Jump to content

Sony A7R2 Infra red not triggering in autofocus on drone


Recommended Posts

I am using a Sony a7r2 with the 16-35 f4 and have a weird issue with triggering the camera with IR on a drone

 

I can trigger the camera with infra red if it’s handheld or on a tripod but as soon as I place it on my gimbal it will only fire in manual focus mode.

 

I’m using a servo to trigger an infra red and if I tilt the camera down about 45 degrees the camera will fire in autofocus, however if I tilt it up it won’t fire.

 

I have tried every setting imaginable and also shielding the IR with no success.

 

I am using the exact same set up that I had with a Sony A7R, it fired every time in autofocus with the Sony A7R, but not with the Sony A7R2, I’m forced to use manual focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone at all using an A7R2 on a drone? I've tried this on 2 separate copters and gimbals, same result the A7R2 won't fire in autofocus when on a gimbal and triggered with an IR remote.

 

Have you tried this sony?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears the problem may be with the camera and lens combination.

 

The shutter fires in autofocus mode looking ahead with a sony a7r and 16-35 f4 but not with the sony A7R2 and 16-35 f4.

 

However I tried using a canon 24 2.8 IS and a canon 40mm and it fires in autofocus with these lenses and a metabolise adapter.

 

Seems like some sort of issue with the focus mechanism in the 16-35 f4. Triggered with IR It doesn't lock on focus while being suspended in a gimbal with the A7R2. Take it off the gimbal and it works

 

I'm using a Gremsy H3 on a S900, but also tried it with a ronin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no drone experience, but I have got two infrared transmitters (picture attached). The small one has a very limited reach, the large one a very extended reach. Have you got a powerful transmitter?

 

I suppose you know the difference between infrared and radio. If not: infrared needs a direct (or, sometimes, indirect) line of view between the transmitter and the little black window on the handgrip just below the front wheel. An indirect line sometimes works OK too. Like if you have the camera on a tripod and you activate the transmitter from behind the camera and you are indoors and the signal can be reflected in a window pane or a bright wall.

 

If the black window is hidden behind some metal, like part of the drone, then infrared will not work.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One big difference between the new "R" and the earlier model is IBIS.

You say the earlier version works on the gimbal but the "R" does not,

and further that the "R" works if the gimbal is NOT involved. I realize

this may sound weird but maybe the gimbal-plus-IBIS is "rattling" the

image and confusing the AF ? 

 

Acoarst this assumes you have IBIS enabled, which is a reasonable

assumption since you're using a moving camera platform. There's also

the issue of "tilted down vs tilted up" and perhaps this affects the way

the gimbal does or does not influence camera motion, given that you

may be shifting the center of gravity by changing the camera angle.

 

Soooooo ..... IF you have IBIS enabled, try disabling it and see if that

makes the "R" behave more like the earlier model. I realize you might

be counting on the IBIS to improve you results, but disabling it may be

a diagnostic move, to find out what's going on. 

 

You may find out that you are faced with a choice of using either the

gimbal OR the IBIS but can never use them together. It seems kinda

bizarre to me, but given the variables involved as you described them

and the results so far, IBIS and Gimbal seem like two variables that

don't mix well for some odd reason [perhaps the shifting image plus

the AF presents an unusable focus situation?].

  

Supposedly, it's best to disable IBIS for tripod use. Maybe the gimbal

presents a condition that is not exactly tripod-like but not really similar  

to handheld use either ... neither fish nor fowl ... such that IBIS could

be vibrating the image rather than steadying the image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
    • Thanks! The 18-105 mm /f4 was PERFECT lens for my needs but a HUGE disappointed. I bought it with the camera, then I brought it with me on a trip. To my disappointed, all pictures came out slightly blurred, like the lens was slightly out of focus. Stepping down was not solving the issue. The kit lens was definitely better, to my surprise. Thinking that I got a lemon, I went back to the shop where I bought It (luckily, I has bought both the camera and the lens in a brick and mortar store). We tested the lens on another camera and it was the same. Then we tested other copies of the same lens that the store had in stock and all showed the same lack if sharpness. All pictures slightly out of focus. In the end I returned the lens and used the money to buy other equipment. I must admit that it was a perfect lens for video but it is not what I use my camera for. Actually this was confirmed by the shop owner, most buyers of the 18-105 mm are interested in its video capabilities. I will have a look at the Tamron, the Sony 16-55 is almost double the price, at least here, so I will keep it out of the picture, at least for the time being. The Sigma also looks as an interesting option.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...