Sony Alpha 77 II firmware update improves AF speed

It could happen. ...

http://briansmith.com/team-usa-photographed-with-sony-a77ii/

BTW Any soft edges or distortion is not the EVF.. I would check the diopter setting on the viewfinder or look at the lens you were using.. the EV shows you what the sensor sees. BTW the A77M2 improved the EVF (dot count didn't go up, but I shot the A77 vs A77M2 for a couple weeks when I upgraded) its better in low light. great in twiligt. The one place it lows VF image quality is bright sun.. can't shoot with sunglasses or its too dark etc.

I was asking for Sony a77ii vs. Canon 7Dmk2.

Got it.

But again, what is the sense of its outcome?

@dbo
The sense of its outcome is learning new knowledge on the part of the reader who might not have a chance/opportunity/time to get their hands on the two cameras and conduct a methodical comparison of their own.

Feel free to specify your question any time, so we could stop being wise and start being reasonable.

What is wrong asking for comparision of two models(rivals)?
If you check reviews,you will see that there is/was always comparision between rivals
even sometimes 4 years old model vs new model
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/12

Tell that to everyone who ever sings the praises of Fuji for firmware updates.

RedFox88 The A77ii was a great camera at launch and I didn't think it needed any firmware updates but but this makes an already great camera even greater. I'd take this over the Canon 7Dii at any price but at half the price it's a no brainer.

@tbcass
If a firmware can improve the AF speed twice, then I would say, that the original driver software was pretty lousy in that area. Still it is better to get the updated driver, than not.

I would really like to see a serious comparison with 7dmk2

@Karl eunuch if the a77m2 was "prettylousy" what are all the canon and Nikon cameras it beat on pop photo's timed focus testing before this update. Sony started with an effort behind the sensors read the 7dii review to see how that helps..now they make focus an priority better sensor, better focus, better video. we are getting down to "but my system has more lenses you will never own, but can dream of"

Says the person who probably has never used the A77II.

Firmware updates are not always for fixes, but can be for enhancements. Adding an additional codec is not a fix, it is an enhancement.

The AF was already fast to begin with, to eek out even more performance by making it even faster and perform even better in low light is not a fix, it is an enhancement. It would be a fix if it was slow as a dog and couldn't lock on in low light situations, but that was not the case.

@K E Hoffman
First: Don't give me names. Second: don't twist what I said. I spoke of the firmware in relation to the AF speed. Not about the camera as such.

@VirtualMirage
I know pretty well what firmware updates can mean. I was referring solely to the AF speed. I maintain, that if it can be made twice as fast with the same hardware just by updating the sw, then the programmers didn't do a great job the first time. That is a matter of fact.

AF is not a new codec or a new functionality, that would be added. AF was already there before the update.

Anyone else remember this firmware update for the original Canon 7D that nearly doubled the raw buffer?
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/EOS7D_firmware_features

Referring to my comment:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii?comment=6769947799
and if that is true. The unfortunate down side of such a market dynamics is product release at a reasonable acceptable status. Company know there are glitches and fix them with firmware and patches on the fly. Its been like that for IT, cellphone and many computer related industries for years. The alternative, wait 5 years for a mk2, you know what I am talking about.

@karlwunsch: I get what you're saying, but following the user experience over the past several months people have seemed rather thrilled with the AF performance as it was at release. It wasn't really something people seemed to be looking for and I think most of us in the A-mount forum were rather surprised by the firmware announcement.

In addition, they also added the XAVC codec for video recording, which is what was referred to above.

@karlwunsch the name change was not intended. Android auto correct and a rushe'd post apologies.

@K E Hoffman
Thanks for the explanation.

@Karlwunsch: Sorry, my comment was not directed at you but instead to RedFox88. I should have labeled it as such. But since you opened the door, I'll respond to you:

The codec comment was in reference to the addition of the XAVC-S video codec, not AF.

As for the AF speed, the AF is already pretty great on the camera (I'm speaking from experience as an owner who previously owned an A77). Note that it doesn't say the AF speed is up to twice as as fast in all respects, but that AF speed as has been improved overall and up to 2.5x in low light conditions. This doesn't mean the original firmware was shoddy, just that they managed to squeeze out a little more juice from it. And 2.5x might sound like a lot, but when speaking in terms of something that is already fast the improvement could mean just fractions of an improvement. If the original firmware was shoddy, the AF would have been crap out the gate.

@VirtualMirage
I never even hinted, that the AF was bad. I just don't like the trend where manufacturers in the oblivious pursuit of time-to-market release products, that aren't in their top shape.

Being a professional in electronics design, I'm talking from my personal experience. The software development lags behind the hardware design and the software developers are handcuffed by managers and their time tables. Seen this too many times to like it. And guess who'll always get bitten by this trend: us, customers.

That being said, I still appreciate, that Sony dedicated the resources to improve the algorithm and released new firmware (which seen from the management point of view is a non-capitalized effort).

SrhedD. For exactly same reasons, I bought in canikon simply because Sony cannot provide me with the basic thing I need: a fast AF system and quality telephoto lenses up to 800mm

Mark K; If you need a quality 800mm tele then obviously Sony isn't for you. Personally I could never afford such a lens.

The Sensor is much better from the A77 II then the 7D II, so in case you don't have much Canon lenses, there's no need to get a 7D II.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-vs.-Nikon-D300s-vs-Sony-Alpha-77-II-Competitive-performance

Marc..you must have noticed that the DxO performance of both sensors are so similar, despite the fact one used in A77 II must be better. All performance was washed out sadly by the SLT mirror.

ChuckTa: This is how Nikon works(compare D600/610, the same camera, but without dust), Canon(600/650/700D), and so on. About RX100 - stupid joke, isn't it? All RX100's are quite different(lens, VF, hot shoe, and so on)

ChuckTA, I would like to know how a firmware can add a flash mount on the RX100 mk1 or how a firmware can remove said flash mount but add the pop up EVF. Perhaps Sony could have sent instruction via firmware so that the nanites in the RX100 can be instructed to build the flash or EVF?

Similarly, Sony could have, via firmware, add the 5 axis stablization to the A7. Come to think of it, Sony could have instructed the nanites to convert all of their sensor to BSI (move those wires!)

You are taking it too literally, it just mean that Sony is not the best in handing out firmware upgrade. They don't do a very good job of keeping the old customers happy compare to other brands.

Wouldn't it be great to have that in figures? In a repetitive test?

@Mark K
I assume you mean the A77II cos A7II AF isn't that impressive from field report especially on AF-C tracking.

The problem with NX1 is not about the camera's ability. I am sure its up to scratch as a modern camera. Getting people to put down 3K to buy it? That is a total different story.

For the test to be valid, it could not be a living thing as those are random. An RC with a doll glued to the top would be better.

A human on a vehilce like a motorbike would possibly make a good AF test.
It can be erratic, but similarly erratic.
Of course then you have the problem that the testers will become familiar with the course, so you need to make sure that all testers have had a minimum amount of experience with the target course.

Familiarity with the camera is also important. The Pentax K-3 AF tests were botched due to incorrect settings.

You scared me! Was there one out there ...
Yes, that is a good start, but I'm more looking for tracking abilities.

Just build an Arduino robot that carries an AF target and drive it in a repetitive path in a long corridor at the office. And arrange LED strips for the whole distance so the light can be changed and controlled.
And show us keeper ratios at different car speeds for the different tracks it runs.

Anything is better that "It feels a bit sluggish"!

Tharaphita, I had the same thought.

The A77ii WAS faster than any Nikon I've had (last two were D610 and D7100), and faster now than any other Canon or Nikon in my local camera store. The first comment is a real use experience based on a sizable jump in usable shots from my sons' football games versus my old Nikons, the in-store comparisons, though not as thoroughly tested, are comparisons with both cameras in-hand. The AF is easily faster on my upgraded A77ii than any Nikon or Canon the store had in stock, though they didn't have any D4-series or EOS1-series cameras. This isn't a noise comparison, the time to focus was faster, and it was more deliberate (less hunt). I can also state from experience that the low light AF is now just like daylight focussing, and easily as fast as my A6000. The A77ii actually seems quicker to lock than the A6000, so NOW I'm hoping for an A6000 AF tweak by firmware.

GREAT JOB SONY!! It is nice to be HAPPY with my camera company again! Keep innovating while the others rest on their laurels.

Why would anyone try to shoot AF with a 6D

@John Because EVFs are good now?

We have lots of sports shooters in Sony forum that do jjust fine. The EVF experience is different most but not all adapt. What is nice is video with full AF capabilities and tracking via EVF vs the torture of a slowed down focus system and trying to track while holding camera out in front. Pop photo on A77 article said it was only camera they could video BIFS with.

'Fine' is less than 'outstanding', which is where the 7D II lies. I'm sure I could mostly get along with the A77 II for action, but 'mostly getting along' is not what people buy a camera like the 7D II for.

So, John, how does a77II AF performance compare to 7DII perormance? Preferably after firmware update.

The only thing I've seen so far is:
"These excellent performances allow the Alpha 77 II pass the Nikon D7100 , Canon EOS 70D and even in the very recent Canon EOS 7D Mark II" from lesnumeriques.com

But maybe you have other sources as well?

@John

I don't own either but lest say fine is 80% and outstanding is 100%. Then there is all the additional feature that 7D2 lacks. Oh one more thing. here is Australia just the body and the 70-200 2.8 has a 2K price difference between 7D2 and A77m2. I personally cannot see spending so much more and gaining so little.

Note that while the A77 II gains a few features being an SLT, it's still limited by Sony's lens lineup. Not nearly as bad as the Pentax K-3 has it, of course, but Sony is still no Canon or Nikon when it comes to lenses, especially of the telephoto variety!

@Eleson, my 'source' for the A77 II is that it's an SLT, and that the EVF introduces lag. For Sony to get their SLT technology up to action SLR specs would be a monumental achievement. One that I'm sure they are capable of, but also one that I don't believed they've yet reached.

@John outstanding you say: tried using liveview in daylight? oh wait how about shadow recovery on that 7Dm2? or wait the dynamic range? at least better ISO performance after 5 years!? how about full time PDAF in video with latest codecs? articulated screen? wifi? in-body AF range limiter? still no...? lets try a easy one then, wifi? what no? ok ok fine, something easier... competitive price? oh wait 2x the price... oh dear... either canon is taking you all for a ride or that AF must be able to just read your mind! :P

@John: Also you clearly haven't shot with the latest EVF on Sony. There is no lag for panning or capturing action. The refresh rate is faster than your eyes can notice anyway (unless you are superhuman). Everyone taking action shots on a-mount aren't just guessing where the subject is going to be and getting lucky guesses!!

@Serious Sam: You statement intrigues me. You say FF lenses on canon drop in performance on APS-C like 7Dm2? I find that hard to swallow. I have been considering canon for a while but if this is the case then it won't be an option for me anymore.

As for on Sony they provide a good range of lenses. Yes it is lacking in certain areas but for most use cases, there is a very good range (but can sometimes be expensive).

@Eleson: I am guessing the reason being especially on the 'G' lenses like 70-200mm/2.8 they sell less in quantity than canon or nikon. So the price goes up. Not defending Sony's price here, just saying that might be the reason...

If you used an A77ii for a few days, you'd literally forget it was an EVF. No so on the A6000, but you would on the A77ii. It is that good an EVF. THEN, when you'd NEED it, touching that exposure comp dial and SEEING your adjustment is sublime! Or WB, or manual exposure, or DOF... you just have to let go of your old ways and embrace the technology. In SOME cases it is THAT good.

John C Tharp;

I shoot sports all the time with my A77 and A77ii all the time. The EVF is no hindrance at all for single shots while in burst mode, while it took a while to get used to the "slide show" it is of no hindrance either.

@Serious Sam-
Canon telephoto lenses do not 'lose' performance when used with APS-C cameras. They're the best lenses made.

And Canon has four stabilized primes that are not 200mm or greater big whites.

For everyone else: In most cases, assuming that appropriate glass is available, I'd consider the A77 II to be the superior camera, there's no doubt.

But for *fast* action and when the best telephoto lenses are needed, the 7D II is in a class of it's own.

@John C Tharp. Quote"But for *fast* action and when the best telephoto lenses are needed, the 7D II is in a class of it's own."

Yes, the 7D II is in the super expensive 5 year-old tech APS-c sensor class.

Maybe you should test the A77II before giving your opinion about it.
And maybe you should try the 70-400mm and the 500mm f/4 lenses from Sony.

You can continue to think that an SLT can keep up with a sport's/birding shooter that normally uses SLRs, but whatever.

Where's Sony's 200/2? 400/2.8? 600/4? 800/5.6? 200-400/4?

And the 70-400/G II is no gem; Nikon's 80-400G VR is better, and Canon's shipping 100-400L IS II will likely be even better than that. (And no, no one cares about the lost 70/80-99mm on the wide end)

@John C Tharp
I should have re phrase my comment, the lens itself does not lose performance but the system itself does. Its very logical since an APSC body perform worse that a FF body. The overall system will perform worse when is same lens is compared betwenn a ASPC and FF body.

1 comment is true though. Canon EF lens are optimized for FF. My friends brother just brought a 1DX and he is already seeing huge difference with his L glass.

"Where's Sony's 200/2? 400/2.8? 600/4? 800/5.6? 200-400/4?"

Why you need so much telephoto lens?? two to three in a system is more than enough. For the few that who buy all these, Sony, Fuji,...etc is happy to pass them on to Canon. It such a small market that need so much effort. Such money is better spend on making better bodies and standard lens with let risk and better return ratio.

@John: How many people actually buy those tele-lenses?

Good thing world doesn't revolve around you, otherwise we'd only have tele-primes, no telezooms with descent range (believe it or not people use 70mm), and we'd all be getting ripped off by canon.

@Steelhead- Canon has a massive lineup of lenses that far outresolve their best sensors. Sony A7R users have taken to using them on adapters for that very purpose.

And yes, we're all waiting for Canon's high-resolution and high low-ISO DR sensor :).

As a Canon fanboy, you probably haven't even tried the Sony products. As been stated earlier, the lagtime is really a non issue. What is ancient technology is having a mirror slapping back and forth! Maybe you should read up where people have used both cameras before making blanket statements?

@John C Tharp (18 hours ago)

Quote: " And the 70-400/G II is no gem; Nikon's 80-400G VR is better"

Not according to DPR when they compared the Sony and Nikon lenses:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7890621965/lens-reviews-update-dxomark-data-for-nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-lenses

Review Comment: "On DX/APS-C format, the Sony compares very favourably to the Nikon. The former is a touch sharper wide open at the short end, but the Sony pulls well ahead for sharpness at 400mm F5.6. In other respects the two lenses run pretty well neck-and-neck." (similar results on FF - and the long-end is the important end on these lenses)

You are showing an almost personal dislike for Sony in this thread, did they do something to upset you?

Wow from the looks of this thread the CanNikon Fanboys appear to be threatened by the A77ii, at least a couple of them. :-)

Sony really needs to publish a roadmap, so that people can buy their SLT cameras from a position of knowledge.

And get more lenses.

But from what I have seen their tech is pretty darn nice.