It wasn’t the EVF . . .

. . . well, not in large part, anyway.

After criticizing the a9 ii’s EVF yesterday, I headed out with the a7 IV, 100-400mm GM, and both teleconverters to see how things would work. Seeing again today some of what I saw in yesterday’s details, out of desperation I removed the filter and took a few shots. They showed a clear improvement over previous ones.

This was the second time I’ve gotten better results by removing a Sirui filter. Drawn to the brand by its attractive prices coupled with their claim that they use Schott glass, I see once again that it’s obviously not the same Schott glass that B+W uses.

Out in doom, gloom, and intermittent rain (what else?) yet again, I was left to wonder how well the two combos might capture in good light. And I’m still eager to see what level of fine detail the a9 II can get in good light, as it has an AA filter, which the a7 IV doesn’t have.

I shot both raw and jpg today in order to get a look at the difference, and I may keep doing that. Correctly-lit OOC jpg files look about as good as the results I can get from processing raw files.

Next outing, the a9 II gets a chance with the 200-600mm, where at least ISO will fare better. Wish I could say the same for the weather!

a7 IV/100-400mm GM/2X