A1 AF 30fps?

[Currantos]

Hello.

There is a claim of being able to shoot 30fps, which I am sure the camera is capable of.

Which lenses will be able to keep up with that? We know that many lenses can't even cope with A9 rate due to limitations on how fast lens elements move/motors activate, etc.

Even if focus is acquired correctly if the lens is not keeping up with a moving subject the image will be suboptimally focused. I am as excited as everyone about the A1 and the progress it brings. However, it is important to be realistic about what something is on paper and how it behaves in real life.

Even with A9 many lenses were focusing slower than stated rate. Yes, some kept up "technically" in a sense that 20 images per second appeared in camera but the motor did not and real life AF was probably closer to 10-12 so there were no 20 lens adjustments performed. Not saying A9 doesn't focus well or doesn't deliver great results, it does but not every image is "critical focus" because other factors are in play.

Focus acquisition by the sensor is not the same as lens fully focused in correct spot.

There is a strong possibility of the lens being a limiting factor until it is fully confirmed that 30 lens motor actuations per second are being completed with the lens group arriving in a new position 30 times per second.

Thoughts wellcome.

 

[pollup]

This is the official list from Sony:





Even in 20fps mode, I'm sure the A1 will get the lenses to focus better than with the A9, because it does 120 AF calculations per second.

Even if a lens can only execute 30 instructions per second, it would make a difference because those instructions will be more accurate + be more recent (half the time on average) than with the A9 which does 60 AF calculations per second.

 

[Currantos]

Thank you for this comprehensive list.

1. WOW, that many? Very surprised. Almost hard to believe, even lenses like 20 1.8 which one would imagine would not be used commonly with such a fast paced focusing scenarios?

2. Some of the lenses were released a while ago, so either Sony knew they would have to perform at that rate or their designs are so amazing that they were able to keep up with progress. Again, kudos to them.

Given that lead time between lens release and the arrival of the new higher capability cameras it seems they must have been designed with a 60Mpx sensor and 30fps capabilities in mind when they were released, years prior to those cameras materializing.

I guess we can speculate that the lenses they released last year must be able to handle 150Mpx sensors and 50FPS? Which also means those cameras are fairly close to being released? (All wild but fun speculations).

Going to take them at their word but also with a grain of salt. That is really high performance demand on a lens to perform 30 focus adjustments per second. Perhaps that is as impressive as any camera feature, at least to me. Even their consumer zooms seem to be capable of it. Wow.

 

[pollup]

Thank you for this comprehensive list.

1. WOW, that many? Very surprised. Almost hard to believe, even lenses like 20 1.8 which one would imagine would not be used commonly with such a fast paced focusing scenarios?

2. Some of the lenses were released a while ago, so either Sony knew they would have to perform at that rate or their designs are so amazing that they were able to keep up with progress. Again, kudos to them.

Read that interview from 1.5 year ago, the title is "Future lenses for today":

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1348083745/sony-interview-600mm-f4-200-600mm-launch

So the Sony guy explains that they're designing lenses that far exceed the capabilities of current bodies.

"So when you’re designing a lens like this are you planning for even more focus calculations per second and faster frame rates than the a9 can achieve, for example?

Yes."

- "We’re always saying that we try to see the future of cameras, and this lens is capable of much [faster] performance than the current specs of the a9. So this lens will be able to keep up with the next generation. It has much more potential [than the specifications of the current generation cameras]."

- "You talk about these lenses as being designed for the next generation of cameras - how long do you think these lenses will stand as benchmark performers?

Much longer [than camera bodies], I think maybe about 10 years."

Given that lead time between lens release and the arrival of the new higher capability cameras it seems they must have been designed with a 60Mpx sensor and 30fps capabilities in mind when they were released, years prior to those cameras materializing.

Exactly!

I guess we can speculate that the lenses they released last year must be able to handle 150Mpx sensors and 50FPS? Which also means those cameras are fairly close to being released? (All wild but fun speculations).

We don't know the exact numbers, but 100MP has been mentioned by Sony a few times, as a target, and no idea about the frame rate target.

Going to take them at their word but also with a grain of salt. That is really high performance demand on a lens to perform 30 focus adjustments per second. Perhaps that is as impressive as any camera feature, at least to me. Even their consumer zooms seem to be capable of it. Wow.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that their lenses can do a lot more than 30 focus adjustments per second, I'm talking about the lenses with XD motors, which they've been using in all their recent (even the cheap) lenses.

 

[Johann Kruger]

Hello.

There is a claim of being able to shoot 30fps, which I am sure the camera is capable of.

Which lenses will be able to keep up with that? We know that many lenses can't even cope with A9 rate due to limitations on how fast lens elements move/motors activate, etc.

Even if focus is acquired correctly if the lens is not keeping up with a moving subject the image will be suboptimally focused. I am as excited as everyone about the A1 and the progress it brings. However, it is important to be realistic about what something is on paper and how it behaves in real life.

Even with A9 many lenses were focusing slower than stated rate. Yes, some kept up "technically" in a sense that 20 images per second appeared in camera but the motor did not and real life AF was probably closer to 10-12 so there were no 20 lens adjustments performed. Not saying A9 doesn't focus well or doesn't deliver great results, it does but not every image is "critical focus" because other factors are in play.

Focus acquisition by the sensor is not the same as lens fully focused in correct spot.

There is a strong possibility of the lens being a limiting factor until it is fully confirmed that 30 lens motor actuations per second are being completed with the lens group arriving in a new position 30 times per second.

Thoughts wellcome.

You never really know until you try it yourself. People exaggerate after spending fortunes on new auto everything point-and-shoots. I recall in the 1980s using the Nikon N2020 and found it hunted for AF, winding back and forth. It was the first auto-everything point-and-shoot type camera that performed magically.

 

[AlephNull]

Hello.

There is a claim of being able to shoot 30fps, which I am sure the camera is capable of.

Which lenses will be able to keep up with that? We know that many lenses can't even cope with A9 rate due to limitations on how fast lens elements move/motors activate, etc.

Even if focus is acquired correctly if the lens is not keeping up with a moving subject the image will be suboptimally focused. I am as excited as everyone about the A1 and the progress it brings. However, it is important to be realistic about what something is on paper and how it behaves in real life.

Even with A9 many lenses were focusing slower than stated rate. Yes, some kept up "technically" in a sense that 20 images per second appeared in camera but the motor did not and real life AF was probably closer to 10-12 so there were no 20 lens adjustments performed. Not saying A9 doesn't focus well or doesn't deliver great results, it does but not every image is "critical focus" because other factors are in play.

Focus acquisition by the sensor is not the same as lens fully focused in correct spot.

There is a strong possibility of the lens being a limiting factor until it is fully confirmed that 30 lens motor actuations per second are being completed with the lens group arriving in a new position 30 times per second.

Thoughts wellcome.

Good question - guess we will have to wait on that answer.

I did see that the A1 is capable of issuing focus instructions to the lens at 120/s - I think that is double the A9.

However, if you set the priority on focus, it won’t take the shot until it confirms focus. That would remove the suboptimal focus issue. But can the lens keep up? I would hazard that the 135GM with 4 focus motors can. Others? Well, I think Sony pointed to the list they had for the A9 which showed lenses which could do 20fps vs those which could do 15fps; but maybe there will be some for 30fps, and some for “only” 20fps.

I am keen to see the answer

UPDATE: I had not seen the page with 30fps lens on it. That is most of my lenses, which is comforting (and Sony’s promise that GM lenses, at least, are designed well past today’s constraints looks to be holding up!)

 

[MiamiDolphin]

Is there a list for Tamron and Sigma FE lenses ? Or are they now relegated to shooting snails ?

--
Bits are the two foundation pillars on which all digital cameras are built.

 

[Handsome90]

Thank you for this comprehensive list.

1. WOW, that many? Very surprised. Almost hard to believe, even lenses like 20 1.8 which one would imagine would not be used commonly with such a fast paced focusing scenarios?

2. Some of the lenses were released a while ago, so either Sony knew they would have to perform at that rate or their designs are so amazing that they were able to keep up with progress. Again, kudos to them.

Given that lead time between lens release and the arrival of the new higher capability cameras it seems they must have been designed with a 60Mpx sensor and 30fps capabilities in mind when they were released, years prior to those cameras materializing.

I guess we can speculate that the lenses they released last year must be able to handle 150Mpx sensors and 50FPS? Which also means those cameras are fairly close to being released? (All wild but fun speculations).

Going to take them at their word but also with a grain of salt. That is really high performance demand on a lens to perform 30 focus adjustments per second. Perhaps that is as impressive as any camera feature, at least to me. Even their consumer zooms seem to be capable of it. Wow.

Have a look at the autofocus speed test of the 70-200 of Sony and the competition. It’s incredible

 

[joger]

I guess we can speculate that the lenses they released last year must be able to handle 150Mpx sensors and 50FPS? Which also means those cameras are fairly close to being released? (All wild but fun speculations).

We don't know the exact numbers, but 100MP has been mentioned by Sony a few times, as a target, and no idea about the frame rate target.

every lens can resolve every thinkable sensor - just not to the same system level

Lenses are as good as they can get for the given manufacturing technology and cost.

Sensors resolve a certain maximum resolution - lenses don't behave that way - they are analog and thus every thinkable resolution can be achieved - there is no upper limit in resolution - the sharpness ( aka contrast ) fades away as you go hight in resolution.

Think about two ropes tied together - a plastic one and a stiff steel rope - the plastic one will extract when you try to pull a heavy truck and the steel one will stay the same - once you pull harder the plastic one will stretch further while the steel one will stay the same.

That's exactly the combination of a hard stop at the digital side and a softer side on the lens side.

So yes - every lens will be capable of delivering more resolution on a higher solving sensor but your will get diminishing returns as soon as the sensor resolution gets higher.

We are far far far from out-resolving our lenses

The are of course differences in system performance and in case you bus top notch (GM) lenses the likelihood to get top notch sharpness ( aka contrast) is higher.

The recent GM 24 / 35 / 135 are a good bet for the future and of course also the GM 400 and GM 600.

BUT also a G 200..600 will help do a very reasonable job an an upcoming 102 MP "R" camera of the future and probably beyond that.

 

[olstrup]

A side remark: Lenses with no electrical contacts allows for full speed. I can blast away with 20 fps with my 40 years old Leica lenses on my A9.

Of course, the shutter speed can limiting. You cant't shoot at 20 or 30 fps if the shutter speed is 1/15s. But that should be obvious.

 

[aSevenArr]

Hello.

There is a claim of being able to shoot 30fps, which I am sure the camera is capable of.

Which lenses will be able to keep up with that? We know that many lenses can't even cope with A9 rate due to limitations on how fast lens elements move/motors activate, etc.

Even if focus is acquired correctly if the lens is not keeping up with a moving subject the image will be suboptimally focused. I am as excited as everyone about the A1 and the progress it brings. However, it is important to be realistic about what something is on paper and how it behaves in real life.

Even with A9 many lenses were focusing slower than stated rate. Yes, some kept up "technically" in a sense that 20 images per second appeared in camera but the motor did not and real life AF was probably closer to 10-12 so there were no 20 lens adjustments performed. Not saying A9 doesn't focus well or doesn't deliver great results, it does but not every image is "critical focus" because other factors are in play.

Focus acquisition by the sensor is not the same as lens fully focused in correct spot.

There is a strong possibility of the lens being a limiting factor until it is fully confirmed that 30 lens motor actuations per second are being completed with the lens group arriving in a new position 30 times per second.

Thoughts wellcome

That part should be easy actually, modern processors are incredibly fast and the linear motors in the GM lenses are pretty much the same as loudspeaker voice coils (and we all know how fast a speaker can move).

I'm more interested in seeing how it will do transferring 50 megapixels RAW X 30 shots per second to an SD card ... that part might get slightly challenging.

I reckon that will be 50MB (assuming compressed RAW) x 30 per second = 1.5GB per second of shooting!

Current fastest SD cards write at roughly ~200MB/s (or less despite claims) so if it were big enough just 30 seconds of shooting would take perhaps ~4 minutes to clear the buffer?

But the buffer size for RAW in the A1 (=155) only has room for about 5 seconds of continuous shooting. That really sucks! And it should then take about 50 seconds for it to empty again.

I really hope that I am wrong.

So... will the buffer fill up incredibly fast and then empty slowly? That would irritate the hell out of me personally.

I'm waiting for some real reviews rather than the early seeded marketing stuff. But on the face of it this new camera might be a bit too bleeding edge for it's own good.

 

[AlephNull]

Hello.

There is a claim of being able to shoot 30fps, which I am sure the camera is capable of.

Which lenses will be able to keep up with that? We know that many lenses can't even cope with A9 rate due to limitations on how fast lens elements move/motors activate, etc.

Even if focus is acquired correctly if the lens is not keeping up with a moving subject the image will be suboptimally focused. I am as excited as everyone about the A1 and the progress it brings. However, it is important to be realistic about what something is on paper and how it behaves in real life.

Even with A9 many lenses were focusing slower than stated rate. Yes, some kept up "technically" in a sense that 20 images per second appeared in camera but the motor did not and real life AF was probably closer to 10-12 so there were no 20 lens adjustments performed. Not saying A9 doesn't focus well or doesn't deliver great results, it does but not every image is "critical focus" because other factors are in play.

Focus acquisition by the sensor is not the same as lens fully focused in correct spot.

There is a strong possibility of the lens being a limiting factor until it is fully confirmed that 30 lens motor actuations per second are being completed with the lens group arriving in a new position 30 times per second.

Thoughts wellcome

That part should be easy actually, modern processors are incredibly fast and the linear motors in the GM lenses are pretty much the same as loudspeaker voice coils (and we all know how fast a speaker can move).

I'm more interested in seeing how it will do transferring 50 megapixels RAW X 30 shots per second to an SD card ... that part might get slightly challenging.

I reckon that will be 50MB (assuming compressed RAW) x 30 per second = 1.5GB per second of shooting!

Current fastest SD cards write at roughly ~200MB/s (or less despite claims) so if it were big enough just 30 seconds of shooting would take perhaps ~4 minutes to clear the buffer?

But the buffer size for RAW in the A1 (=155) only has room for about 5 seconds of continuous shooting. That really sucks! And it should then take about 50 seconds for it to empty again.

I really hope that I am wrong.

So... will the buffer fill up incredibly fast and then empty slowly? That would irritate the hell out of me personally.

I'm waiting for some real reviews rather than the early seeded marketing stuff. But on the face of it this new camera might be a bit too bleeding edge for it's own good.

I believe the 30fps requires lossy-compressed RAW (or JPEG or HEIF?)

I would not be surprised if it also requires CFexpress cards to go much beyond the buffer ;-) and I think the Sony cards write at 400MB/s. Also, Sony’s G SD cards are spec’d at 299MB/s, not 200, and I would not be surprised if this camera is the first able to push them that hard (because of the new dual CPUs.

however, I don’t imagine myself shooting many bursts that go beyond 150 images :-D YMMV

UPDATE: I was wrong about the write speed of the CFexpress A cards - the write speed spec is 700MB/s

 

[paul cool]

Is there a list for Tamron and Sigma FE lenses ? Or are they now relegated to shooting snails ?

third party lenses 15 fps

 

[MicahSYL]

Is there a list for Tamron and Sigma FE lenses ? Or are they now relegated to shooting snails ?

Tamron and Sigma lenses will also work fine. The info is from Sony and of course they will not mention the 3rd parties lenses.

The AF calculations already far exceeded the 30 fps, and the likely hood of change in focus from min to max between 2 consecutive shoots is likely to happen, more of lost focus. So if Sony has given the 3rd parties lens maker the technical spec for their AF commands, there should not be too much of an issues in the more recent lenses.

Video focusing in AF-C is already close to 30 fps or even higher at 120 fps. So if the video AF-C is working, then there is not much of an issue in shooting 30 fps.

I doubt there is any problem with native e-mount lenses, but more of the lenses with 3rd party adapters. Cheers.

 

[MicahSYL]

Video also requires focusing and AF-C is also for video.

The 4K at 30fps video which none of the lenses will have problem with is a clear sign that the lenses are capable of doing 30 fps if the Sensor Focusing calculations is OK. Missed focus is the problem, not the ability of the lens unable to cope with the 30 fps focusing speed.

Also between shots in 30 fps is not likely going to be huge change of focus points if the camera is tracking the subject properly. So failure in tracking the subject which may result in missed focus, is the problem.

Overall at 30 fps, I don't see a problem using the AF-C mode, but non-native lenses through 3rd party adapters may have some issues on their AF responses.

Cheers.

 

[Currantos]

I am similarly concerned buffer wise.

155 at 30fps gives basically 5.

239 at 20fps for A9II is basically 10. Twice as much.

So not necessarily a step backwards, but sort of sideways and slightly backwards.

I was disappointed with the buffer clearing on the A9II, it basically slows you down and forces you to wait, while action is potentially happening and you are missing shots. Once it is ready it is great for that new action, but you sort of missed about 10-20 seconds of the game. I found the buffer works better on some other competitors where you can just hit hit hit over and over again and it keeps up with you while it is constantly writing in the background without 'locking you out'.

I think it would be great for "one action" type shooting, stationary golfer hitting the ball, bam, you got all the images for the swing. A prepared move where the person counts one two three and does it and you capture things on three.

Does not sound as useful for 'continuous action', like capturing dancers that are going and going and doing different moves and you want to capture the highlights of the move. You will capture the first one, miss a few while the buffer is clearing, then be ready for move number 5 or 6, then again miss a few, very fits and starts type shooting. Again, not bashing, just saying I found it difficult to keep up with a dance rehearsal due to those interruptions. The images I got were great, but I could not get a lot of images of a lot of stuff and they kept asking me "what about that move or jump I did, did you catch it" and the answer was "buffer was clearing". Maybe it is just a specific use situation, maybe football/baseball games are better because the action is much slower and periodic with one burst and then a slowdown where you can let the buffer catch up, so most sports shooters would be perfect for. I did compare to some competitors and implementation of buffer was better (although other features were worse, so it is an imperfect compromise either way you go).

 

[Currantos]

Video also requires focusing and AF-C is also for video.

The 4K at 30fps video which none of the lenses will have problem with is a clear sign that the lenses are capable of doing 30 fps if the Sensor Focusing calculations is OK. Missed focus is the problem, not the ability of the lens unable to cope with the 30 fps focusing speed.

Also between shots in 30 fps is not likely going to be huge change of focus points if the camera is tracking the subject properly. So failure in tracking the subject which may result in missed focus, is the problem.

Overall at 30 fps, I don't see a problem using the AF-C mode, but non-native lenses through 3rd party adapters may have some issues on their AF responses.

Cheers.

I would be very hesitant to equate video focus with photo focus. They are not the same.

Take a look at a video frame. More than half the time the focus is soft/off. The human eye/brain allows fairly poor focus on moving images, we simply do not notice how blurry things are because our visual processing power is tied up tracking the subject and staying fairly close in focus. Videos capitalize on that, low resolution, slight soft focus, all good, as long as the image is moving the audience is satisfied.

So just because something performs "well" in video is not in any way an indication for me personally that it will nail focus with stills.

Also, video is inherently lower resolution, that masks poor focus by having larger pixels, we can't even judge fine focus on low resolution images.

Kind of disagree that on the second point too. I've had plenty of videos where the subject is in focus, AF box on their face, they start walking toward or away from me and they go really bad out of focus, then the focus catches up to them and they 'reappear' out of the blur. Why? If 30 fps focus changes are small and everything keeps up why are there so many blurry video segments when the box is repeatedly and nearly constantly on the face/eye. I know it maybe be hard to separate tracking and focusing contribution but we don't expect tracking problems with A9/A1 on a human body/face that is fairly close occupying a significant portion of the frame.

I know A9/A1 have the best AF performance, no doubt about that, just not sure we are at a point where all problems are solved, everything will be in focus, all the time, etc etc. And their tracking is absolutely exceptional, again, better than competition, who may be slowly catching up, but Sony still ahead.

 

[MicahSYL]

Video also requires focusing and AF-C is also for video.

The 4K at 30fps video which none of the lenses will have problem with is a clear sign that the lenses are capable of doing 30 fps if the Sensor Focusing calculations is OK. Missed focus is the problem, not the ability of the lens unable to cope with the 30 fps focusing speed.

Also between shots in 30 fps is not likely going to be huge change of focus points if the camera is tracking the subject properly. So failure in tracking the subject which may result in missed focus, is the problem.

Overall at 30 fps, I don't see a problem using the AF-C mode, but non-native lenses through 3rd party adapters may have some issues on their AF responses.

Cheers.

I would be very hesitant to equate video focus with photo focus. They are not the same.

Take a look at a video frame. More than half the time the focus is soft/off. The human eye/brain allows fairly poor focus on moving images, we simply do not notice how blurry things are because our visual processing power is tied up tracking the subject and staying fairly close in focus. Videos capitalize on that, low resolution, slight soft focus, all good, as long as the image is moving the audience is satisfied.

So just because something performs "well" in video is not in any way an indication for me personally that it will nail focus with stills.

Also, video is inherently lower resolution, that masks poor focus by having larger pixels, we can't even judge fine focus on low resolution images.

Kind of disagree that on the second point too. I've had plenty of videos where the subject is in focus, AF box on their face, they start walking toward or away from me and they go really bad out of focus, then the focus catches up to them and they 'reappear' out of the blur. Why? If 30 fps focus changes are small and everything keeps up why are there so many blurry video segments when the box is repeatedly and nearly constantly on the face/eye. I know it maybe be hard to separate tracking and focusing contribution but we don't expect tracking problems with A9/A1 on a human body/face that is fairly close occupying a significant portion of the frame.

I know A9/A1 have the best AF performance, no doubt about that, just not sure we are at a point where all problems are solved, everything will be in focus, all the time, etc etc. And their tracking is absolutely exceptional, again, better than competition, who may be slowly catching up, but Sony still ahead.

I don't know what camera are you using that gives you the feeling that 4K video is soft in focus. MPEG4 recording in 30 fps, are 30 interframes per second and one keyframe every 2 sec. Each interframe when re-constructed is as sharp as a 4K still image, not blur or soft. To capture the interframe there is a need to capture at least 2 full frames and get the new changes between them. So the camera still has to capture full 4K frames at 30 fps or 60 fps to produce the interframes and keyframes.

Of course if you are recording 1080p mpeg, then the frame is a 1K still image size and view on a 4K display will suffer some softness.

Do check your video recording setting, and then you raise such comment about blur or soft images. Of course if the focusing is out or the f.stop is wide open for the lens (very shallow DoF), these can cause soft frame capture. The same principle as in still image capture. In fact with oversampling with higher MP sensor, the video frame can be of even better quality than a 4K still image.

So friend do check it out before giving such general comments.

Video Recording is using the same tech AF-C as in still imaging. Only difference is the way the video is recorded that is different from still images. I am previously a lecturer and gives lectures on various topics relating to video recording (about 8 years ago) though the video standards has improved, but the basic are still very much similar.

So there are many reasons why you felt that way, but each frame is as good as their counter part in still imaging. You can safely said video is like taking a series of still images and process them (quantization, compression and the not so good interlacing method) for lesser storage space. Cheers.

 

[Pix13]

I've seen some very sharp 8k frame captures.

One needs to remember to set shutter speed a lot faster than they would for video. That is why many video frames look soft. The shutter speed is way too slow, usually 1/60 or 1/48.

As long as sensor readout is fast enough, shooting 8k is as good as shooting 30 frames a second, if your video quality is good.

I would like to see the Alpha 1 add 8K raw. Then there would be an unlimited buffer instead of only 150 frames.

 

[Tristimulus]

One interesting point here is that the 1.4/85 GM does NOT offer 30 fps.

Do we see a new more compact, lighter weight and faster focusing 1.4/85 GM in the near future? The existing slow, heavy and bulky 85mm lens looks a bit outdated now.