I have been using a pair of A1 cameras along with an A7rV now switching to the A1ii. I see no reason to keep an A7rV anymore and like the idea of having 2 identical A1ii bodies. I do not see much advantage of the added resolution on thr rV. I shoot mostly stills of nature and macro / scientific plants, animals, and insects as well as music and theatre performance - some in very low light.
The A1ii just seems to do everything well. Thoughts?
For personal work I try to run one nice camera only, because the depreciation is much lower this way.
In addition to this one camera I still keep an older dslr as a backup. It’s useful in more messy situations where I wouldn’t want to carry a nice camera.
However, back when I did events I would carry at least 2 cameras and 2 lenses to take camera failure off the table.
Given those 3 cameras you listed having just the A1ii is sufficient for me. Maybe the A9iii if you want a second camera
I thought the A7r5 performed better in low light scenarios than the Aii. Personally I don’t see anything you shoot that could not be shot with the A7r5. What is it with the A2 features that allow you to shoot your images that an A7r5 could not provide.
No offense, it seems that what you do can be perfectly accomplished using the A7r V. Of course, there is nothing wrong using the A1 or A1 II for your photography though. In general the A1 and A1 II are more designed for fast-paced photography, such as sport, wildlife/bird photography, etc. Yes, the resolution difference between 61 and 50MP between the two bodies is not much but it won't hurt either.
mmalkin15 wrote:
I have been using a pair of A1 cameras along with an A7rV now switching to the A1ii. I see no reason to keep an A7rV anymore and like the idea of having 2 identical A1ii bodies. I do not see much advantage of the added resolution on thr rV. I shoot mostly stills of nature and macro / scientific plants, animals, and insects as well as music and theatre performance - some in very low light.
The A1ii just seems to do everything well. Thoughts?
The advantage I see for the A1 Ii, given what you shoot, is for musical and theater performances.
These will probably occur in circumstances that won't tolerate the sound of a shutter shooting multiple frames quickly, thus requiring the use of a silent electronic shutter. But it is also quite possible that these performances will be lit with LED lights, which will produce banding under a slow readout, non-stacked sensor like the one in the A7RV.
On the other hand, the A1II's stacked sensor, with its rapid readout, will generally let you use the electronic silent shutter under LED lighting without banding. The rapid readout stacked sensor may also help you avoid motion distortion if the musicians or actors are in motion when you are shooting them, especially if you are close to them.
If money is no object two A1II's is a great setup. Having duplicate bodies is the easiest solution. However that is over 12,000.
Before I would spend another 6500 on a 2nd body, do you have good low light lenses? Cause getting some FAST primes if you don't have them could be a game changer for low light.
chez wrote:
I thought the A7r5 performed better in low light scenarios than the Aii. Personally I don’t see anything you shoot that could not be shot with the A7r5. What is it with the A2 features that allow you to shoot your images that an A7r5 could not provide.
after having a play with both my friends new a1mk2 and his a7r5, the A1mk2 is on another planet for low light work or any other work for that matter, i also did some studio portrait tests against my a7iv and anything above iso 320 in natural light the a7iv resolved more detail through much cleaner images. even in a landscape situation i found unless you are viewing higher than 300% on your monitor the a7iv was resolving equaly the same resolution. the new A1mk2 is as you would imagine the top of its class for any pro working condition.
I absolutely love my a7rV even as a sports photographer, but on the infrequent occasions I have to use the silent shutter handheld or record video on it, the slow readout is very frustrating with rolling shutter issues. I wouldn't necessarily want to trade the 20% greater resolution on the a7rV, but I do often thing how much I would prefer to shoot entirely with silent shutter. I think that's the key difference to consider.
My thanks to all for the many and very helpful responses.
Most of my current work is photographing rock&roll musicians - and they are always in motion and moving quickly. To catch desired moments I am generally using tracking on the A1 with silent shutter and this works very well. Yes - LED lighting has become the standard and I did have more problems with First curtain silent shutter settings on other cameras but the A1 is silent with no blackout mostly flawless in this regard. I use silent shutter for everything on the A1. I work with available or continuous lighting.
I do have fast lenses - the 135/1.8 GM (or the Batis 135/2.8) and the 85/1.4 GMii, and 24/1.4 GM for smaller venues and the 70-200 2.8 GMii for medium size locations. the 24-70 GMii often comes along too.
I use both the A1 and the A7Rv for hummingbirds, flowers, and insects. They both do well. 70-200 2.8,GM, 200-600G and 300/2.8 GM plus converters. For this work I find either camera suitable but I like the added controls on the A1 and for critters that move quickly the A1 is certainly a faster focusing camera.
I have some specialized optics including a modified Leica Makroskop for macro work and also the minolta 200 F4 APO-Macro which I love for the perspective and background elimination. I think the 135GM on tubes might be very interesting too but the 70-200/2.8 is also really useful. The Batis 40/2.0 does well for some close work -
Image quality is important but I have found I have more keepers using the A1. It focuses fast and even at high ISO my results are good. I do use Topaz Ai to clean up noise.
Do I correctly understand that in your experience A7Riv delivers significantly "cleaner" (better) image quality than an A1 at higher than 320 ISO? I have not seen this in my work but I have not conducted a scientific comparison.
I use my A1 at up to 8000 ISO if I need to and am impressed with the resulting image quality. I use fast lenses and the A1 is still very fast.
Do others feel the A7Riv and A7Rv deliver significantly superior images under low light conditions?
This is why it drives me nuts that dpreview.com, instead of finally reviewing the most popular flagship pro-gade camera and posting their reference scene shots is doing... whatever the hell they're donig. Half a dozen of unfinished (but published) reviews and "iPhone camera app redesign" type articles.
Back when they actually worked, all you had to do was to compare the test scene of two cameras to see which low-light high-ISO performance you prefer.
I shoot the A1 II and A7R5. I would prefer shooting two A1 II’s, but just know that if I sell my A7R5 for another A1 II, Sony will release an 80mp A7R6, with great new features, that I would need to have.
mmalkin15 wrote:
Do I correctly understand that in your experience A7Riv delivers significantly "cleaner" (better) image quality than an A1 at higher than 320 ISO? I have not seen this in my work but I have not conducted a scientific comparison.
I use my A1 at up to 8000 ISO if I need to and am impressed with the resulting image quality. I use fast lenses and the A1 is still very fast.
Do others feel the A7Riv and A7Rv deliver significantly superior images under low light conditions?
AGeoJO wrote:
No offense, it seems that what you do can be perfectly accomplished using the A7r V. Of course, there is nothing wrong using the A1 or A1 II for your photography though. In general the A1 and A1 II are more designed for fast-paced photography, such as sport, wildlife/bird photography, etc. Yes, the resolution difference between 61 and 50MP between the two bodies is not much but it won't hurt either.
I agree A7r5 is preferable for everything other than fast action. The IQ is a noticeable improvement on a 5K display imo with finer detail and better colours (than the A1, not sure about A1ii as I don't have one). One that note it's rather strange that the A1ii's are not available until August in Australia.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I shoot the A1 II and A7R5. I would prefer shooting two A1 II’s, but just know that if I sell my A7R5 for another A1 II, Sony will release an 80mp A7R6, with great new features, that I would need to have.
hehe.. I agree. Sold my RV to add an A1 II to the A1. I guess I really like shooting things that move and using e-shutter.
The subject recognition on the RV is great but imo no better than the A1 II. I couldn't see a marked difference in IQ between the RV and the 50mp sensors.
duncangr wrote:
I agree A7r5 is preferable for everything other than fast action. The IQ is a noticeable improvement on a 5K display imo with finer detail and better colours (than the A1, not sure about A1ii as I don't have one). One that note it's rather strange that the A1ii's are not available until August in Australia.
IMHO, the A1-II is also better for anything where you want to use silent shutter, because of the ever-increasing probability that you will be shooting under LED lights that will produce banding in all of your images. I also find that the slow read-out on non-stacked sensors frequently produces motion distortion from the rolling shutter moving so slowly. You may not know this has happened until you examine the images more closely afterward and see the deformations.
I do think Sony needs a small- or medium-bodied, moderate-priced (by Sony standards) stacked sensor camera, perhaps without a very high-speed frame rate. This would be a camera that would be flexible and sophisticated enough for general photography by serious photographers but not specialized for sports, where Sony already has strong offerings.
I’m glad someone else notices this. I sometimes get jello on frames where there is nothing moving. I assume I just moved the camera a bit to soon after taking the shot.
chiron wrote:
IMHO, the A1-II is also better for anything where you want to use silent shutter, because of the ever-increasing probability that you will be shooting under LED lights that will produce banding in all of your images. I also find that the slow read-out on non-stacked sensors frequently produces motion distortion from the rolling shutter moving so slowly. You may not know this has happened until you examine the images more closely afterward and see the deformations.
I do think Sony needs a small- or medium-bodied, moderate-priced (by Sony standards) stacked sensor camera, perhaps without a very high-speed frame rate. This would be a camera that would be flexible and sophisticated enough for general photography by serious photographers but not specialized for sports....Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
I’m glad someone else notices this. I sometimes get jello on frames where there is nothing moving. I assume I just moved the camera a bit to soon after taking the shot.
Yes, as I know you know, with a slow-moving rolling shutter, the total time necessary to make the exposure can be significantly longer than the shutter speed itself, so I would think it would be possible to move the camera too soon.
In my personal photography, given what I like to photograph, I find slow rolling shutters especially a problem with faces where the distortion may be subtle but alters or destroys expressions and gives a subtlely inaccurate rendering of what someone looks like. Sometimes it takes me a little while to see what has happened. But even if the motion is just someone's face moving while in the act of making an expression while you are shooting, you can get meaningful distortion.
Rolling shutters are a real problem for many kinds of shooting. A stacked sensor with a fast sensor readout eliminates almost all of the problems. The faster the readout the better. Personally, I think faster readout stacked sensors offer more image quality advantages than do global shutters, which clearly sacrifice image quality.
tsdevine wrote:
I’m glad someone else notices this. I sometimes get jello on frames where there is nothing moving. I assume I just moved the camera a bit to soon after taking the shot.
This is interesting. I just got back from Alaska. While there, I noticed that I got a few "jello"/distorted frames when shooting non or slowly moving wildlife using my A7RV. These were all handheld shots, relatively high shutter speeds, and using the high speed continuous frame rate which I rarely use on the A7RV. I had never seen this before and figured it was related to a sensor read speed issue possibly associated with the high frame rate setting.
