Sony A1 Focusing on BIF - the good, the bad, the ugly - how are y'all doing it?

[GracieAllen]

I've been using the alpha 1 for about 6 months or so, and mostly I've gotten my head around the huge differences between my Nikon D500/D850 setup, and the new one.

BUT, a recent experience with Sandhill Cranes has me questioning my technique - LOTS, AND LOTS AND LOTS - thousands - OF SOFT IMAGES! Seems like anything over some distance just isn't sharp. Not sure WHAT the distance is, but I'd guess maybe 20 or 30 yards?

My typical setup is Alpha 1, Sony 200-600, manual mode, 1/2000 or 1/2500, f8, auto-iso 100-6400 and crop mode (so a 900mm equivalent). I generally keep the 1.4X off the camera unless there's a LOT of light and I really need it. If there's not enough light, turn down shutter speed. Steady Shot on (I WAS in "1", but I'm going to try 2 or 3 this time), face/eye focus set to birds, tracking on. Focus areas can switch between Zone and small spot using AF-ON button (yes, I'm using AF on the shutter button). Metering is almost always matrix or pattern or whatever Sony calls it because using the spot meter linked to the focus point causes about a 2/3 stop under exposure - other shooters have reported the same thing. And yes, I COULD put in +.7 on exposure compensation, but normally the matrix metering works well. The vast majority of shooting birds is either from a beanbag in the window or using a monopod, so I'm not trying to

I"m not sure what else is relevant in my configuration, but let me know if I"m missing something.

BUT, how are y'all who are being successfully capturing good, sharp images of birds like cranes, herons, egrets, eagles, etc., doing your focusing? Do you use Wide? Zone with tracking to get they eye? Do you use the small spot even with birds far away? My setup seems pretty good with birds that are closer, where I'd expect any motion errors to be magnified. And almost always very poor with birds at a distance.

I hope to have a chance to try ideas y'all throw out over the next several weeks, so how are you successful shooters doing it?

 

[iamdlewis]

There are atmospheric conditions to consider, which there is not going to be a lot you can do about. Since you are doing shooting from a car I would suggest not using the lens hood as it can trap the heat from the car.

 

[Merlinator]

I agree that atmospheric conditions may well be to blame. Here's how I do birds in flight, anything over 1/1000 I turn off steady shot, it's not needed at these shutter speeds. If there's a clean background I use wide otherwise it's almost always zone.

 

[Clix Pix]

Is the car motor running while you're shooting? The vibrations can affect the camera and lens, too.

 

[GracieAllen]

SOME of the images are from the truck... MORE of those are decent because the birds are closer, It's not running. MOST are from a monopod. Atmospheric conditions for this outing don't SEEM like they should be a big problem - temps were in the 30s-40s, little if any wind. I've seen what things even a couple blocks away can look like in the summer, with all the shimmer, but I don't THINK that would be a big problem for this outing.

Unfortunately, from my understanding, there's no even MARGINALLY accurate way to determine focus distance and I'm a TERRIBLE judge of distance. I did SOME estimates by taking the average size (maybe wingspan?) of an adult Sandhill Crane - 6 feet, measuring the number of pixels on the bird, and used an online formula that uses focal length and such. At 6 feet (I used from tip of beak to tip of feet, which has to be about the same as wing span), I got numbers like 1100 YARDS. I switched to 4 feet in case they were miles off and still got a distance of over 800 YARDS.

I'm having a REALLY hard time believing I'm trying to shoot groups of birds almost a half mile away, BUT, in these conditions, though "small" in the frame SHOULD I expect them to be "sharp" or is a soft bird with essentially no visible eye (much less a sharp one), the norm?

BUT, again, back to the original question - HOW are y'all getting sharp image with sharp eyes at "longer" distances - 50 yards? 100 yards? At some point, it's not going to do eye focus, but I presume even focusing SOMEWHERE on the body of one of the birds is going to have everything in focus - I can't do anything with Sony cameras, even in Photopills (I can't find an even remotely current A7xxx and certainly not an Alpha 1), at 100 yards, the DOF at f6.3 is STILL around 30 feet - 14 in front and 14 behind... So, what configuration are y'all using?

 

[GracieAllen]

This has been sitting here for a while, and I never got an answer to the original question. Is "HOW you're focusing to get sharp images with sharp eyes at long distances - say 100 or 150 yards or more" some kind of personal secret known only to those who are able to do it? Like "I never use SteadyShot" or "I only shoot on a beanbag in the car window", or "I never use (Wide or Zoom or whichever you never use)..." Or something else?

I've been told by other people that Sony is a cult (usually by Canon people and I think they're just jealous, the Nikon people don't seem to care much one way or the other), and you have to be inducted and get a tattoo and so on (I've heard rumors of some sort of secret handshake), but are there secrets you CAN share with the uninitiated?

 

[cjskyler]

This has been sitting here for a while, and I never got an answer to the original question. Is "HOW you're focusing to get sharp images with sharp eyes at long distances - say 100 or 150 yards or more" some kind of personal secret known only to those who are able to do it? Like "I never use SteadyShot" or "I only shoot on a beanbag in the car window", or "I never use (Wide or Zoom or whichever you never use)..." Or something else?

I've been told by other people that Sony is a cult (usually by Canon people and I think they're just jealous, the Nikon people don't seem to care much one way or the other), and you have to be inducted and get a tattoo and so on (I've heard rumors of some sort of secret handshake), but are there secrets you CAN share with the uninitiated?

hi i have the a9ii and the sony 200-600 and i have found that it is tough to get good lock on with eyes past even 250 feet or so. so i try to figure the situation out beforehand if i,m going to get lucky enough to shoot closely and or start with a zone and change the modes on the fly. i will say once a subject enters the eye lock on area then you really should be good. i am always learning as this is a new brand for me and i too struggle with choosing modes under pressure but check your setting too for the lock on times and the focus shutter setting weather or not it will fire if there is no focus. even big birds are fast when your zoomed in so its a lot of practice as well . hope this helps any questions feel free to ask

 

[GracieAllen]

Thanks for your thoughts. My first problem is I'm a bad judge of distance. Later, I look at the soft images and TRY to figure out some reasonable estimate of how far it actually was, and find out probably farther away than I think.

I'm in Florida and being conscious of how well the camera is working - trying to be sure the face/eye lock has worked, trying to keep the focus staying on the subject, and so on. I believe the majority of problems I run into are me and not the camera.

Mostly, I'm trying to figure out how people who ARE getting consistently sharp images, particularly at longer distances, are doing it. Are they using Wide or Zone mode, and does the focus get eye lock or at least face/head lock quickly. For me, Wide seems perceptibly slow getting focus, Zone seems faster, but even it seems to wander around and sometimes picks a part of the subject that's nowhere near the eye or even the head. Or is everybody else using spot focus the vast majority of the time?

 

[spudhead]

I do not have the a1,but the a9, and in general I do not feel I have the issues you do and I only have 24 megapixels so have to be make sure I do not crop too hard , most of the answers you need are in your statements you seem to be unable to let the camera do its job, you have its hands tied to some extent, why do you think Sony and other makers put a ev dials on cameras? you need to stop chasing eye focus for the moment and just get good focus, I can go on but it will not help. Please post examples and members can help based on what we see, I will add an image shot at 30-45 yards away and it is a 1.6 mb file from 24 megapixel file, +1.7 ev multi metering, auto iso capped at 12800, zone focus, clearly this is smaller than your target bird, and the light is good in my shot but that also causes issues hence 1.7 ev and fixed in post uncompressed raw, hand held . I am sure you can crack this you have the camera for the job, you just need to help it do what you want it to do for you. second image is the opposite of the first a shot of a buzzard that I see alot at really long range and high and it is in flat white sky a nightmare the image is over cropped on 24 megapixel and the 1.4 tc does have an impact, the wings are off a bit but at least I have the shot 1.4 mb file and it is a night mare shot given white sky and over cropping

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 559.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 1600

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G) + 1.4X Teleconverter (SEL14TC)
• 840.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

200-600 + 1.4 tc

 

[GracieAllen]

OK, so there's no particular technique that's particularly successful, and widely used by people who get consistenly great results at longer distances. Sounds like time to not worry about it, shoot whatever, and hope for the best.

 

[spudhead]

OK, so there's no particular technique that's particularly successful, and widely used by people who get consistenly great results at longer distances. Sounds like time to not worry about it, shoot whatever, and hope for the best.

I feel like you think there is a go too solution and that is actually not the case , what I am trying to say is experience brings solutions do not be ruled by what you read or someone else does, treat it as a base line and try everything, and you should be able to see an improvement in your results, and remember no one passes on all their tips.

 

[GracieAllen]

Brownie, I'll take a look at those links. I"ve watched and followed a LOT of Mark Galer, gotten many configuration settings from Steve Perry, and going through thoughts from several other people who, I think, are supposed to be the "go to" people for Sony.

Spud, I don't think there's a single go-to solution, but it would be useful to know what people who are consistently successful, particularly at longer distances, at getting sharp birds in flight are doing... Unfortunately, it appears to be "difficult" to get that information here. I'll see what I can find elsewhere.

 

[spudhead]

Brownie, I'll take a look at those links. I"ve watched and followed a LOT of Mark Galer, gotten many configuration settings from Steve Perry, and going through thoughts from several other people who, I think, are supposed to be the "go to" people for Sony.

Spud, I don't think there's a single go-to solution, but it would be useful to know what people who are consistently successful, particularly at longer distances, at getting sharp birds in flight are doing... Unfortunately, it appears to be "difficult" to get that information here. I'll see what I can find elsewhere.

I am sure people do not get consistently good results it is just these people do not show their bad results, so it looks like they get all great results, again post some images and people can help, we have nothing to go on image wise, so no idea where you might be going wrong

 

[-ST-]

Brownie, I'll take a look at those links. I"ve watched and followed a LOT of Mark Galer, gotten many configuration settings from Steve Perry, and going through thoughts from several other people who, I think, are supposed to be the "go to" people for Sony.

Spud, I don't think there's a single go-to solution, but it would be useful to know what people who are consistently successful, particularly at longer distances, at getting sharp birds in flight are doing... Unfortunately, it appears to be "difficult" to get that information here. I'll see what I can find elsewhere.

Hey there, David.
In my short time here, I've found people to be open and helpful.
I looked back over your previous posts but found no images. As @spudhead suggested, if you can post some photos (include them full size so we can see the EXIF data), I'm sure people would try to help.

Since I have little fear of looking foolish, I took about 100 shots this morning so that I could post a couple of them here for you. I took these with the A1 and the 200-600. I've had the A1 for a month and the 200-600 for four days. I mention that so you'll understand - I'm still trying to figure out how to use both of them.
This is about 250% of the original

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 640

The original from which the above was cropped.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 640

These were my settings.



I'm not good at estimating distances, but I look at how much of the viewfinder my subject fills. In this photo, the seagull is so tiny in the viewfinder I wouldn't usually expect to get a good shot. But I wanted to get something for a conversation starter with you.

How small are the sandhill cranes in the viewfinder when you're taking your photos (the ones with the soft focus)?
Can you show us some examples?

 

[GracieAllen]

I most likely culled most all of the bad images. Actually, there's an example over in the topic named

"New A1 firmware update"​

I have no idea how to point at the topic, but at the end there's an example.

I"ll see if I have anything left that's with me.

 

[-ST-]

Hi, David.

I most likely culled most all of the bad images. Actually, there's an example over in the topic named

"New A1 firmware update"​

I have no idea how to point at the topic, but at the end there's an example.

I"ll see if I have anything left that's with me.

Here's a link to your post in the other thread, with the pictures.

New A1 firmware update

Windows: https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce-1-series/ilce-1/software/00260268 Mac: https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce-1-series/ilce-1/software/00260271

www.alphashooters.com

I've checked all my settings for 1, 2, and 3, and saved everything, so I can do a reset and see.

As you said, there's a LOT of configuration, and the chances are really good that the problem is ME... Looking at the focus points on the vast majority of images that are farther away, eye focus isn't even working. At 20 fps, from shot to shot the focus point may go from a wingtip to middle of a body to a neck to nothing. The size of the focus box changes, but frequently the eye focus doesn't appear to lock on at all. I suppose that could be the birds are too far away for the camera to see the eye (?), or that the operator who THINKS he's getting the focus on the eye, or at least the head (or worst case at least the body) is NOT, and the problem is operator error.

I always have the tracking (if I recall) display on, so I can see where it's focusing, but I'm not always good at seeing exactly where I'm focused. And I checked the 200-600 to make sure I DIDN'T do something really dumb like tell it to focus only out to 10 meters!

A couple things HAVE struck me... I had the AF sensitivity at 3. Even though cranes are big and slow, I've noticed that between their movement and my fumbling around (even on the monopod), do I need to have more reactive (4 or 5) or less (1 or 2)?

The OTHER thing is I didn't change the 200-600 from mode 1 to either 2 or 3. I don't know if lens is fighting me as I'm following the birds. It doesn't LOOK like motion blur, but I probably should remember to change the setting when things are moving.

Either way, I'll try the factory reset and load everything back in.

I've continued looking a series of images - start in Lightroom, then look in Imaging Edge to see where the focus point is... In a LOT of cases, I THOUGHT the focus was on the head/eye, but in a lot of series there's not a single image where the focus is even on the head. Body, wing, tail, often nothing on the bird, but not the head. I THINK I was in Zone Focus, but I'm not seeing the specific focus in the information in Imaging edge. Either way, it looks like I need to do a better job of watching where the tracking is going.

Below is an example with a pair of birds (image, 100% crop, focus point in Imaging Edge) that are soft. Late in the day, light's still reasonable, 1/800, f7.1, ISO 1000, about .5 stop under, crop mode, manual, tracking on, face/eye on, SteadyShot on. Adjusted exposure, a little noise reduction, nothing else in post.

I used the online formula for calculating distance to subject. I've been told it's NOT accurate, but I figure it may be somewhat close. The front bird is very near 800 px long. An adult sandhill crane is supposed to be about 3.5-4 feet tall, so I figured length from tip of bill to toes would be close to that.

Using 800 px and 4 feet I got a distance of 1100 feet. If I use 3 feet for the bird it's 800 feet. Is it REASONABLE to expect a sharp subject with sharp eyes when it's 3 football fields away? Or am I just WAY beyond what any $2000 600mm lens is going to be able to do?

View attachment 31781

View attachment 31782

View attachment 31783

I noticed that you got responses with lots of information.

Here's another thought - Do you get the same soft focus results on other birds at that distance?

Check out this article.

Sony a1 Bird Eye AF - The Good and the Bad

The Sony a1 is the first of Sony's cameras to feature a dedicated bird eye AF tracking mode. I tested it extensively to see how well it works.

shuttermuse.com

Scroll down to "Does Bird Breed Affect Accuracy? – Uh Oh…"

 

[GracieAllen]

Yes. Thousands of images of birds with no eyes. I MAY have some of the exceptionally bad ones at home, but not with me.

I believe I put a topic in a different forum with several examples of the image, the image with where Imaging Edge says the focus was, and the 100% of the image showing that even though the focus was dead-on the bird(s), they were soft.

I don't think ANY of them locked on the eye. Most were on the body if I recall, but at the probable distance, the DOF should have been in tens of feet.

 

[Gaz]

I don’t use A1, and have no perception of what a yard is, however something strikes me as unusual. I’ve never tried to guess the distance as it’s not used to focus. I use the same lens, as you, different Sony Alpha body, but autofocus usually does the job. AF-C with tracking set to lock on.

If I’m photographing something on the horizon, I flick to manual focus and magnify. Sharp at 5km.

Are the image files being transferred by that stupid app at full resolution?

Yes. Thousands of images of birds with no eyes. I MAY have some of the exceptionally bad ones at home, but not with me.

I believe I put a topic in a different forum with several examples of the image, the image with where Imaging Edge says the focus was, and the 100% of the image showing that even though the focus was dead-on the bird(s), they were soft.

I don't think ANY of them locked on the eye. Most were on the body if I recall, but at the probable distance, the DOF should have been in tens of feet.

 

[GracieAllen]

Which stupid app? If you mean Imaging Edge - NO. I'm going straight from the memory card into Lightroom.

 

[spudhead]

Yes. Thousands of images of birds with no eyes. I MAY have some of the exceptionally bad ones at home, but not with me.

I believe I put a topic in a different forum with several examples of the image, the image with where Imaging Edge says the focus was, and the 100% of the image showing that even though the focus was dead-on the bird(s), they were soft.

I don't think ANY of them locked on the eye. Most were on the body if I recall, but at the probable distance, the DOF should have been in tens of feet.

Hi again can I ask if you get decent images with the a1 and 200-600 at closer range? if the answer is not really I think you should probably do a full reset on the camera in manual mode with the least amount of menu tweaks, and start by taking shots at closer range without eye focus at first, and slowly add menu changes one or two at a time keeping an eye on what helps image quality. I offer this advise only because I understand you are completely frustrated at this point. Have you considered a lens issue I ask only because the images you point too on the other thread seem to be well off the mark I experience I have with the 200-600 and any of my camera bodies which I must say do not include the a1although I do not see why there should be that much difference in the basic setup between camera bodies.

 

[Gaz]

Which stupid app? If you mean Imaging Edge - NO. I'm going straight from the memory card into Lightroom.

The imaging edge app defaults to transfers of 2Mb jpg on my phone which I think impacts apparent resolution. You can change it to transfer the original.

 

[GracieAllen]

Hi again can I ask if you get decent images with the a1 and 200-600 at closer range? if the answer is not really I think you should probably do a full reset on the camera in manual mode with the least amount of menu tweaks, and start by taking shots at closer range without eye focus at first, and slowly add menu changes one or two at a time keeping an eye on what helps image quality. I offer this advise only because I understand you are completely frustrated at this point. Have you considered a lens issue I ask only because the images you point too on the other thread seem to be well off the mark I experience I have with the 200-600 and any of my camera bodies which I must say do not include the a1although I do not see why there should be that much difference in the basic setup between camera bodies.

I've done a factory reset on the camera and reapplied the configuration I typically use. On this trip I've been extremely conscious of watching the AF work, and MOSTLY it does OK MOST of the time, and very well some of the time. Which is PROBABLY what it's supposed to do.

And yes, things at less than what I think of as extreme distances are good. I've got images that have to be 200 yards and the subject is sharp, and possibly some even farther.

Everything else is pretty anecdotal - shooting this or that in Zoom focus it did or didn't lock on the eye, versus in spot mode... And in some cases it wouldn't stay on the bird, jumping off onto foliage in zoom mode, so I'd switch to spot. I presume I'm going to have a lot of sharp birds and most of the ones that aren't will be my error, not the camera's.

I was REALLY HOPING we'd get a firmware update in February because it would be EASY to test and see if there's a significant, perceptible difference in the eye focus speed and stickiness[?] since I'm in a place where there's a lot of opportunity, but I haven't seen any indication of a new one.

I did find one series of shots from a week ago with a stationary osprey that was significantly soft, and when I checked where the focus said it was, there were 2 on wings and one with the box right on the bird's body. BUT, going by the osprey's wingspan (they said 5 1/2 feet, so I used 5 feet), the size in pixels, and the shooting information, the formula came up with 1200 feet. I know there are folks in here that claim sharp images to the horizon, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect that... And there's always the problem of me wobbling all over the place, on a monopod, in a side wind.

Until I have something definitive, where I'm confident the bad images AREN'T my fault, I'll presume the camera is working fine.

 

[spudhead]

I've done a factory reset on the camera and reapplied the configuration I typically use. On this trip I've been extremely conscious of watching the AF work, and MOSTLY it does OK MOST of the time, and very well some of the time. Which is PROBABLY what it's supposed to do.

And yes, things at less than what I think of as extreme distances are good. I've got images that have to be 200 yards and the subject is sharp, and possibly some even farther.

Everything else is pretty anecdotal - shooting this or that in Zoom focus it did or didn't lock on the eye, versus in spot mode... And in some cases it wouldn't stay on the bird, jumping off onto foliage in zoom mode, so I'd switch to spot. I presume I'm going to have a lot of sharp birds and most of the ones that aren't will be my error, not the camera's.

I was REALLY HOPING we'd get a firmware update in February because it would be EASY to test and see if there's a significant, perceptible difference in the eye focus speed and stickiness[?] since I'm in a place where there's a lot of opportunity, but I haven't seen any indication of a new one.

I did find one series of shots from a week ago with a stationary osprey that was significantly soft, and when I checked where the focus said it was, there were 2 on wings and one with the box right on the bird's body. BUT, going by the osprey's wingspan (they said 5 1/2 feet, so I used 5 feet), the size in pixels, and the shooting information, the formula came up with 1200 feet. I know there are folks in here that claim sharp images to the horizon, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect that... And there's always the problem of me wobbling all over the place, on a monopod, in a side wind.

Until I have something definitive, where I'm confident the bad images AREN'T my fault, I'll presume the camera is working fine

 

[spudhead]

I've done a factory reset on the camera and reapplied the configuration I typically use. On this trip I've been extremely conscious of watching the AF work, and MOSTLY it does OK MOST of the time, and very well some of the time. Which is PROBABLY what it's supposed to do.

And yes, things at less than what I think of as extreme distances are good. I've got images that have to be 200 yards and the subject is sharp, and possibly some even farther.

Everything else is pretty anecdotal - shooting this or that in Zoom focus it did or didn't lock on the eye, versus in spot mode... And in some cases it wouldn't stay on the bird, jumping off onto foliage in zoom mode, so I'd switch to spot. I presume I'm going to have a lot of sharp birds and most of the ones that aren't will be my error, not the camera's.

I was REALLY HOPING we'd get a firmware update in February because it would be EASY to test and see if there's a significant, perceptible difference in the eye focus speed and stickiness[?] since I'm in a place where there's a lot of opportunity, but I haven't seen any indication of a new one.

I did find one series of shots from a week ago with a stationary osprey that was significantly soft, and when I checked where the focus said it was, there were 2 on wings and one with the box right on the bird's body. BUT, going by the osprey's wingspan (they said 5 1/2 feet, so I used 5 feet), the size in pixels, and the shooting information, the formula came up with 1200 feet. I know there are folks in here that claim sharp images to the horizon, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect that... And there's always the problem of me wobbling all over the place, on a monopod, in a side wind.

Until I have something definitive, where I'm confident the bad images AREN'T my fault, I'll presume the camera is working fine.

I think it's reasonable to expect that. What's not reasonable is to take a shot of something at the horizon, crop the hell out of it, and expect it to be crystal clear. The goal should be to get as close as you can first. Glass will always beat cropping. Over copped images are obvious and easy to find, forums are full of them. Gary's shots look fantastic because he knows his camera's limits and works within them. He learns the gear and how to squeeze the best out of it. He's also a whiz at processing.

I was going to reply to this guy but no one can help him

 

[Cαscαdian]

I guess it pays to play golf? I can estimate distance fairly well by club (can I reach those birds with a 7-iron?) out to 200 yards. With an a7ii and very little BiF experience that knowledge is of little practical value.. but I have plans.

 

[dragonsdreams]

I'm not quite sure how I activated it but the camera (A1) has a approximate range finder built in. I have a custom button that switches to manual focus (DMF in fact) and focus peaking. Activating that brings up a distance measurement at the bottom of the screen. Not sure how accurate it is.