Opinion of the Sony alpha 1 from a lifelong Nikon shooter

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Nice photos and summery of your Sony a1. I have read many comments that it can't handle photos made when pointing the camera toward the sun, one stated that 'if you don't have your back to the sun, don't make a photo'.
 
Hello everyone! I wanted to share my thoughts on the Sony a1 after spending the last couple of months and about 40K images shot with it (I have weeks of editing left!). As the title points out I have been a lifelong Nikon user going back to the Nikon F5 (I had 3 of them in the first month they released, I left Canon F1N). I started in photography when I was 12 and by the time I was 17 I was doing paid weddings, at 19 I was a photojournalist, city photographer, and doing weddings as well. I continued on this path until around 24 when I decided to take a different path in life.

After a separation from any serious form of photography I decided to get back into it as a hobby in 2019. This required new modern gear and at the time it made sense to dive back into Nikon. I purchased a D850, D500 and Z6 along with all the new glass to launch myself into the digital world of photography with a focus on wildlife, landscape and astro. I was fairly content except for the Z6 and anything moving really left a poor taste in my mouth of what mirrorless is all about. It wasn't until the Canon R5/6 launched that I could really see the potential of mirrorless, yes the a9 series was out there but didn't really excite me.

I had decided to stick with DSLR, planned to add a D6 to the mix and then Sony dropped the a1 and that changed everything for me. As many have probably read in other post I had all the lenses I wanted/needed except for the 600 F4. This being such an expensive lens it would anchor me into a system for the next 10 plus years. This was why I like many have struggled in what path to take to invest in gear with DSLR on its way out and mirrorless blazing new paths (Steve's new video out today really nails this).

The Sony alpha 1 checked off all the boxes I wanted other than being a Nikon. I decided to invest money into an a1, Sony 200-600, Sony 1.4x & 2x tele and Sony 90mm macro. You can do the math but it was a lot of money to try out a new camera system but knowing I was going to spend over $13K on a single lens I felt it was best to try something else before I pulled the trigger.

Well long story short the moment I shot the a1 my mind was blown away! Before all the Nikon fan boys bash me I have to say I was sick to my stomach at the thought of leaving Nikon (I haven't yet fyi), buying into a different system was agonizing and that really surprised me. It is normal for us to have an attachment to gear we spend our hard earned money on, gear we are proud of, and gear that has delivered amazing images.

For me photography brings me enjoyment in a few ways, one of which is learning. Learning new techniques that take my photography to new levels, learning new gear and how to maximize it's potential and post processing which I find to be the hardest journey but can be very rewarding (I am still old school, I limit most of my editing to dodge and burn). So the a1 or any new camera is fun because it has great potential and requires an investment in learning the camera.

So now that we have the long winded set up of where I came from and why I decided to buy into Sony let's talk about the camera and see some results.

Few things I had heard about Sony in the past that turned me off are: the menus are horrible, the ergonomics are horrible, the mount is to small and Nikon has the edge, they don't have the lenses and on and on. I believed all of that until I bought the a1. Personally it is all BS. Sony has evolved on most things and I suspect they will continue to just like all the other brands.

Menu system: I actually like them even though there are over 50 pages of them! I can't speak to their older menus as I have never used them but I think the a1 menu is pretty solid. It actually makes a lot of sense once you start using them. The one thing that those 50 pages of menus give you is choices! When compared to Nikon the Sony is more "complicated" but frankly that is because Nikon doesn't give you much choice. The a1 is more customizable to how the photographer wants to use their tool than any camera I have ever seen. My opinion Sony menu systems and customization is a major win over my other cameras.

Ergonomics: I don't mind them. I expected to not like them but I honestly haven't found the camera uncomfortable or hard to use. I will say that I wish there was a little more space between the inside grip and the lens. I have large hands and my knuckles can on some lenses touch the lens but not in an uncomfortable way but gloves could be an issue. Reality is I don't shoot with gloves anyway (I live in TX) so not a big issue for me but I could see it being a problem for others. The other thing that should be changed is the lens release is between the lens mount and the grip. What a horrible idea! I can feel it with my fingers at times and getting a finger between the lens and grip to push the button isn't as easy as if the button was on the other side of the lens mount. My opinion Sony ergonomics aren't bad but Nikon is better. Not a deal breaker but an area Sony can and should improve.

Lenses: My experience with the couple of lenses and the 2 tele converters I have is they are very good and reasonably priced (some Sony lenses sure have a Sony tax price). Fast, accurate, smooth, fairly priced and even the 2x on the 200-600 focuses fast, accurately and is still sharp with a 2x. I don't know of any Nikon lenses that are just as sharp with the 2x especially on a non prime that they are without. I don't know what secret sauce Sony has with teleconverters but damn they are impressive! The Sony 200-600 is better then the Nikon 200-500 and the Nikon 500 PF is better than the 200-600 (I would sure hope so as it is a $3,500 prime!) but the 200-600 can take tele with no loss in focus speed which the Nikons can't). I really was shocked when I took the a1 with Sony 90mm macro out to shoot flowers, no tripod and windy and also had the D850 with Nikon 105 micro. The 105 Nikon, hunts, is loud and slow. The a1 was so fast to focus, the 90mm was quiet, didn't hunt and just locked on. I frankly was shocked! I will show some side by sides of flowers and let you decide which is better.

I read all the time that Sony doesn't do anything a good photographer can do with a DSLR. I call BS on that one! The a1 in fact will deliver results that no Nikon will. The simple fact that I can do anything any Nikon can do but at 30 fps, no blackout, and deliver damn near 100% in focus is not something any current Nikon can do. It is a fact, maybe not one some want to except. I haven't used it at 30fps other than to play and go wow that is fast! I do set it at 20fps but I can see some times that 30 would be worth using. The amount of choices we have with wings, expressions and capturing the peak of action is simply amazing! There are many of times with the D850 running at 9fps I would end up disappointed. Either I didn't get a wing just as I wanted or the one I did wasn't tack sharp. So far with the a1 I haven't had that experience. To me that makes the camera worth the $6,500!

I wish Sony had used CFexpress B but the A cards have delivered good results. Dual card slots that I can use CF A or SD is really nice! I have not hit the buffer running 20fps in lossless raw. The camera doesn't lock up as it is writing to the card and it clears its buffer quickly.

The a1 is fast, accurate, and bird eye af is AWESOME! I have really enjoyed shooting the a1 and going back to the D850 has been a bit boring. With my experience with the Z6 I really didn't expect to like mirrorless as much as I do now that I have an a1. Now that I have one the D850 just doesn't bring the smile to my face like it used to. It makes me want to buy more Sony lenses so I can use it rather than the Nikon. This has really shocked me, I expected to like the a1 for action and keep the Nikon around for everything else but now I would much rather shoot the a1 even when it is a static subject. I have a few Nikon lenses I will be selling and I will be buying more Sony glass. I likely will move 100% to Sony but not in a big hurry.

A couple last things before we look at pics. The AF is awesome but not perfect but light years ahead of any camera I own or have owned. You have a lot of options in focus modes and I am still learning when is best to use which mode for different subjects and backgrounds. I will show you an example in a moment on how a hummingbird was in perfect focus, tracking on and then out of no where it couldn't see the bird that was right on the focusing point. To be fair it was my second outing with the camera and it doesn't do that often which probably has to do with me knowing how to use it but it still shouldn't happen. Also at times you can try and prefocus on say a branch and you can see the branch but the camera sure can't. I have read this is an issue all the mirrorless cameras have at times but it still sucks. There are work arounds I have found but still annoying.

The noise in the sensor I think kind of surprised me if you don't have perfect light. I have found I don't like the noise at iso 500 but seems pretty much the same at iso 3200. I need to spend more side by side as I am not a scientist but this is also at the pixel peaking level of 200%. It is however useable up to over 20K iso with topaz products. I don't find I do anymore processing to the raw files than I do with Nikon but for same iso I feel like the D850 files clean up easier in topaz but I don't have proof other than a seat of the pants feel. However the a1 files can go where the D850 and Z6 can't. I can shoot at and above 20K iso and get an image that you can't tell after topaz post processing which is pretty incredible. My opinion is evolving, the a1 files process well, good dynamic range on par with the D850, colors seem to be accurate. I don't find any of my comments about noise a negative as the end results are great.

As I stated before the custom set up with all the buttons is awesome! It has made life so much easier and able to adapt to changing situations better than any camera I have used. I wish it had buttons that light up and I think I would prefer the top LCD but I will say I haven't really missed it because I find myself making less adjustments then in the past, I can simply push a button and completely change the camera for different situations.

In close I am super impressed with the a1 and the Sony lenses I have bought so far. I went into this as open minded as a brand loyal person can be, I came out the other side so impressed that I see making a full switch to Sony over the next year very likely. Thanks for reading!


I am sure I am missing some things and welcome questions but this post is already a book now. Let's look at some pics!

View attachment 19334
Sony a1 200-600 + 1.4x @840mm f9.0 1/800 ISO 1250

View attachment 19336
Sony a1 200-600 + 1.4x @ 840mm f9.0 1/2500 ISO3200

View attachment 19337
Sony a1 Sony 200-600 +1.4x @840mm f9.0 1/640 ISO 500

View attachment 19338
Sony a1 Sony 200-600 @600mm f6.3 1/640 ISO 500

View attachment 19344
Sony a1 Sony 200-600 @ 600 f6.3 1/640 ISO 320

I will post more images in this thread as 5 is the limit per post.
I can say two things: The images are impressive and the second one is how did you manage to write a post this long?
 
Nice photos and summery of your Sony a1. I have read many comments that it can't handle photos made when pointing the camera toward the sun, one stated that 'if you don't have your back to the sun, don't make a photo'.
I am not sure. I have not tried to photograph the sun with the a1. I have shot many backlit subjects and I had zero problems.
 
Thank you Steve. What’s your thoughts on the two af challenges I’ve had? One with the bird being tracked and then it looses it and can’t find it? The other being a challenge on prefocusing on a stick? It seems if I can find two sticks crossing it nails that fast but a single stick it can at times struggle to find. Any idea why?
Just a silly question, you didn’t hit the lower end of the focus limiter range by any chance? I can’t count the number of times I got mad at my camera for losing focus on closer subjects and then realized I had the focus limiter on to help acquire focus for BIF in the distance, and forgot to re-enable full range focusing afterwards...
 
Just a silly question, you didn’t hit the lower end of the focus limiter range by any chance? I can’t count the number of times I got mad at my camera for losing focus on closer subjects and then realized I had the focus limiter on to help acquire focus for BIF in the distance, and forgot to re-enable full range focusing afterwards...
Nope. It was in focus and then just lost it.
 
Exactly the same experience here. Nikon and Canon pro user since 2005 and nothing I've used before even comes close to the A1, which I've been using now for 3 months. It's completely re-invigorated my enthusiasm for wildlife and bird photography. An absolute joy to experience. I tried the z7ii first and it produced beautiful files, but just wasn't great for action work with birds and other wildlife, so I returned it. No regrets whatsoever switching to Sony.
 
Exactly the same experience here. Nikon and Canon pro user since 2005 and nothing I've used before even comes close to the A1, which I've been using now for 3 months. It's completely re-invigorated my enthusiasm for wildlife and bird photography. An absolute joy to experience. I tried the z7ii first and it produced beautiful files, but just wasn't great for action work with birds and other wildlife, so I returned it. No regrets whatsoever switching to Sony.
It's really weird. I see comments all the time concerned that the tech makes it too "easy" to take photos and will take the fun out of it, but my exerpeince echos yours. I'm thoroughly enjoying the camera and the experience in the field, as much or more than with any DSLR.
 
I'm a first-time poster here and going to go out on a limb and share my findings. Please forgive the long post, but I hope that some folks will find these observations interesting as they decide whether to jump ship to Sony A1 or stay with their D500/D850.

First, I'd like to thank Steve, and his wife, for all of their incredible work! I'm relatively new to photography and since I haven't had a local mentor, I guess you would say that Steve has been my virtual mentor. His teachings have opened a whole new world to someone who literally knew nothing about all of this. I can't thank you enough, Steve!

Second, I'd like to thank many of you for sharing your thoughts and expertise! I've learned a lot from all of you too!

My background: mainly BIF work with D500 and 300mm pf (with/without 1.4x) and recently bought an amazing copy of the 500mm pf. I have had some images shared in magazines, calendars, and awards. I have experimented with many Sony setups (A7riii, A7riv, A9, A9ii, and two rentals of the A1). The first A1 rental had the 200-600, but the rental company confirmed that there was in fact a focusing issue with that lens. Even though the 2-6 seemed somewhat manageable, I decided to try the 100-400 with/without the 1.4x on the second rental.

Below are my humble findings after about a week of thousands of images in all types of lighting comparing the A1 with the 1-4 (with and without a 1.4x) vs the D500 with the 300/500 PFs (with and without a 1.4x) :

PROS
- you likely will get more pics because it's easier with access to crop mode, a lens that zooms, and more fps
  • FPS
  • Crop mode and zoom
  • Evf - for exposure and def no lag
  • AF - once focus is acquired, it is faster than D500; sometimes seems slower to focus when changing from great distances; also the know "issue" when trying to focus closer after previously being focused about 2x further away or more (fyi, I've read that some folks are doing a work-a-round via the manual focus ring).
  • Eye AF - it's awesome when it works but at best, I would say it works 50% of the time on perched birds and much less on flying birds unless they are filling the frame. Examples:
    • does much better with Ospreys than with Hawks, including ones far away.
    • Songbirds are also sort of a mixed bag. Something like a Robin it locks right onto, and you can just easily track the bird while it runs along the ground. Much more difficult on a dslr. Also amazingly finds the eyes of Mourning Doves at great distances.
    • One songbird it doesn't play well with are male rose-breasted gross beaks. For some reason it cannot see their eyes well, but it can see eyes on a similar dark-faced bird like a male red-winged blackbird.
    • rarely finds the eyes of raptors sitting up in a nest

CONS - not sure about IQ (sorry, but it's the truth); Nikon files are gorgeous right out of the camera and take little PP in LR; they also appear sharper. So the million dollar question for me is even if you capture more pics with the A1 with the 100-400, will those be as gorgeous as the Nikon D500 files with the PF lenses?
  • IQ- Not totally sold on IQ
    • ISO - based on some of the previous comments on this thread (iso similar at 500 vs 3200), this morning I upped the iso to 1600 and the quality of the pictures are terrible. Definitely nothing I would share. I don't believe any amount of PP or AI work would make the action images I took at 1600 useable. Perhaps it works for some folks, but not what I would like to share on the web or in print. Also there's the issue of some magazines, calendars, and competitions wanting images with no AI and requesting the raw files.
  • Mps - even though this is a 50 mp camera, I'm def not seeing the same cropability as my D500 setups and honestly I don't understand this given 20 mp vs 50; they should be mostly similar even when factoring pixel density. Perhaps the 300/500mm primes are just that much better than the 100-400 GM zoom and resolve more detail?
  • The 100-400 mm feels heavier than the 500mm pf although they weigh almost the same; also it caused some pain in my left hand and back after a day of shooting where I can use the 500mm pf all day.
  • Evf sometimes too dark in low contrast situations like a bird flying in front of trees in the shade or trying to catch action in a backlit situation; yes, one can up the ISO, but many times I've found it better to underexpose and then make slight adjustments in LR if needed. And there are the issues where action happens in a few seconds and requiring various ISOs due to various light conditions and the big issue for me where I'm not in love with the ISO on the images I've taken.
  • Reviewing Pics in Camera - can't review pics in camera easily, can't see pics on lcd screen well and evf is too pixelated; reviewing pics on a D500 lcd is a breeze except in very sunny conditions.
  • PV Button - I miss not having a PV button. It is so easy to just push that button in vs assigning something like single point to the AEL or C1 buttons, IMO.
  • AF (fyi, I used wide, single point, and subject tracking large):
    • misses acquisition about as much as D500 in low contrast situations (e.g. raptors flying in front of dark trees or trees in the shade and constantly switches to focusing on the nest when a raptor makes a nest entrance/exit, even when tracking sensitivity is set to "locked on").
    • does not always catch focus when birds are in a horizontal position.
    • I found you must use single point when taking pictures of birds at a nest. It is very flaky with picking up the eye even when the bird is clearly sitting up and visible above the nest. Strangest thing is, it'll find the eye of an Osprey quite a distance away even in backlit situations. It seems to struggle a lot with sticks. Similarly, it seems to work best to use single point or a subject tracking mode when a bird is entering/exiting a nest. Bottom line, I'm finding I still must use single point as much as I do on my D500 and Group AF on D500 does better with nest exits/entrances.
  • VR - sorry, but another honest observation which I have no scientific numbers for, just general in the field use, I feel like the VR on the 500mm pf is better than the A1 with 1-4. On the other hand, I really dislike the VR on my 300mm pf. If that was better, I likely would continue to hold out, but frankly that VR is maddening and not sure I can take another season with it.
Questions:
  • I'd like to understand what I'm missing about A1 images being as nice or better than D500/D850?
  • I also don't understand why I'm not liking the ISO results in these images compared to similar ISO images in my D500?
  • Perhaps the IQ difference is due to comparing a zoom to a Nikon prime? And yes I understand that I'm comparing a $2,500 lens to a $4,000 lens, but they say it's a GM and the only option other than the 2-6 or 600 f/4. You have to admit, the IQ on those PF lenses is outstanding even with the 1.4x teles!
  • I have about 10 days left to return this beautiful copy of the 500mm pf without penalty. Should I keep it and hold out hope for a Z9 that will do BIF or return it?
In the end, I understand there are many PROS but I'm not seeing enough PROS to warrant changing systems at that cost. Perhaps if I could afford and manage the Sony 600 f/4 I would feel differently, but right now what I'd like are the benefits of moving to mirrorless like AF, FPS, MPS, EVF, ... as seen on the A1, BUT with the gorgeous light-weight glass and resulting image quality of my Nikon files (D500 with 300 pf + 1.4x or 500 pf (with/without 1.4x)). I'm guessing not many folks if any will agree with me, but I felt this was worth sharing for others having the same "angst".

Thank you for reading this and educating me on what I'm missing! Take care everyone!
 
It's really weird. I see comments all the time concerned that the tech makes it too "easy" to take photos and will take the fun out of it, but my exerpeince echos yours. I'm thoroughly enjoying the camera and the experience in the field, as much or more than with any DSLR.

I think tech that makes it too "easy" to take decent images (in focus, properly exposed) with little user input is always welcomed, as it frees photographers to focus on making more interesting images. And as the technology trickles down to cheaper models, it will lower the entry barrier in the fun hobby of wildlife photography.

On the other hand, if I was publishing books about autofocus systems of various cameras, such tech improvements would worry me a bit... (just joking...:sneaky:😺)
 
I'm a first-time poster here and going to go out on a limb and share my findings. Please forgive the long post, but I hope that some folks will find these observations interesting as they decide whether to jump ship to Sony A1 or stay with their D500/D850.

First, I'd like to thank Steve, and his wife, for all of their incredible work! I'm relatively new to photography and since I haven't had a local mentor, I guess you would say that Steve has been my virtual mentor. His teachings have opened a whole new world to someone who literally knew nothing about all of this. I can't thank you enough, Steve!

Second, I'd like to thank many of you for sharing your thoughts and expertise! I've learned a lot from all of you too!

My background: mainly BIF work with D500 and 300mm pf (with/without 1.4x) and recently bought an amazing copy of the 500mm pf. I have had some images shared in magazines, calendars, and awards. I have experimented with many Sony setups (A7riii, A7riv, A9, A9ii, and two rentals of the A1). The first A1 rental had the 200-600, but the rental company confirmed that there was in fact a focusing issue with that lens. Even though the 2-6 seemed somewhat manageable, I decided to try the 100-400 with/without the 1.4x on the second rental.

Below are my humble findings after about a week of thousands of images in all types of lighting comparing the A1 with the 1-4 (with and without a 1.4x) vs the D500 with the 300/500 PFs (with and without a 1.4x) :

PROS - you likely will get more pics because it's easier with access to crop mode, a lens that zooms, and more fps
  • FPS
  • Crop mode and zoom
  • Evf - for exposure and def no lag
  • AF - once focus is acquired, it is faster than D500; sometimes seems slower to focus when changing from great distances; also the know "issue" when trying to focus closer after previously being focused about 2x further away or more (fyi, I've read that some folks are doing a work-a-round via the manual focus ring).
  • Eye AF - it's awesome when it works but at best, I would say it works 50% of the time on perched birds and much less on flying birds unless they are filling the frame. Examples:
    • does much better with Ospreys than with Hawks, including ones far away.
    • Songbirds are also sort of a mixed bag. Something like a Robin it locks right onto, and you can just easily track the bird while it runs along the ground. Much more difficult on a dslr. Also amazingly finds the eyes of Mourning Doves at great distances.
    • One songbird it doesn't play well with are male rose-breasted gross beaks. For some reason it cannot see their eyes well, but it can see eyes on a similar dark-faced bird like a male red-winged blackbird.
    • rarely finds the eyes of raptors sitting up in a nest

CONS - not sure about IQ (sorry, but it's the truth); Nikon files are gorgeous right out of the camera and take little PP in LR; they also appear sharper. So the million dollar question for me is even if you capture more pics with the A1 with the 100-400, will those be as gorgeous as the Nikon D500 files with the PF lenses?
  • IQ- Not totally sold on IQ
    • ISO - based on some of the previous comments on this thread (iso similar at 500 vs 3200), this morning I upped the iso to 1600 and the quality of the pictures are terrible. Definitely nothing I would share. I don't believe any amount of PP or AI work would make the action images I took at 1600 useable. Perhaps it works for some folks, but not what I would like to share on the web or in print. Also there's the issue of some magazines, calendars, and competitions wanting images with no AI and requesting the raw files.
  • Mps - even though this is a 50 mp camera, I'm def not seeing the same cropability as my D500 setups and honestly I don't understand this given 20 mp vs 50; they should be mostly similar even when factoring pixel density. Perhaps the 300/500mm primes are just that much better than the 100-400 GM zoom and resolve more detail?
  • The 100-400 mm feels heavier than the 500mm pf although they weigh almost the same; also it caused some pain in my left hand and back after a day of shooting where I can use the 500mm pf all day.
  • Evf sometimes too dark in low contrast situations like a bird flying in front of trees in the shade or trying to catch action in a backlit situation; yes, one can up the ISO, but many times I've found it better to underexpose and then make slight adjustments in LR if needed. And there are the issues where action happens in a few seconds and requiring various ISOs due to various light conditions and the big issue for me where I'm not in love with the ISO on the images I've taken.
  • Reviewing Pics in Camera - can't review pics in camera easily, can't see pics on lcd screen well and evf is too pixelated; reviewing pics on a D500 lcd is a breeze except in very sunny conditions.
  • PV Button - I miss not having a PV button. It is so easy to just push that button in vs assigning something like single point to the AEL or C1 buttons, IMO.
  • AF (fyi, I used wide, single point, and subject tracking large):
    • misses acquisition about as much as D500 in low contrast situations (e.g. raptors flying in front of dark trees or trees in the shade and constantly switches to focusing on the nest when a raptor makes a nest entrance/exit, even when tracking sensitivity is set to "locked on").
    • does not always catch focus when birds are in a horizontal position.
    • I found you must use single point when taking pictures of birds at a nest. It is very flaky with picking up the eye even when the bird is clearly sitting up and visible above the nest. Strangest thing is, it'll find the eye of an Osprey quite a distance away even in backlit situations. It seems to struggle a lot with sticks. Similarly, it seems to work best to use single point or a subject tracking mode when a bird is entering/exiting a nest. Bottom line, I'm finding I still must use single point as much as I do on my D500 and Group AF on D500 does better with nest exits/entrances.
  • VR - sorry, but another honest observation which I have no scientific numbers for, just general in the field use, I feel like the VR on the 500mm pf is better than the A1 with 1-4. On the other hand, I really dislike the VR on my 300mm pf. If that was better, I likely would continue to hold out, but frankly that VR is maddening and not sure I can take another season with it.
Questions:
  • I'd like to understand what I'm missing about A1 images being as nice or better than D500/D850?
  • I also don't understand why I'm not liking the ISO results in these images compared to similar ISO images in my D500?
  • Perhaps the IQ difference is due to comparing a zoom to a Nikon prime? And yes I understand that I'm comparing a $2,500 lens to a $4,000 lens, but they say it's a GM and the only option other than the 2-6 or 600 f/4. You have to admit, the IQ on those PF lenses is outstanding even with the 1.4x teles!
  • I have about 10 days left to return this beautiful copy of the 500mm pf without penalty. Should I keep it and hold out hope for a Z9 that will do BIF or return it?
In the end, I understand there are many PROS but I'm not seeing enough PROS to warrant changing systems at that cost. Perhaps if I could afford and manage the Sony 600 f/4 I would feel differently, but right now what I'd like are the benefits of moving to mirrorless like AF, FPS, MPS, EVF, ... as seen on the A1, BUT with the gorgeous light-weight glass and resulting image quality of my Nikon files (D500 with 300 pf + 1.4x or 500 pf (with/without 1.4x)). I'm guessing not many folks if any will agree with me, but I felt this was worth sharing for others having the same "angst".

Thank you for reading this and educating me on what I'm missing! Take care everyone!
It's great to get another perspective on the Sony a1, based on actual usage in the field. I'm not planning to switch from my D850s anytime soon, but I've been wondering what the future looks like, as I'd hate to continue sinking money into a fading DSLR platform. It will be interesting to see how Nikon responds to the competition from Sony. The Old Masters of painting used comparatively "primitive" techniques & tools, but created some pretty amazing art! I'm also a fan of Japanese master carpenters, turning out spectacular pieces done entirely by hand, despite the availability of power tools. Now that's art!
 
Last edited:
It's really weird. I see comments all the time concerned that the tech makes it too "easy" to take photos and will take the fun out of it, but my exerpeince echos yours. I'm thoroughly enjoying the camera and the experience in the field, as much or more than with any DSLR.
Just give them a Nikon F3, send them take BIF shots with a manual focus 500mm lens and a roll of Velvia 50... that will cure them of that kind of silliness :)
 
  • IQ- Not totally sold on IQ
    • ISO - based on some of the previous comments on this thread (iso similar at 500 vs 3200), this morning I upped the iso to 1600 and the quality of the pictures are terrible. Definitely nothing I would share. I don't believe any amount of PP or AI work would make the action images I took at 1600 useable. Perhaps it works for some folks, but not what I would like to share on the web or in print. Also there's the issue of some magazines, calendars, and competitions wanting images with no AI and requesting the raw files.
  • Mps - even though this is a 50 mp camera, I'm def not seeing the same cropability as my D500 setups and honestly I don't understand this given 20 mp vs 50; they should be mostly similar even when factoring pixel density. Perhaps the 300/500mm primes are just that much better than the 100-400 GM zoom and resolve more detail?
  • The 100-400 mm feels heavier than the 500mm pf although they weigh almost the same; also it caused some pain in my left hand and back after a day of shooting where I can use the 500mm pf all day.
  • Evf sometimes too dark in low contrast situations like a bird flying in front of trees in the shade or trying to catch action in a backlit situation; yes, one can up the ISO, but many times I've found it better to underexpose and then make slight adjustments in LR if needed. And there are the issues where action happens in a few seconds and requiring various ISOs due to various light conditions and the big issue for me where I'm not in love with the ISO on the images I've taken.
  • Reviewing Pics in Camera - can't review pics in camera easily, can't see pics on lcd screen well and evf is too pixelated; reviewing pics on a D500 lcd is a breeze except in very sunny conditions.
  • PV Button - I miss not having a PV button. It is so easy to just push that button in vs assigning something like single point to the AEL or C1 buttons, IMO.
  • AF (fyi, I used wide, single point, and subject tracking large):
    • misses acquisition about as much as D500 in low contrast situations (e.g. raptors flying in front of dark trees or trees in the shade and constantly switches to focusing on the nest when a raptor makes a nest entrance/exit, even when tracking sensitivity is set to "locked on").
    • does not always catch focus when birds are in a horizontal position.
    • I found you must use single point when taking pictures of birds at a nest. It is very flaky with picking up the eye even when the bird is clearly sitting up and visible above the nest. Strangest thing is, it'll find the eye of an Osprey quite a distance away even in backlit situations. It seems to struggle a lot with sticks. Similarly, it seems to work best to use single point or a subject tracking mode when a bird is entering/exiting a nest. Bottom line, I'm finding I still must use single point as much as I do on my D500 and Group AF on D500 does better with nest exits/entrances.
  • VR - sorry, but another honest observation which I have no scientific numbers for, just general in the field use, I feel like the VR on the 500mm pf is better than the A1 with 1-4. On the other hand, I really dislike the VR on my 300mm pf. If that was better, I likely would continue to hold out, but frankly that VR is maddening and not sure I can take another season with it.

Here are some thoughts on some of these. Note that the sample images below were not with the 100-400 (I don't have a ton of those that would apply with the a1) but in my experience with that lens it really is a heck of an optic. All images minimally processed.

Frist, IQ - although I don't think the files are as nice as Nikon's, they're not bad, On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being Nikon, I'd give them a solid 7.5 ~ 8. They aren't quite as flexible, but I also am finding - so far - I don't seem to need them to be either. I'm pretty happy with what's coming out of the camera.

As for ISO, here's a shot at 3200 that I underexposed by a stop, so I had to add a stop and pull shadows in post. Her face is at least ISO 6400, if not 8000. It really wasn't bad at all and a quick trip to Topaz made it look clean enough for any editor I've ever death with.

gsm-0517-DSC08894-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


The above is mostly a full frame image (only very minor cropping) and that helps. You'll always get better results with any camera if you can keep cropping to a minimum. I don't hesitate to use the a1 at ISO 6400 if I'm filling the frame the way I want. However, if I am going to crop, I'll take whatever steps possible to lower the ISO. If you're at the same distance with the D500 and using the same lens on the a1, then the image on the sensor is going to be about the same. I would think the crops would look similar - but - Nikon does seem to do a bit better with ISO. Still, I'd expect them to be close.

As for cropping, I'm not having any issues. The image below of was taken at a distance (I had the 600mm + 2X on - 1200mm!) and I still had to crop it down to 15MP from 50 - so a heavy crop by anyone's definition. ISO 1600 too:

gsm-0516-DSC05155-Edit-Edit copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Here's one at ISO 2000 that was a equally heavy crop:
marsh-0501-IMG_10312-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



I can't really speak to the perceived weight different, the 500PF may just be batter balanced (I think it is in fact).

As for the dark EVF, if you have live exposure preview on (or whatever Sony calls it, I'm still learning), then that's normal and will be the same with any mirrorless. If you're underexposing, it'll look darker in the viewfinder.

For reviewing pics, all I can say it it takes time to get used to it. At first, they all just seem bad, but in time you'll learn what's good and what's not. I can now reliably tell which images will make the cut and which won't.

For the Pv button, I actually like how Sony does it better. I have mine set to toggle between different AF settings (the one I'm using and a registered one) and like that I don't have to keep holding the button. To each their own though - things like that are very subjective.

For AF, the a1 - like all mirrorless it seems - are apt to grab a busy background instead of a bird - especially if that bird is too small and the AF area too wide. Using a smaller AF area can help. FWIW, I tend to use Zone of Flexible Point Expanded if I spot a bird already in the air and one of the Tracking modes if it's on a perch and I want to get the takeoff sequence. Horizontal lines are a problem for mirrorless in general since they all use horizontal line sensors and not cross type. Tilting the camera 45 degrees can help. FWIW, I've seldom had a problem with it. Oh, and I think their EYE -AF could use a bit more work. It's great for mammals, but birds it's hit or miss. I was shooting an eagle the other day and very seldom did it want to lock onto the eye. My solution is not to rely on it but rather use the AF area I think it appropriate and if eye AF takes over, cool, if not, I still get the shot. I also have my AE/AF Lock button set to WIDE AF so if the camera is seeing the eye really well, I can use that button instead of AF-On and let the camera worry about keeping on the eye and I'll do the compositional stuff :)

I agree that Nikon VR seems better. :)
 
Thanks for the very helpful comments. I enjoy my Nikons (both dSLRs and Z7) and as attractive as the A1 is, I am waiting a bit longer to see what Nikon produces. Either announced next week or 2 or for the Z9. If the Z9 is as good as Nikon claims it will be, then probably sell some dSLRs and I will stick with Nikon and use old FX lenses until Z lenses are available. If the Z9 is dud, then most likely I will go with a Z7 for shorter work (14-200, no wildllife or action) and go with an A1 (or perhaps R3) for wildlife.

I sure hope Nikon delivers.
 
Here are some thoughts on some of these. Note that the sample images below were not with the 100-400 (I don't have a ton of those that would apply with the a1) but in my experience with that lens it really is a heck of an optic. All images minimally processed.

Frist, IQ - although I don't think the files are as nice as Nikon's, they're not bad, On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being Nikon, I'd give them a solid 7.5 ~ 8. They aren't quite as flexible, but I also am finding - so far - I don't seem to need them to be either. I'm pretty happy with what's coming out of the camera.

As for ISO, here's a shot at 3200 that I underexposed by a stop, so I had to add a stop and pull shadows in post. Her face is at least ISO 6400, if not 8000. It really wasn't bad at all and a quick trip to Topaz made it look clean enough for any editor I've ever death with.

View attachment 19552

The above is mostly a full frame image (only very minor cropping) and that helps. You'll always get better results with any camera if you can keep cropping to a minimum. I don't hesitate to use the a1 at ISO 6400 if I'm filling the frame the way I want. However, if I am going to crop, I'll take whatever steps possible to lower the ISO. If you're at the same distance with the D500 and using the same lens on the a1, then the image on the sensor is going to be about the same. I would think the crops would look similar - but - Nikon does seem to do a bit better with ISO. Still, I'd expect them to be close.

As for cropping, I'm not having any issues. The image below of was taken at a distance (I had the 600mm + 2X on - 1200mm!) and I still had to crop it down to 15MP from 50 - so a heavy crop by anyone's definition. ISO 1600 too:

View attachment 19553

Here's one at ISO 2000 that was a equally heavy crop:
View attachment 19554


I can't really speak to the perceived weight different, the 500PF may just be batter balanced (I think it is in fact).

As for the dark EVF, if you have live exposure preview on (or whatever Sony calls it, I'm still learning), then that's normal and will be the same with any mirrorless. If you're underexposing, it'll look darker in the viewfinder.

For reviewing pics, all I can say it it takes time to get used to it. At first, they all just seem bad, but in time you'll learn what's good and what's not. I can now reliably tell which images will make the cut and which won't.

For the Pv button, I actually like how Sony does it better. I have mine set to toggle between different AF settings (the one I'm using and a registered one) and like that I don't have to keep holding the button. To each their own though - things like that are very subjective.

For AF, the a1 - like all mirrorless it seems - are apt to grab a busy background instead of a bird - especially if that bird is too small and the AF area too wide. Using a smaller AF area can help. FWIW, I tend to use Zone of Flexible Point Expanded if I spot a bird already in the air and one of the Tracking modes if it's on a perch and I want to get the takeoff sequence. Horizontal lines are a problem for mirrorless in general since they all use horizontal line sensors and not cross type. Tilting the camera 45 degrees can help. FWIW, I've seldom had a problem with it. Oh, and I think their EYE -AF could use a bit more work. It's great for mammals, but birds it's hit or miss. I was shooting an eagle the other day and very seldom did it want to lock onto the eye. My solution is not to rely on it but rather use the AF area I think it appropriate and if eye AF takes over, cool, if not, I still get the shot. I also have my AE/AF Lock button set to WIDE AF so if the camera is seeing the eye really well, I can use that button instead of AF-On and let the camera worry about keeping on the eye and I'll do the compositional stuff :)

I agree that Nikon VR seems better. :)
I have found viewing images is best done in the viewfinder. I notice I try and use the camera like a DSLR at times which is habits I need to break. It is a different beast.
 
This is a camera that you need some time with to fully appreciate its qualities. I went from a D850 and D500 and for the first few days I was feeling that it was not all what it was hyped up to be. However, once I got used to the AF and figured out which modes to use for particular situations (all types of bird photos) it's magic really showed. Yesterday, I shot about 800 photos of tree swallows in flight against the sky and background trees and only about 20 images missed focus. This is with the 200-600mm, which I found works superbly with the A1, even with the 1.4x attached.

As for image quality, I do find it's a bit noisier than the D850 at iso 3200 and up when working with them in LR. But when I apply topaz denoise to the A1 images they are pretty much equal to the D850 files with Topaz denoise applied. I'm still waiting anxiously for DXO Photolab 4 to support the A1 (should be soon!). Photolab has been my go to raw editor for years and I expect the A1 files will be spectacular.

Before getting the A1 back in March I was using a D500 and D850 with both the 500mm pf and the 800mm f5.6e primes. Awesome lenses and super sharp, but only when focus is absolutely nailed by the camera. The biggest revelation with the A1 and the Sony 200-600mm is that even though this lens is not a $20,000 piece of glass like the 800mm or a $5000 lens like the 500pf (this is in Canada) the images I am getting with all types of bird photography (even relative static perching birds) are usually sharper than the Nikons because the camera is absolutely nailing perfect focus and using 100% of the 200-600's potential. This despite the fact that my Nikkor telephotos were very carefully AF fine tuned. And even the sony 1.4x images are very much usably sharp with no significant slow down or accuracy hits with AF.

One of the reasons mirrorless attracted me initially was so I wouldn't have to deal with a clunking shutter frightening away shy songbirds at close range when working from a blind; species such as winter wrens, kinglets, flycatchers, vireos and certain warbler species. It's an issue I've had for years in songbird photography. So far I've had no need whatsoever to shoot with the mechanical shutter and have seen no discernable distortion with the e shutter, even with very fast subjects like swallows.

The only issue I have had with the camera was right after I got it. The EVF turned off a few times when a low sun was over my right shoulder. I put a tiny bit of black electrical tape over the left side of the EVF sensor and haven't had a single problem since after shooting thousands of images in similar conditions. The camera is also wonderful in the hand, especially with the grip attached. Battery life has not been an issue. User the e-shutter I can get well over 1000 full size raw images per battery.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply to this post, this camera has really put some fun back into photography for me. I've been doing this stuff for a living since 2005 and any time one feels a "freshness" when doing one's work it's cause to celebrate. Essentially, the camera is no longer a limitation in my work. Any shortcomings I can only blame on myself.
 
Last edited:
From everything I have heard about the A1 and A9II, I would like to see a training course on these cameras. After all, if someone was spending $6500 on the camera and another few thousand (if not much more) on lenses, spending a couple hundred dollars to significantly shorten the learning curves is a good investment. Plus for someone sitting on the fence about buying this camera, spending a weekend learning to use the camera (a loaner) would be good way to assure that this is the correct for you.

Does this seem like a reasonable idea?
 
I think you hit the nail on the head. A short day or 2 day crash course or something like that would help a long time DSLR user. I've shot for many years and have tried a lot of DSLRs over the years including the D4 and D5 and 1D series bodies and have always been comfortable with them right away. The A1, on the other hand, took a little adapting to and once I had I could make it sing!
 
Back
Top