This topic is in the 2021 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2021A1 Reviews/Video thread
p.50 #1A1 Reviews/Video thread
Imagemaster wrote:
Now the question becomes if nicer swallow images are worth $9K CAD?
But the A1 is allowing me to sell three other cameras and an expensive Canon lens/TC so I should come out aheadHey, some people could shoot PIF's with a 7D in 2010. It was highly recommended by many: 
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/894368/0
That's cheating. A buddy did flying swallows with panasonic FZ1v2 2MP with 420mm f2.8 zoom.
arbitrage wrote
My Violet-green swallow IF deep crops are going to look better starting off with 50MPs....that I know for sureNow the question becomes if nicer swallow images are worth $9K CAD?
But the A1 is allowing me to sell three other cameras and an expensive Canon lens/TC so I should come out ahead
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/894368/0
That's cheating. A buddy did flying swallows with panasonic FZ1v2 2MP with 420mm f2.8 zoom.
Mar 04, 2021 at 08:31 PM
p.50 #3A1 Reviews/Video thread
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Mar 05, 2021 at 02:03 AM
p.50 #4A1 Reviews/Video thread
You can thank Youtube resolution and compression for that!!
twodees wrote:
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
twodees wrote:
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
Pius Sullivan wrote
Mar 05, 2021 at 02:16 AM
p.50 #5A1 Reviews/Video thread
We just got the A1 + 35 GM for testing from Sony.
Just setting up the camera. Mechanical shutter is unreal, so quiet and damped.
Just setting up the camera. Mechanical shutter is unreal, so quiet and damped.
Mar 05, 2021 at 05:32 AM
p.50 #6A1 Reviews/Video thread
A review in French - https://www.lesnumeriques.com/reflex-hybride/sony-alpha-1-a1-p61869/test.html
The electronic shutter comparison between the A1 and Nikon Z7II is interesting.
The electronic shutter comparison between the A1 and Nikon Z7II is interesting.
Mar 05, 2021 at 05:55 AM
p.50 #7A1 Reviews/Video thread
twodees wrote:
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
You are evaluating details and NR of stills off of a 1440 wide jpeg sequence further compressed by YT?
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this. Even then we can't really tell if all the shots are critically focused once you would load the RAWs at 1:1.
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.
Pius Sullivan wrote
You are evaluating details and NR of stills off of a 1440 wide jpeg sequence further compressed by YT?
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this. Even then we can't really tell if all the shots are critically focused once you would load the RAWs at 1:1.
Mar 05, 2021 at 06:04 AM
p.50 #8A1 Reviews/Video thread
Imagemaster wrote:
How does this show us anything? And how do these companies pick these people to send their gear to. I just do not get it. Sorry to vent but I am really looking to see what people produce and say when they get it in their hands. I mean you have a camera for a week and could not produce a single quality photo. Hard to believe.It is nothing new, and the same thing has been happening for the last 17 years I have been a member here. It happens with every new camera that comes out. First, the endless rumors and comments about what the new model should and/or will have. Then when it comes out, all the crap photos posted along with some great ones. And even the great ones seldom look any better than those from the previous model. Then there are the new owners that complain about problems with the new model because they have not read the owner's manual, or can't...Show more →
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
aboutthelight wrote
Nikon guy here who is really interested in what this Sony A1 can do. I am really losing faith that Nikon will catch up or even produce a quality mirrorless after how crappy the Z7ii is that I bought and returned. I watched almost all of the videos and I am honestly just shocked at the low quality photos and work from the bird shooters. Sorry, just here to vent about how the hell do people get sent cutting edge tech and make videos of tiny birds far away that you could shoot with a 15 year old camera. Not a single one of these videos showed anything close to what that camera has the potential to produce. I mean going to the local duck pond at noon and shooting tame birds completely off the sun angle is proof of what exactly? Same with distant birds that are tiny in the frame. Chickadees shot at steep angles with garbage composition prove what How does this show us anything? And how do these companies pick these people to send their gear to. I just do not get it. Sorry to vent but I am really looking to see what people produce and say when they get it in their hands. I mean you have a camera for a week and could not produce a single quality photo. Hard to believe.What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Mar 05, 2021 at 06:26 AM
p.50 #9A1 Reviews/Video thread
Yeah if you pause it you can see that they either did some really awful things in post (doubt it) or that youtube compression is exacerbating the already ridiculously high ISO, you can see the artifacts all around the owl. I do see the magenta, but who knows how the blue tone of light and the brown background, plus high ISO plus youtube play into this..... these type of shooting scenario are really for paparazzi or ID shots, not to hang on the wall :-)
arbitrage wrote:
You are evaluating details and NR of stills off of a 1440 wide jpeg sequence further compressed by YT?
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this....Show more →
arbitrage wrote:
twodees wrote
The focusing and tracking look great but I don't see anything other than record shots for the stills, there's no fine detail there and they look like some NR is being applied.Pius Sullivan wrote
This is ISO 12,800 and underexposed so we are talking 25,600 or greater if it was properly exposed or lifted in post.
That said I do not love all the magenta and green pattering throughout the background but who knows what processing was done to these files before assembling into a slideshow? But probably that background is 2 stops under so more like 51,200 noise/splotching....ie beyond native ISO.
"focusing and tracking look great" is I think all we can take away from this....Show more →
Mar 05, 2021 at 06:40 AM
p.50 #10A1 Reviews/Video thread
buffalowolff wrote:
Yeah if you pause it you can see that they either did some really awful things in post (doubt it) or that youtube compression is exacerbating the already ridiculously high ISO, you can see the artifacts all around the owl. I do see the magenta, but who knows how the blue tone of light and the brown background, plus high ISO plus youtube play into this..... these type of shooting scenario are really for paparazzi or ID shots, not to hang on the wall :-)
"you can see the artifacts all around the owl": Those artifacts are completely normal when you encode video or even JPEGs at a very low bitrate.
That's why you should never judge IQ from a YT video, except if they go into pixel peeping and if that video is 4k or 8k, which is not the case here.
Yeah if you pause it you can see that they either did some really awful things in post (doubt it) or that youtube compression is exacerbating the already ridiculously high ISO, you can see the artifacts all around the owl. I do see the magenta, but who knows how the blue tone of light and the brown background, plus high ISO plus youtube play into this..... these type of shooting scenario are really for paparazzi or ID shots, not to hang on the wall :-)
"you can see the artifacts all around the owl": Those artifacts are completely normal when you encode video or even JPEGs at a very low bitrate.
That's why you should never judge IQ from a YT video, except if they go into pixel peeping and if that video is 4k or 8k, which is not the case here.
Mar 05, 2021 at 07:17 AM
p.50 #11A1 Reviews/Video thread
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:08 AM
p.50 #12A1 Reviews/Video thread
I sort of recall Mark Smith had the A1, although not as early as the other YT characters got theirs, I am wondering when he will have his review on YT.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:22 AM
p.50 #13A1 Reviews/Video thread
Holger wrote:
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:28 AM
p.50 #14A1 Reviews/Video thread
Jemini wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think we probably still have to do that based on some of the reviews.
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Holger wrote
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think we probably still have to do that based on some of the reviews.
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:35 AM
p.50 #15A1 Reviews/Video thread
Well... maybe not one of my most qualified observations
Fingers crossed it starts getting into the hands of those in NA asap as there will then be a lot more reactions and experiences on the table which I can compare to my own from the last few days.
arbitrage wrote:
.....
Fingers crossed it starts getting into the hands of those in NA asap as there will then be a lot more reactions and experiences on the table which I can compare to my own from the last few days.
arbitrage wrote:
.....
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:40 AM
p.50 #16A1 Reviews/Video thread
It wakes up in about half the time of the original A9, don't have A9 II so can't compare with that.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:42 AM
p.50 #17A1 Reviews/Video thread
arbitrage wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?I think we probably still have to do that based on some of the reviews.
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Ahh, I see. That's even worse. At least Sony has a way at the expense of battery. I'm getting used to it with A9.
Jemini wrote
Holger wrote
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
The R5 is fast to wake from power off. But the R5 has no way to keep the EVF awake for more than 6s so it is a constant issue with that camera when raising it to shoot some fleeting moment.
Ahh, I see. That's even worse. At least Sony has a way at the expense of battery. I'm getting used to it with A9.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:50 AM
p.50 #18A1 Reviews/Video thread
Jemini wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think that to be lens dependent. Additionally you will never be able to give such an accurate measure as the french review above mentioned (to 1/100s).
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in Airplane mode, do only have one display setting in EVF or LCD mode, no in camera processing options like DRO, shading compensation etc.
Wakeup from sleep is difficult to measure accurately, but quicker. For me it is quick enough, I don't know about BIF people.
I would need to film myself with the camera and later asses the time accurately from the video feed.
Holger wrote
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I think that to be lens dependent. Additionally you will never be able to give such an accurate measure as the french review above mentioned (to 1/100s).
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in Airplane mode, do only have one display setting in EVF or LCD mode, no in camera processing options like DRO, shading compensation etc.
Wakeup from sleep is difficult to measure accurately, but quicker. For me it is quick enough, I don't know about BIF people.
I would need to film myself with the camera and later asses the time accurately from the video feed.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:51 AM
p.50 #19A1 Reviews/Video thread
randomguy wrote:
It wakes up in about half the time of the original A9, don't have A9 II so can't compare with that.
So in around a second and half? Sounds right. A9 power up and AF points shows up in 3 seconds. Sometimes little longer and some times little faster. On the average 3 seconds I'd say.
That's not bad considering how long it will take us to lift the camera and bring to eye.
It wakes up in about half the time of the original A9, don't have A9 II so can't compare with that.
So in around a second and half? Sounds right. A9 power up and AF points shows up in 3 seconds. Sometimes little longer and some times little faster. On the average 3 seconds I'd say.
That's not bad considering how long it will take us to lift the camera and bring to eye.
Mar 05, 2021 at 09:56 AM
p.50 #20A1 Reviews/Video thread
Holger wrote:
The French review posted above (I think) mentioned 1.5 seconds. R5 is startup in 0.76 second.
How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?I think that to be lens dependent. Additionally you will never be able to give such an accurate measure as the french review above mentioned (to 1/100s).
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in...Show more →
Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree it's almost impossible to measure accurately and probably doesn't matter. If the camera start focusing in 1 second, it's not bad. I think just being flagship they should've done a better job..
AF tracking is what I want to know from more people. How much better it's compared to A9/A9II (assuming they are same).
Jemini wrote
Holger wrote
Startup-Time is quicker than the A9ii. Not dramatically so, but at least from a quick comparison I think about 30% faster.How about wake-up time from sleep? Should we still set Power Save Start Time to Off to get quick response?
I just did a few stop watch tests with the 35 GM. I got results between 0.8 - 1.2s, so 0.9 s- 1s is realistic on average (I switched the camera on and immediately pressed the shutter button and monitored the time when I finally heard the shutter sound).
With the Sigma 35/1.2 it takes longer. But 1.5 s as stated in the French review seems to be too long. However, I am in...Show more →
Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree it's almost impossible to measure accurately and probably doesn't matter. If the camera start focusing in 1 second, it's not bad. I think just being flagship they should've done a better job..
AF tracking is what I want to know from more people. How much better it's compared to A9/A9II (assuming they are same).
Mar 05, 2021 at 10:04 AM