This is nice, too. A sports photographer (Joe toth) gives a few insights using the A1. Here an image showing the capabilities of cropping for sports
Iso 5000, crop down to 2571 x 1714 pixels (see comments for cisualisation of the crop) https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/permalink/3498215743639635/
Asked regarding high iso vs. A9ii
"I think the High ISO of the A1 was amazing"
This could of course be due to much better NR algorithms, affecting the jpg quality.
"I shot LED ad boards and stadium lights. I noticed a vast reduction in the flicker from the stadium lights. Almost nonexistent. It didn’t solve the LED ad board issue but it was better than on my A9II. So yes it is working and I would say as advertised."
"I was fortunate enough to test out the Sony A1 in a real world work situation. I know one of the big issues with sports photographers is LED boards and the 'banding'. you get with them. I fond that various Ad boards are different depending on age and model, and then the specific ads look different. The below shot is from Stadium MK in England. I use the High Frequency setting to dial in the shutter. While the LED issue hasn't been resolved I feel it is slightly better on the A1. Another stadium I frequent I get an entirely different readout on the LED board, the A1 might lessen that even more. All the other issues and features will be discussed quite a bit. I was impressed with the camera and will be buying one as it will certainly make my job of creating images easier."
baltmin wrote:
This can’t be 600mm + 2x TC, as he states. The aperture on the screen is 5.6. Nevertheless, impressive results!
Maybe he meant to say that he had both converters with him. Then again he gives the focal length in the same equipment description as 640mm, so maybe he just confused the TCs.
That is promising to see that it can work at a good distance and with a pretty difficult to detect subject considering it is up against that wall. The R5 is pretty uncanny at picking up birds when they are just tiny in the frame. I wasn't sure if the A1 was going to be able to do that but looks like it can.
Another promising video for sure. Quick reaction of the system to fast changing head movements. When loses the eye, quickly recovers. Looks very similar to how the R5 reacts.
Now the question remains as to how Tony N. and Jordan D. had such issues with the system? Especially Jordan D. who showed he was just testing on some almost stationary zoo birds. Nothing I've seen in any of the live-feed videos corroborates their experiences.
"I took the A1 to a hide. I used 400mm F2.8. I am very pleased with the A1 and the picture quality. The bird eye AF is a game changer but you can't rely on it all the time. Light colored birds are much easier for the AF than dark birds. But still a very nice feature! The pictures are just jpegs with minor LR adjustments."
"I took the A1 to a hide. I used 400mm F2.8. I am very pleased with the A1 and the picture quality. The bird eye AF is a game changer but you can't rely on it all the time. Light colored birds are much easier for the AF than dark birds. But still a very nice feature! The pictures are just jpegs with minor LR adjustments."
Wow!. These are test shots? For me these are keepers. What do you think about the comment? Is R5 more reliable in Bird EYE?
arbitrage wrote:
Another promising video for sure. Quick reaction of the system to fast changing head movements. When loses the eye, quickly recovers. Looks very similar to how the R5 reacts.
Now the question remains as to how Tony N. and Jordan D. had such issues with the system? Especially Jordan D. who showed he was just testing on some almost stationary zoo birds. Nothing I've seen in any of the live-feed videos corroborates their experiences.
I'm not going to speculate, but if memory serves me properly there were some focus issues with early production units of the a7r iv. With the inconsistencies we're seeing amongst reviewers could it be possible that we're seeing the same thing again?
Jemini wrote:
Wow!. These are test shots? For me these are keepers. What do you think about the comment? Is R5 more reliable in Bird EYE?
Until I can test the A1 back to back with the R5, I have no way of knowing how they compare. Most of the videos seem to show the A1's system working similar to the R5. As far as dark birds, the only one I can think of that I've used the R5 on is Steller's Jay where it does have dark eye on fairly dark feathers. It certainly doesn't pick up the eye as easily but it still does pick it up when the bird is turned nicely towards you and it seems to help if there is a little bit of catchlight on the eye.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone can record a video of the A1 shooting a BIF and having the Eye-AF activate. The R5 can do that sometimes. The only issue I see is that in order to record from the A1, you have to use the Atmos as your VF and hold the camera out awkwardly. That is going to hamper getting Eye-AF to activate on a BIF as it is going to be much more difficult to hold the camera stead and pan with the bird. One thing I notice on the R5 is you have to have stable panning skills to give the system a chance to recognize the head/eye. So we may never get a good Atmos recording of BIF/Eye-Detect. That may have to wait for just personal experience when people that know what they are doing can just tell us if it works when they are using the EVF with good technique. Sony's marketing distinctly says it works on takeoffs and BIF so if they put that into the marketing it must work some of the time.
arbitrage wrote:
Until I can test the A1 back to back with the R5, I have no way of knowing how they compare. Most of the videos seem to show the A1's system working similar to the R5. As far as dark birds, the only one I can think of that I've used the R5 on is Steller's Jay where it does have dark eye on fairly dark feathers. It certainly doesn't pick up the eye as easily but it still does pick it up when the bird is turned nicely towards you and it seems to help if there is a little bit of catchlight on the eye.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone can record a video of the A1 shooting a BIF and having the Eye-AF activate. The R5 can do that sometimes. The only issue I see is that in order to record from the A1, you have to use the Atmos as your VF and hold the camera out awkwardly. That is going to hamper getting Eye-AF to activate on a BIF as it is going to be much more difficult to hold the camera stead and pan with the bird. One thing I notice on the R5 is you have to have stable panning skills to give the system a chance to recognize the head/eye. So we may never get a good Atmos recording of BIF/Eye-Detect. That may have to wait for just personal experience when people that know what they are doing can just tell us if it works when they are using the EVF with good technique. Sony's marketing distinctly says it works on takeoffs and BIF so if they put that into the marketing it must work some of the time....Show more →
I understand the difficulty in getting a good record of the action. I'd rather trust opinion from people like you (experienced in both systems and know what you are doing ). All current reviews are from Sony people (loaned by Sony). So we don't expect them to be too harsh on their criticism.
Animal/Bird EYE AF and tracking are two most important factors for me.
arbitrage wrote:
Until I can test the A1 back to back with the R5, I have no way of knowing how they compare. Most of the videos seem to show the A1's system working similar to the R5. As far as dark birds, the only one I can think of that I've used the R5 on is Steller's Jay where it does have dark eye on fairly dark feathers. It certainly doesn't pick up the eye as easily but it still does pick it up when the bird is turned nicely towards you and it seems to help if there is a little bit of catchlight on the eye.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone can record a video of the A1 shooting a BIF and having the Eye-AF activate. The R5 can do that sometimes. The only issue I see is that in order to record from the A1, you have to use the Atmos as your VF and hold the camera out awkwardly. That is going to hamper getting Eye-AF to activate on a BIF as it is going to be much more difficult to hold the camera stead and pan with the bird. One thing I notice on the R5 is you have to have stable panning skills to give the system a chance to recognize the head/eye. So we may never get a good Atmos recording of BIF/Eye-Detect. That may have to wait for just personal experience when people that know what they are doing can just tell us if it works when they are using the EVF with good technique. Sony's marketing distinctly says it works on takeoffs and BIF so if they put that into the marketing it must work some of the time....Show more →
I will trust your personal experience. You are using both Sony and Canon and are note paid by anyone. Also you provided excellent advice about getting the most out of the A7riv and the 200-600 in the past. Good observation about the Atmos and the A1 as it makes for awkward BIF technique.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
I will trust your personal experience. You are using both Sony and Canon and are note paid by anyone.
As far as you know. Of course he really was planted long ago by an obscure camera company trying to undermine the big players by pushing their development to bankruptcy...
Daran wrote:
As far as you know. Of course he really was planted long ago by an obscure camera company trying to undermine the big players by pushing their development to bankruptcy...
My only question, who will go bankrupt first, the camera companies or the plant? ;-)
I was curious about how hard it would be to handhold while using an atomos.... what a PITA, completely throws your stability to not have in tucked in tight.
). All current reviews are from Sony people (loaned by Sony). So we don't expect them to be too harsh on their criticism.