aboutthelight wrote:
I have not used it for any songbirds in flight yet. I did use it to photograph Yellow Warbler feeding in a spruce tree but as the light was overcast and close to sunset there was no way to get enough shutter speed to capture a sharp flight image so I did not even try. I got the A7r6 and left for Nome and never once shot with it until I was in Alaska. I did not realize how good it would be for action so I used my A1ii most of the time that I was after flight shots of songbirds. But also songbirds were not really the goal of my trip up there except for a few of the mostly Asian nesters like Yellow Wagtail. I will try it one day and try and report back. But this camera is really amazing considering it is not an A1ii. As I mentioned a few times it will not be good in all situations and there will be times when you see rolling shutter. But for general use to lots of action it is a fantastic camera for most situations. ...Show more →
Thank you very much for suggesting to try and share your impressions and hopefully images. It would be very helpful for many for sure.
Douglas L wrote:
I haven't shot any song birds with the A7RVI. I personally have seen very visible rolling shutter effect in some of my hummingbird shots but there are plenty of good ones to choose from too. I have seen pretty bad leaning trees/buildings while panning in some of my pictures too. Plenty of images of egg shape baseballs, curvy baseball bats and golf clubs, elongated birds wings (most people probably don't notice slightly longer wings or planes) can be easily found. Let's not kid ourselves, you can't beat physics. This is not to say the A7RVI can't shoot fast stuff, in fact, it's great under most circumstances. ...Show more →
Hello. I have also seen examples of rolling shutter in sports situations () and panning-induced distortion with buildings in the background (&t=1076s) but I have not yet seen examples of wing distortion on birds on this model. I have seen some great shots of swallows and the last thing I could think of as a stress test is something like this https://www.instagram.com/umut_h_toprak/p/C28VWV_MGOy/
Douglas L wrote:
One just needs to be aware of the limitations of the A7RVI's electronic shutters in certain situations, under which mechanical shutter can be your best friend if you are OK with 10 FPS. There is a reason why Sony priced the A7RVI at $4500, not $7500.
Long story short, I would love to see the failure modes of the camera for the use cases I am interested in. I am aware of the theoretical superiority of A1 and A9 series models but concrete examples of the kind of artifacts one could expect would be valuable to me and I strongly assume others as well.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Hello. I have also seen examples of rolling shutter in sports situations () and panning-induced distortion with buildings in the background (&t=1076s) but I have not yet seen examples of wing distortion on birds on this model. I have seen some great shots of swallows and the last thing I could think of as a stress test is something like this https://www.instagram.com/umut_h_toprak/p/C28VWV_MGOy/
Long story short, I would love to see the failure modes of the camera for the use cases I am interested in. I am aware of the theoretical superiority of A1 and A9 series models but concrete examples of the kind of artifacts one could expect would be valuable to me and I strongly assume others as well.
After 88 pages of posts and many of them regarding BIF, small vs large birds, hummingbirds.. Isn’t there a lot of information already provided about a camera that was designed for resolution and not for swinging bats, clubs and hummingbird wings? In short, many have posted that they, when shooting in the extremes, found artifacts, but also could find many acceptable images.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Hello. I have also seen examples of rolling shutter in sports situations () and panning-induced distortion with buildings in the background (&t=1076s) but I have not yet seen examples of wing distortion on birds on this model. I have seen some great shots of swallows and the last thing I could think of as a stress test is something like this https://www.instagram.com/umut_h_toprak/p/C28VWV_MGOy/
Long story short, I would love to see the failure modes of the camera for the use cases I am interested in. I am aware of the theoretical superiority of A1 and A9 series models but concrete examples of the kind of artifacts one could expect would be valuable to me and I strongly assume others as well.
I posted some pictures of distorted building, birds, helicopters, electric fans in this thread, you can go through the thread to find them. Even some pictures other members posted here showed elongated bird wings, to my eyes, at least. The extra long wings may not be noticed as the result of rolling effect but they looked unnatural. I remember seeing pictures of unnaturally long arms of a baseball pitcher someone posted, not in this thread, I think he started a separate thread to show the baseball pictures. As I said in my last post, it doesn't happen all the time but it happens, depending in the angles, I guess.
Douglas L wrote:
I posted some pictures of distorted building, birds, helicopters, electric fans in this thread, you can go through the thread to find them. Even some pictures other members posted here showed elongated bird wings, to my eyes, at least. The extra long wings may not be noticed as the result of rolling effect but they looked unnatural. As I said in my last post, it doesn't happen all the time but it happens, depending in the angles, I guess.
Thank you, I missed them I think I'll look for posts from you in this topic again.
EB-1 wrote:
Dots in a camera (front or rear) display is MILC-era marketing nonsense that treats every color pixel of a display separately, so you have to divide by three to get what we usually call pixels. So the a7RVI has 9,437,184 dots. 2048x1536x3=9,437,184 is not liekly a coincidence.
AGeoJO wrote:
I love my A7c R for travel. The rangefinder-like look makes it sleeker and yes, mine is in silver. A few times, people did ask me whether it was a Leica . Nah, just Leica-wannabe, was my answer. A few times, I got away with facilities allowing me to take pictures, because it looks "amateurish" rather than a real professional camera. Yes, the A7r X is not that much bigger but the hump makes it look like a DSLR. But to each his/her own though.
The viewfinder aspect of that camera doesn't bother me much as I use the rear screen significantly more so for rapid composition as typically, I don't have much time in capturing images. While traveling, in more than just a few occasions, speed is more important than careful composition. At least, that's my take.
Plus, I take a fair amount of people's picture while traveling. Since I am holding the camera away from my body, and I tuck in my left elbow on my tummy, the position of the camera is LOWER than my face, and roughly at my tummy. By so doing, the people's rendition is more natural and pleasing. ...Show more →
No disagreement there, Joshua. Like I said, folks who accept the size, weight/features tradeoff of the C series love them. It's all about one's priority.
. Nah, just Leica-wannabe, was my answer. A few times, I got away with facilities allowing me to take pictures, because it looks "amateurish" rather than a real professional camera. Yes, the A7r X is not that much bigger but the hump makes it look like a DSLR. But to each his/her own though.