I think I’m talking myself into an A1 II after watching what people are actually doing with it. I am not buying today. Not an impulse buyer. It is damn expensive, but within my comfort zone. Still feels like a ripoff. Stupid economy. Anyway.
“Too much camera” is a phrase I hear a lot, but honestly that argument doesn’t really resonate with me. Thinking out loud.
My older son is getting pretty serious about swimming, and my younger one is just getting into the stuff I love photographing, so I’m starting to think more about what moments I think that I am missing right now. It's my fault. Not the camera. I have fast reactions but I miss the shot. Not focus. The moment. Does that make sense?
I have the original A9, 35 GM and 70-200 GM II. I keep looking at Sony’s new 100-400 f/4.5 because it looks like an awesome lens for this, but then I wonder if I’d get more out of the A1 II and just use the 70-200. yes, it is more money than the lens. But that isn't my concern here necessarily. my thought process is that in the bigger picture, I’ll value the memories more than the money spent. I live on a budget just like most people. So this is actually a carefully thought out decision. Significant expenditures.
So…
The 50MP, newer AF, pre-capture and cropping ability all seem genuinely useful for swimming, especially when you’re stuck shooting from wherever the parents are allowed to stand. Usually standing behind chatty moms. Silent shooting win here.
I’m also starting to care more about video. I’ve barely done anything beyond phones and a GoPro, but I’m realizing how much I’m going to value having good video of the kids as they grow up. A1 ll vs A9 for video?
I don’t want to build a huge sports kit. This is a two lens kit. 35GM + 70-200GM2 currently. 100-400 in question…
Also, does anyone else still feel weird pulling out nice camera gear when everyone around you is using a phone?
For those actually using the A1 II for swimming or whatever kids sports is the upgrade as meaningful in real use as it looks on screen and on paper to go from an A9 Gen 1 to an A1 Gen 2?
I am basically a hobbyist to take pics of my kids, sports being a large part of what I’ve had to get better at taking pics of. I was going to buy the A1II but held off until the A7V was announced. The A7V had the features I wanted and was “good enough” (precapture, AI AF, 30fps), esp. vs the A7III I was shooting with. I preordered the 100-400 4.5 because it was cheaper than I imagined an f4 lens being, and it’s a heck of a lot cheaper than the 400 2.8. I am finding the lens a pleasure to use. The AF improvements over the 200-600 lead to sharper pics, and the rendering is nicer, and while that may not seem huge, my overall satisfaction is much higher.
Would the A1II be better? Of course. Would love more pixels when cropping and there is still rolling shutter with the A7V. Would I love the 400 2.8? I don’t know there, I like the zoom flexibility. If they ever release a 400 w/TC I will buy that lens, and if the A1III is a higher MP A9III w/global shutter, I will probably splurge and buy that body, but for now, pretty happy with good enough (I also have the 50-150GM).
There is a decided difference in the AF capabilities of the original A9 and the A1 II however, the A9 is fully capable of getting very good action shots that are in focus. Swimming is a bit unique in that the water splashes can really mess with the AF. Believe there are some settings on the A1 II that can help with that. I know someone posted a youtube about it here on FM. Regarding the 100-400 ƒ4.5, yes it's a great lens and I've been using it for my work with the Indy Eleven Soccer team here in Indy. Haven't had the opportunity to test it out under low lighting though, that will happen as the sun sets quicker in mid-late Sept where the second half of the matches will be under the lights. The question is the lighting in the natatorium you would be shooting in. Shooting from a distance that would still require a significant amount of cropping on a potentially high ISO file can really start to eat away at the IQ. I certainly would want to rent the lens and try it out under those conditions before purchasing.
Family images are the most important images most of us take. Thirty years from today, those images will be priceless, while all our landscape, bird, and other photos will just be “meh.” Yes it’s extremely enjoyable taking photos of all the beautiful things the world has to offer, but in the end, it’s the people and family that really matter.
So…if you can afford it (and it looks like you can) I would get the camera and lens that will get the images you desire. The A1II will do everything you need and more. The A7R6 may also be a good choice and give you even more cropping ability. It’s 14ms readout speed in silent mode should be just fine for your use case. Good luck!
I've owned all the gear you're talking about, as a preface. I don't do much video though, and I primarily shoot wildlife, not sports. So YMMV.
The biggest gains on the body upgrade are the 50MP and precapture. The biggest gains on the lens are wider native focal range and faster aperture when compared to using TCs on the 70-200.
I'm not a huge sports person, but I imagine the 70-200 + A1 II would come out on top over the A9 + 100-400 f4.5, pretty handily.
The extra MP allows your 70-200 to "act" more like a 100-400, with or without TC's. And precapture is truly a gamechanger, at least for wildlife. A very significant portion of my best shots went from being a 1/1,000,000 shot without precapture, to a basic certainty with it.
That's not even mentioning the other upgrades of the A1 II as far as better AF, other modes, etc. Easy question in my opinion.
I'll be the contrarian here and recommend you rent the A6700 and use the 70-200 lens. Give it a try and if that isn't the solution you're out $50 - $100. You might enjoy the extra reach of the 6700 and can probably find a nice used model for around $1000 or so.
I appreciate the recommendation, but I just don’t like the ergonomics of the camera
BillD208 wrote:
I'll be the contrarian here and recommend you rent the A6700 and use the 70-200 lens. Give it a try and if that isn't the solution you're out $50 - $100. You might enjoy the extra reach of the 6700 and can probably find a nice used model for around $1000 or so.
Yeah, I think that’s probably where I’m landing. The lens might just be GAS, but I can see a very real benefit to precapture. I don’t feel like I’m struggling to get things in focus with the A9. At least not when I do my part as the user.
I want to think that sometimes I'm just a fraction of a second late getting the shot I actually want in focus. Reaction time? I think that’s one area where the technology can genuinely make up for the experience I don’t have. I don't have the timing. That’s really what makes the A1 II appealing to me.
If I sound uneducated about the camera, it’s because I’ve been very happy with my camera and I still enjoy using it so it’s not like my A9 is necessarily letting me down.
nmerc_photos wrote:
I've owned all the gear you're talking about, as a preface. I don't do much video though, and I primarily shoot wildlife, not sports. So YMMV.
The biggest gains on the body upgrade are the 50MP and precapture. The biggest gains on the lens are wider native focal range and faster aperture when compared to using TCs on the 70-200.
I'm not a huge sports person, but I imagine the 70-200 + A1 II would come out on top over the A9 + 100-400 f4.5, pretty handily.
The extra MP allows your 70-200 to "act" more like a 100-400, with or without TC's. And precapture is truly a gamechanger, at least for wildlife. A very significant portion of my best shots went from being a 1/1,000,000 shot without precapture, to a basic certainty with it.
That's not even mentioning the other upgrades of the A1 II as far as better AF, other modes, etc. Easy question in my opinion....Show more →
I'd have to say the 50mp and especially pre-capture would have been killer (with the other gains, too) when I was using an A602 and then KM 7D.
You can be the dad with a camera and be fine. Or you can be "that guy" that makes sure you notice he/his kid has the best gear, the best snack rotation, had to park the best car away from the crowd to avoid dings. Don't be that guy. You'll have limits on where you can stand, field sizes, etc., etc. Get what you can. Enjoy the games.
If you love doing it, I don't think "too much camera" is something I'd be concerned with. What you might hear is some comments about what a big camera, what big lens, I bet that takes nice photos, but I don't think anyone will ever say that's too much camera. I've never heard it in 20+ years of shooting for fun or professionally. And frankly, it's never entered my mind. And, it's not a rip-off. Not by any stretch. It's one of the best sports cameras on the market. Expect to pay for that level of performance. The 70-200 II is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Most swimming places I've shot, including high level d1 centers, the lighting is not great. A 2.8 will be better unless you are shooting swimming outside.
Surfnsun wrote:
I think I’m talking myself into an A1 II after watching what people are actually doing with it. I am not buying today. Not an impulse buyer. It is damn expensive, but within my comfort zone. Still feels like a ripoff. Stupid economy. Anyway.
“Too much camera” is a phrase I hear a lot, but honestly that argument doesn’t really resonate with me. Thinking out loud.
My older son is getting pretty serious about swimming, and my younger one is just getting into the stuff I love photographing, so I’m starting to think more about what moments I think that I am missing right now. It's my fault. Not the camera. I have fast reactions but I miss the shot. Not focus. The moment. Does that make sense?
I have the original A9, 35 GM and 70-200 GM II. I keep looking at Sony’s new 100-400 f/4.5 because it looks like an awesome lens for this, but then I wonder if I’d get more out of the A1 II and just use the 70-200. yes, it is more money than the lens. But that isn't my concern here necessarily. my thought process is that in the bigger picture, I’ll value the memories more than the money spent. I live on a budget just like most people. So this is actually a carefully thought out decision. Significant expenditures.
So…
The 50MP, newer AF, pre-capture and cropping ability all seem genuinely useful for swimming, especially when you’re stuck shooting from wherever the parents are allowed to stand. Usually standing behind chatty moms. Silent shooting win here.
I’m also starting to care more about video. I’ve barely done anything beyond phones and a GoPro, but I’m realizing how much I’m going to value having good video of the kids as they grow up. A1 ll vs A9 for video?
I don’t want to build a huge sports kit. This is a two lens kit. 35GM + 70-200GM2 currently. 100-400 in question…
Also, does anyone else still feel weird pulling out nice camera gear when everyone around you is using a phone?
For those actually using the A1 II for swimming or whatever kids sports is the upgrade as meaningful in real use as it looks on screen and on paper to go from an A9 Gen 1 to an A1 Gen 2? ...Show more →
Thank you for the encouragement. I think some of that was language I’d picked up from sales ads, mixed in with a little of my own insecurity about spending this much on a camera. I probably made it sound like I was looking for someone to justify the purchase, which wasn’t really what I meant.
The more I think about it, the more I realize my hesitation isn’t really about whether the A1 II is too much camera. It’s about whether the things it does better will actually matter to me. And I think it will.
timgangloff wrote:
If you love doing it, I don't think "too much camera" is something I'd be concerned with. What you might hear is some comments about what a big camera, what big lens, I bet that takes nice photos, but I don't think anyone will ever say that's too much camera. I've never heard it in 20+ years of shooting for fun or professionally. And frankly, it's never entered my mind. And, it's not a rip-off. Not by any stretch. It's one of the best sports cameras on the market. Expect to pay for that level of performance. The 70-200 II is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Most swimming places I've shot, including high level d1 centers, the lighting is not great. A 2.8 will be better unless you are shooting swimming outside.
Yes you have GAS and yes the A1ii and 100-400 are probably overkill. But at the end of the day, you're going to be at your kid's swim-meets anyway, and if they're anything like mine were, you'll be there most of the day. So my two cents is you might as well enjoy yourself AND get the memories well captured at the same time! (Trust me, they grow up and move away sooner than you think.)
Yes you could crop the 70-200 with 50MP, but you'll be happier with the 100-400. One other option is the Tamron 50-400. It's around $1300 and is surprisingly good optically, though being third-party you're limited to 15fps capture rate with it.
Another consideration is the A7R6. Its AF is currently stated as being as good as or better than the A1ii's for many action shots, and it's enough less you may be able to better justify the 100-400 as well -- or maybe even the A7R6 and the Tamron? Just another set of thoughts, easy for me to spend your money but you know your budget...
Are you just shooting your own kid? Or for the team? I shoot for our team and of course take pictures of my son but honestly my best shots are often of other kids just because of luck and timing and things I can't control. Honestly I think pre-capture would be pretty marginal for me. I shoot an A1 with Tamron 70-180.
IMO the 70-200GMii is easily the best zoom lens for swim and I would grab a 1.4x TC for some pools where I need to be a bit farther away. I have tried the Tamron 50-400 and 150-500, but these lenses are just too slow and 400mm isn't usually necessary. The new 100-400/4.5 is effectively a slower aperture than the 70-200 until you get to ~320mm, plus it's enormous (not something I want to carry around as a hobbyist dad).
Just my kids. But I don't mind getting pictures of my kids friends if their parents ask and we get along. I just won't make photography any kind of business.
I definitely think that I am going to focus on the body next and not worry about that lens. Shiny object syndrome.
grahamgibson wrote:
Are you just shooting your own kid? Or for the team? I shoot for our team and of course take pictures of my son but honestly my best shots are often of other kids just because of luck and timing and things I can't control. Honestly I think pre-capture would be pretty marginal for me. I shoot an A1 with Tamron 70-180.
IMO the 70-200GMii is easily the best zoom lens for swim and I would grab a 1.4x TC for some pools where I need to be a bit farther away. I have tried the Tamron 50-400 and 150-500, but these lenses are just too slow and 400mm isn't usually necessary. The new 100-400/4.5 is effectively a slower aperture than the 70-200 until you get to ~320mm, plus it's enormous (not something I want to carry around as a hobbyist dad). ...Show more →
You're currently shooting a camera released 9 years ago.
I'd say there's a good chance the A1II will satisfy you for a similar time.
Not saying it is the best choice, just that the cost might be the only cost for a long time.
Agree with the suggestion to add a 1.4TC.
I think precapture is the feature that would benefit you the most. While the A1 II checks all the boxes, it is very expensive. Have you considered an A7V?
I know you need to shoot silently. And the stacked A1 II sensor would be ideal. But I think rolling shutter on the A7V electronic shutter mode wouldn’t be an issue with swimming. That’s just a guess though
That, and the original 100-400GM would be a good kit. And still be cheaper than the A1 II. And still relatively discrete. At least more discrete than the 100-400 f4.5 GM 😄
I forgot to ask. Outdoor swimming venues mostly? If so, the original 100-400GM would be fine. I think it would out perform the 70-200GM II with teleconverters. And the longer focal length would mean less cropping. You could probably find both used on the forum for a good price
I think A1II is a definite overkill for this kind of usage.
Actually, I think A7RVI might do better as it has updated AI target recognition and I don't think swimming is dynamic enough to warrant the snappier AF of A1II.
And as mentioned already, A7V might also do just ok .
Surfnsun wrote:
Just my kids. But I don't mind getting pictures of my kids friends if their parents ask and we get along. I just won't make photography any kind of business.
I definitely think that I am going to focus on the body next and not worry about that lens. Shiny object syndrome.
This is a solid path to follow, ie going with a body first. Use the 70-200 2.8 and determine if more reach is actually needed. As Tim pointed out, the lighting in many indoor nat's isn't that great and require 2.8 lenses.
.