A7RIII IBIS and AF — feeling underwhelmed

RaysJ said:

UncleVanya said:

RaysJ said:

UncleVanya said:

RaysJ said:

UncleVanya said:

RaysJ said:

AlephNull said:

Ralf B said:

jeevhi said:

I am a long-time orig A7R user, shooting with a few GM lenses (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 135/1.8). I recently picked up the A7RIII mainly for the IBIS and improved AF, but honestly, the experience so far has been a bit underwhelming — especially considering the added weight. It has the latest firmware 3.10

IBIS: With the original A7R, my usual practice is to shoot around 1/(2×FL) shutter speed and getting pretty consistent results in decent light. With the A7RIII and its claimed 5 stops of IBIS, I expected to comfortably shoot around 2/FL or even 3/FL. But in real-world use (with both the 50 and 135mm), anything slower than 1/FL is unusable. That’s about one stop of improvement at best, or may be 2 stop if error on my part but nowhere close to the advertised 5 stops. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but the difference feels marginal.

I have been shooting for years without IBIS and have a pretty steady hand, so I don’t think this is a technique issue.

Click to expand...

Have you tried to shoot your A7RIII in EFSC or even full electronic shutter mode to see if there is a difference in handheld shooting with critically long exposure times, compared to shooting with full mechanical shutter?
If not, I would recommend to try that. Why that?

I developped a preference for EFSC for handheld shots based on the shooting experience with my A7IV, which in full mech shutter mode has a shutter shock impulse I consider rather noticable. That impulse may have an impact on handheld shots, so unless I shoot something that would benefit from full mech shutter like a fast lens wide open, I shoot it in EFSC as default shutter mode.
Besides, my A7C2 only has EFSC anyway and its shutter sound and impulse I consider significantly softer.
Cheers,
Ralf

Click to expand...

Electronic First Curtain Shutter = EFCS

Click to expand...

I'm using Silent Shutter mode. 2 stops is very underwhelming. This is easily beaten by 20 year old zooms.

Click to expand...

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5876118090/image-stablization-showdown-nikon-z7-vs-sony-a7r-iii

Click to expand...

But that Sony lens at 200mm has OSS on the lens or did they turn it off on the lens and just use the IBIS on the camera? Not sure if that is possible.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I don't have a clean test with only IBIS at all focal lengths. The lower focal length results however were IBIS only. They still exceeded my expectations.

Click to expand...

On my Sony 20-70 which does not have IS, l was getting 2 stops, ie 1/15 at 70mm, consistanlly, 1/8 was not so sharp. I was using Silent shutter. I was focussing on a car 30mm away and checking the number plate.

Click to expand...

I may have a more stable grip than you do, but not by a lot. This is one of the reasons that CIPA ratings were adopted to eliminate differences in how the systems were rated. However, the rating system isn’t aligned to real world use and certainly not to individual use. My own results are around 3 stops, but if have to check various lenses to see if all have that result. The balance of the body plus lens affects how stable the entire thing is.

RaysJ said:

Seems Sony claim a lot of things.

Reading a review of the 70-200/4 lens, compared to the Canon 70-200/4, the 200mm on the Sony is matched at 163mm on the Canon.

Click to expand...

You need to read about focus breathing. The Nikon also is similar to the Sony. It’s a design choice and one that is well understood.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my last comment. I don't see what focus breathing has to do with it.

Click to expand...

Then let me explain. At shorter distances the Sony and Nikon 70-200 lenses have significant focus breathing that causes them to appear shorter in focal length than they are. Focal length by conventional definition is measured at infinity. At infinity the Sony and Nikon are just as much 200mm on the long end as the Canon. Some of this is attributed to internal focusing which is commonly associated with focus breathing. Your statement about Sony seeming to claim a lot of things implied wrongdoing. CIPA ratings are not something a company gets to simply claim. The company’s product must be tested using CIPAs procedures and reporting must align with the results. The CIPA results are not real world (in many areas, battery life being another one) but they are a common measurement standard allowing some type of comparison. The focal length of a lens is measured at infinity. Focus breathing will make it significantly shorter when focusing closer. This is a well known property of lenses. Different designs behave differently.

RaysJ said:

Ralf B said:

RaysJ said:

UncleVanya said:

RaysJ said:

RaysJ wrote:
Seems Sony claim a lot of things. Reading a review of the 70-200/4 lens, compared to the Canon 70-200/4, the 200mm on the Sony is matched at 163mm on the Canon.

Click to expand...

You need to read about focus breathing. The Nikon also is similar to the Sony. It’s a design choice and one that is well understood.

Click to expand...

I don't see what focus breathing has to do wit*h it.*

Click to expand...

Allow me to help you out here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=foc...BwIxMLgHjwfCBwQyLTExyAcx&sclient=gws-wiz-serpQuote from above link:

RaysJ said:

Google replies: What is focus breathing?

• Change in focal length: As the lens elements move to adjust focus from near to far, the lens's effective focal length changes.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

l'm talking about framing an image on the Sony 70-200 @ 200mm but if you frame exactly the same image, it is only @ 163mm FL on the Canon 70-200.

Click to expand...

I’m trying to be reasonable and patient but it’s difficult as you seem to be focused on details that you don’t completely understand. Focus breathing causes what you are talking about. Take both lenses and focus on the moon. The images will be very similar. Only at closer distances does focus breathing cause the reduction in focal length. Typically - although not exclusively- this is the result of choosing to do an internally focused lens design. There are tradeoffs and one of these is the loss of focal length up close. Bear in mind as I said in another post - focal length is defined at infinity. No other distance is considered when labeling a lens as a certain focal length.

UncleVanya said:

RaysJ said:

Ralf B said:

Allow me to help you out here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=foc...BwIxMLgHjwfCBwQyLTExyAcx&sclient=gws-wiz-serpQuote from above link:

Google replies: What is focus breathing?

• Change in focal length: As the lens elements move to adjust focus from near to far, the lens's effective focal length changes.

Click to expand...

l'm talking about framing an image on the Sony 70-200 @ 200mm but if you frame exactly the same image, it is only @ 163mm FL on the Canon 70-200.

Click to expand...

I’m trying to be reasonable and patient but it’s difficult as you seem to be focused on details

Click to expand...

You have a PM.
Cheers,
Ralf

I generally hate touch screens. They typically require LOOKING at the screen. I almost always have the EVF at my eye. I don’t tend to look at the rear screen in active shooting.

The joystick is much easier for focus point manipulation because u can find it and operate it while not taking my eye away from the EVF.

UncleVanya said:

I generally hate touch screens. They typically require LOOKING at the screen. I almost always have the EVF at my eye. I don’t tend to look at the rear screen in active shooting.

The joystick is much easier for focus point manipulation because u can find it and operate it while not taking my eye away from the EVF.

Click to expand...

It might be handy on the C models, then. BTW there is absolutely no need to take your eye away from the EVF while using a touchscreen to move the focus point.

--

Not looking at a touch screen means not knowing where you are on it. Yes I’ve tried nd no it isn’t impossible. But it is not the most intuitive use nd it is difficult as. Left eyed shooter.

UncleVanya said:

Not looking at a touch screen means not knowing where you are on it.

Click to expand...

Are you unable to find anything on the back of your camera without looking at the back of the camera first? I doubt that.

TN Args said:

UncleVanya said:

Not looking at a touch screen means not knowing where you are on it.

Click to expand...

Are you unable to find anything on the back of your camera without looking at the back of the camera first? I doubt that.

Click to expand...

Clearly we are destined to disagree as you like to reduce me to ridiculous and illogical statements. I never said that I can’t find the things on the back if the camera.

Finding things on the back of a camera that are tactile is easy. Finding a screen is easy. Using the screen as a trackpad without looking first at the screen is possible but unsatisfying. I shoot with my left eye, and my face is turned slightly and my cheek frequently touches the screen. This fouls the af touchpoint movement by finger quite frequently. Even when it doesn’t my face is in the way of the screen when using my right hand. It’s awkward and not great from an ergonomic perspective. The focus point joystick is a little easier as it’s not as covered and it’s tactile. I’ve used quite a few brands and models. Touch screen is something I often disable early after reaffirming it doesn’t do anything useful for me.

TN Args said:

UncleVanya said:

Not looking at a touch screen means not knowing where you are on it.

Click to expand...

Are you unable to find anything on the back of your camera without looking at the back of the camera first? I doubt that.

Click to expand...

Seriously? I am pretty sure most people know their camera's enough to know where the physical buttons and dials are, without looking at them.