Sony A1 + 200-600 beaten by Panasonic GH7 + 200mm

Both shots at 400mm equivalent Panasonic shallower Dof at 5.6 equivalent

Both cameras AF cant keep up

Sony shooting 30 fps Panasonic 60 fps









The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

Interceptor121 said:

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600.

Click to expand...

Use even smaller sensors and evetything will be much better ...

I also compared A1+200-600 at 600mm at F6.3 vs G9ii (when I had it) + 300mm F4 Pro wide open.

On a tripod, with a static object 15m away (very fine text on cereal box).

After upscaling (like you did) and cropping center portion of the images I found the sharpness and contrast to be exactly the same. No advantage to either system.

It just goes to show that sharp prime does work well on lower res cameras.

However, having used A1 extensively in the field shooting BIF, as well as G9ii/Om1 mk1 and 2, I found that for me Sony A1 AF works much better. Hence, with some sadness I sold my last m4/3 body G9ii and not only use Sony.

MarkG said:

I also compared A1+200-600 at 600mm at F6.3 vs G9ii (when I had it) + 300mm F4 Pro wide open.

On a tripod, with a static object 15m away (very fine text on cereal box).

After upscaling (like you did) and cropping center portion of the images I found the sharpness and contrast to be exactly the same. No advantage to either system.

It just goes to show that sharp prime does work well on lower res cameras.

However, having used A1 extensively in the field shooting BIF, as well as G9ii/Om1 mk1 and 2, I found that for me Sony A1 AF works much better. Hence, with some sadness I sold my last m4/3 body G9ii and not only use Sony.

Click to expand...

For this kind of scenario where no camera can't keep with with autofocus there is a comparison.

For actual handheld no comparison the sony wins

RealWorldPhoto said:

Interceptor121 said:

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600.

Click to expand...

Use even smaller sensors and evetything will be much better ...

Click to expand...

Irrelevant as the Panasonic had less depth of field

Interceptor121 said:

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

If only looking at lenses, not bodies, it shows how great of a value 200-600 still is compared to a prime. Cost less than primes with acceptable results.

200-600 is a bit old and needs mkII refresh. Was stellar back during 24MP era but doesn't have the resolving ability for 50MP+.

Waku Waku said:

Interceptor121 said:

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

If only looking at lenses, not bodies, it shows how great of a value 200-600 still is compared to a prime. Cost less than primes with acceptable results.

200-600 is a bit old and needs mkII refresh. Was stellar back during 24MP era but doesn't have the resolving ability for 50MP+.

Click to expand...

The 200-600 is £1,599 and is actually newer than the Panasonic 200 that is a 2017 lens and costs £2,399 with included a 1.4 TC

The whole system is 50% more expensive than the Panasonic that has had procapture at 50/60 forever.

This little excercise shows that for those kind of shot where you are not able to track and the birds are small 30 fps is not enough and that the camera autofocus does not matter anymore

You would need an A9 III to beat this but it would loose on resolution and be even more expensive

This type of shots just work better with a micro four third set up

When it comes to bif or standard tracking the other way around as sony tracking is better

Subject detection is also way better on the panasonic

How many shots are in each sequence? Is the sharpest shot of each sequence? AF can vary from shot to shot and is very sensitive to sensitivity and AF mode settings. Prime vs. zoom?




Just curious, what are the relative pixel densities?

--
Dave

dcstep said:

How many shots are in each sequence? Is the sharpest shot of each sequence? AF can vary from shot to shot and is very sensitive to sensitivity and AF mode settings. Prime vs. zoom?

Just curious, what are the relative pixel densities?

Click to expand...

The Sony sequence are 11 shots the Panasonic are way too many...I filled up a 64GB memory card just doing take off landing

The Panasonic has other sharp shots but the wing position is not interesting likewise the sony.

Generally for small birds taking off and landing from a feeder you would need 1/8000 and f/8 or f/11 and forget autofocus as the camera just cant keep up

Pixel wise I think the Panasonic has 3 microns pixels the A1 4.14 microns

In general at those aperture it if difficult for a lens to keep up with small pixels but the PL 200/2.8 is an incredible optic

This is a starling at f/4 the autofocus did pick up on the wing however the black head of the eye makes eye detection near to impossible

The level of detail is phenomenal





--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

If this is the sharpest your 200-600 is capable of at 400mm, something is wrong with it. Some samples can indeed be a bit soft at 600mm on 50MP, but at 400 I've never seen one this bad.

Quicly moving subjects at only 1/4000th might not make for an ideal test as there will be motion blur involved and it won't even be constant since birds' speed can vary substantially. You'd need to at least shoot the same bird on the same takeoff with both cameras.

A prime winning against a reasonably priced 3x zoom really isn't much of surprise though, that's the way it should be. Even more so when the zoom is robbed of its biggest advantage, that is, to actually zoom.

Robert Salton said:

If this is the sharpest your 200-600 is capable of at 400mm, something is wrong with it. Some samples can indeed be a bit soft at 600mm on 50MP, but at 400 I've never seen one this bad.

Quicly moving subjects at only 1/4000th might not make for an ideal test as there will be motion blur involved and it won't even be constant since birds' speed can vary substantially. You'd need to at least shoot the same bird on the same takeoff with both cameras.

A prime winning against a reasonably priced 3x zoom really isn't much of surprise though, that's the way it should be. Even more so when the zoom is robbed of its biggest advantage, that is, to actually zoom.

Click to expand...

Nope of because the camera can’t focus fast enough so it’s lagging indeed more than the Panasonic

both images have the focus point well away from the subject

so your considerations are irrelevant

read they post again this is not about having a sharp

photo which i have posted plenty with the 200-600 on a static bird is about the ability or lack of thereof to take certain shots

and overall the sony combo is 50% more expensive

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

So this was supposed to be an AF test?

It's equally bad for that. Either have each camera individually record an exactly repeatable situation or shoot the same situation with both cameras simultaneously. Alternatively, a large number of images of highly similiar situations could be recorded with both cameras independently and then statistically examined.

The 200-600 isn't exactly known for its AF speed, at 400mm the 100-400 would have been a somewhat better choice. Would have been a great occasion to examine any possible differences in AF performance between 20fps and 30fps on the A1.

Interceptor121 said:

Interceptor121 wrote: ...

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

If I were you I'd spent less time comparing systems and more time figuring out why your results suck more than those of other folks with the same hardware.


Hard crop, processed in C1, no AI.

Robert Salton said:

So this was supposed to be an AF test?

It's equally bad for that. Either have each camera individually record an exactly repeatable situation or shoot the same situation with both cameras simultaneously. Alternatively, a large number of images of highly similiar situations could be recorded with both cameras independently and then statistically examined.

The 200-600 isn't exactly known for its AF speed, at 400mm the 100-400 would have been a somewhat better choice. Would have been a great occasion to examine any possible differences in AF performance between 20fps and 30fps on the A1.

Click to expand...

It is a use case

As I wrote before (I have taken 3000 shots today)

None of the camera AF can keep up a take off situation the A1 worse than the GH7 on those small birds





I read here a lot of non sense about precapture for take off landing of birds

Your A1II can't keep up with the bird especially at 30 fps. In this situation I had to take many shots to pick the take off but this is something I already knew from shooting bees the camera can't track a fast moving object across the frame when it is static

The GH7 shoots 60 fps and it did a better job it still misses but it is closer and probably the prediction is better

And your idea of exactly repetable situation is not realistic with wildlife

if it conforts you I have done the same panning indoor and keeping the tracking on the eye as the speed goes up the camera misses even at 30 fps

In short precapture is good for static subject like your baseball guy or when you are tracking with the camera moving for this kind of situation AF wont' keep up the solution is f/11 and be there on fixed focus and 30 fps is good for nothing

Yet very good performance of the panasonic I had not done with CAF for a long time it has improved

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

daran said:

daran said:

Interceptor121 wrote: ...

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

If I were you I'd spent less time comparing systems and more time figuring out why your results suck more than those of other folks with the same hardware.


Hard crop, processed in C1, no AI.

Click to expand...

Your bird is still attached to the branch aka is near static

maybe because you didnt get a next shot in focus?

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

Interceptor121 said:

None of the camera AF can keep up a take off situation the A1 worse than the GH7 on those small birds

Click to expand...

No current DSLM AF can keep up reliably with these small birds starting, neither an A1II, A9III nor an R1 or OM-1. Which is exactly why such subjects are often photographed with pre capture.

Interceptor121 said:

I already knew from shooting bees the camera can't track a fast moving object across the frame when it is static

Click to expand...

Of course it can't perform subject detection fast enough for tracking flying insects or tiny birds through the frame, sufficiently short inference times won't happen in small, passively cooled cameras for years to come.

Interceptor121 said:

And your idea of exactly repetable situation is not realistic with wildlife

Click to expand...

That's exaclty why it doesn't make for a poor single round, repeated-scene test scenario.

Either mount two cameras on the same head and trigger them simultaneously for a test in which they perform on the exactly same scene or use a statistical approach.

Interceptor121 said:

the solution is f/11 and be there on fixed focus and 30 fps is good for nothing

Click to expand...

30fps is manageable, it'll just take about 4 times as long to get a keeper than it would with an A9III or OM-1.

Robert Salton said:

Interceptor121 said:

None of the camera AF can keep up a take off situation the A1 worse than the GH7 on those small birds

Click to expand...

No current DSLM AF can keep up reliably with these small birds starting, neither an A1II, A9III nor an R1 or OM-1. Which is exactly why such subjects are often photographed with pre capture.

Robert Salton said:

I already knew from shooting bees the camera can't track a fast moving object across the frame when it is static

Click to expand...

Of course it can't perform subject detection fast enough for tracking flying insects or tiny birds through the frame, sufficiently short inference times won't happen in small, passively cooled cameras for years to come.

Robert Salton said:

And your idea of exactly repetable situation is not realistic with wildlife

Click to expand...

That's exaclty why it doesn't make for a poor single round, repeated-scene test scenario.

Either mount two cameras on the same head and trigger them simultaneously for a test in which they perform on the exactly same scene or use a statistical approach.

Robert Salton said:

the solution is f/11 and be there on fixed focus and 30 fps is good for nothing

Click to expand...

30fps is manageable, it'll just take about 4 times as long to get a keeper than it would with an A9III or OM-1.

Click to expand...

I shot around 1000 images with the a1 and 2000 with the gh7 i have plenty of data showing exactly the same thing

cameras dont keep up at 30 fps at 60 fps a bit better

you are running out of steam I know this use case and is not one for caf really

This is one of the reasons preventing me from moving back to Sony. I think the R5ii actually offers better value for the wildlife shooter who doesn't want to spend a small fortune. Although I have tried it myself I do wonder if 8k/60p as a video stream is better for this sort of image and just produce the image from the timeline, the fact the Canon has far better object tracking/recognition than the original a1, particularly in video, and adds 60fps should both add to much better results. I will try it at some stage.

Interceptor121 said:

Both shots at 400mm equivalent Panasonic shallower Dof at 5.6 equivalent

Both cameras AF cant keep up

Sony shooting 30 fps Panasonic 60 fps





The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

Interceptor121 said:

daran said:

Interceptor121 said:

Interceptor121 wrote: ...

The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

If I were you I'd spent less time comparing systems and more time figuring out why your results suck more than those of other folks with the same hardware.


Hard crop, processed in C1, no AI.

Click to expand...

Your bird is still attached to the branch aka is near static

maybe because you didnt get a next shot in focus?

Click to expand...

Neither of the birds in your OP are in focus

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

alphaZ said:

This is one of the reasons preventing me from moving back to Sony. I think the R5ii actually offers better value for the wildlife shooter who doesn't want to spend a small fortune. Although I have tried it myself I do wonder if 8k/60p as a video stream is better for this sort of image and just produce the image from the timeline, the fact the Canon has far better object tracking/recognition than the original a1, particularly in video, and adds 60fps should both add to much better results. I will try it at some stage.

alphaZ said:

Both shots at 400mm equivalent Panasonic shallower Dof at 5.6 equivalent

Both cameras AF cant keep up

Sony shooting 30 fps Panasonic 60 fps





The superb Panasonic 200mm on 25 megapixels comes out sharper than the A1 with 50 megapixels and the 200-600..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you shoot video at 120 FPS your shutter speed is 1/250 which is 4 stops less

means you are at f/11 on the GH7 and everything is in focus

8k30 will give you another stop but will not be eboifh frames

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media