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

gman said:
Is the DoF really that shallow when photographing birds that you need eye-AF?
Click to expand...

At 600mm even at f6.3 you can miss the focus and have wings or wing tips or legs etc in focus.
As mentioned above it's not end of the world but it helps a lot and in a £6.5K body I sure would expect it to match the competition that's much cheaper and technically inferior in terms of the technology.
 
gman said:
Is the DoF really that shallow when photographing birds that you need eye-AF?
Click to expand...
indeed it is often less than 25mm with a 600mm
 
gman said:
I was just having a look at a DoF calculator and putting in something like a 600mm lens, f2.8 and with a x2 tele and say the bird is 100m away then it returns a DoF of 2.33m, almost equal front and rear. If you are on focus with the bird then would the eyes not fall well within the DoF?

EDIT: Although perhaps not so straight forward for birds flying directly towards you?
Click to expand...
If a bird is 100m away, unless it's a big one I don't even bother shooting it even with 61mp available for cropping in.
 
GyRob said:
indeed it is often less than 25mm with a 600mm
Click to expand...
Yeah can be just a few mm. I’ve shot a stationary Robin side on and it’s focussed on sort of the shoulder area and the head’s oof.
 
Someone has decided to argue with me and defend Sony on dpreview :ROFLMAO:
As soon as I want bird eyeAF people automatically assume it's for BiF and come to Sony's rescue with "but Sony is so much better at subject tracking".
It's not like birds are constantly flying forever. Try photographing a green woodpecker foraging for food. They are so well camouflaged with the grass half the time the camera front focuses on the glass and not the bird. With eyeAF working that wouldn't be a problem. I can think of so many scenarios like this that's not BiF where bird eyeAF would really help me nail the shot. I don't think people actually shoot any wildlife or birds and they try to jump in and tell me how I am wrong.
 
nandbytes said:
Someone has decided to argue with me and defend Sony on dpreview :ROFLMAO:
As soon as I want bird eyeAF people automatically assume it's for BiF and come to Sony's rescue with "but Sony is so much better at subject tracking".
It's not like birds are constantly flying forever. Try photographing a green woodpecker foraging for food. They are so well camouflaged with the grass half the time the camera front focuses on the glass and not the bird. With eyeAF working that wouldn't be a problem. I can think of so many scenarios like this that's not BiF where bird eyeAF would really help me nail the shot. I don't think people actually shoot any wildlife or birds and they try to jump in and tell me how I am wrong.
Click to expand...
99% of my bird photos are birds perched on branches, on the ground etc.
 
nandbytes said:
Someone has decided to argue with me and defend Sony on dpreview :ROFLMAO:
As soon as I want bird eyeAF people automatically assume it's for BiF and come to Sony's rescue with "but Sony is so much better at subject tracking".
It's not like birds are constantly flying forever. Try photographing a green woodpecker foraging for food. They are so well camouflaged with the grass half the time the camera front focuses on the glass and not the bird. With eyeAF working that wouldn't be a problem. I can think of so many scenarios like this that's not BiF where bird eyeAF would really help me nail the shot. I don't think people actually shoot any wildlife or birds and they try to jump in and tell me how I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Good point
 
snerkler said:
100m is a long way away, if I’m lucky some of the bird shots I’ve taken have been 10 feet away with a 600mm lens, and even then they’re a way off filling the frame (garden birds such as bluetits and robins)
Click to expand...

I didn't realise it was that close, I was thinking more of birds in flight but I can certainly see how eye-af would be a big bonus if you are only 10 feet away.
 
gman said:
I didn't realise it was that close, I was thinking more of birds in flight but I can certainly see how eye-af would be a big bonus if you are only 10 feet away.
Click to expand...
I think I slightly over exaggerated when I said they were “way off” filling the frame (although they don’t fill it) but DOF is very narrow.

As I said though I’ve coped without it and will continue to do so. Would I like it though? Yes I would as I could concentrate more on composition rather than having to quickly move the AF point around.
 
snerkler said:
I think I slightly over exaggerated when I said they were “way off” filling the frame (although they don’t fill it) but DOF is very narrow.

As I said though I’ve coped without it and will continue to do so. Would I like it though? Yes I would as I could concentrate more on composition rather than having to quickly move the AF point around.
Click to expand...
If you use tracking and focus on the head, then you can think about composition and the af point will follow the birds head...
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
If you use tracking and focus on the head, then you can think about composition and the af point will follow the birds head...
Click to expand...
On small birds I've found that the AF point does not stay on the eye and can cause slightly soft focus. YMMV (y)
 
snerkler said:
On small birds I've found that the AF point does not stay on the eye and can cause slightly soft focus. YMMV (y)
Click to expand...
That's exactly the difference between having proper bird AF and subject tracking. Camera just sees your bird as any subject to track and in good old fashion keeps the closest part i.e. the wings or beak or legs in focus.
I have fallen foul of this plenty times especially when shooting up close.
 
If you're that close and the bird is stationary and relatively big in the frame can't you tweak the focus manually?
 
woof woof said:
If you're that close and the bird is stationary and relatively big in the frame can't you tweak the focus manually?
Click to expand...
When I say stationary, they’re stood in one spot but their heads are usually darting all over the place.
 
woof woof said:
If you're that close and the bird is stationary and relatively big in the frame can't you tweak the focus manually?
Click to expand...

They hardly sit still and takes time to achieve critical focus by which time it's probably gone. And manual focusing while handholding a very large lens isn't fun or easy
 
I've hardly ever pointed a camera at a bird but I do appreciate they move quickly. I have no idea how good the hit rate can be with cutting edge kit as there's bound to be a lag between the brain saying "Take the picture now" the finger pressing the button and the camera capturing the moment and in that time the birds head could well of moved. I assume you lot are trying to anticipate the moment and the movement and taking multiple pictures to try and get a nice sharp one?

If tracking eyes is an issue are you placing the focus point on the eye regardless of composition and cropping for the desired composition later?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've hardly ever pointed a camera at a bird but I do appreciate they move quickly. I have no idea how good the hit rate can be with cutting edge kit as there's bound to be a lag between the brain saying "Take the picture now" the finger pressing the button and the camera capturing the moment and in that time the birds head could well of moved. I assume you lot are trying to anticipate the moment and the movement and taking multiple pictures to try and get a nice sharp one?

If tracking eyes is an issue are you placing the focus point on the eye regardless of composition and cropping for the desired composition later?
Click to expand...
Yes exactly that. As they don’t tend to fill the frame anyway I usually keep a central AF point on the eye then crop afterwards to suit.
 
I've only ever deliberately tried to take bird pictures once, sat in the back garden with my GX80 and 45-150mm lens, that's 300mm in FF speak, and it amazed me how useless 300mm equivalent was with birds just 15-30 feet away requiring 100%+ crops to get anything like a useable picture.
 
woof woof said:
I've only ever deliberately tried to take bird pictures once, sat in the back garden with my GX80 and 45-150mm lens, that's 300mm in FF speak, and it amazed me how useless 300mm equivalent was with birds just 15-30 feet away requiring 100%+ crops to get anything like a useable picture.
Click to expand...
Yep, even when I had the 100-400mm on the EM1-II I still wanted more reach
 
nandbytes said:
That's exactly the difference between having proper bird AF and subject tracking. Camera just sees your bird as any subject to track and in good old fashion keeps the closest part i.e. the wings or beak or legs in focus.
I have fallen foul of this plenty times especially when shooting up close.
Click to expand...

What about subject tracking though, does that not stick to the part you've selected or is there to much going on (and too quickly) for it to remain locked?

Forgive my ignorance, I know almost nothing about photographing birds.
 
gman said:
What about subject tracking though, does that not stick to the part you've selected or is there to much going on (and too quickly) for it to remain locked?

Forgive my ignorance, I know almost nothing about photographing birds.
Click to expand...
A9 MKII I have 2 buttons set for focus 1 is wide or zone the other is single point flexible spot both are used with tracking with the wide it is great for BIF and if a bird is perched flexible spot and if you focus on the head it will stay with it even if it moves and it does this very well too.

Rob.
 
gman said:
What about subject tracking though, does that not stick to the part you've selected or is there to much going on (and too quickly) for it to remain locked?

Forgive my ignorance, I know almost nothing about photographing birds.
Click to expand...
It depends how clever the tracking and how big in the frame it is.

Before eye/face AF if you were tracking runners for example and focussed on their face quite often the AF point would jump to the torso
 
gman said:
What about subject tracking though, does that not stick to the part you've selected or is there to much going on (and too quickly) for it to remain locked?

Forgive my ignorance, I know almost nothing about photographing birds.
Click to expand...

It works sometimes, for example I was shooting terrapins and the subject tracking stuck to the face no problem as they were still and slow.
For birds that constantly move around and move their heads especially small ones its hard.

You can think of it like shooting people with f1.4 lenses. You could do it with DSLRs but eyeAF just makes it incredibly easy to nail focus on the eye(s) so it complete removes that problem. As mentioned above otherwise the camera would end up just focusing on the torso or other body parts. My pet peeve was when it shifted focus to the nose while you were desperately trying have the eyes in focus :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
That reminds me a shot from the past, terrapins in my local commons

34293740216_d9747cb7cf_h.jpg
 
As others have a said at 600mm the DOF is tiny, small enough for the beak to be in focus and the eye to be soft.
 
How does Sony do the blackout free shooting, do they add ‘extra frames’ or is it simply that our eyes can’t detect the shutter due to the fast readout? If it’s the latter how do they maintain blackout free at slow shutter speeds say 1/5 and slower?
 
snerkler said:
How does Sony do the blackout free shooting, do they add ‘extra frames’ or is it simply that our eyes can’t detect the shutter due to the fast readout? If it’s the latter how do they maintain blackout free at slow shutter speeds say 1/5 and slower?
Click to expand...

You can't detect it, the whole sensor can be read in 1/240 of a second (same refresh rate as the EVF - 240FPS) (4.17mS) , and each line can be opened for exposure as soon as its been read, so in effect its only the lines being read out at the moment that 'can't' been seen, remember that the EVF is only a partial readout/binned frame as well (it's lower in resolution).

Just remember each line is read in 0.7uS (micro seconds) - (5760 rows in 1/240th second)

This is a 'big' advantage of a stacked sensor, this enables the data to be read out much faster, and straight into memory.

The EVF is an interpolated display so at slow shutter speeds it 'guesses' to a degree, just take you A7RIV and view the EVF as you increase the shutter speed from say 1/5 to 30 sec (obviously mechanical shutter mode!), you can get to 30seconds far quicker that 30 elapsed seconds, but in the meantime the EVF has given a view of what it thinks 30seconds will be like.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
You can't detect it, the whole sensor can be read in 1/240 of a second (same refresh rate as the EVF - 240FPS) (4.17mS) , and each line can be opened for exposure as soon as its been read, so in effect its only the lines being read out at the moment that 'can't' been seen, remember that the EVF is only a partial readout/binned frame as well (it's lower in resolution).

Just remember each line is read in 0.7uS (micro seconds) - (5760 rows in 1/240th second)

This is a 'big' advantage of a stacked sensor, this enables the data to be read out much faster, and straight into memory.

The EVF is an interpolated display so at slow shutter speeds it 'guesses' to a degree, just take you A7RIV and view the EVF as you increase the shutter speed from say 1/5 to 30 sec (obviously mechanical shutter mode!), you can get to 30seconds far quicker that 30 elapsed seconds, but in the meantime the EVF has given a view of what it thinks 30seconds will be like.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. So if you’re trying to pan at say 1/10 would you get a better/more real time view using the mechanical shutter then or does it not matter?

I’ve just been reading in the Sony manual and it says:-

“During blackout-free shooting, the slower the shutter speed, the lower the refresh rate of the screen. If you want the screen display to be smooth in order to track the subject, set a shutter speed faster than 1/125 second”
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for the info. So if you’re trying to pan at say 1/10 would you get a better/more real time view using the mechanical shutter then or does it not matter?

I’ve just been reading in the Sony manual and it says:-

“During blackout-free shooting, the slower the shutter speed, the lower the refresh rate of the screen. If you want the screen display to be smooth in order to track the subject, set a shutter speed faster than 1/125 second”
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
By the way on A1 it seems you can change settings while the buffer is clearing. £6.5k really fixes all your issues :ROFLMAO:
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for the info. So if you’re trying to pan at say 1/10 would you get a better/more real time view using the mechanical shutter then or does it not matter?

I’ve just been reading in the Sony manual and it says:-

“During blackout-free shooting, the slower the shutter speed, the lower the refresh rate of the screen. If you want the screen display to be smooth in order to track the subject, set a shutter speed faster than 1/125 second”
Click to expand...

Without trying it (and surprisingly I don't have an A1 to hand, and if I did find that sort of dough down the back of the sofa, I would probably have a GFX100S) I don't know, yes the EVF has 3 frame rate options, but if your s/s is at 1/10 you would be slower than the EVF refresh rate, so Is suspect that the EVF display may 'glitch' - is not be smooth as Sony indicate.

Just don't expect a perfect eye display while panning with your OM1 - how did we manage???
 
@snerkler in your shoes I would wait for global shutter cameras, these are not that far away now in the consumer market. One of the companies I use for work is Dalsa - who made a number of the Phase One back sensors.

Although mono, they have two off the shelf industrial cameras, one 11MP APS-C Global Shutter 609FPS!!! and another 86MP MF Global Shutter 16FPS 16bit depth

A bit more processing power, a bayer filter, etc, etc and we be there

www.teledynedalsa.com

Falcon4-CLHS - High-Speed Global Shutter CMOS Cameras | Teledyne Vision Solutions

Using Teledyne Imaging’s advanced CMOS architectures, the Falcon4-CLHS cameras offer unique, unprecedented capabilities for large area, high-resolution, high-speed imaging.
www.teledynedalsa.com www.teledynedalsa.com

Sony will definitely be the first to market
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler in your shoes I would wait for global shutter cameras, these are not that far away now in the consumer market. One of the companies I use for work is Dalsa - who made a number of the Phase One back sensors.

Although mono, they have two off the shelf industrial cameras, one 11MP APS-C Global Shutter 609FPS!!! and another 86MP MF Global Shutter 16FPS 16bit depth

A bit more processing power, a bayer filter, etc, etc and we be there

www.teledynedalsa.com

Falcon4-CLHS - High-Speed Global Shutter CMOS Cameras | Teledyne Vision Solutions

Using Teledyne Imaging’s advanced CMOS architectures, the Falcon4-CLHS cameras offer unique, unprecedented capabilities for large area, high-resolution, high-speed imaging.
www.teledynedalsa.com www.teledynedalsa.com

Sony will definitely be the first to market
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s likely global shutters will be here within the next 5 years I reckon. I imagine they’ll be expensive for a while.
 
LeeRatters said:
Nice one. Foreground looks like it's on another planet!

The three snow ones I took are pretty local so I might make a little project of those & go back in different conditions......
Click to expand...

This is very local and I’ve photographed it before. Would be nice to make it a series. Shot with the 85 as I didn’t intend on landscapes.

This is what we went for:

Snow day with Amelia by Tim G, on Flickr
 
T_J_G said:
This is very local and I’ve photographed it before. Would be nice to make it a series. Shot with the 85 as I didn’t intend on landscapes.

This is what we went for:

Snow day with Amelia by Tim G, on Flickr
Click to expand...

85mm works well for both of it Tim :)

We were supposed to have snow overnight. Set a 6:15 alarm, woke, looked outside, bone dry, went back to bed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top