gdanmitchell wrote:
I can imagine situations where 30 fps is valuable, but… I also know that shooting at that rate (especially in long bursts) generates hundreds/thousands of frames, often with little advantage over a slower rate, say 10 fps or so.
For me, it would be rare to choose that high frame rate.
Thoughts?
Really depends on what one shoots doesn’t it. Some subjects like the bat on the ball require that split second capture where the extra fps might make or break the moment. If one does not need this split second moment…then yeh, reduce the fps. Sort of like using high iso like 12,800 when needed and reducing when not.
gdanmitchell wrote:
We are not in disagreement then.
30fps (or 60fps or the sky is the limit!) can be useful for those who rely on it to product that gives of subject relationship in space — or, I think, for certain specialized kinds of bird and other photography.
If you do a lot of those things, then it could be extremely important.
But most of the time, few of us do that sort of thing, and my point is that just going with 30fps in those other cases probably creates more problems for the photographer than it solves… and slower burst rates likely make more sense.
BTW, I’m impressed that you, likely a person who specializes in this sort of aviation photography, can produce images that along the planes this way. :-)
The 30 or even 20 FPS in the A7RVI is certainly a big selling point from Sony, it's there if you need it even if you don't shoot that fast 99% of the time. Agree, most people have no need or desire to shoot that fast, the small group that do tend to be very vocal.
Incoming swallow sequence - forget those dogs, they be slow as by comparison - no wind so they're belting along as they do.
LOSSLESS compressed RAW at 30fps. 1/3200s so a bit slow but very little light available.
For those who think you can't shoot fast things using LOSSLESS compressed RAW because autofocus calcs drops when using this mode that doesn't seem to be true and rolling shutter distortion seems negligible on the majority of images.
Note that even the A9iii will likely loose focus when the bird veers off out of the frame so that's quite typical.
As usual acquisition is crazy fast and you won't find more accurate AF. In better light use f/8 to increase DOF and reduce the likelihood of missing focus on the eyes.
duncangr wrote:
Incoming swallow sequence - forget those dogs, they be slow as by comparison - no wind so they're belting along as they do.
LOSSLESS compressed RAW at 30fps. 1/3200s so a bit slow but very little light available.
For those who think you can't shoot fast things using LOSSLESS compressed RAW because autofocus calcs drops when using this mode that doesn't seem to be true and rolling shutter distortion seems negligible on the majority of images.
Note that even the A9iii will likely loose focus when the bird veers off out of the frame so that's quite typical.
As usual acquisition is crazy fast and you won't find more accurate AF. In better light use f/8 to increase DOF and reduce the likelihood of missing focus on the eyes.
Cliff L. wrote:
Can anyone post some hummingbird in flight images?
I'm really intrigued by this camera, but need to know if indeed it's useable for hummingbirds.
Cliff, I had the chance of taking some hummer shots in my yard with the A7RVI, I was pleasantly surprised that based on quick glance, I am not seeing massive wing distortion, I shot at 1/800 or 1/1000.
Douglas L wrote:
Cliff, I had the chance of taking some hummer shots in my yard with the A7RVI, I was pleasantly surprised that based on quick glance, I am not seeing massive wing distortion, I shot at 1/800 or 1/1000.
Thanks, Douglas.
I'm not really worried about a little distortion, I just want to avoid those mutant birds with four wings like I was getting with the A7RV.
Douglas L wrote:
The 30 or even 20 FPS in the A7RVI is certainly a big selling point from Sony, it's there if you need it even if you don't shoot that fast 99% of the time. Agree, most people have no need or desire to shoot that fast, the small group that do tend to be very vocal.
Which is why it seems like the best solution for that “small group” is simply to get a camera that is optimized for what they regard as the most important thing, perhaps that A1ii. It hardly seems like a defect that the A7r6, Sony’s best camera for high resolution photography, does not also quite equal their most expensive cameras with lower resolution that are optimized for speed with lower resolution.
It feels a little like someone buying a high end sedan for its comfort and speed and then complaining that it won’t carry a half ton of lumber as well as a truck. ;-)
I agree with Dan. Every time I think some other camera, eg the Hasselblad X2D2 or Fujifilm GFX100s might be a better choice for my landscape and nature work, I remind myself of just how capable the Sony A7R... series of cameras really are. They have high resolution, my first priority, and impressive programability, an unmatched set of OEM and third party lenses, and more. Canon and Nikon each make excellent cameras and I spent many, many years using Nikons from the F2 through the D800E but Sony still wins for me. I did not "need" the A7RVI, I already have the A7RV, but I genuinely enjoy using this new camera. Let the BIF and sports shooters have their super fast lower resolution cameras, no problem with that but the A7RVI covers so many genres so well, it's hard to consider anything else if one is fortunate to have the resources.
