Like I mentioned in the Youtube comments, only final images will tell the tale here, not the green AF box in the EVF nor the final AF box in the image file, especially when talking about the 200-600.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I can’t see those files. Will have to wait for Geoff’s testing at this point before I’m convinced.
RoamingScott wrote:
Like I mentioned in the Youtube comments, only final images will tell the tale here, not the green AF box in the EVF nor the final AF box in the image file, especially when talking about the 200-600.
Good point. I had a Panasonic G9 at one time with the 100-400. It would track the subject by showing the box moving with the subject, but when looking at the results, most were OOF even though it appeared to be tracking the subject just fine.
RoamingScott wrote:
Like I mentioned in the Youtube comments, only final images will tell the tale here, not the green AF box in the EVF nor the final AF box in the image file, especially when talking about the 200-600.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I can’t see those files. Will have to wait for Geoff’s testing at this point before I’m convinced.
I agree. Except that I would like to see final images AND the final AF spot in the image file. Without that, an in-focus image could be luck of good DOF.
stuartv wrote:
I agree. Except that I would like to see final images AND the final AF spot in the image file. Without that, an in-focus image could be luck of good DOF.
With that, an in-focus image could still be luck of good DOF. You really are overthinking this. As you apparently expect the reviewer to misrepresent his findings, you can't stop him. Looking at the data yourself ultimately only means the reviewer would have to go an extra mile to cheat more. But this isn't politics and there are plenty of independent reviewers with overall similar verdicts. Since you mistrust all of them, just wait and check yourself. When you do, you may want to recheck which of the reviewers hit the mark. I expect you'll find the majority of them will be reasonably close, missing more due to lack of ability or motivation than actual cheating.
RoamingScott wrote:
Like I mentioned in the Youtube comments, only final images will tell the tale here, not the green AF box in the EVF nor the final AF box in the image file, especially when talking about the 200-600.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I can’t see those files. Will have to wait for Geoff’s testing at this point before I’m convinced.
too bad then. I'll not pay a fee here to upload the image. Also, i would be careless about you being convinced or not. Why would you let me or Geoff to dictate you on how to spend your hard earn money? SMH
Alex Phan wrote:
too bad then. I'll not pay a fee here to upload the image. Also, i would be careless about you being convinced or not. Why would you let me or Geoff to dictate you on how to spend your hard earn money? SMH
You can always embed direct from any other site you may use like Flickr, 500Px, Smugmug etc. Maybe even direct from Facebook but I've never tried that.
Daran wrote:
With that, an in-focus image could still be luck of good DOF. You really are overthinking this. As you apparently expect the reviewer to misrepresent his findings, you can't stop him. Looking at the data yourself ultimately only means the reviewer would have to go an extra mile to cheat more. But this isn't politics and there are plenty of independent reviewers with overall similar verdicts. Since you mistrust all of them, just wait and check yourself. When you do, you may want to recheck which of the reviewers hit the mark. I expect you'll find the majority of them will be reasonably close, missing more due to lack of ability or motivation than actual cheating....Show more →
This is one of the reason i stop posting anything here at FM since too many keyboard warrior here. Why don't you guys get your ass out and conduct the test to prove what the feature on certain camera is just a scam from the manufacture? .
I was never a fan of animal ey eye AF since day one. I got all my shot WITHOUT a single usage of animal,bird eye AF before.
The purpose of the video is to showcase that it works. Do me a favor, try to track and record a live EVF then come back to tell me how easy to cheat the system?
Except your video does not show that it works. Like Canon has taught us with the RF bodies, a green auto focus indicator does not guarantee in focus shots. Also, you can easily embed images without a paid membership here, although Facebook compresses and ruins images so much it’s not worth your effort. Flickr albums with full resolution images are your best bet, and you get 1000 images for free.
I don’t own a 200-600 because I have an R4 and don’t want to deal with the wonkiness of that combo. Better to leave testing of the A1 and the 200-600 to someone that 1) knows the Sony AF system inside and out and 2) already has the lens. That’s where folks like Geoff and others come in. I get that you are trying to share as much as possible about the A1 and it’s appreciated, but this test, as presented on YouTube without images or proof of keeper rates, is pointless.
No one on this site is singlehandedly getting me to spend my money, at least not until Fred starts posting landscapes from his new GFX 100S Alex Phan wrote:
This is one of the reason i stop posting anything here at FM since too many keyboard warrior here. Why don't you guys get your ass out and conduct the test to prove what the feature on certain camera is just a scam from the manufacture? .
I was never a fan of animal ey eye AF since day one. I got all my shot WITHOUT a single usage of animal,bird eye AF before.
The purpose of the video is to showcase that it works. Do me a favor, try to track and record a live EVF then come back to tell me how easy to cheat the system?...Show more →
the only way to personally judge the af accuracy is to look at a long af-c sequence of full-size pics.
can't do that here on fm, or really even flickr.
a bunch of ooc jpegs in a zip file, uploaded to dropbox or similar, would be the way to go.
but even then it would be only one sequence... so either rent the gear to evaluate, or buy it on faith that it works in your specific situation... that's what we had to do with the a9 back in 2017.
Just so I don't get anyone's hopes up. I won't be providing strings of 100 images in a burst either. I'll give my honest opinion once I have some time with the swallows and other BIF. But don't expect me to post strings of full sized images to show the hit rate.
All we can really go on is our own personal experiences...I'm lucky enough to be able to do that. If you want/need to rely on others then one should read as many reviews/opinions as they can and try to form a conclusion. If you live in the US where it is easy to rent high end gear than that is probably the best route to go. No such thing in Canada although I could borrow the A1 from Sony PRO Support program but nah...I'm going to borrow the 400GM instead
arbitrage wrote:
Just so I don't get anyone's hopes up. I won't be providing strings of 100 images in a burst either. I'll give my honest opinion once I have some time with the swallows and other BIF. But don't expect me to post strings of full sized images to show the hit rate.
haha.. that cold and brutal. Lots of life depend on you man.
60 photo sequence by Alex Phan with bird eye AF - Thank you!
Difficult subject with branches hiding the eye in a few of the last misfocused ones. He also mentions about user error on these last ones.
I would be very happy, if this is what the pre-production firmware can do.
I'm not sure whether tracking instead of eye-AF would have done better job with these last "close-ups". Maybe it would have focused better on the feathers and due to adequate depth of field the eye would have been in focus also, but who knows?
I suppose the results would be even better in "easier" sequences.
Any guesses regarding what the a9 + 200-600 would have done in a similar scenario?
60 photo sequence by Alex Phan with bird eye AF - Thank you!
Difficult subject with branches hiding the eye in a few of the last misfocused ones. He also mentions about user error on these last ones.
I would be very happy, if this is what the pre-production firmware can do.
I'm not sure whether tracking instead of eye-AF would have done better job with these last "close-ups". Maybe it would have focused better on the feathers and due to adequate depth of field the eye would have been in focus also, but who knows?
I suppose the results would be even better in "easier" sequences.
Any guesses regarding what the a9 + 200-600 would have done in a similar scenario?...Show more →
That's probably hard to judge without a direct back-to-back test. In my limited experience with it, the A9 was also near flawless. Never tried the A9 at ISO 2500, though.
I'm very happy with what I'm seeing. My A7R4 would not have captured half as many hits.
I assume this was with the 200-600 based on the focal length and aperture. The sequence looks pretty good to me. Alex himself said he was faltering at the end as he was tired. When the bird gets close and almost overhead like that it gets tough to track anyway and sometimes your hands and arms can get wadded up as you pivot, rotate, pan, and change altitude. Keep in mind also if there were going to be a problem with the 200-600 anywhere, it would be in those close up moving shots where the focus motors are going full rip. All said if I still had my 2-6 I'd be fairly optimistic right now, and I'm very excited for the a1.
Thanks to Alex for sharing that. I was hoping for the RAWs so I could see them in A7Info and see where the focus point was but not even sure A7Info supports A1 RAWs.
Regardless, performance looks good for that sequence. A few slight misses sprinkled throughout. I was actually impressed it came back into focus for the 2nd to last shot and almost for the last shot. Typically I just see it go out like that and stay out till bird leaves the frame.
Overall I'd say this is similar to what an A9II would pull off if shot in Zone (non-tracking) although possibly would have had some from beak focus more often than what we got here with the eye-detect. But pulling off what an A9II would do on a 50MP camera with the 200-600 is all I need. I really don't need focus to be better than the A9II (although I'll take it if it is). A9II already bests the R5 except for the added value of Bird Eye-AF for non-flight stuff. Now the A1 has that...win, win for me....hurry up March 4th....
To Alex, Geoff, and others: I would like to express my deep appreciation for the time you take to post your thoughts on new cameras and gear. I trust your opinions far more than almost all of the YouTubers. It helps people like me, with limited budgets, make purchasing / upgrading decisions.
. I'll give my honest opinion once I have some time with the swallows and other BIF. But don't expect me to post strings of full sized images to show the hit rate.