Amazing detail from the Olympus. Impressive! People talk a lot about atmospheric disturbances. And yes that can have a detrimental effect on the images. Maybe this is what I experienced. Your photo does not show any sign of atmospheric disturbance! I am going out again first thing tomorrow morning. I am hoping for better conditions. Having said that, I am still not convinced that all the loss of detail in my photos is caused by the air turbulence.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A7R4, A7R IV - Not resolving detail
- Thread starter DanD_NZ
- Start date
I hadn't picked up on that before until you mentioned it. This is especially visible when zooming to 100%. Thanks for that. After my trip tomorrow morning I will call in the camera shop to analyse all this. There still could be a fault with the camera.The cormorant shot shows it and it is not air turbulence.The effect seen here is likely caused by turbulence (air currents) - which is mentioned several times in this thread.Clearly something off about it, not just the lens combo. Look at this 600mm lens shot through a m4/3rds camera, 1200mm equivalent. None of the optical issues displayed in the Sony shot.I have been using the amazing 61MP Sony A7R IV with the FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens for a few months now. I find this a fantastic combination for bird photography. Well, so I thought until I noticed a very strange phenomenon over the weekend when taking photos where the subject is further than 30m away - birds in this case. Note, I used the Sony 2x TC coupled with this lens.
I squarely place the "Tracking Flexible Spot S" (i.e. smallest focus point) on the bird, and when the camera acquires focus I take the shot. One would think that would do the job.
However, when I review the shot in-camera, and zoom in somewhat, I notice that the entire photo is muddled or messy. I don't think that it is out of focus, it seems to me that either the camera has not focused on anything or there is severe pixel mis-alignment and unresolved detail. Refer to the pictures below:
I typically shoot at anywhere between 1/1600 or 1/4000, aperture is F11 (with 2x TC attached), max iso is <= 6400. I use compressed RAW only and phase detect focus is set to on. I have also set focus priority on so the shutter can't release if the camera hasn't acquired focus.
I took the camera to the shop where I bought it and, after some discussion and experimentation, the staff were also baffled by the results. We tried different lenses, we also tried another A7R IV and also an A7R II. The results were the same as what I got in the field as described above.
Afterwards I experimented some more at home with using different combinations of uncompressed RAW, phase detect focus set to off, IS set to off, JPEG only and with or without the 2x TC. None of which made any difference.
With close focus distance the picture is absolutely perfect with great detail up to 20m focusing distance. For instance:
When I focus at 30m and beyond the picture is gradually losing more detail and becomes more and more muddled.
Is there anything I am doing wrong or something else I could try? Or is this just a imitation of the camera/sensor – surely not?
I would be forever grateful if there is anyone out there who can shed some light on this please.
My Flickr photo stream
Oh no - does not look like that at all.
dcstep
Senior Member
I tried Topaz and agree that it's very good, but I think that DxO's PRIME NR is even better, IF you adjust the luminescence down to 20 and raise Fine Contrast and raise the lens Sharpness profile to the 50 to 70 range. I find myself using the bare lens, so that there's a lens/body Profile in DxO.
I may pay for and keep Topaz, for those occasions where DxO has no lens Profile and I still want extra NR.
Mallard flying close at 30+-mph:
DxO PhotoLab 3.2 with PRIME NR, using setting suggested above. At 100% you'll see that focus is on the right shoulder.
--
Dave
Last edited:
E
engbert
Guest
I took the liberty of cropping your first picture:
to this:
It looks like massive lateral camera shake with parallel ghosts. At 1/3200 you could not shake it that much even if you tried. Here is something similar from one of mine. This is from the foreground, using the same 1/3200. It was hand held but resting on the car window, engine off.
This combo takes amazingly sharp pix most of the time, even of bif.
In the pix which show this problem nothing is really sharp, so it is not an AF problem.
I still think it is shake production.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30973952@N06/
to this:
It looks like massive lateral camera shake with parallel ghosts. At 1/3200 you could not shake it that much even if you tried. Here is something similar from one of mine. This is from the foreground, using the same 1/3200. It was hand held but resting on the car window, engine off.
This combo takes amazingly sharp pix most of the time, even of bif.
In the pix which show this problem nothing is really sharp, so it is not an AF problem.
I still think it is shake production.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30973952@N06/
Last edited:
For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
--
Franck
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
--
Franck
Last edited:
E
engbert
Guest
How does this compare with shake reduction in PS?For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
--
Kansas Ron
Senior Member
Very impressive. Going to have to give it a go.
Wow! This is incredible! I will definitely look into this TOPAZ product.For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
Hmm. Interesting. I thought I had a pretty steady hand but I guess at 800mm I need to start using a tripod or monopod. What I am concluding is that there are 3 factors conspiring that affect IQ in my case: Atmospheric disturbance, my 2x TC and camera shake.I took the liberty of cropping your first picture:
to this:
It looks like massive lateral camera shake with parallel ghosts. At 1/3200 you could not shake it that much even if you tried. Here is something similar from one of mine. This is from the foreground, using the same 1/3200. It was hand held but resting on the car window, engine off.
This combo takes amazingly sharp pix most of the time, even of bif.
In the pix which show this problem nothing is really sharp, so it is not an AF problem.
I still think it is shake production.
I went out today and took this pic of a white faced heron which came out relatively good (after a little PP in DxO Photolab 3.0). No TC, subject not too far away and panning:
DxO Clearview Plus = 25, Contrast = 27, Micro contrast = 16, Lens sharpness = 1.33 and Details = 60.
Sometime its works nicely, sometime not.Wow! This is incredible! I will definitely look into this TOPAZ product.For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
If I can give you a piece of advice :
1. do RAW photo
2. Read your RAW with TOPAZ AI DENOISE and do a 16 bits TIFF file. If you dont know how to use it try this : first parameter to 0.15 and second parameter to 0.40. If there is still too much noise increase the first parameter (0.25, 0.35).
3. Use TOPAZ AI SHARPEN to add sharpness (SHARPEN) or to remove blur movement (STABILIZE). Use only the 2 first parameters, if you dont know how to set them for first try this : low correction 0.2 - medium 0.35 - high 0.5 - strong 0.7 for both parameters. Do a 16 bits TIFF file.
4. Open the TIFF file with Lightroom or Photoshop to set contrast, colors etc ... and to optimize the size of the file.
5. Then if needed you can try again TOPAZ AI sharpen or Denoise on the final image with very small corrections.
--
Franck
Last edited:
I think my explanation includes yours and I agree with you 100% - but maybe I didn't express myself clearly.
That is the most common scenario, but the opposite is also possible: Warmer air over colder water/ice - whatever (which you actually describe below). That's why you can also see it in arctic conditions, though less frequently as the typical warm ground/cool air scenario.
E
engbert
Guest
The problem with my picture above is that nothing is sharp. So:Thanks for sharing your experience. Not so unlike my experience. I find that if the camera can't focus on my subject I focus on something close by and then back to my subject. That usually works. A lot depends on the focus area used. For the birds in the sky I would probably us the wide or zone area. Whereas for the birds by the waters edge I would use the small flexible spot.My A7r4 and 200-600x1.4 can take sharp pictures. Here is one example of dozens.
But a few minutes later I could not focus on this scene - dozens of attempts, and some other scenes later.
Here is a foreground crop of the fuzzy one, showing multiple ghosts of that plant. This is at 1/3200. So I wonder if it is a problem with the shake reduction. I cannot remember my settings at the time, 3 weeks ago, and have not been able to work on it since.
Maybe we should rename it shake production! When I get a chance I will try to compare with a tripod and no OSS.
it is nothing to do with AF. I was focusing on the birds, which are also fuzzy.
Camera shake is not likely to be a problem at 1/3200
Heat turbulence would be more fuzzy in the distance. But my crop above is from the foreground - perhaps 20 feet away.
That seems to leave a shake reduction problem in the camera or lens.
--
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
I have seen similar issues with the SEL2470Z sometimes. Shots that should be sharp, even shots where the primary illumination is non-HSS flash, get this bit of blurring. I think you're right that it's related to stabilization somehow misbehaving.The problem with my picture above is that nothing is sharp. So:Thanks for sharing your experience. Not so unlike my experience. I find that if the camera can't focus on my subject I focus on something close by and then back to my subject. That usually works. A lot depends on the focus area used. For the birds in the sky I would probably us the wide or zone area. Whereas for the birds by the waters edge I would use the small flexible spot.My A7r4 and 200-600x1.4 can take sharp pictures. Here is one example of dozens.
But a few minutes later I could not focus on this scene - dozens of attempts, and some other scenes later.
Here is a foreground crop of the fuzzy one, showing multiple ghosts of that plant. This is at 1/3200. So I wonder if it is a problem with the shake reduction. I cannot remember my settings at the time, 3 weeks ago, and have not been able to work on it since.
Maybe we should rename it shake production! When I get a chance I will try to compare with a tripod and no OSS.
it is nothing to do with AF. I was focusing on the birds, which are also fuzzy.
Camera shake is not likely to be a problem at 1/3200
Heat turbulence would be more fuzzy in the distance. But my crop above is from the foreground - perhaps 20 feet away.
That seems to leave a shake reduction problem in the camera or lens.
--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.
Last edited:
LoneTree1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,801
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,318
The bird shot is ho-hum, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but the moon shot is very good because moon and planet shots often look overprocessed (because they are) and the rendering of detail is often as important as how the shot looks.Wow! This is incredible! I will definitely look into this TOPAZ product.For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
Thanks for the introductory lessonSometime its works nicely, sometime not.Wow! This is incredible! I will definitely look into this TOPAZ product.For movement blur sometimes Topaz AI SHARPEN can be very usefull
Exemple : Before / After using Stabilize function
Works also well on astrophoto (Moon, planets)
After stacking etc ...
And then with TOPAZ AI SHARPEN
If I can give you a piece of advice :
1. do RAW photo
2. Read your RAW with TOPAZ AI DENOISE and do a 16 bits TIFF file. If you dont know how to use it try this : first parameter to 0.15 and second parameter to 0.40. If there is still too much noise increase the first parameter (0.25, 0.35).
3. Use TOPAZ AI SHARPEN to add sharpness (SHARPEN) or to remove blur movement (STABILIZE). Use only the 2 first parameters, if you dont know how to set them for first try this : low correction 0.2 - medium 0.35 - high 0.5 - strong 0.7 for both parameters. Do a 16 bits TIFF file.
4. Open the TIFF file with Lightroom or Photoshop to set contrast, colors etc ... and to optimize the size of the file.
5. Then if needed you can try again TOPAZ AI sharpen or Denoise on the final image with very small corrections.
. I typically shoot RAW only and do my PP in DxO Photolab.PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Have not read all these posts. But many factors affecting in your resolution.
100-400 GM is a very sharp lens, but lots of compromise with 2.0x TC, still pretty good with 1.4x TC.
Atmospheric turbulence especially from such 800mm distance
shooting technique.
Otherwise A7r IV has amazing resolving power especially with some best lenses such as with 135 GM, Loxia 85 and CV 65 APO-Lanthar, the three lenses I own that can resolve every pixel, already very sharp even at respective wide open.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
100-400 GM is a very sharp lens, but lots of compromise with 2.0x TC, still pretty good with 1.4x TC.
Atmospheric turbulence especially from such 800mm distance
shooting technique.
Otherwise A7r IV has amazing resolving power especially with some best lenses such as with 135 GM, Loxia 85 and CV 65 APO-Lanthar, the three lenses I own that can resolve every pixel, already very sharp even at respective wide open.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
UPDATE 22-March-20:I have been using the amazing 61MP Sony A7R IV with the FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens for a few months now. I find this a fantastic combination for bird photography. Well, so I thought until I noticed a very strange phenomenon over the weekend when taking photos where the subject is further than 30m away - birds in this case. Note, I used the Sony 2x TC coupled with this lens.
I squarely place the "Tracking Flexible Spot S" (i.e. smallest focus point) on the bird, and when the camera acquires focus I take the shot. One would think that would do the job.
However, when I review the shot in-camera, and zoom in somewhat, I notice that the entire photo is muddled or messy. I don't think that it is out of focus, it seems to me that either the camera has not focused on anything or there is severe pixel mis-alignment and unresolved detail. Refer to the pictures below:
I typically shoot at anywhere between 1/1600 or 1/4000, aperture is F11 (with 2x TC attached), max iso is <= 6400. I use compressed RAW only and phase detect focus is set to on. I have also set focus priority on so the shutter can't release if the camera hasn't acquired focus.
I took the camera to the shop where I bought it and, after some discussion and experimentation, the staff were also baffled by the results. We tried different lenses, we also tried another A7R IV and also an A7R II. The results were the same as what I got in the field as described above.
Afterwards I experimented some more at home with using different combinations of uncompressed RAW, phase detect focus set to off, IS set to off, JPEG only and with or without the 2x TC. None of which made any difference.
With close focus distance the picture is absolutely perfect with great detail up to 20m focusing distance. For instance:
When I focus at 30m and beyond the picture is gradually losing more detail and becomes more and more muddled.
Is there anything I am doing wrong or something else I could try? Or is this just a imitation of the camera/sensor – surely not?
I would be forever grateful if there is anyone out there who can shed some light on this please.
My Flickr photo stream
Went out again today and took a Nikon D850 with 500mm f/5.6E PF along (courtesy Progear in Auckland) to directly compare against my Sony A7R4 with the 100-400mm lens. I wanted to compare to see if something is wrong with my Sony when photographing further away subjects. The IQ is close between these two cameras under these conditions but the D850 with the 500mm prime appears to have a slight edge. You can see a side-by-side sample at the bottom. I think it is pretty much of a muchness. The issues I reported at the start of this thread I largely related to atmospheric conditions combined with the 2x TC. Today the conditions were a lot better (not perfect by any means). The distance to the birds that are in focus is probably in the order of 60m. Photos follow below (Sony pics only). First the original (process in DxO with basic settings (contrast = 27, micro contrast = 16, vibrancy = 36) and taken using a monopod.
View attachment eae31274a63442188111f60ba33734e7.jpg
Same photo as above but added DxO Clearview Plus (set to 10) and as much sharpening as I dared (Global = 2.32, Detail = 65).
View attachment d24056e9f5574ee4a9d3f7d21925607c.jpg
Lastly, a 100% crop of the previous shot.
I am not saying that the above photos are perfect. To the contrary. They are approaching being acceptable. However, the main point of the exercise is to see how less atmospheric disturbances and not using the 2x TC would improve the IQ. That I think has at least been achieved.
On the upside, I also managed to shoot a few half decent photos of the bar-tailed godwit in flight (hand held and panning). They probably flow with 10 - 20m from where I was standing. So, a lot less air to wreak havoc on my photos.
View attachment 477bed19ba7640c8ab212cf92c9ef447.jpg
View attachment 337483fac81845f6bd3b73ceacbedf17.jpg
View attachment aafe954e05304f0b8e3a8fd890101be0.jpg
For me, the bottom line is that I don't think there is anything wrong with my camera. My learnings are: Beware of air turbulence and air thermals especially when using long lenses and/or TC's. Beware whether to use a TC at all. A tripod or monopod can help control camera shake. Balance faster shutter speed with ISO. Use the right PP software tools for PP.
Thanks everyone for all your comments and suggestion. It has been an interesting journey.
Dan
PS. Here is a side by side of the D850 (left) vs the A7R4 (right). Both at 100% crop. The D850 is jpg straight from camera as I didn't have it set to RAW. The A7R4 was set to RAW only so I processed in DxO. This is the best I could do.
Have fun!
Last edited:
LoneTree1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,801
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,318
Some close shots to look at with lens combo and camera would be good, from a short distance (50-100ft) and shot up above the ground to eliminate any chance of heat waves ideally. A transformer on a power pole, something like that were the only thing that will come into play are the camera and lens.I hadn't picked up on that before until you mentioned it. This is especially visible when zooming to 100%. Thanks for that. After my trip tomorrow morning I will call in the camera shop to analyse all this. There still could be a fault with the camera.The cormorant shot shows it and it is not air turbulence.The effect seen here is likely caused by turbulence (air currents) - which is mentioned several times in this thread.Clearly something off about it, not just the lens combo. Look at this 600mm lens shot through a m4/3rds camera, 1200mm equivalent. None of the optical issues displayed in the Sony shot.I have been using the amazing 61MP Sony A7R IV with the FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens for a few months now. I find this a fantastic combination for bird photography. Well, so I thought until I noticed a very strange phenomenon over the weekend when taking photos where the subject is further than 30m away - birds in this case. Note, I used the Sony 2x TC coupled with this lens.
I squarely place the "Tracking Flexible Spot S" (i.e. smallest focus point) on the bird, and when the camera acquires focus I take the shot. One would think that would do the job.
However, when I review the shot in-camera, and zoom in somewhat, I notice that the entire photo is muddled or messy. I don't think that it is out of focus, it seems to me that either the camera has not focused on anything or there is severe pixel mis-alignment and unresolved detail. Refer to the pictures below:
I typically shoot at anywhere between 1/1600 or 1/4000, aperture is F11 (with 2x TC attached), max iso is <= 6400. I use compressed RAW only and phase detect focus is set to on. I have also set focus priority on so the shutter can't release if the camera hasn't acquired focus.
I took the camera to the shop where I bought it and, after some discussion and experimentation, the staff were also baffled by the results. We tried different lenses, we also tried another A7R IV and also an A7R II. The results were the same as what I got in the field as described above.
Afterwards I experimented some more at home with using different combinations of uncompressed RAW, phase detect focus set to off, IS set to off, JPEG only and with or without the 2x TC. None of which made any difference.
With close focus distance the picture is absolutely perfect with great detail up to 20m focusing distance. For instance:
When I focus at 30m and beyond the picture is gradually losing more detail and becomes more and more muddled.
Is there anything I am doing wrong or something else I could try? Or is this just a imitation of the camera/sensor – surely not?
I would be forever grateful if there is anyone out there who can shed some light on this please.
My Flickr photo stream
Oh no - does not look like that at all.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum