That looks more promising. I too think that a lot of the people testing this camera have too little experience with bird / BIF work.
Well Sh*t just got real...now what to do?
- Thread starter DavidT
- Start date
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).
That looks more promising. I too think that a lot of the people testing this camera have too little experience with bird / BIF work.
Members might want to decide for themselves whether Jordan is deceiving viewers. The segment starts at 7:50.
But the point remains - bird eye tracking won't be 100% reliable so if you have to get the shot, you'll be using other means.
Sony's marketing is bulldust so don't believe it folks. Of the A9 it claims perfect AF every time, yet numerous users report it failing on small static birds.
And forego focus confirmation in CAF wide and zone.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Yes...which is why I leave it on...I like the dancing dots...but the Eye-AF makes things better as at least it goes down to a single dot when it can detect the eye.
arbitrage
Well-known member
I don't think anyone said that Jordan is deceiving viewers, I certainly didn't...I think just like almost all the BEAF videos I've seen so far he is making rooky mistakes. But all my point was is that nothing is shown in that video other than an image of a duck and an image of a crane...both in focus so what does that show us anyways? The videos I posted don't show what Jordan is saying and at least they actually show us something. Jordan should give the A1 to Chris and let him redo the stills portion of that video. Then again, the two of them concluded in their recent high-MP MILC shootout that the A7RIV has better AF than the R5 which is hogwash. So I don't put much faith in anything those two say. Jordan did provide some useful information in that video about card writing and ISO performance but otherwise it barely scratched the surface of AF testing, bird EAF or otherwise.
No AF is 100% so one has to figure out what method works best in each situation. I will say though that after owning and shooting the R5 since October, I find that using the Eye-AF in a lot of situations is the most effective way of getting the shot. More reliable than Sony for perched birds, especially those that land and pose for just a second or two before they fly off again. Small, fast, erratic BIF is a different matter where the R5 does better in Zone than in Eye-AF...but in that case the A9 does better than the R5 anyways.
With very hi res EVFs Sony could now slim down those box lines so as to obscure the subject less.
In decent light the D500 OVF still beats the A9 3.69m dot EVF for clarity of view.
He described the failure and some of the conditions applying. You didn't accept it without vision of the failing. Why else, if you didn't trust what he said? Do you not accept Youtube reviewer results without vision of the camera settings too?
arbitrage
Well-known member
What do you mean by this? Are you talking about the MILC PDAF issue of the sensor not seeing enough DOF to drive AF to a small, perched OOF bird when it is focused further out on the background? Or are you seeing actual unreliable AF on small birds when the green dots or RTT are focusing on the bird?
If the former, then it is unlikely that Sony or any other manufacturer (yes they all suffer from this...my Z7, R5, A9 etc...all of them) will be fixing that. My understanding is that it is because the PDAF on sensor is seeing at the limited DOF of the lens. Contrast that to the PDAF sensor on a DSLR located off sensor that sees at something like f/22 all the time and can recognize that grossly OOF bird on a near perch easier.
If the latter, then I'm not sure what is going on. I've had no issue with getting a high hit rate on small, static birds with any of my Sony cameras (A9, A9II, A7RIV). The Sony cameras deliver me the highest hit rate of any camera I've used for such subjects. The R5 likewise and even my little Z50 does really well because of the on sensor PDAF.
arbitrage
Well-known member
I don't accept that it will end up being a true issue, but I also don't think he is deceiving us. I believe he got the results he did, I don't think he is lying to us. I just don't believe based on the stuff I have actually seen live through the EVF via the Atmos recordings that his issues are going to be a real problem once the camera is in the hands of someone who better understands what they are doing. His results just don't correlate with what we have seen live via the Atmos recordings. But like I said in my earlier reply I will really only trust my own results in the end. That is all that matters. Nothing I've actually seen so far via an Atmos recording makes me worried that the A1's BEAF system is a complete failure as it sounds like it is in Jordan's and Tony's videos. What a surprise that those are also the two videos that didn't show us anything.
I take all YT reviewer's results with a huge truckload of salt, especially if they just talk and don't show any examples of what happened. There have been just too many instances of early reviews being rushed and problems being blown way out of proportion. Problems that end up being very minor or non existent in the end.
WildBill
Member
Convinced yet?
Wow, that's impressive. On a crow no less. It'll be interesting to give it a go in the field, that's for sure!
Yeah...but it’s still a $20K investment by the time you’re done I’d switching systems...and for the majority of people although maybe not the majority here that’s a lot of money for a pretty minor improvement in output given shooting styles, skills, where the output goes, and making money vs. not. I haven’t shot any Sony gear but I did ply with a buddies once and didn’t like the menu system but that’s because my muscle memory is Nikon based. I’m going to wait a bit and see what Nikon does...after careful consideration I think a better crop sensor model than the Z50 would be pretty sweet for my needs, especially if I paired it with a Z7II or 6II for lesser focal length needs...and I will keep my D7500 anyway in case it turns out better for fast action for me. The a1 does look nice but until we see some reviews from people I trust like you and a few others I’m withholding judgment... it unless Nikon completely craps out changing systems isn’t cost effective for me despite the fact that I could easily afford to if I wanted to, I’m just not there yet.
It’s the old saying you got to pay to play lol. But if you can’t or don’t want to spend $20k then does it really matter how great it is? It’s a personal choice for sure but even if Nikon comes out with a camera as good as the a1 it’s also going to be $6,500. That’s a lot more than any of the Nikon cameras you mentioned. Would you spend that for a Nikon body? You’ll also need/want the native lenses to get that performance, that’s more money. Are you willing to buy the new Z glass?
I only bring this up because at that point the camera may say Nikon but you’re switching systems anyway. There is no free lunch.
My initial plan is to get the a1, already ordered and paid for and try it with the 200-600 which gets delivered today along with the grip, extra battery, memory card reader, 1.4 tele. I dropped $10k. If I like it then I’ll keep it. I still plan on using the D850 with my short glass that I don’t need the new wiz bang eye af and speed. Maybe over time I’ll replace the short stuff to Sony but for now the Nikon does all of that work perfectly.
I guess we all have priorities and until the a1 I hadn’t felt compelled to try anything else. I am in the camp I think Nikon is going to be 2-3 years to match Sony today and by then I suspect Sony has moved the ball further down the field. One issue with Nikon using Sony sensors and Sony selling cameras is I suspect Nikon isn’t going to have access to the newest and greatest sensors. It is likely Sony is going to keep them behind by a couple of years. It’s smart business and it’s how Canon could likely end up winning.
If I had zero Sony gear I might hang tight as well. However, since I already have most the that $20K spent (and recently sold some Nikon gear I wasn't using to offset the $6500 for the A1), I'm happy to make the purchase.
Thing is, 5 years from now who knows where any of us will be with our systems? Too many variables at play and I honestly don't blame anyone for holding on. Our current gear isn't going to suddenly stop producing great images. The a1 just adds a few more tools.
Well the first Sony stuff arrived today. Now just waiting on the a1 to ship. The Nikon kids had to make some room in the safe
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
anthonyrobinson
Member
I remember being so amazed when Nikon released their animal eye-AF with their firmware update (I photograph a lot of dogs) and someone released a video of the back of the LCD following a dog and just watching it stick to the eye of the dog like glue in what looked very impressive (then I was brought down a bit to reality when I upgraded firmware and went out with my dogs, lol). I now place zero faith in these; just because the box targets the eye in what looks like incredible circumstances, doesn't mean the resultant photo comes out.
Having said that, I to think the A1 results will be jaw dropping!
anthonyrobinson
Member
I am very envious of your journey! We expect daily updates when the A1 arrives!Well the first Sony stuff arrived today. Now just waiting on the a1 to ship. The Nikon kids had to make some room in the safe
fcotterill
Well-known member
fyi - Hugh Brownstone comments/reviews new products across several systems: Leica, Nikon, H'bld as well as Sony
Always important to note this new MILC is a halo product, with due price and bleeding edge technology. " Apex Weapons System for pro sports and wildlife shooters ......and the menus and ergo's [sic] only a mother could love..." Early days to await reliable tests
Always important to note this new MILC is a halo product, with due price and bleeding edge technology. " Apex Weapons System for pro sports and wildlife shooters ......and the menus and ergo's [sic] only a mother could love..." Early days to await reliable tests
And that's why I said it will be interesting to try it
I too have been disappointed with some of the features that turned out too good to be true, although at the same time, I've also been impressed with new features as well (Group AF back when it was introduced for one). So, we'll see. The nice thing with Sony is that it's not an either-or proposition. Normally I'd use something like Zone for BIF work and BEAF works with that mode. So, if the camera doesn't see the eye, I'm shooting the way I normally would anyway (Sony's eye af features aren't limited to just a couple AF areas like Nikons). If it works, I'm (hopefully) getting a bit more accuracy. Should be interesting to try and see how often it helps or if it's more of a hindrance (i.e. if it locks onto the wrong area thinking there's an eye there - I'v had that happen with Nikon)
Here is a pretty good video
WildBill
Member
Good review. Wish the 200-600mm issue didn't come up. But I'm glad that he identified it. Maybe it was just an issue with the VR, but I don't know.
Alex posted raw files. @Steve what are your thoughts? I don’t have a Sony to compare it to.
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobi...hjHwfoIWhhaXLnvUe_806Fy9CYJtfcG8ZEEWCkazVQW94
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobi...hjHwfoIWhhaXLnvUe_806Fy9CYJtfcG8ZEEWCkazVQW94
I downloaded the 16,000 the 6400 & 3200 files and opened them in Sony's RAW software. I then went to manual noise reduction and turned off everything but color NR since it doesn't really change the luminance noise pattern. I then exported them as Tiffs and played with them a bit in Photoshop (trying Topaz, etc).
The files don't look bad, but at first blush I'd say they aren't a9ii level and I doubt the D6 has anything to worry about (I resized to see what they looked like and I do have some experience with D5/6 noise levels and I know how that camera compares to the a9ii
). However, noise isn't a constant either. Different light levels and conditions can make it look better or worse in one scene than another so I have no direct comparison. This looks fairly well lit though, so I'm kind of skeptical of the low light claims (the shadows on the right are especially gritty). In addition, I'd like to try these files with Lightroom once they are up to date. Plus, Topaz isn't optimized for them yet either. I have a feeling I'll like the results better once I can play with some of my own RAWs in some "real" software (I hate Sony's noise reduction in their software).
Once I get the a1, I'm sure I'll try some ISO tests against the D6, a9ii and Z6/7. DPreview might beat me to it though (I'm surprised they haven't yet).
Thank you Steve! How would you say they compare to say a D850?I downloaded the 16,000 the 6400 & 3200 files and opened them in Sony's RAW software. I then went to manual noise reduction and turned off everything but color NR since it doesn't really change the luminance noise pattern. I then exported them as Tiffs and played with them a bit in Photoshop (trying Topaz, etc).
The files don't look bad, but at first blush I'd say they aren't a9ii level and I doubt the D6 has anything to worry about (I resized to see what they looked like and I do have some experience with D5/6 noise levels and I know how that camera compares to the a9ii
However, noise isn't a constant either. Different light levels and conditions can make it look better or worse in one scene than another so I have no direct comparison. This looks fairly well lit though, so I'm kind of skeptical of the low light claims (the shadows on the right are especially gritty). In addition, I'd like to try these files with Lightroom once they are up to date. Plus, Topaz isn't optimized for them yet either. I have a feeling I'll like the results better once I can play with some of my own RAWs in some "real" software (I hate Sony's noise reduction in their software).
Once I get the a1, I'm sure I'll try some ISO tests against the D6, a9ii and Z6/7. DPreview might beat me to it though (I'm surprised they haven't yet).
It's tough to say, I think pretty close although if I had to place a bet I'd say the D850 is still maybe a touch better. However, without testing with the same targets it's really hard to say. Once I test it myself, there's an equally good chance that it'll be better than the D850/Z7ii. In theory, it should be with the sensor they're using.
Plus, I'm really looking at the out of focus areas - when I look at the box itself, it looks fantastic. The thing is, the box is really a poor test target - you need something with detail (I use a feather donated by a local duck) to see when noise overwhelms fine detail. The box just done't include that kind of detail.
Let's put it this way - I'm not canceling my order