a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
p.3 #1a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
EB-1 wrote:
Is there some actual defect in the camera or it is just not meeting some user expectation of other equipment?
EBH
There is no defect. We are just exploring its limitations. No expectations on my end. Just wanting to know at what point an A1II becomes a better option. Basically seeing if there is a point to me buying one. This will certainly be a test first before buying for me.
Is there some actual defect in the camera or it is just not meeting some user expectation of other equipment?
EBH
There is no defect. We are just exploring its limitations. No expectations on my end. Just wanting to know at what point an A1II becomes a better option. Basically seeing if there is a point to me buying one. This will certainly be a test first before buying for me.
Jun 25, 2026 at 07:29 AM
p.3 #2a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
I think it would be wise to test at 20 fps.
If results are good, then see if it can perform as well at 30 fps.
If good results can't be achieved at 20 fps, try 15.
If results are good, then see if it can perform as well at 30 fps.
If good results can't be achieved at 20 fps, try 15.
Jun 25, 2026 at 07:58 AM
p.3 #3a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
So far, my take-away from much of this is that the X7r6 AF is actually very good, and does very well with subjects including small birds on approaching flight. It probably is not quite at the level of the camera most optimized specifically for that sort of thing, but the differences are small and probably insignificant for those who want the other features of this camera.
Those who are happy to sacrifice some of the features of the A7r6 (notably the higher resolution) for the absolute best (current) AF performance may prefer something else.
Those who are happy to sacrifice some of the features of the A7r6 (notably the higher resolution) for the absolute best (current) AF performance may prefer something else.
Jun 25, 2026 at 09:03 AM
p.3 #4a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
timgangloff wrote:
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you...Show more →
Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.How is that ?
Oops, not sure what happened - see below post - those were at 600mm not 257mm.
Edited on Jun 25, 2026 at 04:10 PM · View previous versions
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you...Show more →
duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
f9??Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.
Oops, not sure what happened - see below post - those were at 600mm not 257mm.
Edited on Jun 25, 2026 at 04:10 PM · View previous versions
Jun 25, 2026 at 03:42 PM
p.3 #5a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
Those were at 600mm - so more or less equivalent to 400 f/4 and better than 300 f/2.8 at the same subject distance. Anyhow I posted some at 420 f/4.
Jun 25, 2026 at 03:50 PM
p.3 #6a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
arbitrage wrote:
https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2026-06-25-swallow.htmlI take it back, maybe it can't do swallows IF. Those all seem to be lacking detail even though it did technically focus on the swallow for most of them.
Maybe it can do perpendicular swallows only
That lack of detail is not a camera issue - poor lighting, 600 f/9, big crop = disaster. 300 f/2.8 and if they just about hit the glass you might get something worth keeping - although how good the AF will be at that distance remains to be seem.
Rolling shutter is the big issue with this camera - the AF and subject detection are top notch and don't seem to miss much.
duncangr wrote
And a swallow for good measure.https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2026-06-25-swallow.html
Maybe it can do perpendicular swallows only
That lack of detail is not a camera issue - poor lighting, 600 f/9, big crop = disaster. 300 f/2.8 and if they just about hit the glass you might get something worth keeping - although how good the AF will be at that distance remains to be seem.
Rolling shutter is the big issue with this camera - the AF and subject detection are top notch and don't seem to miss much.
Jun 25, 2026 at 04:07 PM
p.3 #7a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
timgangloff wrote:
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you...Show more →
Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.How is that ?
Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you...Show more →
duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
f9??Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.
Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
Jun 25, 2026 at 04:31 PM
p.3 #8a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that with “if your subject is moving” you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole.
The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output),...Show more →
You have to understand the context, in this case the OP has an A1ii, A9iii and A7R6.
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
aCuria wrote
The A1ii and A9iii exists for a reason. If your subject is moving get that.The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output),...Show more →
You have to understand the context, in this case the OP has an A1ii, A9iii and A7R6.
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
Jun 25, 2026 at 08:46 PM
p.3 #9a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
aCuria wrote:
I think that with “if your subject is moving” you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole.
The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”You have to understand the context, in this case the OP has an A1ii, A9iii and A7R6.
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
That's kind of my point. :-)
gdanmitchell wrote
aCuria wrote
The A1ii and A9iii exists for a reason. If your subject is moving get that.The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
That's kind of my point. :-)
Jun 25, 2026 at 10:05 PM
|
p.3 #10a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
Choderboy wrote:
I think it would be wise to test at 20 fps.
If results are good, then see if it can perform as well at 30 fps.
If good results can't be achieved at 20 fps, try 15.
that will make it worse I am afraid
the limitation in this case comes from the AF tracking loop not the frame rate of the camera. when the subject is incoming and fast the focus is still technically locked and tracking and subject recognition is also working just fine (as indicated by the AF pattern often right on the subject during the burst), but the camera cannot compute the precise position of the focus plane in realtime, so a percentage of frames will be soft (or slightly OOF) as it is quite evident in the examples posted in this thread. The closer the subject and the wider the aperture the more soft frames will result.
The percentage of these soft frames is a given value so shooting at higher FPS gives you statistically a higher likelihood of capturing a good frame (shotgun approach
)
Also keep in mind definition of sharpness / perfect focus varies greatly between individual, as usual YMMV. When I look at some of the examples, they are clearly OOF to me (you would know after 20 yrs of doing this) but many folks accept the slightly soft and sometimes moderate soft files and call them sharp, no problem with that, it's subjective. We have lots of tools including AI these days to fix these in post processing, but some folks like myself instantly delete the soft files as I personally don't enjoy looking at them known the focus was soft...unless it was once in a lifetime shot ....
I think it would be wise to test at 20 fps.
If results are good, then see if it can perform as well at 30 fps.
If good results can't be achieved at 20 fps, try 15.
that will make it worse I am afraid
the limitation in this case comes from the AF tracking loop not the frame rate of the camera. when the subject is incoming and fast the focus is still technically locked and tracking and subject recognition is also working just fine (as indicated by the AF pattern often right on the subject during the burst), but the camera cannot compute the precise position of the focus plane in realtime, so a percentage of frames will be soft (or slightly OOF) as it is quite evident in the examples posted in this thread. The closer the subject and the wider the aperture the more soft frames will result.
The percentage of these soft frames is a given value so shooting at higher FPS gives you statistically a higher likelihood of capturing a good frame (shotgun approach
) Also keep in mind definition of sharpness / perfect focus varies greatly between individual, as usual YMMV. When I look at some of the examples, they are clearly OOF to me (you would know after 20 yrs of doing this
) but many folks accept the slightly soft and sometimes moderate soft files and call them sharp, no problem with that, it's subjective. We have lots of tools including AI these days to fix these in post processing, but some folks like myself instantly delete the soft files as I personally don't enjoy looking at them known the focus was soft...unless it was once in a lifetime shot .... Jun 25, 2026 at 11:21 PM
p.3 #11a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
aCuria wrote:
I think that with “if your subject is moving” you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole.
The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”You have to understand the context, in this case the OP has an A1ii, A9iii and A7R6.
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
The title contrains the word "issues" so is misleading. If you buy the mid-SUV that is naturally accelerating in 8 seconds to 100km/h per the design, it is not an issue just because the user expectations are 4 seconds. If a vehicle naturally does 4 seconds and the user is experiencing 8 seconds then there is an issue with that unit.
EBH
gdanmitchell wrote
aCuria wrote
The A1ii and A9iii exists for a reason. If your subject is moving get that.The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
The title contrains the word "issues" so is misleading. If you buy the mid-SUV that is naturally accelerating in 8 seconds to 100km/h per the design, it is not an issue just because the user expectations are 4 seconds. If a vehicle naturally does 4 seconds and the user is experiencing 8 seconds then there is an issue with that unit.
EBH
Jun 25, 2026 at 11:50 PM
p.3 #12a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
EB-1 wrote:
I think that with “if your subject is moving” you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole.
The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”You have to understand the context, in this case the OP has an A1ii, A9iii and A7R6.
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.The title contrains the word "issues" so is misleading. If you buy the mid-SUV that is naturally accelerating in 8 seconds to 100km/h per the design, it is not an issue just because the user expectations are 4 seconds. If a vehicle naturally does 4 seconds and the user is experiencing 8 seconds then there is an issue with that unit.
EBH
I think the OP thought maybe their camera had an "issue" perhaps because of the marketing claims and some of click-bait reviews on social media by the so-called influencers had declared this camera as a miracle. In other words they thought they were buying a 4 second 0-60 car but it ended up an 8 second one.... so I would not blame the poster. It's actually very similar situation to online car reviews. And when a camera is brand new you never know....
I think post like this are actually helpful even though the title may not be the best.... because at the very least it exposes difference of opinion between real photographers and bring value to this forum in light of all the social media hype created by parties who might be influenced by conflict of interest.
aCuria wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
aCuria wrote
The A1ii and A9iii exists for a reason. If your subject is moving get that.The A7r6 (and quite a few other cameras) can do a fine job with “moving” subjects. Heck, I’v been photographing birds in flight with an older camera that only does 5 fps! (I’m not recommending that for most people.)
The specialized, lower MP cameras optimized for fast-moving subjects will always have some more capability with… fast-moving subjects than cameras optimized for higher MP resolution. And if you are working with edge-case high speed subjects (and not subjects/output that benefits from higher MP output), then the A1ii and the A9iii (or similarly focused cameras from other manufacturers) may well be ideal for you.
But those who want/need the other features for which the A7r6 is optimized will find, from the evidence we’ve seen so far, that it is a very competent tool for photographing quite a lot of “moving subjects.”
So for him, if the subject is moving choose between the A1ii and A9iii.
He has high demands too, according to him his hit rate is 50%, which means 15 hits per second on the A7R6 and this is insufficient for his use case.
EBH
I think the OP thought maybe their camera had an "issue" perhaps because of the marketing claims and some of click-bait reviews on social media by the so-called influencers had declared this camera as a miracle. In other words they thought they were buying a 4 second 0-60 car but it ended up an 8 second one.... so I would not blame the poster. It's actually very similar situation to online car reviews. And when a camera is brand new you never know....
I think post like this are actually helpful even though the title may not be the best.... because at the very least it exposes difference of opinion between real photographers and bring value to this forum in light of all the social media hype created by parties who might be influenced by conflict of interest.
Jun 26, 2026 at 12:31 AM
p.3 #13a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
Other than price I see no reason to get an A7RVI over the A1II as a wildlife camera and I'm seeing second hand mint A1II's coming up for sale for similar money to A7RVI.
A7RVI really only seems to have the better battery as the big plus feature and no res drop on the EVF (finally) on using AF-C. Still does not support CF-E 4.0 in 2026.
Obviously if you do a lot of other non-action shooting the A7RVI makes a lot more sense but IMO A1II is best all-rounder out there if you can get one for $5K or so.
A7RVI really only seems to have the better battery as the big plus feature and no res drop on the EVF (finally) on using AF-C. Still does not support CF-E 4.0 in 2026.
Obviously if you do a lot of other non-action shooting the A7RVI makes a lot more sense but IMO A1II is best all-rounder out there if you can get one for $5K or so.
Jun 26, 2026 at 01:16 AM
p.3 #14a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Other than price I see no reason to get an A7RVI over the A1II as a wildlife camera and I'm seeing second hand mint A1II's coming up for sale for similar money to A7RVI.
A7RVI really only seems to have the better battery as the big plus feature and no res drop on the EVF (finally) on using AF-C. Still does not support CF-E 4.0 in 2026.
Obviously if you do a lot of other non-action shooting the A7RVI makes a lot more sense but IMO A1II is best all-rounder out there if you can get one for $5K or...Show more →
Battery is great. It doesn't appear to drop resolution in AF-C but I feel it cheats by dropping the EVF frame rate instead, as evident by wing beats (temporal aliasing).... it is very difficult to measure it but maybe I will find a way.
Other than price I see no reason to get an A7RVI over the A1II as a wildlife camera and I'm seeing second hand mint A1II's coming up for sale for similar money to A7RVI.
A7RVI really only seems to have the better battery as the big plus feature and no res drop on the EVF (finally) on using AF-C. Still does not support CF-E 4.0 in 2026.
Obviously if you do a lot of other non-action shooting the A7RVI makes a lot more sense but IMO A1II is best all-rounder out there if you can get one for $5K or...Show more →
Battery is great. It doesn't appear to drop resolution in AF-C but I feel it cheats by dropping the EVF frame rate instead, as evident by wing beats (temporal aliasing).... it is very difficult to measure it but maybe I will find a way.
Jun 26, 2026 at 01:35 AM
p.3 #15a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
Lightroom shows 257, not 25.7 so that's not an issue. For me the issue is f9 does help with the question of focus accuracy.
duncangr wrote:
Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.How is that ?Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
duncangr wrote:
timgangloff wrote
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you 1.5 feet or so. So getting the dogs eyes in focus at f9 should be much easier than at f2.8. The margin of error at f9 means you can't really ascertain how accurate the focus on the moving target is compared to 2.8. For focus accuracy, I like to minimize my DOF as much as possible.duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
f9??Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
Jun 26, 2026 at 07:25 AM
p.3 #16a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
timgangloff wrote:
Lightroom shows 257, not 25.7 so that's not an issue. For me the issue is f9 does help with the question of focus accuracy.
Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.How is that ?Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
It's 600mm not 257mm and 600 f/9 DOF is much the same as 400 f/4 at those distances unless my math has been wrong all these years
Lightroom shows 257, not 25.7 so that's not an issue. For me the issue is f9 does help with the question of focus accuracy.
duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you 1.5 feet or so. So getting the dogs eyes in focus at f9 should be much easier than at f2.8. The margin of error at f9 means you can't really ascertain how accurate the focus on the moving target is compared to 2.8. For focus accuracy, I like to minimize my DOF as much as possible.duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
f9??Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
It's 600mm not 257mm and 600 f/9 DOF is much the same as 400 f/4 at those distances unless my math has been wrong all these years
Jun 26, 2026 at 03:08 PM
p.3 #17a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
I could be wrong, but instead of going back and forth, tell us how far from the dog you think you were and what you think the depth of field of focus was and whether you think that provides information helpful to determine if the focus is accurate. My guess is that you were 40+ yards from the dog and the DOF is still very large. At 40 yards, 600mm and f9, you're at 5 feet DOF.
duncangr wrote:
Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.How is that ?Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.It's 600mm not 257mm and 600 f/9 DOF is much the same as 400 f/4 at those distances unless my math has been wrong all these years
duncangr wrote:
timgangloff wrote
Lightroom shows 257, not 25.7 so that's not an issue. For me the issue is f9 does help with the question of focus accuracy.duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you 1.5 feet or so. So getting the dogs eyes in focus at f9 should be much easier than at f2.8. The margin of error at f9 means you can't really ascertain how accurate the focus on the moving target is compared to 2.8. For focus accuracy, I like to minimize my DOF as much as possible.duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
f9??Yeah, that's not going to answer the question of focus accuracy.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
Jun 26, 2026 at 03:27 PM
p.3 #18a7rVI AF Issues on Day One
timgangloff wrote:
I could be wrong, but instead of going back and forth, tell us how far from the dog you think you were and what you think the depth of field of focus was and whether you think that provides information helpful to determine if the focus is accurate. My guess is that you were 40+ yards from the dog and the DOF is still very large. At 40 yards, 600mm and f9, you're at 5 feet DOF.
Oh I see the EXIF on those files says local length of 25.7mm.
I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.It's 600mm not 257mm and 600 f/9 DOF is much the same as 400 f/4 at those distances unless my math has been wrong all these years
I take it you never noticed that there is a whole sequence of images taken as the dogs run towards the camera at distances varying from 20+ meters to zero.
I could be wrong, but instead of going back and forth, tell us how far from the dog you think you were and what you think the depth of field of focus was and whether you think that provides information helpful to determine if the focus is accurate. My guess is that you were 40+ yards from the dog and the DOF is still very large. At 40 yards, 600mm and f9, you're at 5 feet DOF.
duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
Lightroom shows 257, not 25.7 so that's not an issue. For me the issue is f9 does help with the question of focus accuracy.duncangr wrote
timgangloff wrote
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but I'll explain. After looking at your dog images, I see you were at f9 and it looks like about 257mm. I'm just guessing here, but say you were 30 feet from the dog, my depth of field calculator puts your area of focus at about 1.7 feet. This would probably put the dogs entire head in focus. At 2.8, the are of focus is about 1/2 foot or 6". If you were closer to 50 feet, the f9 gets you almost 5 feet of focus, whereas 2.8 gets you 1.5 feet or so. So getting the dogs eyes in focus at f9 should be much easier than at f2.8. The margin of error at f9 means you can't really ascertain how accurate the focus on the moving target is compared to 2.8. For focus accuracy, I like to minimize my DOF as much as possible.duncangr wrote
How is that ?I am still stuck with using Image Edge and have to batch convert the DPI settings so the image display properly on a Retina display and I guess the conversion messes up the focal length. Sorry about that.
I take it you never noticed that there is a whole sequence of images taken as the dogs run towards the camera at distances varying from 20+ meters to zero.
Jun 26, 2026 at 06:59 PM