I got my A1II while I was on a bird photography trip to Colombia--of course! Now that I'm back I've had a few hours to mess around with it at the feeders and my house and here's my thoughts so far. Even with just a few hours of use it was easy to draw some conclusions about the upgrades in this body:
1) Pre-capture is the real game-changer. Just like with my A9III, I get shots I would have missed in the past. I find 20-30fps for this is just fine; I don't need the faster 60-120fps of the A9III at least for most birds.
2) The AI AF definitely makes a significant difference in finding the birds head and eye and sticking to it. You do have to configure the sub-settings for this correctly, however, just like with the A9III. The defaults are not quite aggressive enough IMO. In the two-three hours I spent with it yesterday afternoon the number of false hits on other parts of the bird's body was vastly reduced over the original A1.
I have tweaked my bird settings to target the head and eye, and I can post all of my settings here when I am back at home (posting from work!). I particularly noticed the improvement with some birds that have been a challenge in the past, like Downy woodpeckers, where the whole bird is a mix of contrasting black and white patterns, and Chickadees, where the black eye is on an all-black upper head and has no contrast.
I feel that in Wide mode the AI makes more of a difference and the A1II is better at finding the birds head/eye in Wide than the A1 is. I felt a lot more comfortable using Wide vs Zone with the A1II and had way fewer AF misses in Wide.
3) AF acquisition is faster as well, although it still can struggle to find the bird in a very busy field of twigs, or if it's already focused past it. Those issues I already mitigate with the A1 and other Sony bodies using both the quick swap between two focus types--in this case XS point (a nice addition!) and Zone or Wide. I'm getting used to the new firmware change that lets me assign preset focus points; I had trained myself to use the function ring for that in the past, but oddly the 300GM won't let you use the ring for that so I'm mentally retraining myself to use the buttons on the lens to preset focus points. That resolves the issue all MILC cameras have with finding focus if the subject is OOF and in front of the current plane of focus.
4) AF performance with the 2x TC on the 600GM is definitely better. It's not as good as the A9III, but part of that might just be how much more sensitive 51mpx is to even a tiny bit of softening.
5) The improved IBIS really helps. I had far fewer softer shots from shake. I didn't do any serious BIF shooting as the light was pretty low but for my regular shooting of perched birds, it was a nice upgrade.
6) The updated AWB is much better. Shots come out of the camera looking much more true to life and while one can always tweak the raws, it's always better when less tweaking is required.
Overall I'd say it's exactly what I was expecting--a welcome upgrade, some really nice features, but nothing ground-breaking. I will get more "keepers" with the A1II than I was with my A1, and that's mostly up to the more accurate AF from the AI system and precapture. I do have a feeling that I can't quantify that overall the A9III's AF is just better. Given the higher frame rate and ability to make more AF calculations per second, that makes sense. Which leads me to the next paragraph.....
I have concluded that unlike in the past where I had two identical A1's for my cameras, I'm going to keep the A9III and use it with the A1II. There are some BIF shots where the A9III's incredible speed is just worth the reduction in pixels. Hummingbirds in particular. On my recent trip to Colombia I also found that for birds that are close enough to fill a lot of the frame, the A9III's pixel count is perfectly fine and I used both cameras almost equally on the trip.
aCuria wrote:
Does the 0.5 stop better ibis make a difference between the A1ii and A9iii?
Where do you think the biggest differences are between the A9iii and A1ii?
No, not that I think I or anyone else can notice. If anything the A9III's lower resolution works in its favor here, as it takes more blur to be noticeable.
The biggest differences are the megapixels--you can crop the A1II a lot--and the insane frame rate/GS of the A9III. The rest is so similar now it's no difference at all. That's why I like them as a pair--for overall general use and when cropping is needed the A1II is perfect. But for those niche situations where high speed really matters, nothing can touch the A9III. The photos of hummingbirds in flight I get with that camera are just perfection. Anything fast...that's there the A9III is unrivaled.
I'm enjoying the results from the A1 II. So far I have taken only land/cityscapes, portraits and lively pets.
The marginal improvements over the A1 add up to a more enjoyable experience: the AF is more reliable, the IBIS improvement is welcome.
But without getting too analytical about it, the shooting experience is smoother and more enjoyable, the resulting pictures satisfying.
I have not pushed the camera to it's limits yet (pre-shooting, 30fps, etc) but there has been no need to enjoy the benefits of what is, on paper, additional polish, limited technological and ergonomic progress. The proof of the pudding...
With a little more time it seems like the reason for the better performance with the 2x TC on the 600GM is better low-light AF performance. Maybe that's just because the AI is stickier....but it seems that it's just better at AF acquisition and stickiness than the A1 in low light. Not a huge difference, but enough that I am getting a much better in-focus rate with the A1II than I did with the A1. Hopefully the weather holds this weekend and I can spend a day or two putting the A1II through some more vigorous testing.
You sure that the a12 is not as sharp because of pixels, I was just reading on Facebook a lady that's been shooting an a7iv and her new a12 is just not as sharp, do you think the bigger pixels make af more accurate?
jhapeman wrote:
I got my A1II while I was on a bird photography trip to Colombia--of course! Now that I'm back I've had a few hours to mess around with it at the feeders and my house and here's my thoughts so far. Even with just a few hours of use it was easy to draw some conclusions about the upgrades in this body:
1) Pre-capture is the real game-changer. Just like with my A9III, I get shots I would have missed in the past. I find 20-30fps for this is just fine; I don't need the faster 60-120fps of the A9III at least for most birds.
2) The AI AF definitely makes a significant difference in finding the birds head and eye and sticking to it. You do have to configure the sub-settings for this correctly, however, just like with the A9III. The defaults are not quite aggressive enough IMO. In the two-three hours I spent with it yesterday afternoon the number of false hits on other parts of the bird's body was vastly reduced over the original A1.
I have tweaked my bird settings to target the head and eye, and I can post all of my settings here when I am back at home (posting from work!). I particularly noticed the improvement with some birds that have been a challenge in the past, like Downy woodpeckers, where the whole bird is a mix of contrasting black and white patterns, and Chickadees, where the black eye is on an all-black upper head and has no contrast.
I feel that in Wide mode the AI makes more of a difference and the A1II is better at finding the birds head/eye in Wide than the A1 is. I felt a lot more comfortable using Wide vs Zone with the A1II and had way fewer AF misses in Wide.
3) AF acquisition is faster as well, although it still can struggle to find the bird in a very busy field of twigs, or if it's already focused past it. Those issues I already mitigate with the A1 and other Sony bodies using both the quick swap between two focus types--in this case XS point (a nice addition!) and Zone or Wide. I'm getting used to the new firmware change that lets me assign preset focus points; I had trained myself to use the function ring for that in the past, but oddly the 300GM won't let you use the ring for that so I'm mentally retraining myself to use the buttons on the lens to preset focus points. That resolves the issue all MILC cameras have with finding focus if the subject is OOF and in front of the current plane of focus.
4) AF performance with the 2x TC on the 600GM is definitely better. It's not as good as the A9III, but part of that might just be how much more sensitive 51mpx is to even a tiny bit of softening.
5) The improved IBIS really helps. I had far fewer softer shots from shake. I didn't do any serious BIF shooting as the light was pretty low but for my regular shooting of perched birds, it was a nice upgrade.
6) The updated AWB is much better. Shots come out of the camera looking much more true to life and while one can always tweak the raws, it's always better when less tweaking is required.
Overall I'd say it's exactly what I was expecting--a welcome upgrade, some really nice features, but nothing ground-breaking. I will get more "keepers" with the A1II than I was with my A1, and that's mostly up to the more accurate AF from the AI system and precapture. I do have a feeling that I can't quantify that overall the A9III's AF is just better. Given the higher frame rate and ability to make more AF calculations per second, that makes sense. Which leads me to the next paragraph.....
I have concluded that unlike in the past where I had two identical A1's for my cameras, I'm going to keep the A9III and use it with the A1II. There are some BIF shots where the A9III's incredible speed is just worth the reduction in pixels. Hummingbirds in particular. On my recent trip to Colombia I also found that for birds that are close enough to fill a lot of the frame, the A9III's pixel count is perfectly fine and I used both cameras almost equally on the trip. ...Show more →
Sure would need a lot more detail before I would be able to accept her statement. What lenses, camera settings, light level when shooting, subject, motion involved?
A74me wrote:
You sure that the a12 is not as sharp because of pixels, I was just reading on Facebook a lady that's been shooting an a7iv and her new a12 is just not as sharp, do you think the bigger pixels make af more accurate?
No. What I'm saying is that the higher the pixel density the more obvious very tiny differences in focus/sharpness become. Lots of things at play with this--diffraction kicks in sooner for example. Tiny amounts of motion blur are more apparent with a higher pixel density. That's not even getting into things like the lenses etc.
If someone knows what they are doing, there's no way an A7IV is "sharper" than an A1/A1II.
Jan 01, 2025 at 11:39 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
A74me wrote:
You sure that the a12 is not as sharp because of pixels, I was just reading on Facebook a lady that's been shooting an a7iv and her new a12 is just not as sharp, do you think the bigger pixels make af more accurate?
I do not think the larger pixels makes the AF more accurate and I don't think there is any evidence of that. I do think that if you compare images from a higher MP camera at 100% magnification that some will look less sharp than the same shot from a lower MP camera at 100% magnification, but that is just because the higher MP camera is at higher magnification in that scenario and higher magnification always shows more imperfections. You aren't comparing apples to apples in that situation.
jhapeman wrote:
No. What I'm saying is that the higher the pixel density the more obvious very tiny differences in focus/sharpness become. Lots of things at play with this--diffraction kicks in sooner for example. Tiny amounts of motion blur are more apparent with a higher pixel density. That's not even getting into things like the lenses etc.
If someone knows what they are doing, there's no way an A7IV is "sharper" than an A1/A1II.
It's a Tamron lens and she states it has focus issues on her other Sony bodies. That's got nothing to do with an A7IV somehow being sharper or better and 100% is a third-party lens issue.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I do not think the larger pixels makes the AF more accurate and I don't think there is any evidence of that. I do think that if you compare images from a higher MP camera at 100% magnification that some will look less sharp than the same shot from a lower MP camera at 100% magnification, but that is just because the higher MP camera is at higher magnification in that scenario and higher magnification always shows more imperfections. You aren't comparing apples to apples in that situation.
Im also shooting an a6700 alongside my a7iv and noticed even with the latest af my a7iv is more consistantly accurate.
jhapeman wrote:
It's a Tamron lens and she states it has focus issues on her other Sony bodies. That's got nothing to do with an A7IV somehow being sharper or better and 100% is a third-party lens issue.
quote " Tamron 28-75G2. The lens has always performed flawlessly on the A7iv, and A9"
Jan 01, 2025 at 03:22 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
A74me wrote:
Im also shooting an a6700 alongside my a7iv and noticed even with the latest af my a7iv is more consistantly accurate.
Well that is a very different camera with a very different sensor. I don't think you can infer anything about AF on a FF camera from how the a6700 AF performs.
A74me wrote:
quote " Tamron 28-75G2. The lens has always performed flawlessly on the A7iv, and A9"
And she said it was problematic on an A7RIII. Reading that thread its clear you have a strange obsession with your A7IV, and flawed belief it is somehow better despite you never having even used an A1. This kind of misinformation being spread everywhere on the Internet by people like you is the downside of anonymous Internet forums.
I have personally owned and used the A7III, A7RIII, A7IV, A7RIV, A7RV, A7SIII, A9, A9II, A1 and now A1II. The A7IV is a great camera, I really liked it. But the AF was not better in any way than the A9, A9II, A1 and now A1II. It was better than the previous A7-series bodies, but that's to be expected with the upgraded AF algorithms and eye-detection it got.
Please leave your unfounded speculation off of my thread so we can stick to facts and not spread misinformation based on opinions formed from zero experience.
jhapeman wrote:
And she said it was problematic on an A7RIII. Reading that thread its clear you have a strange obsession with your A7IV, and flawed belief it is somehow better despite you never having even used an A1. This kind of misinformation being spread everywhere on the Internet by people like you is the downside of anonymous Internet forums.
I have personally owned and used the A7III, A7RIII, A7IV, A7RIV, A7RV, A7SIII, A9, A9II, A1 and now A1II. The A7IV is a great camera, I really liked it. But the AF was not better in any way than the A9, A9II, A1 and now A1II. It was better than the previous A7-series bodies, but that's to be expected with the upgraded AF algorithms and eye-detection it got.
Please leave your unfounded speculation off of my thread so we can stick to facts and not spread misinformation based on opinions formed from zero experience. ...Show more →
i will sure be contacting 2 friends that own A1 cameras and im going to do a side by side test in my studio and outdoor portraits including back lit. the person that bought the A1 on DPR and has the a7iv was not impressed and sending it back. i have read 3 threads discussing the performance now.
A74me wrote:
i will sure be contacting 2 friends that own A1 cameras and im going to do a side by side test in my studio and outdoor portraits including back lit. the person that bought the A1 on DPR and has the a7iv was not impressed and sending it back. i have read 3 threads discussing the performance now.
Can you provide a link to those three threads please. Thanks.
I have used A1 II for five sessions or five days since 12/21 last year. I would agree most observations people sharing above. However, I also want to report I did encounter the situation when the camera didn’t try to focus at all. I had a golden eagle directly fly to me, which filled roughly 70% of the frame. But the EVF only showed a big white box around the bird body, all of 200+ photos are OoF. I quickly remove the battery and insert the grip back, at that moment, the bird was flying passing me filled with 80-90% of the frame, but still, none of the series were in focus at all. I was using zone without tracking but bird eye/head/body enabled. The LCD was turned off. I haven’t seen it since then.
danwu wrote:
I have used A1 II for five sessions or five days since 12/21 last year. I would agree most observations people sharing above. However, I also want to report I did encounter the situation when the camera didn’t try to focus at all. I had a golden eagle directly fly to me, which filled roughly 70% of the frame. But the EVF only showed a big white box around the bird body, all of 200+ photos are OoF. I quickly remove the battery and insert the grip back, at that moment, the bird was flying passing me filled with 80-90% of the frame, but still, none of the series were in focus at all. I was using zone without tracking but bird eye/head/body enabled. The LCD was turned off. I haven’t seen it since then. ...Show more →
Dan, have you encountered some similar shooting situations using the original A1 by any chance?
