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.62 #1A1 Reviews/Video thread
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I'm not discounting your 20,000 frames on the A1 but you can do the math. That's not much time looking through the viewfinder at 10 - 30 fps. If you were getting paid by the hour would not be able to buy the A1...
Pius Sullivan wrote:
which is mostly what you have done
If you discount my 20,000 images taken so far with the A1 and my 100,000 images taken with the R5 then yeah I guess that is mostly what I have done...or not....
I feel that 20,000 frames over the range of subjects I've shot is enough to evaluate the A1 AF. Made even easier in that the areas where I feel it to be a bit better than the R5 are the same areas the A9 and A9II were a bit better. The A1 just kept that trend going and I think improved on it (the improvement over the A9 is where I do need more frames with the camera to come to a more solid conclusion). I can't even begin to count how many frames I've taken between the two A9 cameras so that is why 20,000 frames with the A1 was way more than enough to at least confirm it was behaving like my A9 and A9II behave in the quick pick-up and the lack of dropping to backgrounds. And those are the two main areas I found the A9 to be better than the R5 and now the A1. The BEAF differences have taken me the full 20,000 frames and will take me more frames to really find all the nuances. And unfortunately there will be subjects I never had the opportunity to point the R5 at like the swallows so I will never know for sure how the R5 does on them (unless I can convince you or Christy to let me have a go at them with the R5).
I'll reiterate though...I really don't think those AF differences matter much in getting my shots at the end of the day. Nor do I think the seemingly more robust BEAF database of the R5 gets me any better shots at the end of the day. There are other aspects of the A1 that do make it easier to shoot fast action but those aren't about the AF per se. Just be thankful as a Canon shooter you only had to spend $3900 vs $6500 for an extremely capable bird/wildlife camera. But I have no regrets spending that $6500 on my A1. I always said the race was between an A9R vs 600/4 DO...Sony won the race...Sony got my cash...that may all change in 6 months from now...we'll see if my GAS is under control by then or not
I'm not discounting your 20,000 frames on the A1 but you can do the math. That's not much time looking through the viewfinder at 10 - 30 fps. If you were getting paid by the hour would not be able to buy the A1...
Pius Sullivan wrote:
which is mostly what you have done
If you discount my 20,000 images taken so far with the A1 and my 100,000 images taken with the R5 then yeah I guess that is mostly what I have done...or not....
I feel that 20,000 frames over the range of subjects I've shot is enough to evaluate the A1 AF. Made even easier in that the areas where I feel it to be a bit better than the R5 are the same areas the A9 and A9II were a bit better. The A1 just kept that trend going and I think improved on it (the improvement over the A9 is where I do need more frames with the camera to come to a more solid conclusion). I can't even begin to count how many frames I've taken between the two A9 cameras so that is why 20,000 frames with the A1 was way more than enough to at least confirm it was behaving like my A9 and A9II behave in the quick pick-up and the lack of dropping to backgrounds. And those are the two main areas I found the A9 to be better than the R5 and now the A1. The BEAF differences have taken me the full 20,000 frames and will take me more frames to really find all the nuances. And unfortunately there will be subjects I never had the opportunity to point the R5 at like the swallows so I will never know for sure how the R5 does on them (unless I can convince you or Christy to let me have a go at them with the R5
).I'll reiterate though...I really don't think those AF differences matter much in getting my shots at the end of the day. Nor do I think the seemingly more robust BEAF database of the R5 gets me any better shots at the end of the day. There are other aspects of the A1 that do make it easier to shoot fast action but those aren't about the AF per se. Just be thankful as a Canon shooter you only had to spend $3900 vs $6500 for an extremely capable bird/wildlife camera. But I have no regrets spending that $6500 on my A1. I always said the race was between an A9R vs 600/4 DO...Sony won the race...Sony got my cash...that may all change in 6 months from now...we'll see if my GAS is under control by then or not
Mar 25, 2021 at 05:54 AM
p.62 #2A1 Reviews/Video thread
Holger wrote:
To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
That's why I use my 600 III 99% of the time...But on the A1 you don't need the 600GM (or 400GM) to get the full AF experience. I also haven't read anything on the R5 threads saying you need an adapted EF super tele to get the best AF out of the R5. But I guess you feel that you do??
I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.I have done my share of shooting through this pandemic with the R5 as much as anyone.. I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone."The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. "
By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20...Show more →
The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know....
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
We all know you need the fast glass to get the best from the AF on these cameras...That's why I use my 600 III 99% of the time...
I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20...Show more →
The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... Mar 25, 2021 at 06:59 AM
p.62 #3A1 Reviews/Video thread
Huh, this thread has really bad luck when it comes to trolls... If I hide them, I don't see half of the "discussion" on a page 
...
Anyways, why is it so hard to accept that currently Sony has the better camera. It's more than 1,5x the price, so it should be!
I'm sure when R1 will be released the situation will change again, at least in some aspects...
...Anyways, why is it so hard to accept that currently Sony has the better camera. It's more than 1,5x the price, so it should be!
I'm sure when R1 will be released the situation will change again, at least in some aspects...
Mar 25, 2021 at 07:19 AM
p.62 #4A1 Reviews/Video thread
j4nu wrote:
Huh, this thread has really bad luck when it comes to trolls... If I hide them, I don't see half of the "discussion" on a page ...
Anyways, why is it so hard to accept that currently Sony has the better camera. It's more than 1,5x the price, so it should be!
I'm sure when R1 will be released the situation will change again, at least in some aspects...
We pay to be here, should be able to post our rebuttals in any forum... if you have an issue take it up with the site owner...
Huh, this thread has really bad luck when it comes to trolls... If I hide them, I don't see half of the "discussion" on a page
...Anyways, why is it so hard to accept that currently Sony has the better camera. It's more than 1,5x the price, so it should be!
I'm sure when R1 will be released the situation will change again, at least in some aspects...
We pay to be here, should be able to post our rebuttals in any forum... if you have an issue take it up with the site owner...
Mar 25, 2021 at 07:31 AM
p.62 #5A1 Reviews/Video thread
Pius Sullivan wrote:
To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.I have done my share of shooting through this pandemic with the R5 as much as anyone.. I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone."The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. "
By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if...Show more →
The problem is that your statement is incorrect, you claim the R5 can keep up with the A1 in tracking and focus.
The A1 can do all that reliably at 30fps, can the R5 do the same? No, it's limited to 20fps, therefore mathematically it cannot keep up with what the A1 can achieve. And we're done.
If you mean "at 20fps, the R5 can keep up with the A1", then you're probably right but that's quite absurb, when comparing cameras, we should compare them at their best possible capabilities, not dumb them down to lower settings.
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
arbitrage wrote
But on the A1 you don't need the 600GM (or 400GM) to get the full AF experience. I also haven't read anything on the R5 threads saying you need an adapted EF super tele to get the best AF out of the R5. But I guess you feel that you do??I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if...Show more →The problem is that your statement is incorrect, you claim the R5 can keep up with the A1 in tracking and focus.
The A1 can do all that reliably at 30fps, can the R5 do the same? No, it's limited to 20fps, therefore mathematically it cannot keep up with what the A1 can achieve. And we're done.
If you mean "at 20fps, the R5 can keep up with the A1", then you're probably right but that's quite absurb, when comparing cameras, we should compare them at their best possible capabilities, not dumb them down to lower settings.
Mar 25, 2021 at 08:30 AM
p.62 #7A1 Reviews/Video thread
I'm enjoying the call and response. Northrup is bringing out the best in Galer :-)
Mar 25, 2021 at 08:57 AM
p.62 #8A1 Reviews/Video thread
On a different note than the AF discussion and maybe not important to anyone but me, but in this era of Covid and shooting sport teams and individuals, dancers, etc, it's important to be able to maintain a safe working distance from the athletes and parents/credit card holders.
I have just played with the PC remote setting of the A1 and it will be great to be able to shoot wirelessly "tethered" to a laptop for parental review distant from me. The A1 sends full resolution raw images quickly to the laptop, I then auto import them into Lightroom at full screen for review. I could not get this to work with the a9 or a7r4.
The only hiccup so far is that I run concurrently Sony Imaging Edge software to make the connection and I need to minimize that screen so it doesn't interfere with the Lightroom screen. But in an hour or so of testing, it's working well.
Also working well for me but more testing needed is the ability to shoot electronic shutter and flash. Yah boy, that's a sweet one too. And even high speed synch and electronic shutter.
Today will be my first session for T&I with the A1 and I'm looking forward to it. The pessimist in me is also bringing the a7r4 just in case I have a major hiccup.
Hopefully I'll have some good stuff to post later.
I have just played with the PC remote setting of the A1 and it will be great to be able to shoot wirelessly "tethered" to a laptop for parental review distant from me. The A1 sends full resolution raw images quickly to the laptop, I then auto import them into Lightroom at full screen for review. I could not get this to work with the a9 or a7r4.
The only hiccup so far is that I run concurrently Sony Imaging Edge software to make the connection and I need to minimize that screen so it doesn't interfere with the Lightroom screen. But in an hour or so of testing, it's working well.
Also working well for me but more testing needed is the ability to shoot electronic shutter and flash. Yah boy, that's a sweet one too. And even high speed synch and electronic shutter.
Today will be my first session for T&I with the A1 and I'm looking forward to it. The pessimist in me is also bringing the a7r4 just in case I have a major hiccup.
Hopefully I'll have some good stuff to post later.
Mar 25, 2021 at 09:18 AM
p.62 #9A1 Reviews/Video thread
I really don't get the battle with the R5. I suppose if the unique electronic shutter capabilities of the A1 are not a big selling point to you and you're not already invested in one system or the other, then it might be worth comparing, but if you don't care about a blackout free and reliable electronic (silent) shutter in all settings, then I can't imagine you would be considering dropping $6,500 + tax on an A1 in the first place.
Mar 25, 2021 at 09:35 AM
p.62 #10A1 Reviews/Video thread
timgangloff wrote:
Also working well for me but more testing needed is the ability to shoot electronic shutter and flash. Yah boy, that's a sweet one too. And even high speed synch and electronic shutter.
I recently took some photos to sell some cameras on the Buy and Sell forum with my A1.
I can confirm flash will sync with the A1 using ES at 1/200th using Godox AD400 Pro’s and trigger.
It actually felt a little weird not hearing the mechanical shutter. 😀
Mar 25, 2021 at 09:42 AM
p.62 #11A1 Reviews/Video thread
davidnumrich wrote:
I really don't get the battle with the R5. I suppose if the unique electronic shutter capabilities of the A1 are not a big selling point to you and you're not already invested in one system or the other, then it might be worth comparing, but if you don't care about a blackout free and reliable electronic (silent) shutter in all settings, then I can't imagine you would be considering dropping $6,500 + tax on an A1 in the first place.
Its not so much a battle, there are not all that many people invested in both systems. It is clickbait. everyone wants validation that what they have is the best. My problem with the Northrups is that they try and present like they are fact/data based reviewers, but they just provide commentary based on what they think will get the most viewership. Its not my style. its actually why I like Fro. He has his own flare for making things interesting that doesn't have anything to do with the equipment. He then offers a down to earth review of the equipment, granted I put in in the 'subjective reviewer' category where he doesn't throw masses of data and pixel peeping at us. In reality though, this type of usage may be more real to most people that are street/portrait style. Then you have the litany of data based reviewers who present lots of varied photos, numbers, test shots. Again, my problem with the Northrups, is they present that data, then they counter it with odd subjective crap, or the data is presented in a non-comparable way based on scientific method (different shooters, different subjects, dissimilar lenses, different conditions...etc). Or they take a point, reasonable or not, and draw a radical conclusion.... like you have to have 2 cameras because 1 doesn't have a flip screen even though it does all the other things..... its just not possible to buy a cheap external monitor on amazon (thats just one). Or 30FPS isn't real is another example, or loss of FPS at low shutter speeds. Who the #@$ cares about 30FPS shooting 1/50? There better not be rapid fire action happening if you are at 1/50 unless your goal is 30FPS sequence of the same thing over and over, or you really like to paint rainbows with your shots. /rant :-)
I really don't get the battle with the R5. I suppose if the unique electronic shutter capabilities of the A1 are not a big selling point to you and you're not already invested in one system or the other, then it might be worth comparing, but if you don't care about a blackout free and reliable electronic (silent) shutter in all settings, then I can't imagine you would be considering dropping $6,500 + tax on an A1 in the first place.
Its not so much a battle, there are not all that many people invested in both systems. It is clickbait. everyone wants validation that what they have is the best. My problem with the Northrups is that they try and present like they are fact/data based reviewers, but they just provide commentary based on what they think will get the most viewership. Its not my style. its actually why I like Fro. He has his own flare for making things interesting that doesn't have anything to do with the equipment. He then offers a down to earth review of the equipment, granted I put in in the 'subjective reviewer' category where he doesn't throw masses of data and pixel peeping at us. In reality though, this type of usage may be more real to most people that are street/portrait style. Then you have the litany of data based reviewers who present lots of varied photos, numbers, test shots. Again, my problem with the Northrups, is they present that data, then they counter it with odd subjective crap, or the data is presented in a non-comparable way based on scientific method (different shooters, different subjects, dissimilar lenses, different conditions...etc). Or they take a point, reasonable or not, and draw a radical conclusion.... like you have to have 2 cameras because 1 doesn't have a flip screen even though it does all the other things..... its just not possible to buy a cheap external monitor on amazon (thats just one). Or 30FPS isn't real is another example, or loss of FPS at low shutter speeds. Who the #@$ cares about 30FPS shooting 1/50? There better not be rapid fire action happening if you are at 1/50 unless your goal is 30FPS sequence of the same thing over and over, or you really like to paint rainbows with your shots. /rant :-)
Mar 25, 2021 at 10:05 AM
p.62 #12A1 Reviews/Video thread
Is there anyone with A1 and E 70-350mm lens? It might sound like a joke. But I'm serious. I'm finding my copy is really sharp I'd like to use on A1 (some day) as the walk around lens. It's great to keep in the backpack during biking and family trips. 520mm @21mp is not bad especially where I live (FL). There are lots of tame birds and other wildlife around..
Here're some low res crop from A9 (10MP or less) and second one is 4.6mp crop and new super resolution mode in ACR. I was playing with it. That's too much crop for the combo. But I think I can get keepers at this size from A1..
http://wildbirdimages.com/70350/
I'm curious about AF capabilities primarily. I'm convinced about IQ..
Here're some low res crop from A9 (10MP or less) and second one is 4.6mp crop and new super resolution mode in ACR. I was playing with it. That's too much crop for the combo. But I think I can get keepers at this size from A1..
http://wildbirdimages.com/70350/
I'm curious about AF capabilities primarily. I'm convinced about IQ..
Mar 25, 2021 at 12:53 PM
p.62 #13A1 Reviews/Video thread
octo wrote:
To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.I have done my share of shooting through this pandemic with the R5 as much as anyone.. I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone."The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. "
By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... The problem is that your statement is incorrect, you claim the R5 can keep up with the A1 in tracking and focus.
The A1 can do all that reliably at 30fps, can the R5 do the same? No, it's limited to 20fps, therefore mathematically it cannot keep up with what the A1 can achieve. And we're done.
If you mean "at 20fps, the R5 can keep up with the A1", then you're probably right but that's quite absurb, when comparing cameras, we should compare them at their best possible capabilities, not dumb them down to lower settings.
What you need to do is not get focus and tracking confused with fps, then you will understand what I mean.
Pius Sullivan wrote
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... The A1 can do all that reliably at 30fps, can the R5 do the same? No, it's limited to 20fps, therefore mathematically it cannot keep up with what the A1 can achieve. And we're done.
If you mean "at 20fps, the R5 can keep up with the A1", then you're probably right but that's quite absurb, when comparing cameras, we should compare them at their best possible capabilities, not dumb them down to lower settings.
What you need to do is not get focus and tracking confused with fps, then you will understand what I mean.
Mar 25, 2021 at 01:51 PM
p.62 #14A1 Reviews/Video thread
Here is my summary of the A1 vs R5...
"If you can't get a fast action shot you are after with either of those cameras then it is you and not the camera"
End of discussion...have fun out there people....I'm off to aim the A1 at swallows tomorrow morning. Doesn't even matter to me if the R5 is better at shooting swallows because I know the A1 will get me the shots I'm after and finally with enough resolution not to look like an overcropped, pixelated mess like a lot of my A9 ones do
"If you can't get a fast action shot you are after with either of those cameras then it is you and not the camera"
End of discussion...have fun out there people....I'm off to aim the A1 at swallows tomorrow morning. Doesn't even matter to me if the R5 is better at shooting swallows because I know the A1 will get me the shots I'm after and finally with enough resolution not to look like an overcropped, pixelated mess like a lot of my A9 ones do
Mar 25, 2021 at 04:19 PM
p.62 #15A1 Reviews/Video thread
arbitrage wrote:
Here is my summary of the A1 vs R5...
"If you can't get a fast action shot you are after with either of those cameras then it is you and not the camera"
End of discussion...have fun out there people....I'm off to aim the A1 at swallows tomorrow morning. Doesn't even matter to me if the R5 is better at shooting swallows because I know the A1 will get me the shots I'm after and finally with enough resolution not to look like an overcropped, pixelated mess like a lot of my A9 ones do
My thought's exactly, look forward to your award winners....
I'm quite sure Winow is tuned to cull 30fps...
Here is my summary of the A1 vs R5...
"If you can't get a fast action shot you are after with either of those cameras then it is you and not the camera"
End of discussion...have fun out there people....I'm off to aim the A1 at swallows tomorrow morning. Doesn't even matter to me if the R5 is better at shooting swallows because I know the A1 will get me the shots I'm after and finally with enough resolution not to look like an overcropped, pixelated mess like a lot of my A9 ones do
My thought's exactly, look forward to your award winners....
I'm quite sure Winow is tuned to cull 30fps...
Mar 25, 2021 at 05:05 PM
p.62 #16A1 Reviews/Video thread
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
arbitrage wrote
But on the A1 you don't need the 600GM (or 400GM) to get the full AF experience. I also haven't read anything on the R5 threads saying you need an adapted EF super tele to get the best AF out of the R5. But I guess you feel that you do??I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if...Show more →I thought the R5 used a slideshow machine from 1985 to be able to shoot at 20 FPS and still distorts fast moving subjects. On top of that, it’s mechanical shutter requires all the stars to align and to have a full blue moon to shoot at 12 FPS while still having to deal with that slideshow machine from 1985. Oh well, at least they have the worlds most expensive F7.1 lens.
Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible it’s impossible to ignore and so entertaining to read. You should stop photography and become a writer. Hope your words per minute in typing is as fast as your slideshow machine is at full tilt.
Oh by the way, the R5 can have its IBIS turned off. Really showing us what you know...
Remember it’s important to understand that the a1 can focus, track and expose while continuously shooting at 30 FPS and the R5 can’t. Maybe R1 will step up to the challenge...at $6,500 or more.
Mar 25, 2021 at 06:05 PM
p.62 #17A1 Reviews/Video thread
greensony wrote:
To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.I have done my share of shooting through this pandemic with the R5 as much as anyone.. I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone."The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. "
By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... I thought the R5 used a slideshow machine from 1985 to be able to shoot at 20 FPS and still distorts fast moving subjects. On top of that, it’s mechanical shutter requires all the stars to align and to have a full blue moon to shoot at 12 FPS while still having to deal with that slideshow machine from 1985. Oh well, at least they have the worlds most expensive F7.1 lens.
Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible...Show more →
What an obnoxious comment!!
Pius made a perfectly valid point that you have grossly distorted with insulting language. Differences of opinion are commonplace and welcome, but try to keep it civil.
Dave
Pius Sullivan wrote
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible...Show more →
What an obnoxious comment!!
Pius made a perfectly valid point that you have grossly distorted with insulting language. Differences of opinion are commonplace and welcome, but try to keep it civil.
Dave
Mar 25, 2021 at 06:18 PM
p.62 #18A1 Reviews/Video thread
dclark wrote:
greensony wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible it’s impossible to ignore and so entertaining to read. You should stop photography and become a writer. Hope your words per minute in typing is as fast as your slideshow machine is at full tilt.
Oh by the way, the R5 can have its IBIS turned off. Really showing us what you know...
Remember it’s important to understand that the a1 can focus, track and expose while continuously shooting at 30 FPS and the R5 can’t. Maybe R1 will step up to the challenge...at $6,500 or more.
Pius made a perfectly valid point that you have grossly distorted with insulting language. Differences of opinion are commonplace and welcome, but try to keep it civil.
Dave
It is civil, just pointing out everything he pointed out that makes the R5 clearly superior. It’s obvious his posts in this thread are nothing but honest and constructive, nothing inflammatory.
Mar 25, 2021 at 06:31 PM
p.62 #19A1 Reviews/Video thread
robert614 wrote:
I recently took some photos to sell some cameras on the Buy and Sell forum with my A1.
I can confirm flash will sync with the A1 using ES at 1/200th using Godox AD400 Pro’s and trigger.
It actually felt a little weird not hearing the mechanical shutter. 😀
Decided to shoot mechanical shutter and use the 1/400 sync speed. Wow. Fantastic experience. Normally my shoots are in a pretty chaotic environment and I sometimes get some slight motion blur or out of focus images with the a7r4 if I don't hold the camera steady enough. For example, it was storming outside, so I had 14 ten year old girls and parents and some siblings, etc. in the garage and running around. No room for a tripod as I am moving around too much, posing, shooting, etc. But tonight at 1/400, I think out of 220, 1 was out of focus. And the rest were tack sharp.
As information, I was using a Godox AD600 pro and 2 AD600s with their Sony Pro transmitter.
Also, the ability to quickly transfer full raw resolution images onto the laptop and import into Lightroom meant parents were instantly (well 8 to 10 seconds later "instantly") seeing the beautiful images come across a big screen - compared to the back of the camera. They loved them and orders were great.
And it was the first time I used the mechanical shutter. It sounds so nice. Like it has a muffler on it.
Just a quick image with a quick and dirty extraction (so, yeah, I know it's not perfect) and resulting image. The images were shot in an oversized garage with an ugly background.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5dc8HG/0/3da0542a/X3/i-f5dc8HG-X3.jpg
timgangloff wrote
Also working well for me but more testing needed is the ability to shoot electronic shutter and flash. Yah boy, that's a sweet one too. And even high speed synch and electronic shutter.I can confirm flash will sync with the A1 using ES at 1/200th using Godox AD400 Pro’s and trigger.
It actually felt a little weird not hearing the mechanical shutter. 😀
Decided to shoot mechanical shutter and use the 1/400 sync speed. Wow. Fantastic experience. Normally my shoots are in a pretty chaotic environment and I sometimes get some slight motion blur or out of focus images with the a7r4 if I don't hold the camera steady enough. For example, it was storming outside, so I had 14 ten year old girls and parents and some siblings, etc. in the garage and running around. No room for a tripod as I am moving around too much, posing, shooting, etc. But tonight at 1/400, I think out of 220, 1 was out of focus. And the rest were tack sharp.
As information, I was using a Godox AD600 pro and 2 AD600s with their Sony Pro transmitter.
Also, the ability to quickly transfer full raw resolution images onto the laptop and import into Lightroom meant parents were instantly (well 8 to 10 seconds later "instantly") seeing the beautiful images come across a big screen - compared to the back of the camera. They loved them and orders were great.
And it was the first time I used the mechanical shutter. It sounds so nice. Like it has a muffler on it.
Just a quick image with a quick and dirty extraction (so, yeah, I know it's not perfect) and resulting image. The images were shot in an oversized garage with an ugly background.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5dc8HG/0/3da0542a/X3/i-f5dc8HG-X3.jpg
Mar 25, 2021 at 08:02 PM
p.62 #20A1 Reviews/Video thread
greensony wrote:
To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .5 months with the fastest native RF telephoto lens available shooting all sorts of variety of BIF and a good solid 4 days (10,000 images) with a highly regarded 400DOII adapted lens also shooting primarily BIF I think gives me a fair amount of experience to assess the R5's AF.
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.I have done my share of shooting through this pandemic with the R5 as much as anyone.. I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone."The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. "
By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.The whole conversion started over the R5 focus and tracking capabilities compared to the A1 and obviously you know my position on that. But if you don't have the mental capacity to read back through the beginning of the exchange. I will say it again and keep saying the R5 can keep up with the A1 in the tracking and focus department and the other crap that you stated does not matter to me.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... I thought the R5 used a slideshow machine from 1985 to be able to shoot at 20 FPS and still distorts fast moving subjects. On top of that, it’s mechanical shutter requires all the stars to align and to have a full blue moon to shoot at 12 FPS while still having to deal with that slideshow machine from 1985. Oh well, at least they have the worlds most expensive F7.1 lens.
Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible...Show more →
The slideshow for me with the R5 is non-existing at 20 fps, that's just a made up term to substitute for lack of understanding. I watch a video with Rudy Winston, well respected in the industry who says there is no frame insertion happening on the R5 its live feed. He's the top canon rep in the USA from what I gather. I use the CFexpress card in mine with the top read and write speeds, its recommended for top performance.
I shoot fast birds in flight and had no issues with distortion, none that affected my photography in any series way.
I don't feel there is a huge advantage of 6.3 over 7.1, although I do prefer Sony's internal zoom.
I'm fully aware where the turn off button for IBIS and its not on the R5 for my combo....
Have not trash talked the A1 in any way shape or form... I just said the R5 can match the A1's focus and tracking.. oh and file detail also. Seems the trash talking is directed towards the R5.
12 fps for the R5 is not issue if you follow the guide lines set out by the manufacture as with the A1 I would suspect..
Thank you for commenting on my writing skills but I think you're getting me confused with arbitrage (Arbitrator)...
With regard to my photography, you can click on the flickr icon below my name on the left-hand side Any chance we could see your portfolio...
Hope this helps inform you what the discussion was about.
Pius Sullivan wrote
Holger wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
arbitrage wrote
Pius Sullivan wrote
Nope that's not what I'm saying.To get the best user experience from your gear you need to adapt to all lighting conditions.
I just find it saves time, put the best glass you have on and leave it on... If I'm to close use my legs to back up.
I have gotten great shots with the 100-500, I have no issues with the tracking and focus of that lens in the right light. The detail can easily match the 200-600.
But to test a a camera with mostly one lens, I feel that's not giving the camera a fair shake.
Just my opinion .
I don't see how on one hand you can say I didn't give the R5 a fair shake because 90% of my shooting was with a single lens and yet you seem to find it fair to come and declare the R5 is every bit as good as the A1 while at the same time admitting you've never even taken a single image with the A1.
I agree the 100-500 can match the 200-600 in IQ. I have controlled test shots between it and the 200-600 that prove as much if anyone really wants to nitpick. I never said anything to the contrary. I've routinely recommended that lens to anyone that has enough light that f/7.1 is not a constant limitation. Pretty much the same as the f/6.3 limitations of the 200-600.
The 4 days with 400DOII gave me a good impression of how an f/4 lens and the R5 behaves in lower light conditions. One or two of those days in cloudy and showers and the others in decent light so I could test BIF. The one day in sunny conditions with your 600III just showed me how good that lens is. And showed me that there was no handicap to adapting an EF lens making the entire Mk II and Mk III EF telephoto ecosystem a viable pool to draw from with the R5 given the limited RF telephoto lens selection.
I use reviews and watch tube vids to inform me about the a1., which is mostly what you have done. With today's technology you can get a live experience looking through someone else viewfinder. I can clearly see how the a1's tracking and BEAF works. The regular issues, drop off the subject on a busy background, grab the ripples on the water instead of the subject. So not going to flog a dead horse any longer... The a1 is not heads above the R5 by any-means. My apologies in advance if that offends anyone.By any means? Really? You are now talking a bit over your head, man. Do you think before writing this stuff? You all learned that by watching youtube videos? Where most not even maxed out the capabilities?
The a1 is heads above the R5 in many areas. Sensor readout speed (1/220s vs. 1/60s) allowing you to use flash in E-shutter, flicker detection in e-shutter, completely silent shooting without distortion, less rolling shutter or banding. 1/400s flash sync. 120 AF acquisitions/s, 10/15/20/30 fps with e-shutter, whereas you have an extremely limited 20 fps in e-shutter with the R5 which drops to 12 bit and clearly reduces DR at low isos (the Sony allows you 1/32000s to 30 s, 14 bit lossless up to 20 fps, you have all the freedom and are not fixed to 20fps in continuous, a max 0.5s and whose performance is battery and aperture dependent). It does so using a bigger and more detailed EVF and more MP, NOT needing noise reduction at low isos to make the R5 it look better in sensor measurements.
The R5 surely has a well rounded BEAF. But that isn't everything when we talk about AF, right? It is pattern recognition based on DL, but in addition there is tracking, AF acquisition, consistency, where 120 AF updates a second come in handy and many didn't even max out the A1 capabilities.
The thing where the R5 is clearly better in my opinion is IBIS.
Most things above may not be important to you, but youtube doesn't show you everything and usually doesn't make one an expert. "By -any-means" is just a ridiculous statement.
But I understand that you Sony fanboys can't come to grips with that...
... IBIS is it best feature... I would turn it off if I could... really showing me what you know.... Slideshow, subject distortion and worlds most expensive F7.1 lens. Clearly what photographers dream about.
The stupidity that rolls off your keyboard and into a post is so terrible...Show more →
The slideshow for me with the R5 is non-existing at 20 fps, that's just a made up term to substitute for lack of understanding. I watch a video with Rudy Winston, well respected in the industry who says there is no frame insertion happening on the R5 its live feed. He's the top canon rep in the USA from what I gather. I use the CFexpress card in mine with the top read and write speeds, its recommended for top performance.
I shoot fast birds in flight and had no issues with distortion, none that affected my photography in any series way.
I don't feel there is a huge advantage of 6.3 over 7.1, although I do prefer Sony's internal zoom.
I'm fully aware where the turn off button for IBIS and its not on the R5 for my combo....
Have not trash talked the A1 in any way shape or form... I just said the R5 can match the A1's focus and tracking.. oh and file detail also. Seems the trash talking is directed towards the R5.
12 fps for the R5 is not issue if you follow the guide lines set out by the manufacture as with the A1 I would suspect..
Thank you for commenting on my writing skills but I think you're getting me confused with arbitrage (Arbitrator)...
With regard to my photography, you can click on the flickr icon below my name on the left-hand side Any chance we could see your portfolio...
Hope this helps inform you what the discussion was about.
Mar 25, 2021 at 10:49 PM