p.1 #1 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I wanted to have an open discussion about the A1II (and A9III) AF. What I have found is that while there are improvements to the AF there is also one major change from previous Sony cameras that for me is a big downgrade. I first noticed this issue when I had the A9III last year and assumed it was likely to carry over to the A1II. I’m not sure if it is just something to do with the new AI chip in the new cameras but I don’t recall noticing it when I had the A7RV for a few weeks of testing.
First I’ll go over where I see improvements to the A1II’s AF compared to the A1.
1. The training database to recognize birds/eyes is improved over the A1. I’ve now had a number of situations where I went back and forth between my A1 and the A1II and only the A1II could recognize the given subject as a bird and highlight the eye. But I don’t feel the improvements are game changing. When a bird is presenting in a pose that would be good to take the photo anyways then both cameras will recognize it. The A1II still struggles to see birds that are a bit deeper into a mess of twigs or bush. The Sony cameras are still noticeably behind Canon’s latest in the R5II (and I assume R1). I even think the original R5 may still be better than the current Sony cameras but it has been awhile since I used the R5 so I won’t go as far as claiming that for certain.
2. Higher precision and accuracy resulting in an overall higher hit rate for BIF. I do feel that the camera is getting me a bit better hit rate for BIF all the way from easy ducks to my darting swallows I’ve been shooting the past 2 weeks. This is always a difficult thing to test and prove but it is my gut feeling that it is improved. That said, the A1 FW 3.0 also made some improvements compared to 1.32 and 2.02 FW for hit rate so the differential would have been greater if the A1 hadn’t had 3.0.
Now onto my main problem with the AF. This certainly applies to both A9III and A1II.
Previous Sony cameras (A1, A9II, A9, A7RIV) that I’ve owned have always demonstrated a priority to focus on whatever is in the centre of the frame. This is especially noticeable when using Zone and Wide AF modes. Which are the two AF modes I use the most on all my Sony cameras. Typically the non-tracking versions of those modes.
I found this centre priority to really help in controlling the AF to stick with a bird that had foreground or background distractions around it. For example, I’m shooting from a very low angle a Robin pulling worms out of the grass. There is foreground grass obscuring some of the Robin. There is background grass behind it but that is usually less of an issue. With the A1 and prior cameras if I just kept the Robin in the centre of the Zone/Wide then even if the Bird detect didn’t see it as a bird, the dancing green squares would stay on the bird most of the time. Another example is shooting low down (or higher up) on a duck on rippled water. With the A1 you could just keep the bird centred and AF would keep on it.
So what has changed? Well in my opinion that centre priority is totally out the window now. The camera now has a nearest object priority baked in as far as I can tell. That can be a good thing if you are shooting a BIF with no foreground and a nice OOF background. Probably why I have no qualms with the BIF results. But if you shoot that same Robin in the grass the A1II and A9III will jump to that foreground grass anytime it doesn’t have a clear recognition of the bird. If it is locked on the bird then things go fine. But if it loses the recognition for even a split second (say the bird turns away or bends over) the AF immediately latches to the foreground. Same thing with distractions in the foreground water with a floating duck. Same thing with some twigs in front of the bird. It is infuriating. I've never been a fan of the Tracking versions of the AF modes but I've been experimenting with them to see if that can overcome this. Unfortunately it doesn't. I'm actually surprised how easily the A1II will jump off the object you have started tracking and go to the foreground. In Tracking it shouldn't need to recognize the subject. If I start tracking an orange and black robin surrounded by green grass it should be able to hold onto that orange and black object and not jump to foreground grass regardless if it can recognize it as a bird or not. It fails at this all the time.
Bottom line, it is what it is and I don’t expect it to change back to the old logic with a future FW update. I will develop different techniques to work around it as time goes on. Maybe having to use small flex spot more often and not rely on Wide or Zone when in these types of situations. The custom zones can surely help as one thing I've been doing as a workaround is to keep the subject right along the bottom of my zone box so it won't jump to foreground. Doing a custom thin, wide rectangle could help with this also. There will be ways to help this. But they are more convoluted than the previous AF system.
What I’ve yet to test is if this is going to be a hinderance to my diving Osprey and KF shooting I do in the summer and often from my kayak. If there are distractions or ripples in the water I wonder if this new logic will have it jumping to the water more so than the A1 does? Time will tell. I’ll report back.
Curious if others have noted this behaviour? I know one poster mentioned it on the A1II battery drain thread. I noticed it in the first day of shooting the A9III last year and again in the first day of shooting the A1II last month. It was just in my face obvious after 7 years of using the previous AF logic.
p.1 #2 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
Geoff,
The following has been my experience although I admit that so far, my shooting experience with the A1 II has been limited. At the location I was at, the background is far away and the foreground distractions are minimal. I have been shooting either using the Zone AF Area or Wide AF Area without tracking. As such, the camera doesn't have any issues grabbing focus on my target and sticking to the target while panning. I tried the bird AI tracking and again, maybe due to the smooth background, it works just as well.
In February, I took my original A1 to Japan and shot quite a few eagle actions, among others, and that after a FW update to 3.0. Prior to that FW, I shot pretty much only using the Zone AF Area without tracking since I believed that that setting reliably delivered the most focused shots and that mirrored your experience. On that trip, I changed that to the bird AI tracking a few times and I was pleasantly surprised that it did the job as well as without. The improvement there is palpable, IMHO, well, based on memory.
So, I feel that due to the background conditions at 2 locations, both the A1 and A1 II perform roughly on the same level in terms of grabbing focus and sticking to the focus points. Based on your description though, it sounds like you need to use a more targeted AF Area. I have noticed that you have used the GM 300mm lens quite a bit and lately more than the GM 600mm lens. Due to the focal length, the GM 300mm tends to have a wider DOF. Maybe, just maybe, that the wider DOF of the shorter lens makes the focus more "jumpy" to the foreground? Not sure though, just putting it out there...
The last time I went to the local falcon site, I took my GM 600mm and noticed the shallower DOF more so than using the 400-800mm. AF-wise both lenses performed fine but again, the background was far away. I wanted to get a faster shutter speed using the prime lens. Too bad the falcons didn't put up a good show last weekend.
I hope you get the new camera to sing again soon...
p.1 #3 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
AGeoJO wrote:
Geoff,
This has been my experience although I admit that so far, my shooting experience with the A1 II has been limited. Almost all the time in my cases, the background is far away and the foreground distractions are minimal. I have been shooting either using the Zone AF Area or Wide AF Area without tracking. As such, the camera doesn't have any issues grabbing focus on my target and sticking to the target while panning. I tried the bird AI tracking and again, maybe due to the smooth background, it works just as fine.
In February, I took my original A1 to Japan and shot quite a few eagle actions, among others, after a FW update to 3.0. Prior to that FW, I shot pretty much only using the Zone AF Area without tracking since I believed that that setting reliably delivered the most focused shots. On that trip, I changed that to the bird AI tracking and I was pleasantly surprised that it did the job as well as without. The improvement there is palpable, IMHO, well, based on memory.
So, I feel that due to the background conditions at 2 locations, both the A1 and A1 II perform roughly on the same level in terms of grabbing focus and sticking to the focus points. Based on your description though, it sounds like you need to use a more targeted AF Area. I have noticed that you have used the GM 300mm lens quite a bit and lately more than the GM 600mm lens. Due to the focal length, the GM 300mm tends to have a wider DOF. Maybe, just maybe, that the wider DOF of the shorter lens makes the focus more "jumpy" to the foreground? Not sure though, just putting it out there...
The last time I went to the local falcon site, I took my GM 600mm and noticed the shallower DOF more so than using the 400-800mm. AF-wise both lenses performed fine but again, the background was far away. I wanted to get a faster shutter speed using the prime lens. Too bad the falcons didn't put up a good show last weekend.
I hope you get the new camera to sing again soon......Show more →
Thanks for the feedback Joshua. Did you mean to say “not” been my experience in your first sentence?
p.1 #4 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Joshua. Did you mean to say “not” been my experience in your first sentence?
Geoff, the first sentence was not meant to say "no" to your experience but it was merely meant to describe my experience since I firmly believe the shooting circumstances between our locations are different. I edited my post to make my point come across better...
p.1 #5 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
AGeoJO wrote:
Geoff, the first sentence was not meant to say "no" to your experience but it was merely meant to describe my experience since I firmly believe the shooting circumstances between our locations are different. I edited my post to make my point come across better...
Ah. So you weren’t referenced my experience one way or the other. Just referencing your own. Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood.
p.1 #6 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I haven’t shot with the new a9 or a1, but with the other AI chip bodies I’ve used, I just assign lock on AF to a custom button and hit it when I want to track something. It stays locked onto whatever I choose regardless of foreground or background distractions, it’s amazing and incredibly reliable compared to any auto subject detection outside of people.
p.1 #7 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
Geoff I agree with you 100% re the foreground issue. I have owned the A1ii since the day it was released and the A9iii for quite a while. I did the same thing when I first got both cameras. I set them up and went into the yard to shoot some birds. It was immediately evident with both cameras that the camera would focus on tiny bits of grass in a way that the A1 didn't. The 2 new cameras do the same thing in areas of lots of clutter. They have a much more difficult time locking onto the bird, even when you use expand spot and put the focus point right on the bird it will still jump off. Now I don't want to shoot birds in clutter usually but I do want to lock onto a bird to get takeoff shots and both cameras consistently have the issue where they jump of of the bird. I have used the A1ii extensively since i got it while running 2 workshops in New Mexico, 1 in Texas and 1 in Florida. My experience has been the same in a multitude of habitats, lighting conditions and locations. I have probably photographed about 100 species and taken hundreds of thousands of images with the A1ii since I got it. I have not found any settings that have changed the issue.
Other than this I do feel that overall the auto focus is a bit better than the A1, but not by much.
p.1 #8 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I have the a1 and a9 III. I shoot them interchangeably and my experiences and results as a sports shooter are little different.
For example, I've shot 3 HS baseball games this week. The a9 III shines with players wearing batting helmets and hats. I think the AI focus is attuned to that and works hard to find eyes even when barely or not visible at all to me. I saw the same thing with football helmets where it knew where the eyes should be, even if not readily visible. However, regarding the closest thing vs center thing is where my experience differs. Several times I've been shooting a player in the batters box and the a9 III will find easier to see eyes on a fan in the background vs the player in the batter's box, probably because the players eyes are obscured and the fans are not. It can be quite frustrating when the batter takes up the full center of the screen but the focus is off to the side and in the background. So, in this example, my A1 does a better job of not finding eyes in the background and staying focused on the player even with no eyes identified but the player is squarely in the AF zone/area.
p.1 #9 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I wonder how much the AI part on these cameras needs more training and shape better taken into account? Eye detection could do with some tuning.
I agree with comments about the cameras I have (a1/a9iii) suffering from wanting to grab a bit of foreground/background, especially a brighter (than the subject) bit. You learn to work around it and the custom AF boxes (thin vert or horizontal) can help a little but that's not really the point.
p.1 #10 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
twodees wrote:
I wonder how much the AI part on these cameras needs more training and shape better taken into account? Eye detection could do with some tuning.
I agree with comments about the cameras I have (a1/a9iii) suffering from wanting to grab a bit of foreground/background, especially a brighter (than the subject) bit. You learn to work around it and the custom AF boxes (thin vert or horizontal) can help a little but that's not really the point.
All I know is the Canon AI training is way ahead of this. But similar to the A1 vs A1II, when you have a bird in a good location with good pose/head angle they all do great. But the Canon can figure out things are birds in the oddest locations and positions, small in the frame, obscured by lots of stuff etc. It is just that much better.
But I'd still take a Sony for BIF over the R5II. Although Canon is pretty close in that area also.
So I think Sony can improve because I've seen better. I don't know if they would ever do a FW update that included new training for the AI subject recognition? I certainly won't expect it or hold my breath.
p.1 #11 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
arbitrage wrote:
So I think Sony can improve because I've seen better. I don't know if they would ever do a FW update that included new training for the AI subject recognition? I certainly won't expect it or hold my breath.
There may very well be hardware limitations for what kind of AI models they can run fast enough, so only Sony knows. May need a new chip and thus a new camera.
p.1 #12 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
My experience with the a1 and a1 II is sort of similar to yours, Geoff. I shot about 30,000 images of wild pheasants in the snow from a ground blind this past winter. First with the a1 and then the a1 II. I had both cameras grab every little blade of grass or cattails near the pheasants, especially in front of them. I generally shoot in wide or zone, bird eye AF, non tracking. And as you said if bird is clear of contrasty grass and or in an obvious nice pose, it works great. When something distracts the AF it wants to jump in front. I had to toss thousands of potential keepers due to me not seeing the tiny blade of grass.
My remedy was changing between wide, zone flexible spot, spot and extra small spot as the situation dictated.
The major difference in my experience is I remember the same thing last spring when photographing wood ducks swimming through reeds and the pheasants this winter with the a1 having a similar issue as the a1 II. I can't pinpoint the percentage difference between the two cameras regarding how frequently each model gets confused. But I think the a1 II AF is a bit stickier in general and a tad better with action shots and BIF.
p.1 #13 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
Stoffer wrote:
There may very well be hardware limitations for what kind of AI models they can run fast enough, so only Sony knows. May need a new chip and thus a new camera.
Very true. I was hoping this latest A1II flagship would have got a new chip but Sony just went to the recycled parts bin and phoned it in with this one. Maybe in 2029 we will get some improvements.
p.1 #14 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
One other thing I forgot to add to my OP is that another change in behaviour I noticed on all the AI chipped cameras I've used (A7RV, A9III, A1II) is that unlike previous bodies if the camera isn't recognizing the bird in full frame view, it does improve the odds by switching to APS-C view. This is behaviour that has been very evident on Canon and Nikon MILCs that I've owned. However on the A1 it was the exact opposite for some odd reason. The camera wouldn't recognize in APS-C mode where just going back to full frame mode you would see it recognize the eye. I never understood why it showed that behaviour on the prior cameras.
But it is a good thing to know on the new cameras that going to crop mode can get the subject to be recognized if it isn't in full frame.
One other quirk with the Sony system that seems unchanged from the A1 is that the camera is more likely to throw up the eye detect box if you are in a Tracking version of a given AF mode versus a non-Tracking version. I may notice this more than others as I keep my four selectable AF modes as the non-tracking versions but have my REC button set to Tracking ON when held down. So I often will switch back and forth on a whim and noticed this behaviour with the A1 and now A1II.
p.1 #15 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I've had my Canon R5 II AF find little birds in bushes that I can't even see. And not just their bodies but also their tiny eyes. So superior AI has a lot to do with it and it's something Sony needs to work on.
p.1 #16 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
rancherpix wrote:
I've had my Canon R5 II AF find little birds in bushes that I can't even see. And not just their bodies but also their tiny eyes. So superior AI has a lot to do with it and it's something Sony needs to work on.
A Canon R5 II with the Sony A1/A1 II sensor (with the added read-out speed and image quality) would be a decent camera, no doubt!
p.1 #17 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
Has anyone experimented with the a1 II auto subject detection vs bird to see if one works better than the other?
Frequently, I'll be photographing birds and have a squirrel or muskrat come by some, I've been mostly using the auto subject detection. If I knew for sure the bird specific mode was faster and or more accurate, I'd use it.
Thanks, Lon
p.1 #18 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
After getting my A1ii back from Sony the other day ,I wanted to try different settings. I stumbled on this YouTube video on different dial settings . It's worth checking it out.By setting c3 to my Dial 1-2-3 I can change dial setting fast. I set the rear left dial to switch focus area, the front to shutter, If the camera doesn't find the bird with a wide focus I turn though the focus area to XS spot. It's the fastest I have ever been able to change settings, It worked great even finding birds in bushes. I find the smaller the spot the better it nails the bird.
?si=bnT1yHQJofCACyDT
p.1 #19 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
johnsigs wrote:
After getting my A1ii back from Sony the other day ,I wanted to try different settings. I stumbled on this YouTube video on different dial settings . It's worth checking it out.By setting c3 to my Dial 1-2-3 I can change dial setting fast. I set the rear left dial to switch focus area, the front to shutter, If the camera doesn't find the bird with a wide focus I turn though the focus area to XS spot. It's the fastest I have ever been able to change settings, It worked great even finding birds in bushes. I find the smaller the spot the better it nails the bird.
?si=bnT1yHQJofCACyDT...Show more →
Didn't know this kinda of setup existed. Now I can have even more quick buttons.
Update:
Fiddled with this but doesn't work out for my setup. Dial 1-2-3 is great but limited in what could be assigned.
When [wide] focus area failed I much prefer a [Recall Custom Hold] button set specifically to XS spot. Faster to react.
p.1 #20 · The pros and cons of the A1II and A9III AF
I didn't realize (or forgot) that you could assign the AF modes to a dial. Well my "EC" dial is not used as I shoot in Full Manual all the time so I just switched this to AF modes and will see if I like this better than my C2 toggling method. This could allow me to move Precapture On/Off from C5 up to C2 as I have never loved using front buttons on any camera brands that have had them.
I used to use the My Dial way back when it first came out in A9 series but I think that was before we had full customization options for the three dials. It was a way to get ISO dial up top and aperture down on the lower wheel but we've had full dial customization for a while now so I haven't used that function. I guess I will setup a My Dial #1 putting EC back on the "EC" dial just in case I need to access it at some point.
