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

Question.

Since I have had my A7RIII and new 17-28 2.8, occasionally (very intermittent) if I turn it on or go from using mf to either AF-C or AF-S it just will not focus, it looks for focus but will never actually achieve it. If I turn the camera off and on again it works fine.

I have only experienced it using the 17-28 as it's the lens I have been using the most. Is this likely to be an issue with the lens or body? Has anyone experienced this before with any body or lens?
 
TGphoto said:
Question.

Since I have had my A7RIII and new 17-28 2.8, occasionally (very intermittent) if I turn it on or go from using mf to either AF-C or AF-S it just will not focus, it looks for focus but will never actually achieve it. If I turn the camera off and on again it works fine.

I have only experienced it using the 17-28 as it's the lens I have been using the most. Is this likely to be an issue with the lens or body? Has anyone experienced this before with any body or lens?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a lens issue if all your other lenses work fine.
 
I thought I’d ask a question in here because I can’t find much by googling. Does anyone know the point of the ‘Pre-AF’ setting?

On another thread it seems to be the source of a focusing issue someone has had. From google all I’ve found is pre-AF let’s the camera to continuously focus. I don’t really understand why you would want the camera to focus continuously especially when in AF-S mode. It’s sounds like it’s AF-C mode but without needing to engage focus by pressing a button.
 
rob-nikon said:
I thought I’d ask a question in here because I can’t find much by googling. Does anyone know the point of the ‘Pre-AF’ setting?

On another thread it seems to be the source of a focusing issue someone has had. From google all I’ve found is pre-AF let’s the camera to continuously focus. I don’t really understand why you would want the camera to focus continuously especially when in AF-S mode. It’s sounds like it’s AF-C mode but without needing to engage focus by pressing a button.
Click to expand...

It's not AF-C i.e. doesn't track anything. Just continuously focuses on whatever it feels best which is generally speaking the closest object to your camera.
Most people turn it off and I suggest you do too. I am not really sure where this feature actually adds value but sony is not the only one that does it. My Panasonic does it, not sure I can even turn it off!!
 
nandbytes said:
It's not AF-C i.e. doesn't track anything. Just continuously focuses on whatever it feels best which is generally speaking the closest object to your camera.
Most people turn it off and I suggest you do too. I am not really sure where this feature actually adds value but sony is not the only one that does it. My Panasonic does it, not sure I can even turn it off!!
Click to expand...

You should be able to, [it's possible it's forced on in full auto mode] it's one of the first options I made sure was off on my G80, same on my current X-H1. It's nothing but a useless battery drainer IMO.
 
rob-nikon said:
. Does anyone know the point of the ‘Pre-AF’ setting?
Click to expand...
Some cameras have the facility to choose the part of the image that's in focus after the picture has been taken.
I'm wondering if Pre-af is how it does this.
I think it combines several images with different af points, and you can choose afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Some cameras have the facility to choose the part of the image that's in focus after the picture has been taken.
Pre-af is how it does this.
I think it combines several images with different af points, and you can choose afterwards.
Click to expand...

I think that's post-focus. Pre-AF is just the lens constantly grabbing focus on whatever it's aimed at , it'll constantly hunt and afaik it'll do this even before the shutter is half pressed
 
Cagey75 said:
I think that's post-focus. Pre-AF is just the lens constantly grabbing focus on whatever it's aimed at , it'll constantly hunt and afaik it'll do this even before the shutter is half pressed
Click to expand...

Correct, probably more useful for easy video AF than anything else.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Some cameras have the facility to choose the part of the image that's in focus after the picture has been taken.
I'm wondering if Pre-af is how it does this.
I think it combines several images with different af points, and you can choose afterwards.
Click to expand...
But images out of Sony cameras can't do this.
I don't think it's this.
 
TGphoto said:
Question.

Since I have had my A7RIII and new 17-28 2.8, occasionally (very intermittent) if I turn it on or go from using mf to either AF-C or AF-S it just will not focus, it looks for focus but will never actually achieve it. If I turn the camera off and on again it works fine.

I have only experienced it using the 17-28 as it's the lens I have been using the most. Is this likely to be an issue with the lens or body? Has anyone experienced this before with any body or lens?
Click to expand...
I have had this problem with my A7RIII as well, certainly when using the 100-400, I'm not sure if it happens with the 24-70 2.8. I'll give it a go today.
 
footman said:
I have had this problem with my A7RIII as well, certainly when using the 100-400, I'm not sure if it happens with the 24-70 2.8. I'll give it a go today.
Click to expand...

Never had this issue with my 100-400mm and I used it quite a lot on my A7Riii.

But now that you mention it I experienced this once on my previous copy of 24GM.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone is interested in the Voigtlander 50mm f2 but the thread on Fred Miranda is worth a look even if you're only vaguely interested in what could be one of the best 50mm lenses ever made or even how people are reacting to it. It's interesting how hope turns to euphoria and then to see the doubts creep in and the nit picking and complaints start. I suppose we see this with any new tech release and we've certainly seen it in the Sony universe.

Anyway, the Voigtlander may have it's limitations or maybe they should be seen more as design choices which is what they almost certainly are and even so it still looks to be a fantastic lens which appears to stand comparison to Leica and Zeiss lenses costing a lot more, arguably out performing them in several ways.

I might get one even though I don't need one :D
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if anyone is interested in the Voigtlander 50mm f2 but the thread on Fred Miranda is worth a look even if you're only vaguely interested in what could be one of the best 50mm lenses ever made or even how people are reacting to it. It's interesting how hope turns to euphoria and then to see the doubts creep in and the nit picking and complaints start. I suppose we see this with any new tech release and we've certainly seen it in the Sony universe.

Anyway, the Voigtlander may have it's limitations or maybe they should be seen more as design choices which is what they almost certainly are and even so it still looks to be a fantastic lens which appears to stand comparison to Leica and Zeiss lenses costing a lot more, arguably out performing them in several ways.

I might get one even though I don't need one :D
Click to expand...

I have see this thread. It started off so nicely lol.

The lens is rather brilliant though. Shame they didn't make a m-mount version. I was thinking of picking up a Leica.
 
The thread includes a link to a thread about the Otus 55mm and what stuck me most was how ordinary the pictures are. I know some were probably taken to demonstrate some technical property and maybe there are problems focusing the lens accurately on a DSLR but spending huge amounts of money to produce ordinary pictures that look out of focus seems a bit niche to me.
 
The whole Voigtlander 50mm f2 thing has had me thinking what I really need and the real answer is not much.

Some of the technically worst lenses I have are the most interesting for me. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 classic, Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 and Miranda 24mm f2.8 spring to mind. These and other lenses may be quite poor in some areas but they can also be wonderful in others and that makes them interesting.

I can see the appeal in lenses that are really close to being as excellent as they can be but with some kit the potential issues are only really there at their widest apertures and into the last pixels in the corners of the frame and possibly only when combining these two things. CA (and maybe bokeh) seem to be the evils of the moment but there doesn't seem to be a level playing field with some lenses seemingly singled out for criticism whilst others seem to escape it. At least it all makes for interesting reading and viewing.
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
Nikon D780, I do wonder what planet Nikon are on. Should have been out 2 years ago. If they want their mirrorless to succeed they need to go all in on it.
Click to expand...
I disagree, would be suicide to go all in on mirrorless and neglect DSLR. The D780 seems like the logical update to the D750, although the faux pas imo is implementing the 51 point AF system rather than the 153 point from the D850.
 
snerkler said:
I disagree, would be suicide to go all in on mirrorless and neglect DSLR. The D780 seems like the logical update to the D750, although the faux pas imo is implementing the 51 point AF system rather than the 153 point from the D850.
Click to expand...
Can't they focus on both DSLR and mirrorless?
 
snerkler said:
I disagree, would be suicide to go all in on mirrorless and neglect DSLR. The D780 seems like the logical update to the D750, although the faux pas imo is implementing the 51 point AF system rather than the 153 point from the D850.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your disagreement :D

D780 is rather underspec'd. All the boost in features it gets actually from Z6. So basically you are getting a Z6 on bulkier DSLR format with an AF system that's 2 decades old (albeit a good one). Things have moved on and they should move with the times.
 
nandbytes said:
I disagree with your disagreement :D

D780 is rather underspec'd. All the boost in features it gets actually from Z6. So basically you are getting a Z6 on bulkier DSLR format with an AF system that's 2 decades old (albeit a good one). Things have moved on and they should move with the times.
Click to expand...
If you look at everything the D780 is quite an improvement over the D750 so I don’t see an issue with it. The D7xx is now Nikon’s entry level FF DSLR and as such it’s never going to have class leading tech and all the bells and whistles. The big issue for me is the price, if they’d come in around £1600 it’d be a winner.
 
snerkler said:
If you look at everything the D780 is quite an improvement over the D750 so I don’t see an issue with it. The D7xx is now Nikon’s entry level FF DSLR and as such it’s never going to have class leading tech and all the bells and whistles. The big issue for me is the price, if they’d come in around £1600 it’d be a winner.
Click to expand...
If they'd have a Z6ii that'd be a winner as far as decisions go.
It's silly to hold back. Even canon have realised it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top