200-600 work for me a lot of the time. But with the A1, the RIV is pointless to me so it is already out the door. The RIV was a stop gap for me to get higher resolution over the A9. But it comes with a lot of tradeoffs as you well know. I struggled to enjoy shooting that camera. Once getting the R5 with high resolution, high speed and great AF the RIV was never touched other than to compare a few things. Now the A1 basically obsoletes my R5. I sold my 100-400GM because the R5/100-500 served my purpose. Now I foresee myself repurchasing the 100-400GM and selling off the R5/100-500. I do like having a lens like the 100-400/100-500 that can do semi-macro stuff better than the 200-600 or the big primes. Or I may keep the R5 for awhile longer. We shall see......
I still have no idea what my kit is going to be behind the a1. I keep debating between keeping the a9 and/or a7iii as my backup/beater/lowlight. But then I say maybe I want the RIV for in the kayak so I can keep the high MP but not be sad when I drown it..... but then thats what insurance is for. A 2nd a1 would be the ultimate answer but no way that is happening, I'm not in a position where I actually _need_ a backup. Just too many things to like about each body.
arbitrage wrote:
I also had issues with RIV/200-600 on static subjects. So hopefully this potential issue isn't anywhere near the RIV issue. Of course I also found some pretty good settings to make the RIV/200-600 work for me a lot of the time. But with the A1, the RIV is pointless to me so it is already out the door. The RIV was a stop gap for me to get higher resolution over the A9. But it comes with a lot of tradeoffs as you well know. I struggled to enjoy shooting that camera. Once getting the R5 with high resolution, high speed and great AF the RIV was never touched other than to compare a few things. Now the A1 basically obsoletes my R5. I sold my 100-400GM because the R5/100-500 served my purpose. Now I foresee myself repurchasing the 100-400GM and selling off the R5/100-500. I do like having a lens like the 100-400/100-500 that can do semi-macro stuff better than the 200-600 or the big primes. Or I may keep the R5 for awhile longer. We shall see.........Show more →
buffalowolff wrote:
I still have no idea what my kit is going to be behind the a1. I keep debating between keeping the a9 and/or a7iii as my backup/beater/lowlight. But then I say maybe I want the RIV for in the kayak so I can keep the high MP but not be sad when I drown it..... but then thats what insurance is for. A 2nd a1 would be the ultimate answer but no way that is happening, I'm not in a position where I actually _need_ a backup. Just too many things to like about each body.
My magic 8-ball currently is seeing my future as A1, 100-400GM, 200-600, 600GM and then either an A9 (original) or upcoming A7IV (not R) as my 2nd body mostly used for backup but also sometimes used as a 2nd active shooting body on trips.
Of course my magic 8-ball is often wrong and usually changes it's prediction on the hour
