GMPhotography wrote:
Not that I own one but I do and I look at this and agree totally given you can get one at a reasonable cost and if you are a serious shooter the A1 seems to me the best option. Lets day this is 3500 bucks and that maybe a low number its really not much more for a A1. Folks I don't shoot birds or wildlife so get that argument out of the conversation its just the most versatile body in play right now. This rumor lets call it since I can't hold it in my hand to confirm does not seem on the surface the best option. Sure some features and abilities are added and that's always good but im just not sure its will measure up. BUT I could be wrong so lets see what is announced ...Show more →
The A1 is hard to beat and will make a believer out of anyone. Cannot wait to see what the A1 II or A2 brings to the table it will be a world beater IMO
trstahly wrote:
The A1 is hard to beat and will make a believer out of anyone. Cannot wait to see what the A1 II or A2 brings to the table it will be a world beater IMO
I'm sure the A1 successor will be all singing all dancing, but the current A1 is still way out of this prole's price range. The 7RV will also be expensive, so I'm hoping that it at least brings some nice refinements and a few advances to the table.
I look at those specs and think 'nice but do I need it? No. The A7r4 does everything I need and more'. Some will need those extra features / improvements but for the vast majority they don't. TBH most high end cameras have reached that level now. The R5 not going to improve my prints one iota. Money is better spent on lenses (wasn't it ever that way) 😩😂
trstahly wrote:
The A1 is hard to beat and will make a believer out of anyone. Cannot wait to see what the A1 II or A2 brings to the table it will be a world beater IMO
Except for dynamic range. An A7R (I), for example, can do that better
It makes me a believer that the A1 was a step backwards.
I remember the time when so many photographers switched to Sony (myself included) just because of the small, lightweight A7 cameras with class leading dynmic range and at very good prices.
The autofocus, the lack of lenses and all the shortcomings of these cameras were irrelevant because of the great sensor in such a small lightweight (and cheap) package.
Almost 10 years later, everything is reversed:
Sony cameras are much more expensive and maybe more expensive than the competition, are getting bigger and heavier and the dynamic range has become rather worse up to ISO400 than 10 years ago.
But now there are all the things that I (and Fred, for example) didn't care about when I switched.
I think this is also the reason why more and more convinced Sony users here are switching back to another brand, for example Fred and Steve...
Accordingly, I suspect that the Sony A7RV will once again be bigger, heavier and more expensive. A few great (and little needed) new features have been added for marketing purposes, but ultimately no better image quality can be achieved. In terms of DR (which is important to me), I suspect that the A7RV will again be no better than the A7RI.
HelBen85 wrote:
I remember the time when so many photographers switched to Sony (myself included) just because of the small, lightweight A7 cameras with class leading dynmic range and at very good prices.
The autofocus, the lack of lenses and all the shortcomings of these cameras were irrelevant because of the great sensor in such a small lightweight (and cheap) package.
Almost 10 years later, everything is reversed:
Sony cameras are much more expensive and maybe more expensive than the competition, are getting bigger and heavier and the dynamic range has become rather worse up to ISO400 than 10 years ago.
But now there are all the things that I (and Fred, for example) didn't care about when I switched.
I think this is also the reason why more and more convinced Sony users here are switching back to another brand, for example Fred and Steve...
Accordingly, I suspect that the Sony A7RV will once again be bigger, heavier and more expensive. A few great (and little needed) new features have been added for marketing purposes, but ultimately no better image quality can be achieved. In terms of DR (which is important to me), I suspect that the A7RV will again be no better than the A7RI. ...Show more →
The a1 is a stacked sensor, and allows for speed, with some sacrifice to DR... It's really not intended for the a7R audience. There are areas that the a1 is amazing and the a7R would be awful. I think you have to look at its intended purpose and measure it's capability more broadly than just DR.
There are always tradeoffs, maybe some day there won't be.
HelBen85 wrote:
Except for dynamic range. An A7R (I), for example, can do that better
It makes me a believer that the A1 was a step backwards.
I went from Medium Format to Nikon D800 then I saw the dancing peaking ants in the A7r and good friend bought one and did not like it and just sent it to me . I was not even really in the market but I hated the D800 focusing weirdness . Got rid of them kept the A7r and never looked back. That was awhile ago and probably the last brand change I will make. I had almost every Sony since then. Currently the A1 and A7c
tsdevine wrote:
The a1 is a stacked sensor, and allows for speed, with some sacrifice to DR... It's really not intended for the a7R audience. There are areas that the a1 is amazing and the a7R would be awful. I think you have to look at its intended purpose and measure it's capability more broadly than just DR.
There are always tradeoffs, maybe some day there won't be.
People say the A1 is the best camera for every purpose, but it is not. And that is what I wrote
It would be nice to get an upgrade in pure maximum image quality since the A7RI /A7RII after so many years and in regard of the massive price increase since then...
Okay. The a1 is the best all arounder in my opinion, but you will sacrifice a little in certain areas, like DR. For some that will matter, for some it may not, because they are trading off to get other capabilities.
But the post I replied to seemed to more broadly comment on Sony vs other brands. It didn't seem to be just commentary on the a1, but maybe I misinterpreted.
But what are the cheaper/smaller brands? I guess Leica is smaller, but not sure cheaper? I didn't get the impression that Canon or Nikon were smaller. That leaves Panasonic and I guess Sigma?
With the smaller camera market, and the maturity of the full frame E mount system, I'm not sure you're going to see things get cheaper. Sony was trying to create a new market with the a7/R releases. And arguably the cameras have improved on so many levels it's hard for at least me to compare them.
Now that there are multiple mirrorless brands, hopefully that will provide competition and help moderate prices.
HelBen85 wrote:
People say the A1 is the best camera for every purpose, but it is not. And that is what I wrote
It would be nice to get an upgrade in pure maximum image quality since the A7RI /A7RII after so many years and in regard of the massive price increase since then...
I hope nobody thinks that A1 is the best in every category possible. If you look closely, it gives up some points here and there, eg. a bit of DR (and resolution) for speed, a bit of 4k quality in video (no oversampling internally like Z9 for example), EVF resolution drops when AF-C focusing (though it makes me wonder if people don't see the difference in e.g. Z9 because there the resolution is lower in general)
... but overall, the "one" camera describes it well, as it's the best all-rounder IMHO.
tsdevine wrote: "There are always tradeoffs, maybe some day there won't be."
Hmm. I say hooray for tradeoffs.
I'm a landscape wannabe. Give me better resolution, equal or better DR (vs. the Riii), and a better viewfinder, and I'm a happy camper.
Speed, bells-and-whistles AF, video and the like don't do anything for me, and I'd rather not pay for them. Given that Sony needs to sell a mid-range camera for folks who don't want to cough up for the A1, I suppose I should shut up and not complain. But I suspect that the "fully articulating" LCD is going to be even less useful for landscape than the barely articulating screen* in the A7Riii. Sigh.
*: I'd like a screen that comfortably supports shooting vertically with a close-to-the-ground camera position. The current one only works for "landscape" orientation shots. But the flippy screen I played with at the store the other day (I forget the model) didn't even work for that.
We probably should be saying it’s the most diverse camera to date. As someone that’s shoots many different types of photography than for me it would be almost the best choice to use because of its diversity. Example use of Flash than no question it’s the best choice. Highest manual sync speed. Use of LED lighting again we have controls we can use to tackle that head on. One of the fastest AF systems in Sony brand and the list goes on but pure MPX it’s obviously not but at 50mpx it’s certainly not lacking the horsepower of file. So all rounder is really more the most diverse. For me no other body can do as much overall. For the diversity in shooting than I’m pretty much always a safe bet with it
BTW the Sony brand itself is not the best landscape camera at all. That honor goes to Medium Format. I know I taught landscape workshops with it for several years but it’s also very limited in diversity of abilities and as expensive as hell but it gets that honor. It’s truly amazing IQ wise but sucks at everything else. Plus it has no video type stuff in it
What we are really buying is camera diversity and that comes with unwanted feature sets sometimes
Just to be clear...I do think there always will be tradeoffs. When I said someday maybe there won't be....would imply cameras are a commodity and there is no innovation. On the flip side, I don't think there will ever be a diversity of models that exactly fit every person's desires. There are so many aspects in play, and individuals have their priorities on each.
davidjl wrote:
tsdevine wrote: "There are always tradeoffs, maybe some day there won't be."
Hmm. I say hooray for tradeoffs.
I'm a landscape wannabe. Give me better resolution, equal or better DR (vs. the Riii), and a better viewfinder, and I'm a happy camper.
Speed, bells-and-whistles AF, video and the like don't do anything for me, and I'd rather not pay for them. Given that Sony needs to sell a mid-range camera for folks who don't want to cough up for the A1, I suppose I should shut up and not complain. But I suspect that the "fully articulating" LCD is going to be even less useful for landscape than the barely articulating screen* in the A7Riii. Sigh.
*: I'd like a screen that comfortably supports shooting vertically with a close-to-the-ground camera position. The current one only works for "landscape" orientation shots. But the flippy screen I played with at the store the other day (I forget the model) didn't even work for that. ...Show more →
davidjl wrote:
tsdevine wrote: "There are always tradeoffs, maybe some day there won't be."
Hmm. I say hooray for tradeoffs.
I'm a landscape wannabe. Give me better resolution, equal or better DR (vs. the Riii), and a better viewfinder, and I'm a happy camper.
Speed, bells-and-whistles AF, video and the like don't do anything for me, and I'd rather not pay for them. Given that Sony needs to sell a mid-range camera for folks who don't want to cough up for the A1, I suppose I should shut up and not complain. But I suspect that the "fully articulating" LCD is going to be even less useful for landscape than the barely articulating screen* in the A7Riii. Sigh.
*: I'd like a screen that comfortably supports shooting vertically with a close-to-the-ground camera position. The current one only works for "landscape" orientation shots. But the flippy screen I played with at the store the other day (I forget the model) didn't even work for that. ...Show more →
Have you tried using the Imaging Edge app Remote Shooting mode on your phone screen to help frame your composition? You can even use the flip screen feature on the app itself to align vertically to accommodate vertical camera framing close to the ground scenario you described.
MAubrey wrote:
Based on this chart, Sony has nothing to worry about until they get above at least 100MP. The 135mm GM isn't really far off from the handful of lenses here that do better. We're standing at the bleeding ends of optical quality.
I am not sure how you get to 100MP, the peformance off center isnt good enough, and I think most of us compose off center, rule of thirds and so on
I would want to see something like 170 lp/mm at 50% contrast or higher across the middle 50% of the frame first
GMPhotography wrote:
We probably should be saying it’s the most diverse camera to date. As someone that’s shoots many different types of photography than for me it would be almost the best choice to use because of its diversity. Example use of Flash than no question it’s the best choice. Highest manual sync speed. Use of LED lighting again we have controls we can use to tackle that head on. One of the fastest AF systems in Sony brand and the list goes on but pure MPX it’s obviously not but at 50mpx it’s certainly not lacking the horsepower of file. So all rounder is really more the most diverse. For me no other body can do as much overall. For the diversity in shooting than I’m pretty much always a safe bet with it...Show more →
This is why I just picked up a used A1 to replace my A7R4 & A9...I was finding myself caught out sometimes on cropping needs that were too aggressive for my A9, or situations where I had my A7R4 for the file size but would have preferred the speed and/or silence of the A9 once I got to shooting. With the A1 I don't have to worry about it anymore, along with the other advantages the A1 has. And used prices are making it a more compelling option than before.
Granted...I shoot a little bit of everything. Someone who has more focused shooting needs I'm sure could do just fine with something less than an A1.
