Amahenlei
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #18 · My take on the Sony A1 II | |
I preordered the A1 II after much deliberation. I mostly shoot landscapes, nature photography (not birds), street photography, my kids sporting events/performances, and family photos. Like others, I wasn't the most impressed by the updates when comparing to the original A1, but I also recall reading the forums advising to be ready to spend $8500 or more on the updated camera if it hit all of those expected metrics. Based on the price jump of the A9 III relative to previous iterations, and how close it came to the price of the flagship A1, I was initially happy the price didn't balloon with the release of the A1 II and in fact stayed the same.
I'll admit, the happiness of the price holding steady was tempered by many of the YouTube videos, comments here, and comments on other blogs/Reddit. It's clear this camera is priced high when comparing to the R5II and Z8, but I still don't know if that means the A1 II is overpriced.
I think it's overpriced if you're a current A1 owner for sure. The lack of firmware updates and the massive issues with firmware for the A1 didn't help instill brand loyalty and I can see why those owners take this as a bit of a punch in the gut. From the outside it appears these could have been firmware updates, but that's beyond my pay grade. For a shooter not previously in the flagship A1 system, the ability to purchase the new updated version of the camera for the same price as the previous feels like a bit of a win.
Part of me feels that's what Sony was thinking as well - how can a customer be disappointed that a new camera with added features would cost the same as the previous version. They know how well the original A1 was still selling at that price point. When comparing the A1 II price in comparison to other Sony offerings, it still feels like a good value to me for the features received. As a hobbyist, I wouldn't have been able to justify a $8,000 or $9,000 camera. $6,500 was hard to justify.
As a note, I currently own the A7 IV and have been debating on upgrading for quite some time and will be keeping the A7 IV as my second body. I almost pulled the trigger on the A9 III multiple times, and if I owned an A7RV instead of the A7 IV I probably would have. That being said, as much as I loved the 120 FPS of the A9 III, I marveled at its global shutter, and technological upgrades, it wasn't the right choice for me as my primary body. I wanted to wait to see what the A1 II would bring.
Interestingly, I genuinely appreciate the comments old-gregg has made on this forum as well. I understand where he's coming from and don't take any offense to it, even as a person who would love to have 120 FPS (or more) and loves new technology. In addition to photography, I do metal working and woodworking. You see these debates all the time (moreso with woodworking than metal) that suggest someone with a CNC machine isn't a woodworker. To me, if a person is happy programming a CNC and having a finished product come out in 1/100th of the time it would take the time to handmake it then that's great for them. At the same time, I can appreciate that the person who does it by hand has had a different level of appreciation for the finished product. Both methods take a lot of talent, repetition, and training to achieve a quality result and if each person is happy then that's ultimately all that matters.
I'm not a wildlife photographer, but (keeping in line with the beaver example earlier) if I can go out and shoot a beaver and get that tail slap using the same methods I would at 10 FPS vs 30 FPS vs 120 FPS then why wouldn't I use that to my advantage. I'd imagine that being in position for that shot is the most difficult part. Now, I just want to capture something cool and different. If 120 FPS helps me achieve that perfect shot then I'll gladly take it. I think we've all taken shots at 10 FPS and none of them had that perfect image we were looking for. Same can be true at 120 FPS. But, why not give yourself that opportunity to get the perfect shot especially if the culling is something you've gained skill at.
For me, the reason I chose the A1 II over the A9 III is the resolution and the fact that as much as 120 FPS is an awesome feature, I don't realistically see myself shooting at 120 FPS often and 30 FPS should provide me more than I need when shooting my children's sports. These are definitely first world problems, and if I can't be happy with 30 FPS then I've got greater issues to deal with (I'm aware this happiness/expectation is directly related to cost/value for most people). The updated body, precapture, etc all came to the A1 II and the price didn't go up. No way was I going to be able to purchase this camera at $8500, but I was able to get a fantastic camera for the outgoing price of the old. I think a sell price of $4500 (now closer to $4000) for the A1 is pretty darn good value retention for a 4 year old camera and a value hit I'd he happy to take over 4 years with an A1 II (no one in the Sony ecosystem seems to be mentioning the used market price of a 4 year old camera being just below/above that of the R5II or Z8 - that on it's own is pretty remarkable). When Sony updates the A1 II in a few years time I feel that the value will still be there to trade in and up for the new version.
That being said, if Sony wants to drop the price to $4500 during the preorder time I'll gladly pay that price with no complaints.
|
