A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
p.2 #1A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
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...Show more →
I shoot similar stuff to you, and I have the same lenses you have even. IMO what you want is the A9iii.
A9iii is able to focus in poor light where the A1/A1ii fails to see the subject. When shooting sports sometimes the venue is poorly lit, every bit helps.
A9iii even in focus priority mode will still give you high fps, probably in the worst case you set 60fps and get 30-40 maybe, or you can even set 120fps. On A1 worst case is closer to 15fps. This is a big difference.
A9iii has no LED lighting flicker and no LED billboard screen flicker at high shutter speed regardless of lighting. For sports you are always at high shutter, you cant choose 1/50s or 1/60s to avoid flicker.
A9iii + Sony brand flash at high shutter and wide open aperture in bright sun is unbelievably good (if the sport allows it, or for staged shots). At 10fps you can fire off 100-200 frames? If you use A1, high shutter means using HSS and then you get like 1-2 shots before the flash needs to recharge.
A9iii's weakness is a lack of ISO 100, but for sports you are never at ISO 100 so its a non-issue.
Edited on Aug 11, 2026 at 08:13 PM · View previous versions
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...Show more →
I shoot similar stuff to you, and I have the same lenses you have even. IMO what you want is the A9iii.
A9iii is able to focus in poor light where the A1/A1ii fails to see the subject. When shooting sports sometimes the venue is poorly lit, every bit helps.
A9iii even in focus priority mode will still give you high fps, probably in the worst case you set 60fps and get 30-40 maybe, or you can even set 120fps. On A1 worst case is closer to 15fps. This is a big difference.
A9iii has no LED lighting flicker and no LED billboard screen flicker at high shutter speed regardless of lighting. For sports you are always at high shutter, you cant choose 1/50s or 1/60s to avoid flicker.
A9iii + Sony brand flash at high shutter and wide open aperture in bright sun is unbelievably good (if the sport allows it, or for staged shots). At 10fps you can fire off 100-200 frames? If you use A1, high shutter means using HSS and then you get like 1-2 shots before the flash needs to recharge.
A9iii's weakness is a lack of ISO 100, but for sports you are never at ISO 100 so its a non-issue.
Edited on Aug 11, 2026 at 08:13 PM · View previous versions
Aug 11, 2026 at 05:55 AM
p.2 #2A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
duncangr wrote:
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
.You think the A1ii AF is snappier than the A7R6 ?
Strange because that's not my experience and none of the people I know that use both think that. They are of the same opinion and I am which is that if anything it's the A7R6 that's snappier (faster acquisition) and stickier - even when using lossless compressed raw. At least that's for a range of birds including swallows, wrens, parrots, falcons and eagles to name a few. May be different for people as I don't often shoot people so ymmv with people.
There are plenty of situations where the A1ii...Show more →
Yeah, by snappier I meant those AF calculations per second, which only come into play in extreme conditions I think...
j4nu wrote
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
.Strange because that's not my experience and none of the people I know that use both think that. They are of the same opinion and I am which is that if anything it's the A7R6 that's snappier (faster acquisition) and stickier - even when using lossless compressed raw. At least that's for a range of birds including swallows, wrens, parrots, falcons and eagles to name a few. May be different for people as I don't often shoot people so ymmv with people.
There are plenty of situations where the A1ii...Show more →
Yeah, by snappier I meant those AF calculations per second, which only come into play in extreme conditions I think...
Aug 11, 2026 at 06:04 AM
p.2 #3A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
My recommendation in order:
1) Get an A7R6. I have both the R6 and A1 II. The R6 is good for 90% of most action shooting.
2) For more reach get teleconverters for the 70-200. IQ & AF is good enough with those on the 70-200 GM.
3). Get the 100-400 f4.5.
1) Get an A7R6. I have both the R6 and A1 II. The R6 is good for 90% of most action shooting.
2) For more reach get teleconverters for the 70-200. IQ & AF is good enough with those on the 70-200 GM.
3). Get the 100-400 f4.5.
Aug 11, 2026 at 08:38 AM
|
p.2 #4A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
Surfnsun wrote:
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...Show more →
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.
Go with the A1 II
I agree, reaction speed is a big human limiting factor, especially in capturing action.
I tell people that've never used precapture, that it's like being able to time travel. You can get the image after it's already happened. Kind of mind blowing.
It totally erases that gap between human reaction speed and robotic instant success.
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...Show more →
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.
Go with the A1 II
I agree, reaction speed is a big human limiting factor, especially in capturing action.
I tell people that've never used precapture, that it's like being able to time travel. You can get the image after it's already happened. Kind of mind blowing.
It totally erases that gap between human reaction speed and robotic instant success.
Aug 11, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.2 #5A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
While I don't know if it necessarily needs to be the A1 ii (it certainly could be!), I would definitely choose a newer body over the lens given your situation.
Aug 11, 2026 at 08:53 AM
p.2 #6A1 II vs 100-400 for Kids Sports
j4nu wrote:
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 .You think the A1ii AF is snappier than the A7R6 ?
Strange because that's not my experience and none of the people I know that use both think that. They are of the same opinion and I am which is that if anything it's the A7R6 that's snappier (faster acquisition) and stickier - even when using lossless compressed raw. At least that's for a range of birds including swallows, wrens, parrots, falcons and eagles to name a few. May be different for people as I don't often shoot people so ymmv with people.
There are plenty of situations where the A1ii will not find the subject at all no matter how much encouragement you give it while the A7R6 does so instantly.
Unless you are absolutely sure that rolling shutter distortion won't ruin your images stick with the A1 or A1ii. If rolling shutter distortion is unlikely to be an issue then the A7R6 is much nicer to use. The EVF is amazing and custom settings make it a snap to switch into different modes - typically you might need this for switching between modes that give the maximum dynamic range and modes more suited to action. You don't really need this as much on the A1ii where there is really no reason to switch to mechanical shutter.Yeah, by snappier I meant those AF calculations per second, which only come into play in extreme conditions I think...
Hmm, A7R6 is better as far as I can tell - the only downside is rolling shutter distortion. I think the new hardware platform must be providing a faster data pipeline and better AF algorithms because the A7R6 is much more sure footed than the A1ii when it comes to subject detection and autofocus. Personally I would wait for the A1iii to come out now as it should also be based on the new hardware platform and will probably see a small increase in performance, the improved EVF and the addition of the new custom settings.
duncangr wrote
j4nu wrote
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
.Strange because that's not my experience and none of the people I know that use both think that. They are of the same opinion and I am which is that if anything it's the A7R6 that's snappier (faster acquisition) and stickier - even when using lossless compressed raw. At least that's for a range of birds including swallows, wrens, parrots, falcons and eagles to name a few. May be different for people as I don't often shoot people so ymmv with people.
There are plenty of situations where the A1ii will not find the subject at all no matter how much encouragement you give it while the A7R6 does so instantly.
Unless you are absolutely sure that rolling shutter distortion won't ruin your images stick with the A1 or A1ii. If rolling shutter distortion is unlikely to be an issue then the A7R6 is much nicer to use. The EVF is amazing and custom settings make it a snap to switch into different modes - typically you might need this for switching between modes that give the maximum dynamic range and modes more suited to action. You don't really need this as much on the A1ii where there is really no reason to switch to mechanical shutter.
Hmm, A7R6 is better as far as I can tell - the only downside is rolling shutter distortion. I think the new hardware platform must be providing a faster data pipeline and better AF algorithms because the A7R6 is much more sure footed than the A1ii when it comes to subject detection and autofocus. Personally I would wait for the A1iii to come out now as it should also be based on the new hardware platform and will probably see a small increase in performance, the improved EVF and the addition of the new custom settings.
Aug 11, 2026 at 05:16 PM