The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

[rob-nikon]

I find all of these reviews fascinating. The A9 came out and it was lorded over on how good it's AF system was, how it nails everything and "never misses a shot". Then the A9-II comes out and somehow this is significantly better, and I don't doubt that when the A1 is properly tested this will be significantly better again.

Now I don't doubt progress, and I get that newer tech seems to be better, but if the A9 "never misses a shot" and has "uncanny" AF then I struggle to see how you can get "significantly better" than this?

Are we being blinded by specs and propaganda or is there real justification for such claims?

Every manufacturer makes out their latest model is the best and their previous models are now rubbish and can’t take a photo. I just see it as marketing departments trying to sell photographers model upgrades (often which people don’t need). Most of the time I see the next model just fixes things that should have been standard on the previous model. The A9ii feels like a good example of this thinking.

Tech Radar did a good comparison of the differences between the A9 and A9ii.

Sony Alpha A9 vs A9 II: the key differences between Sony's sports-oriented cameras

A tweak here and a tweak there

www.techradar.com

I have to say there isn’t any that made me think I needed to upgrade to the A9ii. To be honest new mirrorless seem to be released every 1.5-2 years. The model update cycle definitely feels shorter than it was with Nikon DSLRs (usually 3 years unless there was a big issue like the D600). With DSLRs it felt best to miss a generation but with the quick turnover of mirrorless models I’m thinking of missing two generations is probably better to see some proper upgrades./changed.

Technology definitely gets better but development/progress is definitely going to slow down as the technology matures. there is a point where extra outlay provides diminishing returns.

I think its come to a point where we've started to look at ways to get shots through improvements in technology whereas in the past we worked within the limitations of the technology and made way to get the shot. Your issue of getting a photo of your dog running towards you is a good example. In the past we would have pre focused on an area and fired the shutter as the dog ran through the area. It would have been very hit and miss, and probably required a lot of trial and error but we would have been happy getting one in focus out of hundreds. Now we want every photo in the sequence to be in perfect focus. I know I came to the same conclusion. Previously I was happy to pre focus a zone and hope to capture animals when using a remote camera knowing I’d likely get nothing. Now I’m expecting animal eye AF to capture the photo perfectly for me.

 

[rob-nikon]

Like this weird idea that a camera is better than the togger - on it's own the camera can't do anything.

cameras havent yet got to a point where they take the photo for you (the new Benro Polaris tripod head is marketed in a way that it can make adjustments to camera to get the perfect photo so maybe thats on the way. Photographers in the future could be little more than transporters of the camera kit. Even that could likely be automated).

I think the reasoning behind the ‘camera is better than thd photographer’ is camera technology over the last few years has got to a point where for most photographers the latest and greatest camera won’t improve their photography as their skill is the bigger hurdle than the camera technology. I know I haven’t out grown the A9 and if I’m honest I likely never will. There would be little point in me purchasing the A1 if my reasoning was that it would improve my photograph. I’d only be lying to myself if I did.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

At the end of the day it's only a light-tight box with a way of recording light focussed onto a sensor. I don't see a need to 'learn' the camera inside out, so much as just using it for the stuff you need and ignoring the rest. Like this weird idea that a camera is better than the togger - on it's own the camera can't do anything.

True, but I learned something with my A9 that has made a big difference to my photography, that I only found out about from a YouTube video.
That was the ability to programme 2 bbf buttons with different set ups.
One for slower or static subjects, and the other for high speed tracking.
I know other cameras can do this, and probably other cameras that I've owned could have done it, but I didn't know it was even possible.
It makes me wonder what else the camera is capable of that could benefit my photography but I don't know about it.
So although I don't need to learn the camera inside out, there's nothing wrong with learning as much as I can....

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I know I haven’t out grown the A9 and if I’m honest I likely never will. There would be little point in me purchasing the A1 if my reasoning was that it would improve my photograph. I’d only be lying to myself if I did.

I will upgrade my A9, when there's something I need it to do, but it can't, and there's another camera that can.....as long as I can afford it...

 

[ancient_mariner]

At the moment I'd quite like an A7rIII for the extra resolution to help deal with some of the fringing/halos that appear when processing is pushed a bit, but an RIV would be too much like hard work for my computer. Better pictures? All I ask is that they're in focus, reasonably exposed and frame the scene I point the camera at.

Medium format tempts me because the rendering is different.

 

[jonneymendoza]

If I was a studio shooter I'd save myself £3.5k and use the A7RIV

20fps electronic shooting.

See the kai video for a use case for high speed shooting in studio

 

[jonneymendoza]

I find all of these reviews fascinating. The A9 came out and it was lorded over on how good it's AF system was, how it nails everything and "never misses a shot". Then the A9-II comes out and somehow this is significantly better, and I don't doubt that when the A1 is properly tested this will be significantly better again.

Now I don't doubt progress, and I get that newer tech seems to be better, but if the A9 "never misses a shot" and has "uncanny" AF then I struggle to see how you can get "significantly better" than this?

Are we being blinded by specs and propaganda or is there real justification for such claims?

For me it's what the a9mk2 should have been. Higher mp and faster card slots

 

[robj20]

At the end of the day it's only a light-tight box with a way of recording light focussed onto a sensor. I don't see a need to 'learn' the camera inside out, so much as just using it for the stuff you need and ignoring the rest. Like this weird idea that a camera is better than the togger - on it's own the camera can't do anything.

Fully agree that they are just tools, but a good tool makes the job as easy as possible. But I think you owe it yourself to learn at least some of the features otherwise why buy such an expensive feature packed camera and not just a £200 compact.
I love tweaking the settings over time to make my job of getting the pictures I want easier and in some cases possible.

 

[snerkler]

Every manufacturer makes out their latest model is the best and their previous models are now rubbish and can’t take a photo. I just see it as marketing departments trying to sell photographers model upgrades (often which people don’t need). Most of the time I see the next model just fixes things that should have been standard on the previous model. The A9ii feels like a good example of this thinking.

Tech Radar did a good comparison of the differences between the A9 and A9ii.

Sony Alpha A9 vs A9 II: the key differences between Sony's sports-oriented cameras

A tweak here and a tweak there

www.techradar.com

I have to say there isn’t any that made me think I needed to upgrade to the A9ii. To be honest new mirrorless seem to be released every 1.5-2 years. The model update cycle definitely feels shorter than it was with Nikon DSLRs (usually 3 years unless there was a big issue like the D600). With DSLRs it felt best to miss a generation but with the quick turnover of mirrorless models I’m thinking of missing two generations is probably better to see some proper upgrades./changed.

I agree, if I had the A9 there's no way I'd justify the A9-II. If you have neither then for me the A9-II would be the better choice for the ergonomics alone

Technology definitely gets better but development/progress is definitely going to slow down as the technology matures. there is a point where extra outlay provides diminishing returns.

I think its come to a point where we've started to look at ways to get shots through improvements in technology whereas in the past we worked within the limitations of the technology and made way to get the shot. Your issue of getting a photo of your dog running towards you is a good example. In the past we would have pre focused on an area and fired the shutter as the dog ran through the area. It would have been very hit and miss, and probably required a lot of trial and error but we would have been happy getting one in focus out of hundreds. Now we want every photo in the sequence to be in perfect focus. I know I came to the same conclusion. Previously I was happy to pre focus a zone and hope to capture animals when using a remote camera knowing I’d likely get nothing. Now I’m expecting animal eye AF to capture the photo perfectly for me.

I agree, I've managed to get the shots before, and I've still managed to get shots with the A7RIV. However, as technology moves forwards and we are exposed to what it possible there's no doubt that new tech is tempting and does help get the shot. Whilst I can get the shot by prefocussing etc I question whether I'd want to go back to that and the answer is a resounding no

20fps electronic shooting.

See the kai video for a use case for high speed shooting in studio

I've not watched the video yet and I'm sure you can find reasons for why you can use 20fps in a studio setting, but for your standard portrait why would you want 20fps? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some will justify the A1 for this setting and be glad they've got the features

For me it's what the a9mk2 should have been. Higher mp and faster card slots

Yeah, I think we've all agreed the A9-II should have been called the A9s or something. TBH it's a bit like the Nikon Z6/7-II's, they're not really a new model but fixing the 'issues' from the mark I.

 

[imattersuk]

Common sense......

View: https://youtu.be/OiSnx7iNcDE

 

[Stephen L]

Fully agree that they are just tools, but a good tool makes the job as easy as possible. But I think you owe it yourself to learn at least some of the features otherwise why buy such an expensive feature packed camera and not just a £200 compact.
I love tweaking the settings over time to make my job of getting the pictures I want easier and in some cases possible.

If I’m honest I don’t want the camera to make things easier for me. Speaking purely as an amateur hobbyist, I want my mind to be challenged, and to overcome those challenges to make a satisfactory image.

 

[nandbytes]

Common sense......

View: https://youtu.be/OiSnx7iNcDE

I hadn't seen him in a few years....

 

[robj20]

If I’m honest I don’t want the camera to make things easier for me. Speaking purely as an amateur hobbyist, I want my mind to be challenged, and to overcome those challenges to make a satisfactory image.

Is it not a bit pointless buying a camera such as an A7 then? Your paying for features you don't want. I'd imagine manual focusing on a moving object sure is a challenge. Lol

 

[woof woof]

Technology definitely gets better but development/progress is definitely going to slow down as the technology matures. there is a point where extra outlay provides diminishing returns.

I think its come to a point where we've started to look at ways to get shots through improvements in technology whereas in the past we worked within the limitations of the technology and made way to get the shot. Your issue of getting a photo of your dog running towards you is a good example. In the past we would have pre focused on an area and fired the shutter as the dog ran through the area. It would have been very hit and miss, and probably required a lot of trial and error but we would have been happy getting one in focus out of hundreds. Now we want every photo in the sequence to be in perfect focus. I know I came to the same conclusion. Previously I was happy to pre focus a zone and hope to capture animals when using a remote camera knowing I’d likely get nothing. Now I’m expecting animal eye AF to capture the photo perfectly for me.

Technology gives more people the ability to do more things easier and it also makes new things possible. Both have always happened but the pace has definitely quickened in recent years.

Increased ISO ranges and performance making hand held shooting possible at shutter speeds which would have been impossible not so long ago,

Increased frame rates and video making it possible to capture or freeze action as never before.

The ability to focus accurately anywhere in the frame and to automate the process with eye/face detect. Before this the only way to do anything like this would be to focus using a fixed point and crop the picture to put the face where you wanted it in the frame. And of course focus tracking.

The ability to see the exposure and the DoF in real time.

The list is long

I think one big problem these days is being honest about our own needs and not blowing the budget on tech we'll play with a few times and then never bother with again.

 

[snerkler]

If I’m honest I don’t want the camera to make things easier for me. Speaking purely as an amateur hobbyist, I want my mind to be challenged, and to overcome those challenges to make a satisfactory image.

I’m half and half. I like the ‘act’ of taking a photo and don’t want everything to be completely automated, however there are certain times when tech means that you’ll get a shot that you otherwise might not have done, or save you from having 10 wasted photos just to get one.

I do keep playing about with my OM1 from time to time though just to go back to basics, but I’m yet to print anything from it

 

[woof woof]

Watching a few A1 videos I'm quite impressed. The camera will never be on my radar but I'm still impressed

For those seriously considering an A1, is this a genuine move forward and is the price reasonable considering what it is?

In one of those vids the guy puts the price in perspective by comparing it to a similarly spec'd video camera. Is it reasonable value?

 

[Stephen L]

Is it not a bit pointless buying a camera such as an A7 then? Your paying for features you don't want. I'd imagine manual focusing on a moving object sure is a challenge. Lol

I’ve not got an A7. In the olden days of film cameras I made nice pocket money shooting (and colour printing) sharp photos of rally cars in action. And not everyone wants to shoot birds in flight. Oh, and about half my lenses are manual.

 

[imattersuk]

I hadn't seen him in a few years....

Big scandal with a few models wasn't there, been keeping a lower profile since then

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Big scandal with a few models wasn't there, been keeping a lower profile since then

This, the drop in viewing figures per video on his youtube channel is very telling - appears to only be Rotolight ambassador now, having been 'removed' as a Sony Artisan

 

[snerkler]

Watching a few A1 videos I'm quite impressed. The camera will never be on my radar but I'm still impressed

For those seriously considering an A1, is this a genuine move forward and is the price reasonable considering what it is?

In one of those vids the guy puts the price in perspective by comparing it to a similarly spec'd video camera. Is it reasonable value?

I think it’s a move forward in that it’s the first high res camera that can also do sports to a top level, and can use ES with flash. It’s a very capable camera for sure, and in theory if you buy this there should be absolutely no need to ever upgrade and it can do everything to the highest level. But we all know something else will come along to tempt people away from it to ’upgrade’. I think the only way forward would be global shutter tbh. They may bring out 60fps etc but who needs that, watching the Jared video shows that at 30fps you’re basically capturing video and being able to select the frame you want at 50mp.

Animal eye AF will continue to improve of course, and we’ll probably get insect eye af at some point

 

[GyRob]

Watching a few A1 videos I'm quite impressed. The camera will never be on my radar but I'm still impressed

For those seriously considering an A1, is this a genuine move forward and is the price reasonable considering what it is?

In one of those vids the guy puts the price in perspective by comparing it to a similarly spec'd video camera. Is it reasonable value?

Well i have it on pre order and it is worth it to me a 1dx around 10 years ago cost me 6K and this is way ahead I won't use most of the things in it but to have the speed and Mps For cropping birds is quite welcome regarding cost if you have the money spare why not and even if something suddenly came up and it was your last £6500 you could sell it 2 months from now and get £5500 back so really your only laying out £1000 so to speak that's the way i look at it

Rob.

 

[nandbytes]

Big scandal with a few models wasn't there, been keeping a lower profile since then

This, the drop in viewing figures per video on his youtube channel is very telling - appears to only be Rotolight ambassador now, having been 'removed' as a Sony Artisan

He was actually being investigated wasn't he?
Did the courts acquit him?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

He was actually being investigated wasn't he?
Did the courts acquit him?

Did it actually go to trial???

 

[Faldrax]

Watching a few A1 videos I'm quite impressed. The camera will never be on my radar but I'm still impressed

For those seriously considering an A1, is this a genuine move forward and is the price reasonable considering what it is?

In one of those vids the guy puts the price in perspective by comparing it to a similarly spec'd video camera. Is it reasonable value?

It is certainly expensive - but it is likely to be used with top end lenses - which are not cheap (particularly if you are looking at a 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4).
When you start to look at the total cost, the difference due to the more expensive body reduces (in % terms).

If someone gets an A9 (for example), and asks about lenses, they will usually end up getting advised to (in the main) look at GM's - because the top end camera requires top end lenses - does the reverse argument apply - if you're looking at getting a bunch of GM lenses should you then also only consider the A1 - because the best lenses 'require' a top end camera?

 

[snerkler]

Well i have it on pre order and it is worth it to me a 1dx around 10 years ago cost me 6K and this is way ahead I won't use most of the things in it but to have the speed and Mps For cropping birds is quite welcome regarding cost if you have the money spare why not and even if something suddenly came up and it was your last £6500 you could sell it 2 months from now and get £5500 back so really your only laying out £1000 so to speak that's the way i look at it

Rob.

Nice, looking forward to your thoughts on it

 

[woof woof]

Well i have it on pre order and it is worth it to me a 1dx around 10 years ago cost me 6K and this is way ahead I won't use most of the things in it but to have the speed and Mps For cropping birds is quite welcome regarding cost if you have the money spare why not and even if something suddenly came up and it was your last £6500 you could sell it 2 months from now and get £5500 back so really your only laying out £1000 so to speak that's the way i look at it

Rob.

I've just Googled the 1DX and it's £6,499 at Wex. If I was in the market for a 1DX I'd probably think the Sony A1 was from the future

 

[JohnMcL7]

I've just Googled the 1DX and it's £6,499 at Wex. If I was in the market for a 1DX I'd probably think the Sony A1 was from the future

I had similar thoughts when looking up the Nikon D6 which is currently £6300.

 

[snerkler]

I've just Googled the 1DX and it's £6,499 at Wex. If I was in the market for a 1DX I'd probably think the Sony A1 was from the future

I had similar thoughts when looking up the Nikon D6 which is currently £6300.

Wow I didn't realise they were that much, on that basis the A1 is priced about right then. Still doesn't make them cheap though

 

[nandbytes]

Wow I didn't realise they were that much, on that basis the A1 is priced about right then. Still doesn't make them cheap though

when A9 was released they marketed it as their pro sports body against the 1DXii and D5. But I don't think people took it that way or didn't see it as that.
I wonder if its one of those you have to price it right too for the target market and competition. hence a complete change in name/branding etc instead of using the A9III name.

canon and Nikon don't have 1Dx series and D5/6 equivalent in mirrorless. I know people are comparing A1 to R5 but Sony intention is not be compared against those as the A9 or A7R would be.... they want to show that they have the full range in mirrorless that canikon can't yet provide.

That's my feeling on this whole matter anyway.

 

[addicknchips]

when A9 was released they marketed it as their pro sports body against the 1DXii and D5. But I don't think people took it that way or didn't see it as that.
I wonder if its one of those you have to price it right too for the target market and competition. hence a complete change in name/branding etc instead of using the A9III name.

canon and Nikon don't have 1Dx series and D5/6 equivalent in mirrorless. I know people are comparing A1 to R5 but Sony intention is not be compared against those as the A9 or A7R would be.... they want to show that they have the full range in mirrorless that canikon can't yet provide.

That's my feeling on this whole matter anyway.

they've simply priced it at what flagship pro body cameras sell for. its priced correctly imo as it spec and feature set should appeal to pros who need it. they have done well to yet again beat canon and nikon out the traps, but with the R5 not long out i think canon can afford to wait a bit before releasing their pro body.

looks like a fantatsic camera but for the money i think 90% of photographers would see better return in sticking with something for half the price and gassing the rest on glass.

 

[nandbytes]

they've simply priced it at what flagship pro body cameras sell for. its priced correctly imo as it spec and feature set should appeal to pros who need it. they have done well to yet again beat canon and nikon out the traps, but with the R5 not long out i think canon can afford to wait a bit before releasing their pro body.

looks like a fantatsic camera but for the money i think 90% of photographers would see better return in sticking with something for half the price and gassing the rest on glass.

if not tied down by lenses I'd probably buy the R5 and the one I'd advice for anyone looking without the baggage.
There is nothing on Sony that competes fully with the R5 in all departments. It's a great do it all body without the £6.5K price tag.

 

[snerkler]

they've simply priced it at what flagship pro body cameras sell for. its priced correctly imo as it spec and feature set should appeal to pros who need it. they have done well to yet again beat canon and nikon out the traps, but with the R5 not long out i think canon can afford to wait a bit before releasing their pro body.

looks like a fantatsic camera but for the money i think 90% of photographers would see better return in sticking with something for half the price and gassing the rest on glass.

Aren't Canon already developing a 1Dx type mirrorless, I'm sure I've seen it somewhere. It's got the form factor of the 1D body too, ie no removable vertical grip

 

[Stephen L]

they've simply priced it at what flagship pro body cameras sell for. its priced correctly imo as it spec and feature set should appeal to pros who need it. they have done well to yet again beat canon and nikon out the traps, but with the R5 not long out i think canon can afford to wait a bit before releasing their pro body.

looks like a fantatsic camera but for the money i think 90% of photographers would see better return in sticking with something for half the price and gassing the rest on glass.

Pricing is a fine balancing act. If it’s too dear, people will not buy it. If it’s too cheap, people will wonder what’s wrong with it. If it sells well, the marketeers will have got it about right. I’m sure the selling price (of more-or-less anything) rarely bears any relationship to the cost of components and to a lesser extent development.

 

[russellsnr]

Hi, I am looking at a used A6000 as a back up and to use with my my 200-600 and 70-200 F4 as only just come over to the Sony system with an A9 just looking for advice from those who have been with Sony a lot longer than a few months. Thank You. Russ.

 

[GyRob]

Another thing i like is that a 600mm can give a 900mm FOV if you use crop mode or a 1350mm f 5.6 with the 1.5 tc on or even a 1800 mm f8 with the 2x .

Rob.

 

[gman]

Hi, I am looking at a used A6000 as a back up and to use with my my 200-600 and 70-200 F4 as only just come over to the Sony system with an A9 just looking for advice from those who have been with Sony a lot longer than a few months. Thank You. Russ.

The AF on the A6000 disappointed me, but other than that it was a great camera.

 

[f/1.2]

Hi, I am looking at a used A6000 as a back up and to use with my my 200-600 and 70-200 F4 as only just come over to the Sony system with an A9 just looking for advice from those who have been with Sony a lot longer than a few months. Thank You. Russ.

A6000 is a bit of a dog in terms of a.f.

A6400 would be a better choice if you want an APSC, very similar a.f as the A9.

 

[addicknchips]

Aren't Canon already developing a 1Dx type mirrorless, I'm sure I've seen it somewhere. It's got the form factor of the 1D body too, ie no removable vertical grip

Yeah later this year I think. Probably priced similar to the a1

 

[nandbytes]

Hi, I am looking at a used A6000 as a back up and to use with my my 200-600 and 70-200 F4 as only just come over to the Sony system with an A9 just looking for advice from those who have been with Sony a lot longer than a few months. Thank You. Russ.

A6100 is the "base" APS-C model now. I'd get that over A6000.

 

[Faldrax]

A6000 is a bit of a dog in terms of a.f.

A6400 would be a better choice if you want an APSC, very similar a.f as the A9.

A6000 AF is fine for a lot of users, it's just not as good as newer, more advanced (and more expensive) models.

That said, I'd agree with going fro an A6100 or A6400 over it, particularly if the aim is to backup an A9.