SONY ???

[Arthur Morris]

Heerman’s Gull kiting, baited with whole wheat bread

This image was created on January 30, day 5 of trying out the SONY gear. I used the hand held Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1333230-REG/sony_sel100400gm_fe_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_gm.html/BI/6633/KBID/7226/kw/SO100400GM/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSO100400GM) (at 194mm) and the beyond remarkable Sony Alpha a9 Mirrorless Digital Camera. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1333228-REG/sony_ilce_9_b_alpha_a9_mirrorless_digital.html/BI/6633/KBID/7226/kw/SOA9B/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xSOA9B)ISO 400: 1/5000 sec. at f/6.3 in Manual mode. The exposure was determined using the Zebra feature. AWB at nine thirty am on a sunny day.

I tried out some SONY gear at the conclusion of the 2019 San Diego IPT. I was more than impressed. The AF system is better than Nikon AF by a great degree than Nikon AF is better than the Canon gear ... Read all about it in the SONY Gear Does Just Fine in San Diego. Part I of Many: I Am In ... The Good and the Bad blog post here, (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2019/01/29/sony-gear-does-just-fine-in-san-diego-part-i-of-many-i-am-in-the-good-and-the-bad/) the The Latest What's Up With Nikon and SONY and BIRDS AS ART. And Some Nikon Gear for Sale blog post here (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2019/01/30/the-latest-whats-up-with-nikon-and-sony-and-birds-as-art-and-some-nikon-gear-for-sale/), the SONY A9/100-400 GM OSS Incoming Brandt's Cormorants Flight Sequence: As Tough As It Gets ... blog post here (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2019/01/31/sony-a9-100-400-gm-oss-incoming-brandts-cormorants-flight-sequence-as-tough-as-it-gets/), and the Heerman's Gull Five Ways: The Amazing and Versatile Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens. Learn Why it Kills the Canon 100-400 II and the Nikon 80-400 VR. And SONY is Garbage! here (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2019/02/02/heermans-gull-five-ways-the-amazing-and-versatile-sony-fe-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-gm-oss-lens-learn-why-it-kills-the-canon-100-400-ii-and-the-nikon-80-400-vr-and-sony-is-garbage/).

In that last post you will find four other Heerman's Gulls images and Arash's "Ha ha, Sony is garbage" comment. I will be following up on that soon on the blog. Laugh if you want but the future is here now. There will be more on SONY AF in tomorrow's blog post.

I purchased a 100-400/A9 SONY rig today and for at least a while I will be using both Nikon and SONY stuff. The problem is that after using the SONY stuff going back to the Nikon stuff is like returning to the Dark Ages ... The SONY features science fiction-like AF with both TCs across 93% of the frame.

As for the image, don't be shy; all comments are welcome and appreciated.

with love, artie

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Interesting Stuff on the Sony. I am not sure I agree with Sony being better than Nikon.

Anyways for me it does not matter as I am happy with what I have at the moment.

Beautiful Image. Love the Blue Background...
Heerman Gull is really Awesome. I am planning to come to San Diego next year. Hope to meet you there Artie.

Thanks for Sharing the image.

[John Mack]

Really like the pose on this one. The blue skies with light cloud is very nice. Sony,Nikon,Canon,Olympus,Fuji whatever people are using doesn't matter to me. I just want to see the pictures.

[Arthur Morris]

Interesting Stuff on the Sony. I am not sure I agree with Sony being better than Nikon.

Anyways for me it does not matter as I am happy with what I have at the moment.

Beautiful Image. Love the Blue Background...
Heerman Gull is really Awesome. I am planning to come to San Diego next year. Hope to meet you there Artie.

Thanks for Sharing the image.

Curious; did you ever use an A9?

with love, artie

ps: hope to see you on the IPT :) Dates TBA soon.

[Arthur Morris]

Really like the pose on this one. The blue skies with light cloud is very nice. Sony,Nikon,Canon,Olympus,Fuji whatever people are using doesn't matter to me. I just want to see the pictures.

I like looking at pictures too :)

a

[arash_hazeghi]

Cool shot Artie, no eye contact though and I find the pose quite static... not an Artie shot. If you want me honest opinion, I'd probably delete this it has nothing really special about it that deserves your name and signature...


I posted a reply on your blog too, a hovering gull against a blue sky with a short lens is not a a good test for AF, 2 decade old Canon gear can nails shot like this 100% of the time and wouldn't leave much to desire, at least in my hands :) instead of losing big $$$ switching from C to N and now to Sony and next year to something else you should just come here for a week, I will teach you how to shoot flight and also do some back exercises with you so you will nail every one of these gulls with any camera made in the past 20 years :S3: a lot cheaper :bg3:

congrats on your new gear

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Curious; did you ever use an A9?

with love, artie

ps: hope to see you on the IPT :) Dates TBA soon.

I did try it once. When it was release. I won’t call it perfect test though

[Isaac Grant]

Hi Artie. I love Herrman's Gulls. Congrats on the new gear. I do like the pose but agree with Arash that the more eye contact would be better. If being honest here the processing looks off to me. The whole shot has a strong blue cast to it, including the bird and I find the colors thin. I would reduce the blue channel by about -50 and as a quick fix run autotone at 100% being sure not to blow out the head. Then I would warm it up some as well. I have found it difficult learning a new workflow with the Nikon gear so hopefully more good things to come.

[Dorian Anderson]

I really like the soft sky backing, but the lack of eye contact is really tough. Very interesting to hear about the Sony gear. Hopefully you'll have more stuff to show us in the future.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie. I love Herrman's Gulls. Congrats on the new gear. I do like the pose but agree with Arash that the more eye contact would be better. If being honest here the processing looks off to me. The whole shot has a strong blue cast to it, including the bird and I find the colors thin. I would reduce the blue channel by about -50 and as a quick fix run autotone at 100% being sure not to blow out the head. Then I would warm it up some as well. I have found it difficult learning a new workflow with the Nikon gear so hopefully more good things to come.

Thanks Isaac, Funny, this image was processed in Capture 1.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Cool shot Artie, no eye contact though and I find the pose quite static... not an Artie shot. If you want me honest opinion, I'd probably delete this it has nothing really special about it that deserves your name and signature...

I posted a reply on your blog too, a hovering gull against a blue sky with a short lens is not a a good test for AF, 2 decade old Canon gear can nails shot like this 100% of the time and wouldn't leave much to desire, at least in my hands :) instead of losing big $$$ switching from C to N and now to Sony and next year to something else you should just come here for a week, I will teach you how to shoot flight and also do some back exercises with you so you will nail every one of these gulls with any camera made in the past 20 years :S3: a lot cheaper :bg3:

congrats on your new gear

Thanks Arash. It's nice to see that you backed down from your original comment where you wrote,

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}span.s1 {font-kerning: none}</style>I also disagree about Sony gear, it's junk IMO- not just the cameras but everything that this sorry company makes- I would never spend a dime at Sony after my $5K super high end Sony TV died in less than two years. I also has a $1000 Sony RX100 MKIV pocket camera, extending lens died after 6 months....a load of junk if you ask me. Sorry for the rant....

I would have asked why you would evaluate a camera body based on a crappy TV that you purchased so you saved me that trouble. I am fine that you do not like the Heerman's Gull image. I do. You know that I have always respected your flight photography skills. I will not be around to see how you are doing hand holding a 600 when you are almost 73 ...

On my blog, you commented (in art) as follows:

These cameras also do not have predictive focus tracking, which means when shooting fast birds such as cooper’s hawk coming at you, the camera cannot account for the movement of the bird from the time you press the shutter to the time the sensor records the image (shutter lag about 100 msec), as a result image will be slightly to moderately soft.

My only response is that ignorance is bliss and at time too much knowledge might lead you to incorrect conclusions. The A9 tracks incoming birds far better than even my Nikon gear. I'd be glad to send you a RAW file for any of the incoming Brandt's Cormorants from the previous day's blog post. The performance of my Nikon gear in that exact situation paled in comparison to the SONY gear. But then you have to factor in my level of incompetence.

I did send Arash two SONY RAW files and he wrote back as follows:

Did look at your files, these aren’t bad but not tack sharp… nothing like the 1DX, D850, D5 etc. must be the optics that is not quite there….

BTW, I am sure you know… but you can get a flying seagull with an iphone too, and it will be sharp 100% of the time ��

Yours truly likes to get photos like the one attached….honestly I think you had much better files from Canon days but Mazel tov on new gear!

It is interesting to note how "these aren’t bad" turned back into SONY is garbage in just one day.

If only I were as skilled and talented as you Arash and if only I used a large monitor for the past 30 years I would likely have 45 BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Nature's Best honored images instead of 15. I'm sorry, how many do you have?

with love, artie

[Isaac Grant]

Not to step too deep into the middle of it but I found it very difficult to get the colors right in Capture One. I downloaded the free version and mesed with a few images. I know others have had good success with it but I did not like the colors of the images out of it. I also found that they seemed like too much noise reduction was applied. Granted I did not spend enough time with the program but the time I did send I found it to be clunky to use, I did not like the storage process nor the end results. I processed multiple copies of the same image in C1 and LR. Did them separately. Each time I liked the end result much more with LR. My free 30 days expires today and I won’t be paying for the program. Might circle back to it some other time but for now it is not for me.

[Arthur Morris]

Not to step too deep into the middle of it but i found it very difficult to get the colors right in Capture One. I downloaded the free version and mesed with a few images. I know others have had good success with it but I did not like the colors of the images out of it. I also found that they seemed like too much noise reduction was applied. Granted I did not spend enough time with the program but the time I did send I found it to be clunky to use, I did not like the storage process nor the end results. I processed multiple copies of the same image in C1 and LR. Did them separately. Each time I liked the end result much more with LR. My free 30 days wxpires today and I won’t be paying for the program. Might circle back to it some other time but for now it is not for me.

I have not had a problem with the colors in Capture 1 but I hear you. I always like when the images that I see on my (inferior) laptop match the color space in mind, the way that I see the colors. As you know, Arash swears by Capture 1 six ways to Sunday. At 72 1/2, it is always a good thing to try something new as it keeps blood flowing to the brain.

with love, artie

[gail bisson]

Hi Artie,
I can see why you like this image- there is always something beautiful about the angel wing pose. I like the bits of clouds in the sky.
Looks sharp to me.
I must admit that I am very surprised at your Sony review- and it makes me glad I have not switched from Canon yet. I think the next 2- 3 years are going to show some revolutionary changes in mirrorless and I plan on hanging on to my 1DX for a while.
Several top photogs are using Sony- so the Sony has to have some merit!
I think what I like about all this is how you like to try new things and are not afraid of the learning curve associated with new gear. I know I am afraid of the upcoming changes, although I will "just do it" when the time comes!!
Gail

[annmpacheco]

Sharp indeed Artie. I can certainly tell how excited with merit you are and I look forward to more images from you w the Sony. It must be rockin to have the AF like you say.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Arash. It's nice to see that you backed down from your original comment where you wrote,

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}span.s1 {font-kerning: none}</style>I also disagree about Sony gear, it's junk IMO- not just the cameras but everything that this sorry company makes- I would never spend a dime at Sony after my $5K super high end Sony TV died in less than two years. I also has a $1000 Sony RX100 MKIV pocket camera, extending lens died after 6 months....a load of junk if you ask me. Sorry for the rant....

I would have asked why you would evaluate a camera body based on a crappy TV that you purchased so you saved me that trouble. I am fine that you do not like the Heerman's Gull image. I do. You know that I have always respected your flight photography skills. I will not be around to see how you are doing hand holding a 600 when you are almost 73 ...

On my blog, you commented (in art) as follows:

These cameras also do not have predictive focus tracking, which means when shooting fast birds such as cooper’s hawk coming at you, the camera cannot account for the movement of the bird from the time you press the shutter to the time the sensor records the image (shutter lag about 100 msec), as a result image will be slightly to moderately soft.

My only response is that ignorance is bliss and at time too much knowledge might lead you to incorrect conclusions. The A9 tracks incoming birds far better than even my Nikon gear. I'd be glad to send you a RAW file for any of the incoming Brandt's Cormorants from the previous day's blog post. The performance of my Nikon gear in that exact situation paled in comparison to the SONY gear. But then you have to factor in my level of incompetence.

I did send Arash two SONY RAW files and he wrote back as follows:

Did look at your files, these aren’t bad but not tack sharp… nothing like the 1DX, D850, D5 etc. must be the optics that is not quite there….

BTW, I am sure you know… but you can get a flying seagull with an iphone too, and it will be sharp 100% of the time ��

Yours truly likes to get photos like the one attached….honestly I think you had much better files from Canon days but Mazel tov on new gear!

It is interesting to note how "these aren’t bad" turned back into SONY is garbage in just one day.

If only I were as skilled and talented as you Arash and if only I used a large monitor for the past 30 years I would likely have 45 BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Nature's Best honored images instead of 15. I'm sorry, how many do you have?

with love, artie



Hey Artie I have zero BBC.

the Sony doesn’t have predictive focus tracking if in doubt look at specs. That doesn’t mean that it cannot focus on seagulls and cormorants against a plain BG. It is handicapped for certain subjects. it depends on size of the birds, speed and the BG. I did look at your cormorant photos...the poses are nice and dynamic I like them, but they aren't sharp enough for me even the small JPEG files might be processing though, send me a few and I will see what they look like in Capture One


all that matters is that you are happy, glad you are enjoying it!

yours truley

[arash_hazeghi]

Btw the colors look good to my eye. Must be a monitor calibration issue

[Arthur Morris]

Arash, If the Sony does not have predictive focus tracking how does is get a cormorant flying at me at 30mph sharp? Every time. And does the same again cliff backgrounds BTW.

with love, artie

[arash_hazeghi]

Not to step too deep into the middle of it but I found it very difficult to get the colors right in Capture One. I downloaded the free version and mesed with a few images. I know others have had good success with it but I did not like the colors of the images out of it. I also found that they seemed like too much noise reduction was applied. Granted I did not spend enough time with the program but the time I did send I found it to be clunky to use, I did not like the storage process nor the end results. I processed multiple copies of the same image in C1 and LR. Did them separately. Each time I liked the end result much more with LR. My free 30 days expires today and I won’t be paying for the program. Might circle back to it some other time but for now it is not for me.

that's weird in the past year I have used Capture One for my Nikon stuff I have thus far not changed WB or adjusted color on any of of files except for indoor photos, I just open the color is perfect. You can go to preferences and see if the color setting has somehow been changed as if set to the wing profile... might be subjective too.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, If the Sony does not have predictive focus tracking how does is get a cormorant flying at me at 30mph sharp? Every time. And does the same again cliff backgrounds BTW.

with love, artie

Hey Artie, I looked at the cormi photos the problem is that they don't look tack sharp to my eye, I am not sure if the focus was not able to keep up or something else like too much noise, send me the RAW I will look at it closer...

a few points

A) you don't need predictive focus tracking for a large subject at close range, because something will fall inside DOF, might not be the head but something will be sharp and often you can sharpen the rest

B) with this kind of BG the camera never loses the subject, there ain't any guess work involved. with a busy BG where the bird is the same color as the BG, all and every camera will lose the subject at some point, that's when it needs to "guess" where to focus on. I have posted such example below

C) 30 mph is slow relativel speaking.... A peregrine or Cooper's hawk can clock 3 times as much as that when stopping for prey. These are the kind of shots where you will find that the Sony will give you exactly 0 frames

D) Canon or Nikon bodies all will nail shots like the seagull/cormorant with a very high hit rate, but you need to develop some skills and hand to eye coordination for it, namely being able to keep the bird centered while tracking. The mirrorless makes it easier to get something out of these situations for shooters who might struggle to keep the bird centered in the frame, but the drawback is that as your own files show they are no as tack sharp as a pro DSLR such as the 1DX or D5/D850 when you nail the focus... in my view if it is not perfect I don't take it.


I have no doubt you have better luck with Sony and I am happy you tried mirrorless, I told you about Fuji several years back if you recall. Mirrorless might be the right choice for you as you seem to have given up shooting with long fast lenses all together, but to say Sony is better than Nikon is simply not true unless you say" Sony is better than Nikon for certain shooters, folks who cannot handle big lenses and find it hard to keep the bird centered " because if there was a skilled and strong flight shooter like Dave Salem he would get superior results with his Nikon and big six standing right next to someone with any Sony cameras in their hand.

Not trying to argue BTW, just add some perspective from a flight shooter....


example where the bird is the same color as BG and is hard to keep it centered in the frame

179847

[Isaac Grant]

Likely it is subjective or screen or both. I actually bought your guide Arash (which is excellent by the way) and set it up the way you said to. I just did not like the output but like I said I only did 3 or 4 images and didn’t really give it a long hard test.

[arash_hazeghi]

Likely it is subjective or screen or both. I actually bought your guide Arash (which is excellent by the way) and set it up the way you said to. I just did not like the output but like I said I only did 3 or 4 images and didn’t really give it a long hard test.

send me an email, there might be a few things worth trying before giving up on it....

[Arthur Morris]

Arash, I disagree on your "don't look tack sharp to my eye" comment. The RAW looks very sharp to me. I hope that others write for the RAW file (Isaac, are you there) but it really does not matter to me as the images are more than sharp enough for me. And it is not like the cormorant series were my first attempts at bird photography. Nice Peregrine image, but that bird is not stooping for prey. I stand by my statement that the image is question is sharp on the eye.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

This is my color-corrected repost with NeatImage noise reduction -- less on the bird, more on the BKGR.

with love, artie

[Isaac Grant]

I have seen some very sharp Sony images posted on other forums. I am sure the system is more than capable of producing high quality images. As I have just heavily invested in Nikon I will not be buying anything new for quite some time unless I get a used d5 or a new d6. I would say Artie that both the gull and the cormorant images are not up to your usual standards in terms of color accuracy and image quality. I am all for smaller and lighter gear. The 500PF is amazing paired with the D850. For now that will be my smaller and lighter set up. Hope you get these initial bumps in the road worked out with the new gear and looking forward to more with it.