I think the A1 will provide a great alternative to using a teleconverter, in my case with the 200-600mm. I have the 1.4x which I use on occasion and I have wondered about getting the 2x. APS-C mode will replace the 1.4x with the advantage that the AF is still using f/6.3 and so will hopefully keep the speed up. Also, it can be engaged at the flick of a switch. And in the rare case of wanting more reach, APS-C mode + the 1.4x is probably an excellent alternative to the 2x. I wouldn't expect the 2x with APS-C mode to be even remorely useful or the 2x in full-frame mode to be better than the 1.4x in APS-C mode.
So the cost of a 2x teleconverter can be deducted from the purchase cost, in my head anyway.
Holger wrote:
I think that is a wise decision. My wife has a business, so factoring in sales tax and tax deduction the A1 costs us about 3000-4000 Euro over the next few years. We earn money with it, so it pays itself off.
Having now used it, knowing advantages disadvantages of many systems now, I would never spend as much if I were just shooting for fun (but that's me, I am not into wildlife, don't need the 30 fps and AF capabilities). A used A7r3/4 or A9 would be sufficient.
If it is ones hobby and important, just save for it and buy it when a good deal is available. After all, so many of my friends spend fortunes for wine, vacations and cars etc., many things aren't really reasonable after all, it is all about priorities....Show more →
Well said. I'm one of those guys can say my camera costs more than the car . In my book I'm not 'spending' $6500. I'm renting one for a monthly price as I will be selling it some point. I just have to watch how much I can spend monthly for my only hobby.
Numerous e-bird reports of large groupings of swallows started showing up over the weekend in my area. None where I was looking though. I was hoping to get some R5 swallow shooting over and done with this past weekend so next weekend could be A1 only. That didn't work out.
This bodes well for Friday when I will first get a chance to be out with the A1 (given it ships to me on time).
arbitrage wrote:
Numerous e-bird reports of large groupings of swallows started showing up over the weekend in my area. None where I was looking though. I was hoping to get some R5 swallow shooting over and done with this past weekend so next weekend could be A1 only. That didn't work out.
This bodes well for Friday when I will first get a chance to be out with the A1 (given it ships to me on time).
Let the testing begin!!
So jealous. I was first on my dealer's list and he told me Friday it should ship today. Today he told me they only got one in and it had to go to a Sony Pro. I would get the next one. Unfortunately he has no idea when that will be. It's the first time I ordered from a small dealer instead of B&H or Adorama because I know how the pandemic has hurt small businesses and wanted to be supportive. That decision has now left me with no camera to use as I sold my R5 and SL2/SL2-S.
saxguy wrote:
So jealous. I was first on my dealer's list and he told me Friday it should ship today. Today he told me they only got one in and it had to go to a Sony Pro. I would get the next one. Unfortunately he has no idea when that will be. It's the first time I ordered from a small dealer instead of B&H or Adorama because I know how the pandemic has hurt small businesses and wanted to be supportive. That decision has now left me with no camera to use as I sold my R5 and SL2/SL2-S.
Same with me. My dealer if giving me the first one but due to too small a shipment and he gets them from another dealer, I have to wait for the 2nd shipment. No idea when that will be and I have sold both my other cameras so all I have is my Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra... Certainly better than nothing but I am not going out birding with it.
Just received my A1 late yesterday and I took some 8k footage of one of our resident eastern bluebirds, then drove over to our local eagle nest. My purpose was to check out how 8k footage can be "zoomed" by cropping in on the 8k footage in a 4k timeline.
The results look great and the 8k footage is easy to process on my 2017 iMac using Davinci Resolve. 8k does warm up the camera and chews on the battery. I may need to invest in a battery grip. Plus, having a battery grip removes the heating of the battery down away from the main body.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
.
Would be nice to know what he's saying.
Thanks for posting this. Basically he said he is a Canon shooter but he started to shoot Sony mirrorless very early. It seems he said he shot or still shoots the canon R5. He said on paper the A1 was superior to the R5, he didn’t offer a real life comparison. He said the Sony bird eye af was very good even on small birds with complex facial colors in dark environment. He also said even high looked pretty good, especially for 50mp. He would try outdoor bird in flight when the weather gets better. He said zone AF reacts faster than wide AF.. he said iso performance between the a9ii and the a1 seemed to be similar under iso 5000 but a9 had finer grain above 5000. AF wise he said the bird eye af of the a1 provided even sharper pictures of the eyes even thought the A9ii was already very good. He would do a comparison between the a1 and r5.
Douglas Liu wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Basically he said he is a Canon shooter but he started to shoot Sony mirrorless very early. It seems he said he shot or still shoots the canon R5. He said on paper the A1 was superior to the R5, he didn’t offer a real life comparison. He said the Sony bird eye af was very good even on small birds with complex facial colors in dark environment. He also said even high looked pretty good, especially for 50mp. He would try outdoor bird in flight when the weather gets better. He said zone AF reacts faster than wide AF.. he said iso performance between the a9ii and the a1 seemed to be similar under iso 5000 but a9 had finer grain above 5000. AF wise he said the bird eye af of the a1 provided even sharper pictures of the eyes even thought the A9ii was already very good. He would do a comparison between the a1 and r5....Show more →
DPR has updated their article on the sensor performance of the A1. It seems to hang with the best out there.
Of note is that ES only sees a small 0.2EV drop in DR. Essentially meaningless.
Compressed Lossy RAW shows 0.11EV drop (which they say is within their margin of error).
arbitrage wrote:
DPR has updated their article on the sensor performance of the A1. It seems to hang with the best out there.
Of note is that ES only sees a small 0.2EV drop in DR. Essentially meaningless.
Compressed Lossy RAW shows 0.11EV drop (which they say is within their margin of error).
That was impressive to read. Since the a1's initial announcements I'd been wondering "what's the catch?" for such a supposedly high-resolution and high-speed sensor. But there isn't one. Magnificent. With the a9 we had come to expect a tolerable but real drawback in DR and noise performance on a high-speed/stacked sensor (compared to a direct non-stacked competitor of the same resolution, such as the a7iii)... but the disadvantage basically just isn't really there any more.
Of course, it's also true that no new sensors are breaking new records in DR and in low-light performance, too... I think the tech has hit a brick wall on those metrics. Around the time of the A7Rii, sensor tech essentially peaked with only very minor changes since, and those minor changes, too, seem to have run out. Anyone who wants more will have to go to medium format. I think sensor performance at a given sensor size has peaked and we won't see any improvement from now on. Speed improvements, sure, but not DR and low-light performance. The full-frame sensor is a matured technology. We've had our miracles. Done.
But again, it's remarkable that the a1's hotrodded sensor comes with no downsides. Did not expect that.
arbitrage wrote:
DPR has updated their article on the sensor performance of the A1. It seems to hang with the best out there.
Of note is that ES only sees a small 0.2EV drop in DR. Essentially meaningless.
Compressed Lossy RAW shows 0.11EV drop (which they say is within their margin of error).
If I'm reading the graphs correctly, it looks like it's better to jump from 100 ISO to 500 ISO and skip 200 and 400. Or am I misinterpreting something?
If I'm reading the graphs correctly, it looks like it's better to jump from 100 ISO to 500 ISO and skip 200 and 400. Or am I misinterpreting something?
I think 200 was about the same as 500 but anything above that (I think 250 up to 500) 500 is the better choice due to dual gain.
EDIT: According to DPReview's Sensor Analysis, it is better to go from 100 to 500 directly.
saxguy wrote:
If I'm reading the graphs correctly, it looks like it's better to jump from 100 ISO to 500 ISO and skip 200 and 400. Or am I misinterpreting something?
Basically shoot at ISO 100 if you nail your exposure and aren't needing to correct in post or else shoot at ISO 500 and above.
arbitrage wrote:
Basically shoot at ISO 100 if you nail your exposure and aren't needing to correct in post or else shoot at ISO 500 and above.
I don't think this is correct. It isn't a question of nailing exposure. Instead it is a question of whether you need ISO 500 or higher, or lower. So:
Shoot at 100 instead of 100-400. Shoot at 500 instead of anything higher.
Either way, expose to preserve highlights. Raise exposure in post.
Took some video with my phone while in the blind today, using zone and wide with BEAF. And yes, that is lint on my sensor from the 1st lens change I ever did on the camera. Didn't have my rocket blower with me in the blind so I had to live it (boy did that bug me)
I'm not that smooth trying to video and keep the bird in the frame but I was happy with the BEAF results.
. In my book I'm not 'spending' $6500. I'm renting one for a monthly price as I will be selling it some point. I just have to watch how much I can spend monthly for my only hobby. 
