Sony A7Riii Initial usage

Interesting Scott. I would never have expected an adapted lens to handle BIF, but that it can handle slower moving stuff is good. Of course we wildlife togs are often pushing things too far, shooting a model full frame or sports person running around a field 50 yards away does not come close to the razor thin DOF we have on a squirrels eye at f4 seven yards away with a 400mm lens

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Not surprising, Scott.  You need a native lens for a real high success rate for something like that.  You are trying to use lenses designed for off sensor phase detect on an on-sensor focusing camera.  Lenses designed for these cameras use a completely different lens motor technology and many use two motors.  You wouldn't have too much trouble with something slow and predictable but for something fast and unpredictable you have little chance.

Yes, I didn’t expect much but I keep hearing about how well adapted lenses work. Maybe the A9 is better, I don’t know. 

I use the A9 with an adapted lens being the Sigma 150-600 Sport with MC11 and I can tell you that I find it’s adapted performance mediocre at best...whatever others say; for me it doesn’t work great and neither does it on the A7R III. I use this combination for more static bird/wildlife and the Sony 100-400 with and without converter for more action stuff and that combination is superb.
Rene 

Scott, I thought you needed to use the latest MB V adapter to achieve the best results with either the a7R MK III or the a9 cameras?

signgrap wrote:Scott, I thought you needed to use the latest MB V adapter to achieve the best results with either the a7R MK III or the a9 cameras?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IV and V work the same as long as the firmware is the latest(both use the same firmware). 

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

signgrap wrote:Scott, I thought you needed to use the latest MB V adapter to achieve the best results with either the a7R MK III or the a9 cameras?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IV and V work the same as long as the firmware is the latest(both use the same firmware). 

I've seen reports that the V worked better than the IV BUT the sources were just forum comments (not on NSN) so they may not be accurate. 

signgrap wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

signgrap wrote:Scott, I thought you needed to use the latest MB V adapter to achieve the best results with either the a7R MK III or the a9 cameras?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IV and V work the same as long as the firmware is the latest(both use the same firmware). 

I've seen reports that the V worked better than the IV BUT the sources were just forum comments (not on NSN) so they may not be accurate. 

I recall the only significant difference between the IV and the V is the V has better weather sealing. But don't quote me on this.

These are the things updated on the Metabones V - there should not be a difference in AF performance:
• CINE models feature a new positive-lock EF lens mount. (Patent pending)
• Rubber gasket protects E-mount connection from dust and moisture.
• Compatible with Sony FS7 Mark II camera
• Status notification LED light
• Dedicated switch controls in-body image stabilization (IBIS)

By the way, for those new to Sony mirrorless cameras, it should be reiterated that if you need to go higher than ISO 200, your next step should be ISO 640.  Due to the way the gain amps and DAC's work in Sony cameras, ISO 640 has significantly better dynamic range (and therefore less noise if you use expose to the right techniques), than ISO 320, 400, 500.  This article illustrates this well:
http://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7ri ... o-setting/

The same is true for essentially all a7 style bodies.

E.J. Peiker wrote:By the way, for those new to Sony mirrorless cameras, it should be reiterated that if you need to go higher than ISO 200, your next step should be ISO 640.  Due to the way the gain amps and DAC's work in Sony cameras, ISO 640 has significantly better dynamic range (and therefore less noise if you use expose to the right techniques), than ISO 320, 400, 500.  This article illustrates this well:
http://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7ri ... o-setting/

The same is true for essentially all a7 style bodies.

I didn't know that. Thanks I'll be sure to remember next time.

My complete a7R III unbiased review is now available
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sony%20a7R%20III.pdf

E.J. Peiker wrote:My complete a7R III unbiased review is now available
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sony%20a7R%20III.pdf

Wow! An incredible, thorough and clearly unbiased review. Thank you!

E.J. Peiker wrote:My complete a7R III unbiased review is now available
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sony%20a7R%20III.pdf

Many thanks for the superb review and insight into your camera setting phylosofy. I’m going to have to read it several times to take it all in (as previously noted earlier in this thread I’ll probably forget most of it  )

Interesting observation regard Lock On AF:Flexible Spot v Expand Flexible Spot. I’ve not had much opportunity to get out and try BIF here in frigid PA but as I’m heading to Barnegat Light next weekend I hope to get some flight shots of the sea duck in the Inlet. 

Have you tried the 1.4 Teleconverter with the 100-400 GM? I purchased one for the Barnegat trip but haven’t had a chance to try it yet so I don’t know what the focusing is going to be like at f/8 when at 560mm.

I haven't but my experience with f/8 lenses would indicate that it will be fine for stationary object but tracking fast moving subjects will not be that great (it isn't with a DSLR either) and optically a relatively slow zoom with a TC never gives optimal results and that you will likely need to be at f/11 to get to the best optical performance for that combination.

I initially had my BIF Memory Recall setting for Focus Area set to Lock On: Flexible Spot L because that seemed the most logical for BIF. After reading your review findings I did a bit of simple testing and sure enough it did loose the Lock frequently. I’ve changed my BIF setting to Expand Flexible Spot and see how good I am at tracking without lock on.

Thank you E.J. for your review. I appreciate how complete it was. I am a little disappointed in the Sony not being much better than the Canon 5DII but now we know. I was hoping it was on a par with maybe the Canon 7DII or even Canon 5D4. Maybe the Sony a9.

Thanks again.

scorless wrote:Thank you E.J. for your review. I appreciate how complete it was. I am a little disappointed in the Sony not being much better than the Canon 5DII but now we know. I was hoping it was on a par with maybe the Canon 7DII or even Canon 5D4. Maybe the Sony a9.

Thanks again.

There was a typo in the review which I have corrected.  It should have said on par with an EOS 5D Mk III.  You must be referring to AF capability on complex flight pattern birds, not the camera as a whole which your post implies and it could give people a completely wrong impression of the camera and my review.  The Sony a7R III is in a completely different class than a 5D II, 5D3, 5D IV and 7D II and significantly bests them in virtually every category with the exception of tracking complex motion of unpredictable flyers.  For that type of photography, the a9 is better suited from an AF standpoint but the Sony system doesn't really have the long lenses for full frame bird photography yet. In every other regard including the most important, image quality, it isn't even close.  For that matter the several year old a7R II is head and shoulders above anything made by Canon for image quality.

For still subjects (mainly birds) I've  used the Canon 600 V2 + 1.4Tc III (and sometimes with the 2.0 III) with the Sony a7R2 and the image quality was well above the files produced by the 5D3. But once the subject moved, in terms of AF, you had to start all over again, and it wasn't easy. The a7R3 is in the mail.  Can't wait to try it out with this combo.

Thanks for clarifying my misinterpretation of you review on the AF issues. It is clear now and I understand where the camera fits in terms of bird photography.

Charlie Woodrich wrote:For still subjects (mainly birds) I've  used the Canon 600 V2 + 1.4Tc III (and sometimes with the 2.0 III) with the Sony a7R2 and the image quality was well above the files produced by the 5D3. But once the subject moved, in terms of AF, you had to start all over again, and it wasn't easy. The a7R3 is in the mail.  Can't wait to try it out with this combo.

Just tested this out (a7R3+metabones IV+Canon 1.4 III+ Canon 600V2). I haven't run it through any paces yet but my first impression is this is a very adequate set up for still images. Much easier (but not quick) to AF than on the a7R2. One thing that concerns me is the lens makes kind of a low growl when trying to achieve focus.

Charlie Woodrich wrote:

Charlie Woodrich wrote:For still subjects (mainly birds) I've  used the Canon 600 V2 + 1.4Tc III (and sometimes with the 2.0 III) with the Sony a7R2 and the image quality was well above the files produced by the 5D3. But once the subject moved, in terms of AF, you had to start all over again, and it wasn't easy. The a7R3 is in the mail.  Can't wait to try it out with this combo.

Just tested this out (a7R3+metabones IV+Canon 1.4 III+ Canon 600V2). I haven't run it through any paces yet but my first impression is this is a very adequate set up for still images. Much easier (but not quick) to AF than on the a7R2. One thing that concerns me is the lens makes kind of a low growl when trying to achieve focus.

Pretty much mirrors my experience that I wrote about in the review.  In my case MC-11 + Sigma 500 f/4, no problem, Add the 1.4x and it's no problem for perched birds but not for flight.  No growl though...  In general I think the MC-11 is a better adapter than the Metabones, even for most Canon lenses even though they aren't officially supported.