The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

So was out today with the A7 III enjoying the sunshine with the family and began to notice that Eye-AF wasn’t hitting its mark even though the AF confirmation box was right on the eye (AF-S) single shot.

This was shooting my 2.9 year old son who is pretty quick/erratic in terms of motion incl running about quite a lot etc

I then tried AF-C with Eye-AF @ 8 fps but again noticed I had a fair few shots where the Eye-AF totally missed the eye. The issue was more apparent with the 70-200mm f2.8 GM compared to the 55mm f1.8, the 55mm was better but still not great either.

It’s a strange result as the AF box for Eye-AF was following the eye on screen just fine but when reviewing the images they were off the eye.

I’m going do some more testing but a little disappointed as the Eye-AF box is more “sticky” compared to the A9.
I’m certain that for weddings / events the Sony A7 III’s Eye-AF is good enough considering my lad is very quick when running etc.

My initial thoughts from today is that when Eye-AF is pushed with running subjects on the A7 III it’s not as good as the A9 even though the AF box looks to be better than the A9.
 
It's probably not this as I've hardly tried it but were you using silent shutter?

I had eye-af perform pretty miserably at 10 fps with silent vs 8 fps.
 
Riz_Guru said:
So was out today with the A7 III enjoying the sunshine with the family and began to notice that Eye-AF wasn’t hitting its mark even though the AF confirmation box was right on the eye (AF-S) single shot.

This was shooting my 2.9 year old son who is pretty quick/erratic in terms of motion incl running about quite a lot etc

I then tried AF-C with Eye-AF @ 8 fps but again noticed I had a fair few shots where the Eye-AF totally missed the eye. The issue was more apparent with the 70-200mm f2.8 GM compared to the 55mm f1.8, the 55mm was better but still not great either.

It’s a strange result as the AF box for Eye-AF was following the eye on screen just fine but when reviewing the images they were off the eye.

I’m going do some more testing but a little disappointed as the Eye-AF box is more “sticky” compared to the A9.
I’m certain that for weddings / events the Sony A7 III’s Eye-AF is good enough considering my lad is very quick when running etc.

My initial thoughts from today is that when Eye-AF is pushed with running subjects on the A7 III it’s not as good as the A9 even though the AF box looks to be better than the A9.
Click to expand...
Told you, you should have gotten another A9!!! :d
 
simonbarker said:
It's probably not this as I've hardly tried it but were you using silent shutter?

I had eye-af perform pretty miserably at 10 fps with silent vs 8 fps.
Click to expand...

Nope, I was using full mechanical shutter with EFCS on...... it was a bright sunny day too so nothing to do with lighting issues etc.
 
Pretty odd mine nailed it every time
 
jonneymendoza said:
Told you, you should have gotten another A9!!! :d
Click to expand...

Lol as much I would love another Sony A9, I like having the ability to use the A7 III for the extra DR/ISO advantage..... its a good backup body to the A9.
 
rookies said:
Pretty odd mine nailed it every time
Click to expand...
Yeah I think so too but I checked and re-checked..... it must be down to fact the A9 sensor doesn't black out and has a faster read-out time vs the Sony A7 III.
If you don't push the system, many won't probably even notice it and it's not they were all out of focus.

Below is a theory which I believe is possibly the cause, need to test more though.

Sony A7 III Eye-AF locks on fast moving subject and the AF box is more sticky compared to the Sony A9.
Press the shutter and then the sensor blacks out for a split second, which also means the AF system has a black out / pause.
If the subject has moved quick enough between the original shutter press and the shutter going up, the Eye-AF will not focus on the new position quick enough resulting in a eye which is not in focus.

That's not to say I didn't get some sharp eye shots, will post some up shortly.
 
Last edited:
But I’ve not had a issue it the eye AF that impress me most
 
But all eyes have been tack sharp none have missed
 
Riz_Guru said:
So was out today with the A7 III enjoying the sunshine with the family and began to notice that Eye-AF wasn’t hitting its mark even though the AF confirmation box was right on the eye (AF-S) single shot.

This was shooting my 2.9 year old son who is pretty quick/erratic in terms of motion incl running about quite a lot etc

I then tried AF-C with Eye-AF @ 8 fps but again noticed I had a fair few shots where the Eye-AF totally missed the eye. The issue was more apparent with the 70-200mm f2.8 GM compared to the 55mm f1.8, the 55mm was better but still not great either.

It’s a strange result as the AF box for Eye-AF was following the eye on screen just fine but when reviewing the images they were off the eye.

I’m going do some more testing but a little disappointed as the Eye-AF box is more “sticky” compared to the A9.
I’m certain that for weddings / events the Sony A7 III’s Eye-AF is good enough considering my lad is very quick when running etc.

My initial thoughts from today is that when Eye-AF is pushed with running subjects on the A7 III it’s not as good as the A9 even though the AF box looks to be better than the A9.
Click to expand...
So the camera you've been pressing everybody to buy for the past few weeks isn't so good now you've got past the specs. and actually tried one. ;)

Or is it the operator? :)
 
Last edited:
Swiss Toni said:
So the camera you've been pressing everybody to buy for the past few weeks isn't so good now you've got past the specs. and actually tried one. ;)

Or is it the operator? :)
Click to expand...

Tracking a toddler and hitting focus on the eye every time is easy though isn't it? After all there's how many cameras that can do this reliably?
 
Riz_Guru said:
So was out today with the A7 III enjoying the sunshine with the family and began to notice that Eye-AF wasn’t hitting its mark even though the AF confirmation box was right on the eye (AF-S) single shot.

This was shooting my 2.9 year old son who is pretty quick/erratic in terms of motion incl running about quite a lot etc

I then tried AF-C with Eye-AF @ 8 fps but again noticed I had a fair few shots where the Eye-AF totally missed the eye. The issue was more apparent with the 70-200mm f2.8 GM compared to the 55mm f1.8, the 55mm was better but still not great either.

It’s a strange result as the AF box for Eye-AF was following the eye on screen just fine but when reviewing the images they were off the eye.

I’m going do some more testing but a little disappointed as the Eye-AF box is more “sticky” compared to the A9.
I’m certain that for weddings / events the Sony A7 III’s Eye-AF is good enough considering my lad is very quick when running etc.

My initial thoughts from today is that when Eye-AF is pushed with running subjects on the A7 III it’s not as good as the A9 even though the AF box looks to be better than the A9.
Click to expand...

What shutter speeds were you using?
 
Swiss Toni said:
So the camera you've been pressing everybody to buy for the past few weeks isn't so good now you've got past the specs. and actually tried one. ;)

Or is it the operator? :)
Click to expand...

No, its extremely good for the money and still beats its rivals..... those who managed to get them for £1700-1800 got a real bargain.
I guess I am just spoilt with what the Sony A9 does and also think my little son gives the AF system a good workout. lol :D
 
stevelmx5 said:
What shutter speeds were you using?
Click to expand...
I was using mostly 1/500sec for most of the shots, having gone through all of the photos and pixel peeped, it looks like the AF hit the eye lashes as apposed to the eye.
It's not a big issue as present as the hit rate was still high, just not as high as the Sony A9 which rarely misses.
 
jj_glos said:
There a thread on FM forum with quite a few having trouble with the eye AF on the A7III.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have seen the threads, I do suspect its because the shutter blacks out and during that time, if the subject moves it will miss the eye.
Its just a theory though.
 
woof woof said:
Tracking a toddler and hitting focus on the eye every time is easy though isn't it? After all there's how many cameras that can do this reliably?
Click to expand...
Agreed.... very difficult on the AF system.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I was using mostly 1/500sec for most of the shots, having gone through all of the photos and pixel peeped, it looks like the AF hit the eye lashes as apposed to the eye.
It's not a big issue as present as the hit rate was still high, just not as high as the Sony A9 which rarely misses.
Click to expand...

If the eyelashes are sharp but the eye isn’t, what aperture/focal length were you using?

Maybe we’re all getting a bit too spoilt with technology? As the photographer, you’re still making the creative decisions so stopping down to get greater depth of field maybe would be the better option rather than lamenting the technology?
 
stevelmx5 said:
If the eyelashes are sharp but the eye isn’t, what aperture/focal length were you using?

Maybe we’re all getting a bit too spoilt with technology? As the photographer, you’re still making the creative decisions so stopping down to get greater depth of field maybe would be the better option rather than lamenting the technology?
Click to expand...

I think you could be right, I guess the Eye-AF confirmation box isn't small enough to pin point the eye lash... looking at the EVF / LCD it just covers the whole eye.
I stand by my comments, the Sony A7 III is an amazing camera and worth every penny. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I think you could be right, I guess the Eye-AF confirmation box isn't small enough to pin point the eye lash... looking at the EVF / LCD it just covers the whole eye.
I stand by my comments, the Sony A7 III is an amazing camera and worth every penny. :)
Click to expand...

Even the best gear will let a photographer take terrible photos [emoji6] (not that yours are, it’s a general comment!)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I totally agree and I am yet to get back into the swing of things...... :)
Click to expand...

One thing I would say about your photos above is that they’re lovely photos of your children as they grow up. When you look back on them, try to concentrate on the scene as a whole rather than zooming in to 200% to see if the eye or the eyelash is what’s the sharpest.

You’ll have much better memories of your kids than of that time your camera nailed focus on the iris :0)
 
jj_glos said:
There a thread on FM forum with quite a few having trouble with the eye AF on the A7III.
Click to expand...

Assuming it's the same as what's been posted on DPR I don't think it's the same issue, in their case eye-af consistently front/back focuses rather than not having the best hit rate.
 
stevelmx5 said:
One thing I would say about your photos above is that they’re lovely photos of your children as they grow up. When you look back on them, try to concentrate on the scene as a whole rather than zooming in to 200% to see if the eye or the eyelash is what’s the sharpest.

You’ll have much better memories of your kids than of that time your camera nailed focus on the iris :0)
Click to expand...

Haha.... I know, I only posted the crops so that you can see how sharp and great Eye-AF is on the Sony A7 III :D It's amazing tech.
 
simonbarker said:
Assuming it's the same as what's been posted on DPR I don't think it's the same issue, in their case eye-af consistently front/back focuses rather than not having the best hit rate.
Click to expand...

I don't know about DPR, that's a place I steer well clear of. On FM they do mention static being okay but dynamic shots starting to miss/front focus.
 
I've avoided this thread until now because I keep telling myself I don't need to change my gear......again.
I've bought into mirrorless with Olympus in quite a big way but I've still hung on to my Canon 1DX and Sigma 150-600C for bird photography which is really most but not all of what I do. I'm getting older and the 1DX seems to be getting heavier and bigger each time I pick it up. The shutter is also incredibly noisy and I now avoid using it near birdwatchers in hides. So I've now decided to look at Sony. I've spent the last few days reading about why I don't need to spend on the A7 Riii when the A7 iii does everything just as well.

The big however is of course pixels and cropping. The only time I don't need to crop my bird shots is when I'm sat in my little hide in the garden, otherwise in the field I always need to. Anyway, having had a modest inheritance from a complicated family trust (thanks Nan!) I'm now seriously looking at the A7 Riii and the Sigma MC-11 converter and PXing or selling the 1DX.
I'll probably go along to a shop so I can test the Sony body/Sigma lens combination but I've read extensively that it works well. It really better had because I'm not in the market for Canon super teles.
 
footman said:
I've avoided this thread until now because I keep telling myself I don't need to change my gear......again.
I've bought into mirrorless with Olympus in quite a big way but I've still hung on to my Canon 1DX and Sigma 150-600C for bird photography which is really most but not all of what I do. I'm getting older and the 1DX seems to be getting heavier and bigger each time I pick it up. The shutter is also incredibly noisy and I now avoid using it near birdwatchers in hides. So I've now decided to look at Sony. I've spent the last few days reading about why I don't need to spend on the A7 Riii when the A7 iii does everything just as well.

The big however is of course pixels and cropping. The only time I don't need to crop my bird shots is when I'm sat in my little hide in the garden, otherwise in the field I always need to. Anyway, having had a modest inheritance from a complicated family trust (thanks Nan!) I'm now seriously looking at the A7 Riii and the Sigma MC-11 converter and PXing or selling the 1DX.
I'll probably go along to a shop so I can test the Sony body/Sigma lens combination but I've read extensively that it works well. It really better had because I'm not in the market for Canon super teles.
Click to expand...

The Sony A9 would be the better match for your Canon 1DX in terms of AF / Tracking / Speed / Usage.
You could then wait for Sony to release a longer zoom lens or go for the FE 100-400mm GM with 1.4x TC.

You may list must for higher resolution but it comes at the expense of a slower AF system / less frame coverage and generally a slower operating body.
If your used to the 1DX you might walk away disappointed.

The Sony A7 III is also probably a better option for birding for its AF system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top