HELP not happy with these shots

I think there's one important point to add that hasn't been stated yet. The AF points on the A77 actually extend a fair way outside of the central box. So even if you think you have the kingfisher dead center, the af might still be keying on the texture of the branch above the kingfisher. This is not a systemic back-focus problem that mfa is going to fix. As others have already noted, you need to do some rigorous testing to determine A: can critically sharp images be obtained using MF and B: is there a reproducible focus offset which mfa would be able to correct.

I'm still extremely skeptical that the Sony a77ii is on the same level as the canon 7d2 for birds and wildlife. According to the dpreview comparison tool and dxo scores, high ISO still lags behind the competition a fair amount. Further, the af tracking is still not on par with canikon according to dpreview and several other review sites. This will be further exacerbated by the evf blackout during bursts. No af algorithm is going to perform well if you can't track your subjects smoothly! This of course has been fixed in the new a9, but that camera is on another level and uses a different mount.   

I think you have a way to go still before you hit the limitations of your current equipment. However, it might be necessary to recalibrate your expectations a little bit. You simply aren't going to get the same quality shots that you see posted in more wildlife focused forums taken with 10k lenses and 8k camera bodies with your current setup if the subjects are not ideally lit and positioned (ie: close).

This is quite the good thread and I hope that linearamp uses all this good advice to their advantage.

To add a bit more to these later comments. Johan loves his a77 and is very adept at using it within it's limitations but I'm sorry the a65 and a77 suck at noise handling. As I said I hated going over ISO400 with my a65 although I do find noise a lot more bearable nowadays so if I still owned it I may be a bit more lenient now. However with the a99 I used to set my ISO at ISO1250 when birding under a canopy in the shade and have full confidence of getting manageable noise at worst. Now with the a99ii I can do this up to ISO2500 and even at ISO3200 with the same level of confidence (I don't as it is normally unnecessary but I can). Those ISO's would be unthinkable with the a65.

As with review sites such as dpreview there is so much disparity between opinions. DXO scores and comparison scores are undeniably technically sound but I think having these camera options in your own hands and getting a feel for what suits you is a much better way to do this. For example I have used the Canon 1Dx for shooting burnout comps at night and I truly believe the a99ii is comparable at least when it comes to AF tracking and low light capabilities. Now anything you read on the internet would say otherwise but I know in real terms the gap isn't as wide as those benchmarks would tell you. Let me be clear I didn't say the a99ii was equal to the 1Dx but I do feel it is not far behind it at all and there is a big price difference. Plus I do believe the a99ii to be superior in good light even if it is down to the size difference of the sensor.

Apologies for getting off track in regards to the OP.

Love is such a strong word Steve, I'd more tend to call it "learnt to live and work with". If enough cash fell into my lap tomorrow the A77 would be heading towards the great secondhand bin in the sky and hello A99II!
But with the wife out of job since January and a kitchen reno in the works there's just no way an A99II will be anywhere in my near or far future.

Do agree though that the A77 is no high ISO beast, it's noisy as hell and I trade shutter speed for ISO headroom at every opportunity I can get! My go to ISO nowadays is 640 for general birding, if I can push it lower when the light is good and I don't need the shutter speed I do so in a heartbeat.
But I'm no longer afraid to let it climb if I need to, better get a somewhat noisy shot that can be worked over in post than no shot.

As for the above A65 shots, get my fair share of shots like that! Mainly why I shoot bursts at 8FPS, find that the AF between shots tend to vary enough that one or more will be on and some others will be "off". No telling what happens but the "off" shots are usually soft and have more noise than the "on" shots.

Edited by SnowFella - 10 August 2017 at 09:25

200mm f/2.8 with an extension tube won't give you more reach though, all the tube will do is bring the minimum focus distance closer than what the bare lens will do and likely limit the infinity focus to a few meters.

Focal length is one of those diminishing return items, once you go past a certain point adding focal length just doesn't give you the return that you feel it should.
Going from 50mm to 100mm "doubles" your magnification, 100mm to 200mm does the same, 200mm to 400mm does again. Now we are looking at 400mm to 800mm do double again and we are quickly running out of options.
I bet a good copy of the Minolta 400mm F/4.5 would eat a Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm for breakfast any day of the week for sharpness even if cropped to the same field of view.

angora wrote: ever seen the shots of D. member & Sony ambassador ijsvogel (which is dutch for kingfisher ;-) literally 'ice bird' btw. ???). if I recall correctly he uses a 70-400 as well? (and no canikon!). with a bit of luck you'll be able to see the exifs?

Last year or more it's been either Sony 300mm f/2.8 or the 500mm f/4 so that's far beyond the 70-400 when it comes to budget! Add in the A7RII and A99II that he's used and it comes up another notch

I have found that shooting the 70-400 hand-held isn't nearly as sharp as using a tripod and shutter release. while others are able to get excellent hand-held results, that simply isn't the case with me any longer. I have long ago given up my ego in exchange for better photos.

Looking at your 0, it is back focus.
Your -5 looks much better.