LBJ2 wrote:
"I am glad I waited because a lot of attention went to a review video that states that the camera is not capable of shooting 30FPS. It turns out that they used the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM lens which needs a firmware update to achieve the full 30FPS that will be released sometime soon. I tested the a1 with my workhorse lenses (and teleconverters) and can confirm that the following lenses and teleconverters are all capable of capturing 30FPS in COMPRESSED RAW (The capture rate is slower using uncompressed RAW):
Sony 600/4 GM
Sony 600/4 GM with 1.4X
Sony 600/4 with 2X
Sony 200-600
Sony 200-600 with 1.4X
Sony 200-600 with 2X"
An interesting find was how well the affordable 200-600mm worked with both the 1.4X and 2X, and it was able to maintain the 30FPS capture rate with the 2X in APS-C mode which resulted in a 23-24MB file during my tests. The 200-600 is a great and affordable lens that costs about 20% of the prime 600/4 GM, so there are trade-offs. The AF acquisition and tracking speed are slowed down and the image quality is slightly degraded when the 2X is used, but it still offers remarkably good results."
--Christopher Dodds
The A9ii is already fantastic. The A1 - I expected it to be even better and it seems to deliver on many fronts.
After Manny Ortiz' video this is the other one confirming it for me that this cameras will be great and that I need to have it ;-)
One thing I think that needs to be remembered when comparing the A1 to the R5 is that Nikon and Canon pro bodies have not typically experienced notably larger performance gaps between them and their next tier competitors. The 5Div is a great camera and could do most of what a 1DXii could do. Likewise, the D850 and D500 could do most of what the D5/D6 could do. The value of the differences get back to what the photog wants or needs. That the R5 is an amazing camera is not questioned, nor that it can do a great many things well. However, for those who need or want the features the A1 has that the R5 doesn't, there is a huge difference between the two.
Ltgk20 wrote:
One thing I think that needs to be remembered when comparing the A1 to the R5 is that Nikon and Canon pro bodies have not typically experienced notably larger performance gaps between them and their next tier competitors. The 5Div is a great camera and could do most of what a 1DXii could do. Likewise, the D850 and D500 could do most of what the D5/D6 could do. The value of the differences get back to what the photog wants or needs. That the R5 is an amazing camera is not questioned, nor that it can do a great many things well. However, for those who need or want the features the A1 has that the R5 doesn't, there is a huge difference between the two....Show more →
I almost ordered the R5 again today. I am a prime shooter and love their 28-70 f2 zoom. It really does have prime-like quality in a zoom. I like most of what the R5 does, but having had the a9ii I am spoiled by the maxmum shutter speed of 1/32,000. I like shooting wide open outdoors in bright light without using a flash or strobe. That means the 1/8000 maximum shutter speed of the R5 would require ND filters for general shooting in those situations.
I was really happy with the a9ii for wildlife, BIF - so no worries there. As an all around camera and for my needs as someone who shoots between so many different styles the a1 is the better choice.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
From Chris- ', and it was able to maintain the 30FPS capture rate with the 2X in APS-C mode'
I've really not used the 200600 with the 2.0tc on my a9, the 1.4 all the time. The better-half
took over the 2.0 for the FE100400 when she claimed it, post my 200600 acquisition. If I were a betting man I'll need
to add another FE 2.0 TC.
Was that capture rate in Shutter Release mode or Focus Priority mode ?
There was a tidbit in that blog about a pending firmware update for the 70-200mm GM. That's the first I've heard of it but this guy is obviously networked in to Sony more than the average shooter.
149113 wrote:
There was a tidbit in that blog about a pending firmware update for the 70-200mm GM. That's the first I've heard of it but this guy is obviously networked in to Sony more than the average shooter.
Sony listed that the 70-200GM (along with 85/1.4GM and the 50 f/1.4 ZA) would need FW in their A1 lenses supporting 30/20FPS table.
149113 wrote:
There was a tidbit in that blog about a pending firmware update for the 70-200mm GM. That's the first I've heard of it but this guy is obviously networked in to Sony more than the average shooter.
I'm having trouble finding it but the sony slide that listed 30FPS lenses that was released on day 0 had the * software update required next to the 70-200 F2.8 . It is info that has been available since the announcement. I'm curious though as Fro and the Northrups both had issues with that lens on the a1 but blamed it on the 70-200 being old and in need of a new version. I might be in the minority but I kinda like my 70-200, sharp and have never had focus issues. maybe the firmware update is more about compatibility.... we'll see.
buffalowolff wrote:
I'm having trouble finding it but the sony slide that listed 30FPS lenses that was released on day 0 had the * software update required next to the 70-200 F2.8 . It is info that has been available since the announcement. I'm curious though as Fro and the Northrups both had issues with that lens on the a1 but blamed it on the 70-200 being old and in need of a new version. I might be in the minority but I kinda like my 70-200, sharp and have never had focus issues. maybe the firmware update is more about compatibility.... we'll see. ...Show more →
I must not have seen that *. None of the reviewers have really mentioned it in the post embargo vlogs. It does make you wonder why folks are using the 70-200 GM to test? There are about 20 other lenses that would be much better candidates + not flagged for a firmware update.
buffalowolff wrote:
I'm having trouble finding it but the sony slide that listed 30FPS lenses that was released on day 0 had the * software update required next to the 70-200 F2.8 . It is info that has been available since the announcement. I'm curious though as Fro and the Northrups both had issues with that lens on the a1 but blamed it on the 70-200 being old and in need of a new version. I might be in the minority but I kinda like my 70-200, sharp and have never had focus issues. maybe the firmware update is more about compatibility.... we'll see. ...Show more →
Ya that 1/32000 shutter speed is quite handy for underexposing the sun.
saxguy wrote:
I almost ordered the R5 again today. I am a prime shooter and love their 28-70 f2 zoom. It really does have prime-like quality in a zoom. I like most of what the R5 does, but having had the a9ii I am spoiled by the maxmum shutter speed of 1/32,000. I like shooting wide open outdoors in bright light without using a flash or strobe. That means the 1/8000 maximum shutter speed of the R5 would require ND filters for general shooting in those situations.
I was really happy with the a9ii for wildlife, BIF - so no worries there. As an all around camera and for my needs as someone who shoots between so many different styles the a1 is the better choice.
149113 wrote:
I must not have seen that *. None of the reviewers have really mentioned it in the post embargo vlogs. It does make you wonder why folks are using the 70-200 GM to test? There are about 20 other lenses that would be much better candidates + not flagged for a firmware update.
They are uninformed & seem to cater to a Canon click bait audience.
I don’t think we discovered any treasure here, unless the reviewers have used lenses released on very early days and never updated, which I doubt.
Also Gordon Laing commented below TN’s video that he also had misfocused shots, more than he expected.
I hope all this is just a matter of fine tuning a few things before release and nothing more serious.
Well exactly - and they did update the Lens compatibility page recently because at one stage it said that the 200-600 + TC2.0 would only focus with CDAF, but that is now removed.
What they haven't told anyone yet is that the new 70-200 f2.8 is coming soon and costs $6,500. As does the new 85 f.14...
Kaaching... I guess someone has to fill the Sony money truck before it does the Sony Ambassador rounds again...
I am very surprised to see how T&C's review didn't mention the need for lens firmware update. They even showed a tiny FPS meter....telling us how A1 fails to shoot 30 pfs under various conditions
arbitrage wrote:
I've always used Release priority for every Canon, Nikon and Sony camera I"ve owned. I just don't believe that the camera won't have a lot of false negatives where it decides not to take the shot. And I'm sure it will have false positives where it does take the shot and it is out. It is just like when you turn on focus point display in reviewing images and a lot of the time there is no correlation between if the point is where you intended and whether the shot is in focus where you intended.
I'd much rather just have the camera do its best AF that it can do and fire at max FPS. I'll sort out the good from the bad later. I'm often working in situations where keepers are based on a millimetre or two of focus over the eye vs 1mm in front or behind the eye. Or for BIF things like 5cm back on the shoulder vs up on the head. There is no way the AF Focus priority knows what I'm after with that precision. So I just use Release, get the max shots I can during a sequence and I'll get my keepers.
I'm sure for other genres where things aren't happening as fast that Balanced or Focus will make more sense. But not for what I shoot....Show more →
I'd much rather just have the camera do its best AF that it can do
It's quite possible that sensor image capture could delay or the PDAF reading. If so, this would be an even larger effect on non-stacked sensors. So essentially, you can't have both the cameras best attempt at AF and max FPS.
And of course, if the conditions cause the pd->lens motor to be a bit slow or inaccurate and just need 1/1000s more time, that could mean trading one or more out of focus shot for 20 fps vs 19.99999 fps.
I'm often working in situations where keepers are based on a millimetre or two of focus over the eye vs 1mm in front or behind the eye. Or for BIF things like 5cm back on the shoulder vs up on the head. There is no way the AF Focus priority knows what I'm after with that precision.
That's exactly what eye AF, bird eye-AF, and real time tracking are meant to do. And at some point (and even some conditions right now), they can do it correctly
He did have a little caution about his very fast bird results with the 200-600. However his greyhounds and martial arts shots were perfect with the lens. The 200-600 worked fine with the larger eagles, but the smaller hawks gave him a bit of pause. That is a little worrisome.
arbitrage wrote:
He did have a little caution about his very fast bird results with the 200-600. However his greyhounds and martial arts shots were perfect with the lens. The 200-600 worked fine with the larger eagles, but the smaller hawks gave him a bit of pause. That is a little worrisome.
Does that sound like a regression compared to the A9 II to you? Haven’t seen the video yet.
TN