Sony A7R V

Thanks @Alex_Mustard. Just a short question. If you're comparing the A7 IV and the A7RV, do you think for underwater people should save the money for more MP or do you think the A7 IV with its 32MP and current performance is good enough for 95% of shoots when it comes to wide angle or macro?

I don't think there is a need to chase megapixels. This book is published this week. 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/britains-living-seas-hannah-rudd/1140777697

My photo on the cover is a vertical, cropped from a horizontal. Shot on a 12MP D300 (which was borrowed). So that's about 5-6MP. So it is hard to say you must have 60, rather than 30, when far less a needed for most real world solutions!

One thing I like about Sony is that they are making multiple cameras without big changes in the camera shape - so it is possible to fit different bodies into the same housing. Allowing you to have different cameras for different shoots, or upgrade more easily when new tech comes along.

Alex

4 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I am currently using Nauticam trigger, and have a max synch speed of 1/200th, which is a limit. I have an UW Technics one to fit and HSS flashes too, but I want to give the 1/200th limit a fair test, to see how limiting it really is, once I am used to it. For now I am just going to drop my ISO by a couple of clicks and turn my strobes up.

Hi Alex, I know you are busy but curious about the max sync of 1/200th. I have used the A7R V with the UWTechnics flash trigger and the Marelux manual flash trigger and both sync at the rated 1/250th sec. with mechanical shutter.Are you perhaps shooting in electronic?

My understanding is that I can have 1/250th with the UW-Technics trigger, but not with the current generation Nauticam trigger, which is limited to 1/200th. I will fit the UW Technics one when I get a break in the workshop. But it is also very possible that I have some settings wrong! 

49 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

My understanding is that I can have 1/250th with the UW-Technics trigger, but not with the current generation Nauticam trigger, which is limited to 1/200th. I will fit the UW Technics one when I get a break in the workshop. But it is also very possible that I have some settings wrong! 

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2230/v1/en/contents/TP0002919994.html

Xsync is 1/250 with sync cord. The Nauticam trigger normally goes as fast as you can but you start seeing the curtain

For example it syncs to 1/400 with my GH5

I get the curtain coming down from the top at 1/250th.

Also much happier with the look of the images on the camera today - not using Auto WB.

I get the curtain coming down from the top at 1/250th.
Also much happier with the look of the images on the camera today - not using Auto WB.

What happens with Sony cameras is that the sync speed is restricted unless they detect a Sony flash attached.  Manual flash triggers just use the X-sync contacts on the hotshoe and don't report the presence of a flash, so only get the standard sync speed.  Triggers like the UWT report as a Sony flash attached as this is required for TTL to work.

What happens with Sony cameras is that the sync speed is restricted unless they detect a Sony flash attached.  Manual flash triggers just use the X-sync contacts on the hotshoe and don't report the presence of a flash, so only get the standard sync speed.  Triggers like the UWT report as a Sony flash attached as this is required for TTL to work.

No 1/250 is the speed with synch cord which uses just xsync and first curtain

There is a lag somewhere in the response of the trigger or strobes

The A1 has an expansion mode that is available only using the hot shoe yet the nauticam trigger reaches 1/400 even is sync cord only does 1/320

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Had the chance (thanks Chip) to shoot the A7RIV and A7RV back to back today with the 90mm to evaluate autofocus. Few notes below.

The IV is immediately inferior in terms of AF with the 90mm. My baseline is Nikon SLRs, and I would say that the A7RIV is poorer than the Nikon D850 for AF. While I would say that the A7RV is quite clearly superior to the Nikon. Shooting reef fish and life.

The IV is at its best for shooting larger reef fish (butterflyfish), and in this size range and in bright conditions is very good. In these conditions the difference with the V is small. But the IV is much poorer than the V in lower light focusing (subjects in shade) and with smaller subjects. Slower to acquire, more hunting, locking onto the wrong subject in the frame etc. The V has an uncanny knack of picking the right subject in the frame - the fish, rather than the reef - the IV likes focusing on the reef much more. Shooting them back to back, I was surprised by the size of the difference. 

I would be less concerned for wide angle, where AF is less of a differentiator. 

The difference in the EVF is also very significant - and immediately obvious. Won't be borrowing the IV again. 

Alex

9 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Had the chance (thanks Chip) to shoot the A7RIV and A7RV back to back today with the 90mm to evaluate autofocus. Few notes below.

The IV is immediately inferior in terms of AF with the 90mm. My baseline is Nikon SLRs, and I would say that the A7RIV is poorer than the Nikon D850 for AF. While I would say that the A7RV is quite clearly superior to the Nikon. Shooting reef fish and life.

The IV is at its best for shooting larger reef fish (butterflyfish), and in this size range and in bright conditions is very good. In these conditions the difference with the V is small. But the IV is much poorer than the V in lower light focusing (subjects in shade) and with smaller subjects. Slower to acquire, more hunting, locking onto the wrong subject in the frame etc. The V has an uncanny knack of picking the right subject in the frame - the fish, rather than the reef - the IV likes focusing on the reef much more. Shooting them back to back, I was surprised by the size of the difference. 

I would be less concerned for wide angle, where AF is less of a differentiator. 

The difference in the EVF is also very significant - and immediately obvious. Won't be borrowing the IV again. 

Alex

 

This is great information, thanks a lot, Alex!

The Nikon D850 is a high standard, regarding macro AF. May I ask how you would rate the AF of the Sony A7RIV for macro in comparison to MFT cameras with the 60mm or 45mm macro lenses (with CDAF (e.g. EM5II) and PDAF (e.g. EM1II))?

I am asking, since I am in the process of upgrading from Oly EM1II to Sony FF. I could now acquire a fairly priced second hand Nauticam housing for A7RIV (and buy the camera body when I have the housing here), but in case macro AF is inferior to what I already have now, I would step back, spend the extra 3k (difference between RIV used and RV new; housing and camera) and go for a new A7RV (in case macro AF is comparable to the EM1II, this would suffice for me, it is already o.k., but not outstandingly)...

Thanks, Wolfgang

9 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

Had the chance (thanks Chip) to shoot the A7RIV and A7RV back to back today with the 90mm to evaluate autofocus. Few notes below.

The IV is immediately inferior in terms of AF with the 90mm. My baseline is Nikon SLRs, and I would say that the A7RIV is poorer than the Nikon D850 for AF. While I would say that the A7RV is quite clearly superior to the Nikon. Shooting reef fish and life.

The IV is at its best for shooting larger reef fish (butterflyfish), and in this size range and in bright conditions is very good. In these conditions the difference with the V is small. But the IV is much poorer than the V in lower light focusing (subjects in shade) and with smaller subjects. Slower to acquire, more hunting, locking onto the wrong subject in the frame etc. The V has an uncanny knack of picking the right subject in the frame - the fish, rather than the reef - the IV likes focusing on the reef much more. Shooting them back to back, I was surprised by the size of the difference. 

I would be less concerned for wide angle, where AF is less of a differentiator. 

The difference in the EVF is also very significant - and immediately obvious. Won't be borrowing the IV again. 

Alex

 

I guess this sorts out the IV vs V. It seems Sony redesign of the AF engine makes a big difference.

For reference the cheaper A7IV is also more advanced than the A7R4 according to topside benchmarks but it has less megapixels if that matter

I would be interested to understand more specifically if the subject detection was on or off when the V was choosing where to focus. Sony has this idea to look for eyes so you see a box first and then a smaller green box on the eye when it finds it. For me if it does not find the eye it is better to override the camera and use flexible spot and tracking by yourself

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

The Nikon D850 is a high standard, regarding macro AF. May I ask how you would rate the AF of the Sony A7RIV for macro in comparison to MFT cameras with the 60mm or 45mm macro lenses (with CDAF (e.g. EM5II) and PDAF (e.g. EM1II))?

I've really not shot enough of the different cameras properly to be able to answer. We do have 4 x other Sony's here this week, 2 x R5 and 3 x MFT cameras - but it is best for my group to concentrate on their shooting then doing too much swapping of cameras.  I'd wait for Phil or Jim Decker's opinions on this, as they really have the experience testing the different cameras, that I don't have. 

The main reason for me using the A7RV is really to compare it to the SLRs. A huge number of SLR shooters know mirrorless is the future, but are unsure whether that future is here now or is still in the future. The housing market is a still stalled because people are sticking with their 5Ds, D850s, D500s and 7Ds. I feel the A7RV is interesting because it is in the same price bracket as these SLRs were when new and potentially offers a superior underwater shooting experience (perhaps the first mirrorless to do so).

2 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

For me if it does not find the eye it is better to override the camera and use flexible spot and tracking by yourself

As long as it is quick at acquiring focus and tracking with flexible spot (comparing to D500+60mm/105mm), I'd be extremely happy with that. As that is not a step down from what SLR shooters are generally used to.

Can't wait to see proper reviews, ideally comparing the D850/D500 to the A7Rv. I'm very happy with my 60mm on a D500, which is the equivalent of a 90mm, so I'm hoping if that AF issues are good in low light situations and comparable, this is a worthy contender. Now I just need Sony to introduce Olympus Pro-capture / Nikon pre-release functionality for wildlife!

26 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

As long as it is quick at acquiring focus and tracking with flexible spot (comparing to D500+60mm/105mm), I'd be extremely happy with that. As that is not a step down from what SLR shooters are generally used to.

Can't wait to see proper reviews, ideally comparing the D850/D500 to the A7Rv. I'm very happy with my 60mm on a D500, which is the equivalent of a 90mm, so I'm hoping if that AF issues are good in low light situations and comparable, this is a worthy contender. Now I just need Sony to introduce Olympus Pro-capture / Nikon pre-release functionality for wildlife!

Procapture at 30 fps is not very useful. Due to the high megapixel count those cameras run out of memory with too many frames (30 frames at 50 MB each is 1500MB) 

Most pre-flight movement need actually 50/60 fps and that means 4GB on board which is a way away from what cameras do today which is normally 2 GB RAM at best

47 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Procapture at 30 fps is not very useful. Due to the high megapixel count those cameras run out of memory with too many frames (30 frames at 50 MB each is 1500MB) 

Most pre-flight movement need actually 50/60 fps and that means 4GB on board which is a way away from what cameras do today which is normally 2 GB RAM at best  

That's fair, at this rate I'm considering Olympus with a zoom as a second body solely for that, but I would obviously prefer to have a single body/lens for everything. I'll play the waiting game meanwhile.

I posted this in a fisheye thread - about the 8-15mm hunting - in a discussion @Interceptor121, but the comments are probably more valuable here, as the commentary is about AF performance: 

I only have 3 lenses with the Sony A7RV I have here in Cayman. The 28-60mm with the WWL/WACP definitely focuses much better than my reference Nikon 28-70mm with WACP on D850. The 90mm is much better at tracking fish than the Nikon 105mm. Although the 90mm is less impressive at smaller macro and looses its advantage over the 105mm/D850 combo.

However, the 8-15mm Canon/Metabones does not focus as well as the Nikon 8-15mm on D850. When both are confident, they both snap onto the subject so instantly that there is not significant difference between them and no real point in commenting on the performance as even if one was better it would not really be worth commenting on. However, with strongly backlit, monochromatic, strange shaped subjects (as most wide angle foregrounds look to a camera underwater) the 8-15mm Canon will hunt at times. This is much more prevalent with a smaller dome port. The hunting is common enough for me to want to comment on. But while it has slowed me down shooting, I've not missed any shots. The best solution is to switch to back button/thumb focus (Focus With Shutter Off in Sony-speak) with this lens.

So overall, I find the A7RV to be the best autofocusing underwater cameras I have used. It is logical to expect the A1 to be as good/better. The A7RV clearly has areas of strength, and areas of weakness. The latter really are a result of Sony's poor lens availability for underwater shooting, which hopefully will be redressed. The 90mm is especially good with larger (relative) macro subjects, like fish. The 28-60mm is very good. The fisheye which is not Sony's lens - is totally useable because AF performance is not so critical with fisheye, but is the weakest of the three.

I have 4 other Sony FF cameras on my workshop week - and I really should borrow a Sony 16-35mm to help asses WA AF performance further.

Alex

I posted this in a fisheye thread - about the 8-15mm hunting - in a discussion [mention=34353]Interceptor121[/mention], but the comments are probably more valuable here, as the commentary is about AF performance: 
 
I only have 3 lenses with the Sony A7RV I have here in Cayman. The 28-60mm with the WWL/WACP definitely focuses much better than my reference Nikon 28-70mm with WACP on D850. The 90mm is much better at tracking fish than the Nikon 105mm. Although the 90mm is less impressive at smaller macro and looses its advantage over the 105mm/D850 combo.

However, the 8-15mm Canon/Metabones does not focus as well as the Nikon 8-15mm on D850. When both are confident, they both snap onto the subject so instantly that there is not significant difference between them and no real point in commenting on the performance as even if one was better it would not really be worth commenting on. However, with strongly backlit, monochromatic, strange shaped subjects (as most wide angle foregrounds look to a camera underwater) the 8-15mm Canon will hunt at times. This is much more prevalent with a smaller dome port. The hunting is common enough for me to want to comment on. But while it has slowed me down shooting, I've not missed any shots. The best solution is to switch to back button/thumb focus (Focus With Shutter Off in Sony-speak) with this lens.
So overall, I find the A7RV to be the best autofocusing underwater cameras I have used. It is logical to expect the A1 to be as good/better. The A7RV clearly has areas of strength, and areas of weakness. The latter really are a result of Sony's poor lens availability for underwater shooting, which hopefully will be redressed. The 90mm is especially good with larger (relative) macro subjects, like fish. The 28-60mm is very good. The fisheye which is not Sony's lens - is totally useable because AF performance is not so critical with fisheye, but is the weakest of the three.
I have 4 other Sony FF cameras on my workshop week - and I really should borrow a Sony 16-35mm to help asses WA AF performance further.
Alex

21 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

However, the 8-15mm Canon/Metabones does not focus as well as the Nikon 8-15mm on D850. When both are confident, they both snap onto the subject so instantly that there is not significant difference between them and no real point in commenting on the performance as even if one was better it would not really be worth commenting on. However, with strongly backlit, monochromatic, strange shaped subjects (as most wide angle foregrounds look to a camera underwater) the 8-15mm Canon will hunt at times. This is much more prevalent with a smaller dome port. The hunting is common enough for me to want to comment on. But while it has slowed me down shooting, I've not missed any shots. The best solution is to switch to back button/thumb focus (Focus With Shutter Off in Sony-speak) with this lens.

 

I'm wondering if a different AF point pattern may be helpful in this type of situation as opposed to a single AF point,  Typically in situations ike this finding an edge for the AF system to work seems to help and if more points are active,  it may find the edge it needs more readily. 

37 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I'm wondering if a different AF point pattern may be helpful in this type of situation as opposed to a single AF point,  Typically in situations ike this finding an edge for the AF system to work seems to help and if more points are active,  it may find the edge it needs more readily. 

the adapter and the configuration has an impact on the camera behaviour

This is not specific of the A7RV and as such is a more general topic about the 8-15mm when used with adaptors on various system

So here is a bit off topic to talk abou non native lenses as the full capability of the camera AF is not available 

If we can please move the discussion of the Canon 8-15mm thread or I will open something new for adapted lenses