Sony A7IV autofocus and wildlife

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Now that the Sony A7IV is officially launched, I'm very interested in seeing how well it autofocuses for birds in flight, and other wildlife subjects.....the only issue(limiting factor) then is the reduction of FPS assuming that the AF is supreme for wildlife photography. Nikon's Z9's if the word is true that the AF is going to be spectacular that's great, but the pricing is not reachable by 'normal' folks. If Nikon has this speculated firmware than can allow better AF for the Z6ii/Z7ii, I think now is the time to release it. If it's true, I don't think it will take away from the Z9 because it's in a class of its own in terms of price and other features/functions that the Z6ii and Z7ii don't have.

For me, I was considering the Z series, but given no AF improvements yet from Nikon I am now considering the Sony A7IV - that is if it performs great for the wildlife type of photography genre.

Hoping that Steve might get hands on an A7IV and run it through its course and share his feedback.
 
I suspect it will focus just fine however keep in mind it is not a stacked sensor. So your experience will be similar to the Z6/7 in the sense of a delayed view of what you are seeing vs reality. If you really want a BIF Sony the a9 and a1 are your best bets. Find a used a9 for likely the price of the A7IV, it will be a much better experience if you are on a tight budget. While the a9 has some quirks it will be a better EVF view, 20 fps.
 
Af should be good.

BionZ XR chip used in Sony A1 is used in A7 iv.
(8 times more powerful than A7 iii chip)

I am sure same software capabilities will be shared for object tracking.

5fps at 14-bit raw is a huge bummer though. But in good light, a high quality jpeg will do fine.

Everything else seems to be excellent.
 
I read in one of the posts that the sensor scan speed is too slow, which means it is almost unusable for action, BIF etc. unless you use the mechanical shutter...This is probably the worst camera Sony launched in their ML line up...after setting such high standards with the A9s/A1 etc...and most importantly after the launch of Canon R6, I thought the A74 would be better than R6...The Canon R5 and R6 are the best Semi-pro/ Enthusiast models in the mirrorless lineup and it is going to be a while until Nikon or Sony comes up with something to match or exceed those 2 cameras.

Af should be good.

BionZ XR chip used in Sony A1 is used in A7 iv.
(8 times more powerful than A7 iii chip)

I am sure same software capabilities will be shared for object tracking.

5fps at 14-bit raw is a huge bummer though. But in good light, a high quality jpeg will do fine.

Everything else seems to be excellent.
 
Sony has created a great all-rounder but it's not a specialized wildlife camera . The Canon R6's features and spec are better suited for wildlife if you can live with the 20MP.

I am a little surprised though that Sony chose a sensor with such a slow readout speed - obviously it wasn't going to be A1 or even A9 caliber, since it is non stacked, but it doesn't even match the R6 which is rather old tech. For a brand new sensor, it's a bit surprising. They probably feared it would get too close to the A9ii at almost half price if they gave it a speed even matching the R6 but rolling shutter in video is quite pronounced as a result.

But for a wedding photographer who does photo and video, this is quite the camera; or any street reportage with mixed media or even your do-it-all vacation camera. And let's face it, even for wildlife, you can still get 10fps with lossy compression which works ok for all but the most demanding editing requirements - I just wouldn't pick it as a primary wildlife camera.
 
I read in one of the posts that the sensor scan speed is too slow, which means it is almost unusable for action, BIF etc. unless you use the mechanical shutter...This is probably the worst camera Sony launched in their ML line up...after setting such high standards with the A9s/A1 etc...and most importantly after the launch of Canon R6, I thought the A74 would be better than R6...The Canon R5 and R6 are the best Semi-pro/ Enthusiast models in the mirrorless lineup and it is going to be a while until Nikon or Sony comes up with something to match or exceed those 2 cameras.

For wildlife applications maybe but I don't think that's what Sony targeted with the A7iv (if it was, they missed :) )
The R6 is definitely better suited for action (with the 20mp limitation) but the reviews posted so far show the A7iv is no slouch at tracking action - certainly not R5/6 or A9/1 caliber but not terrible. But to your point, that wouldn't be my go-to for a dedicated wildlife camera.

I certainly wouldn't call it the worst Sony launched - I think it's actually hitting the mark quite well for their target uses. Just not our uses.

In regards to the R5, it occupies a unique sweet spot right now for feature / performance and price. I see it as the true D850 replacement; the camera Nikon should have made and did not.
 
I read in one of the posts that the sensor scan speed is too slow, which means it is almost unusable for action, BIF etc. unless you use the mechanical shutter...This is probably the worst camera Sony launched in their ML line up...after setting such high standards with the A9s/A1 etc...and most importantly after the launch of Canon R6, I thought the A74 would be better than R6...The Canon R5 and R6 are the best Semi-pro/ Enthusiast models in the mirrorless lineup and it is going to be a while until Nikon or Sony comes up with something to match or exceed those 2 cameras.


I am disappointed with the 6 fps at 14 bit raw, barring that I love everything about the Sony A7 4 from afar & will most likely buy it.

R5/R6 is a big no no for me no matter the AF. The color noise is so pathetic that an entry level Nikon camera may outperform it.

Sony A7 4 like the A7 iii should should give unmatched ISO & dynamic range performance combo.
I am constantly get blown away by my friend's Sony A7 iii. Sony A7 iii is supposed to have pathetic AF for birding, but he has tracked parakeets in flight with not too much difficulty.

I think in good light, I will manage shooting with a high quality jpeg on a Sony A7 iv to get the 10 FPS.

Sony 7 IV's AF it seems is pretty good albeit perhaps 30% worse than R6/A1.

However, as it is got the flagship A1 chip (BIONZ XR), I am sure the firmware updates will make it at least 20% better in about 6-12 months time.

Alos, Sony gives you 15 stops of DR for 10-bit internal video too. That's amazing.

The 4k video is oversampled from 7k, meaning it will be super sharp.

Most likely selling my Z6 ii & 500pf for Sony A7 iv & 200-600.
 
The a7iv can shoot 10fps raw, it's just their compressed raw (which is the raw format required to get 30fps on the A1 as well)

Is compressed raw in Sony = 12-bit Raw?

Sony A7 4 should have come with an option to shoot 14-bit lossless compressed raw in 24 megapixels at 8fps at least.

According DP review & Froknows...it is 5fps & 6pfs respectively at 14-bit losssess compressed raw.
 
Last edited:
I am disappointed with the 6 fps at 14 bit raw, barring that I love everything about the Sony A7 4 from afar & will most likely buy it.

R5/R6 is a big no no for me no matter the AF. The color noise is so pathetic that an entry level Nikon camera may outperform it.

Sony A7 4 like the A7 iii should should give unmatched ISO & dynamic range performance combo.
I am constantly get blown away by my friend's Sony A7 iii. Sony A7 iii is supposed to have pathetic AF for birding, but he has tracked parakeets in flight with not too much difficulty.

I think in good light, I will manage shooting with a high quality jpeg on a Sony A7 iv to get the 10 FPS.

Sony 7 IV's AF it seems is pretty good albeit perhaps 30% worse than R6/A1.

However, as it is got the flagship A1 chip (BIONZ XR), I am sure the firmware updates will make it at least 20% better in about 6-12 months time.

Alos, Sony gives you 15 stops of DR for 10-bit internal video too. That's amazing.

The 4k video is oversampled from 7k, meaning it will be super sharp.

Most likely selling my Z6 ii & 500pf for Sony A7 iv & 200-600.

Sony’s cameras with the new BIONZ XR processor, the a7S III, a1 and now a7 IV, all shoot 14 bit all the time just the compression changes or lack there of. So at 10 frames per second, the a7 IV will be 14 bit compressed. Unless you’re shooting at base ISO, uncompressed, lossless compressed and compressed have no discernible difference in quality and even at base ISO the difference is minimal unless you’re really pushing your files in post (4+ stops and heavy shadow pulls).



Additionally, the a7 IV certainly isn’t 30% worse than the R6/5 in tracking performance. Seeing how good the a7S III tracks (but rarely seen since most don’t shoot stills with it due to its 12 MP), I’d expect the a7 IV tracking performance to be similar, if not exactly the same. Which is to say, roughly the same tracking performance as the R6/5 in stills and possibly a bit better in video. The a1 plays in a different league than the R6/R5, as does the R3 and presumably, the eventual R1 and Z9. Even the original a9 tracks better than the R6/5.

Also, as you noted, shooting the R6/5 in electronic shutter mode to get that 20 FPS isn’t free as it reduces dynamic range significantly and noise performance is degraded as well. Compared to the original a9, the R6 in ES mode has nearly a stop worse dynamic range and about half a stop worse high ISO performance. On top of that, 20 FPS is your only option in ES mode with the R6/5 (or 1 FPS) and is too much most of the time. 10-15 FPS is a better sweet spot for most action, most of time.

All said, the a7 IV and the R6 provide more than enough for most people and are great choices at their respective price points. Just depends what your specific needs are and overall which system you prefer.
 
Not a Sony shooter (yet), is there a reliable Nikon F to Sony E mount adapter that works flawlessly and with Autofocus capability - I"m thinking not since Nikon isn't too keen on sharing technology, but wanted to ask anyway.
 
Not a Sony shooter (yet), is there a reliable Nikon F to Sony E mount adapter that works flawlessly and with Autofocus capability - I"m thinking not since Nikon isn't too keen on sharing technology, but wanted to ask anyway.
Nope. I have tried them and it didn't work. I spent the money and replaced with Sony glass, to be candid the Sony glass has been better so it was worth the money just had wished to not have had to do it all at once.
 
The non-technical number I typically see associated with Sony's compressed raw is 13 bit. I and others have said it other places and it's worth repeating: the Sony's lossy compressed raw is less of a problem than many think. Definitely do your own research to see if it's a real problem for you and the photographs you take.
 
How can someone say that AF of the A7IV is slower and worse than the A9? Are there comparison tests to sustain that statement?

Going by the specs & some YouTube reviews I would imagine the Sony A7 4's AF to be as good or slightly better than A9 i. It is definitely miles ahead in video AF.

Also, I would always choose a camera like Sony A7 4 despite the low FPS ability over A1 or D6 because of the amazing sensor performance after a certain bad experience, as I mostly shoot in cloudy tropical weather with plenty of micro pollutants in the air.

I once rented out a D6 to photograph tigers, while the AF was very sticky & fast, its dynamic range was poor.

I photographed a tiger in bright & shadow area, & I had to struggle to spruce up the pic during post processing. The tiger's orange black skin some how would turned purple & blue when I tried to pull shadows, increase contrast & saturation.

Screenshot_20211026-094512_2-01.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


(Shot with D6 & 70-200 f2.8 FL, 1/640 f2.8 ISO 100)

It took me hours to get the desired look without the odd colours. I tried editing in Capture NXd, Adobe Photoshop, Capture One, & Sanpseed. I am not an expert at editing, but I find D500, Z6 ii & A7 iii files far easier to edit & get the desired look.
Still not happy with the yellows. My crop sensor D500 would have never struggled. It may not matter when one shoots under the open skies of the savannah with an f2.8 or f4 prime, but come dull weather, and if one does not perfectly expose the image... one can end with a less than desirable output.

I had a similar experience with Sony A9i. It was then I realized that the flagship bodies with higher writing speed sacrifice dynamic range.

I am sure it has improved with Sony A1, but I am certain the sensor performance in terms of ISO & dynamic range is significantly worse than Sony A7 iii.

Also, the variance in ratings between an excellent DR cameras as opposed to a an average DR camera in both DXO Mark & photonstopphotos.net is misleading, IMO. The differences in practical usage is far more significant based on my limited experience.
 
Back
Top