Opinion of the Sony alpha 1 from a lifelong Nikon shooter

[MikePapple]

Sony did a lot to bring mirrorless FF to the masses, and then built on that success. But Sony's system as a whole is not a replacement for Nikon as far as I am concerned.
It may be a relacement for the professional sports/wildlife/bird photographers that don't hesitate to spend 20.000 on a combo such as the A1+600GM.

But where is the attraction in putting a 2000,- consumer zoom like the 200-600 on a 6500,- high end pro body? Sony shooters can fill thread after thread on how the 200-600G is a steal for the money and how good it supposedly is for the money, but the complete disbalance remains what it is for me.
A Sony high end crop body is no option either to get a better cost balance between body and lens, while maintaining performance, because Sony's crop bodies are mainly made for vloggers it seems.
Getting a FF A9 at discount prices doesn't do it for me either, with 24mp on a FF sensor.

Can Sony not make a decent 300mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 or even 500mm f4 lens to give options below the ultra high end of the 400 and 600mm lenses? Or really do something special and go for their version of a still missing Nikon 600mm f5.6PF lens?
Can Sony not make a decent and relatively affordable yet high performance crop A900 like body at 3000,- with decent 20-24mp resolution on crop size for those that don't need the full frame sensor size (and crop 60% away from the captured image by default anyway)?

Just some contrary opinions to that of Sony being thé choice for wildlife and bird photographers.

A1 + 400 or 600 primes are a good option if the company you work for buys them, or if there is a sufficient tax deduction/amortization.

I am happy with A1 +100-400GM, but I would like to see a compact 600 F5 for under $4,000 US.

Sony has recently come out with some nice primes from 14mm to 135mm, but have a bit of a gap at the long end.

 

[Udall1973]

Boy a lot of these comments mirror my experience and my reaction to moving from Nikon to the Sony A1. I have the D850 and the D500 and the most profound thing is that the A1 is so much fun to shoot - it is so fast and so accurate that I can rely on it to get the shot even when the unexpected wildlife moment happens. I do agree that the Nikon files are less noisy and a bit cleaner and one has to be more mindful of ISO settings but I agree they do clean up very well in Topaz. I also love the customization of the camera far more advanced and option rich than Nikon. I rented the camera for a three day try before you buy and it blew my mind and any doubts (you know like Z9, Nikon glass already invested, ergonomics, doubts from Tony Northrup, ect.) Bottom line, it has given me a capability that I didn't have with the D850, a camera I love, and put a little more joy into my passion.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DavidT]

Boy a lot of these comments mirror my experience and my reaction to moving from Nikon to the Sony A1. I have the D850 and the D500 and the most profound thing is that the A1 is so much fun to shoot - it is so fast and so accurate that I can rely on it to get the shot even when the unexpected wildlife moment happens. I do agree that the Nikon files are less noisy and a bit cleaner and one has to be more mindful of ISO settings but I agree they do clean up very well in Topaz. I also love the customization of the camera far more advanced and option rich than Nikon. I rented the camera for a three day try before you buy and it blew my mind and any doubts (you know like Z9, Nikon glass already invested, ergonomics, doubts from Tony Northrup, ect.) Bottom line, it has given me a capability that I didn't have with the D850, a camera I love, and put a little more joy into my passion. View attachment 19845View attachment 19846

I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[Doug Herr]

... Can Sony not make a decent 300mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 or even 500mm f4 lens to give options below the ultra high end of the 400 and 600mm lenses? Or really do something special and go for their version of a still missing Nikon 600mm f5.6PF lens?
Can Sony not make a decent and relatively affordable yet high performance crop A900 like body at 3000,- with decent 20-24mp resolution on crop size for those that don't need the full frame sensor size (and crop 60% away from the captured image by default anyway)?...

A little persecutive is in order here. Sony's E-mount system is a little over a decade old, the full-frame variants about six or seven years old vs. 60+ years for the Nikon F mount. Sony is still filling in the system.

 

[DaveR]

A little persecutive is in order here. Sony's E-mount system is a little over a decade old, the full-frame variants about six or seven years old vs. 60+ years for the Nikon F mount. Sony is still filling in the system.

Good point. Also the two companies are very different. Nikon is more of an optics based company. A sizable part of it is in microscopes for example. Sony is more consumer electronics, TV's, games consoles etc.

 

[Doug Herr]

Good point. Also the two companies are very different. Nikon is more of an optics based company. A sizable part of it is in microscopes for example. Sony is more consumer electronics, TV's, games consoles etc.

Sony has quite a lineup of professional broadcasting cameras too, and the alpha camera system's origins is KonicaMinolta.

To fill in the missing optics in the E-mount system, adapters for Canon EOS and Minolta A-mount lenses are available, not unlike the use of the FTZ adapter for Nikon's Z cameras.

 

[arbitrage]

Sony did a lot to bring mirrorless FF to the masses, and then built on that success. But Sony's system as a whole is not a replacement for Nikon as far as I am concerned.
It may be a relacement for the professional sports/wildlife/bird photographers that don't hesitate to spend 20.000 on a combo such as the A1+600GM.

But where is the attraction in putting a 2000,- consumer zoom like the 200-600 on a 6500,- high end pro body? Sony shooters can fill thread after thread on how the 200-600G is a steal for the money and how good it supposedly is for the money, but the complete disbalance remains what it is for me.
A Sony high end crop body is no option either to get a better cost balance between body and lens, while maintaining performance, because Sony's crop bodies are mainly made for vloggers it seems.
Getting a FF A9 at discount prices doesn't do it for me either, with 24mp on a FF sensor.

Can Sony not make a decent 300mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 or even 500mm f4 lens to give options below the ultra high end of the 400 and 600mm lenses? Or really do something special and go for their version of a still missing Nikon 600mm f5.6PF lens?
Can Sony not make a decent and relatively affordable yet high performance crop A900 like body at 3000,- with decent 20-24mp resolution on crop size for those that don't need the full frame sensor size (and crop 60% away from the captured image by default anyway)?

Just some contrary opinions to that of Sony being thé choice for wildlife and bird photographers.

Going off of those points I think your ideal setup as it stands today would not be Sony and would not be Nikon. A Canon R5 and adapted EF glass would be the best option. Having owned the R5 and having adapted 600III, 400III, 400DOII and 100-400II I can say that adapted performance on the R5 is every bit as good as the one native lens I owned RF 100-500. Then you have the options for 300/2.8, 200-400/4, 500/4, 400DOII etc.

Nikon ain't going to come out with any of those options anytime soon for Z. Adapting F to Z is good but hindered by current Z AF. Sony is unlikely to be coming out with any of those options anytime soon. If the Z9 makes adapting F to Z as good as the R5 makes adapting EF to RF then the Z9 and adapted Nikon lenses will become a great option. However, availability of the Z9 may be a long while based on Nikon's track record of getting adequent stock out there to fulfill demand.

Best option is to buy R5 and adapt the lens you prefer.

 

[ChrisM]

Going off of those points I think your ideal setup as it stands today would not be Sony and would not be Nikon. A Canon R5 and adapted EF glass would be the best option. Having owned the R5 and having adapted 600III, 400III, 400DOII and 100-400II I can say that adapted performance on the R5 is every bit as good as the one native lens I owned RF 100-500. Then you have the options for 300/2.8, 200-400/4, 500/4, 400DOII etc.

Nikon ain't going to come out with any of those options anytime soon for Z. Adapting F to Z is good but hindered by current Z AF. Sony is unlikely to be coming out with any of those options anytime soon. If the Z9 makes adapting F to Z as good as the R5 makes adapting EF to RF then the Z9 and adapted Nikon lenses will become a great option. However, availability of the Z9 may be a long while based on Nikon's track record of getting adequent stock out there to fulfill demand.

Best option is to buy R5 and adapt the lens you prefer.

It makes sense what you say. The 500PF has me hooked up with Nikon, but lately I am condidering a dual system: Nikon D500+500PF for when light packing is most important, and another (mirrorless) system for when I go on dedicated nature/birding trips. I thought about the Z9, but the cost of the body and the lack of (for me) interesting Z-mount lenses has put me off that course.
Sony is not offering the lens I would want either, and that may well bring me back to Canon, for their very good 500mm f4II and the very good 1.4tc.
End of this year I will have the funds to make the decision, and if the coming Canon R3 brings down the R5 price, I may well go that road. Otherwise, the first of the three that puts out a serious attempt at a high end crop body may get my money.

 

[DavidT]

It makes sense what you say. The 500PF has me hooked up with Nikon, but lately I am condidering a dual system: Nikon D500+500PF for when light packing is most important, and another (mirrorless) system for when I go on dedicated nature/birding trips. I thought about the Z9, but the cost of the body and the lack of (for me) interesting Z-mount lenses has put me off that course.
Sony is not offering the lens I would want either, and that may well bring me back to Canon, for their very good 500mm f4II and the very good 1.4tc.
End of this year I will have the funds to make the decision, and if the coming Canon R3 brings down the R5 price, I may well go that road. Otherwise, the first of the three that puts out a serious attempt at a high end crop body may get my money.

In theory this sounds great but I think the realty is if you shoot say the R5 and you use it as a mirrorless camera and see what it will do the D500 and the 500PF will be dust collectors. I have loved my D850 but after getting to know the a1 and use it like a mirrorless camera and not trying to make it work like a DSLR I don’t even want to pick up the D850. It sure isn’t what I expected but it’s that much better to use. It’s more then just a spec sheet, it’s the customization, silence, speed, AF performance, capturing images that the Nikon would have likely missed focus, it’s the smile the camera puts on your face when it nails a shot that you have not gotten in the past.

 

[arbitrage]

I still have my D500, Z50, 500PF and all three TCs. They have been collecting dust, quite literally, for the past 6 months or more. I've brought out the D500/500PF a couple times but only lasted 20mins or so and then went back to my other Sony gear. I occasionally bring out the Z50/500PF into the backyard to play around with it. I'm not sure why I'm still keeping the Nikon stuff. Part of me wants to keep the 500PF to use on a future Z9 but then spending $6500 on a Z9 doesn't make a lot of sense just to use the 500PF. I'll probably keep the D500 as a collector's item as my last DSLR.

Right now I'm pretty happy with my A1, 200-600 and 600GM. I'm always looking over the fence to see how green the grass is. The R5 was a fun experiment and I'm glad I got to use it to really know first hand how big of a leap Canon had made in MILC AF. Just didn't make much sense to keep it once the A1 came out. The R3 may tempt me again if it is 35+ MPs and the Z9 will surely tempt me somewhat. Although I think the R3 is going to be 20MPs which won't tempt me much at all.

Still by end of 2021 I think all three systems will have some pretty high end MILCs with excellent AF and all will have a decent selection of native and/or adapted lenses for wildlife photography. It will be hard to make a wrong decision in 2022. But it may also be hard to decide!!

 

[RichF]

Sony has quite a lineup of professional broadcasting cameras too, and the alpha camera system's origins is KonicaMinolta.

To fill in the missing optics in the E-mount system, adapters for Canon EOS and Minolta A-mount lenses are available, not unlike the use of the FTZ adapter for Nikon's Z cameras.

Noticed that you did not mention adapter to put Nikon lens on a Sony body. I did a quick search and found some but not sure if they are any good?

 

[Doug Herr]

Noticed that you did not mention adapter to put Nikon lens on a Sony body. I did a quick search and found some but not sure if they are any good?

Not particularly functional with many lenses including the 500 PF :(

 

[Whiskeyman]

... I love the D850 but when compared to the mirrorless a1 the DSLR shows it’s age.

Help us all if we have to change platforms every three years!!

 

[DavidT]

Noticed that you did not mention adapter to put Nikon lens on a Sony body. I did a quick search and found some but not sure if they are any good?

I have another thread here that discusses this. I tried it and only worked with my 14-24 f2.8 Nikon, it did not work with my 70-200 f2.8 FL E or my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2.

 

[RichF]

I have another thread here that discusses this. I tried it and only worked with my 14-24 f2.8 Nikon, it did not work with my 70-200 f2.8 FL E or my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2.

It seems that Nikon does not play with other brands

 

[DavidT]

I’m becoming a fan boy I guess lol.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Steve]

I’m becoming a fan boy I guess lol. View attachment 19953

LOL, yup that's a sign of it for sure

 

[Palmor]

Like others my D500 and 500PF are not used at all. The few times I’ve brought out my D500/500PF I put it away as soon as I hear the shutter sound. It’s like nails on a chalkboard. Before I got the A1 I would bring out the Z50 and 500PF with the 1.4x TC for a little extra reach over the A9 when shooting more stationary birds.

I really don’t know why I’m keeping it other than I don’t need to make the entire switch over since having the two system isn’t such a pain when I’m not traveling anywhere anyway. I really wish I could mash the Sony and Nikon stuff together. I love the 14-30 f4 and 24-70f4 and there really isn’t anything like them in the Sony world (the 12-24 is a lot larger then the 14-30).

 

[eaj101]

I still have my D500, Z50, 500PF and all three TCs. They have been collecting dust, quite literally, for the past 6 months or more. I've brought out the D500/500PF a couple times but only lasted 20mins or so and then went back to my other Sony gear. I occasionally bring out the Z50/500PF into the backyard to play around with it. I'm not sure why I'm still keeping the Nikon stuff. Part of me wants to keep the 500PF to use on a future Z9 but then spending $6500 on a Z9 doesn't make a lot of sense just to use the 500PF. I'll probably keep the D500 as a collector's item as my last DSLR.

Right now I'm pretty happy with my A1, 200-600 and 600GM. I'm always looking over the fence to see how green the grass is. The R5 was a fun experiment and I'm glad I got to use it to really know first hand how big of a leap Canon had made in MILC AF. Just didn't make much sense to keep it once the A1 came out. The R3 may tempt me again if it is 35+ MPs and the Z9 will surely tempt me somewhat. Although I think the R3 is going to be 20MPs which won't tempt me much at all.

Still by end of 2021 I think all three systems will have some pretty high end MILCs with excellent AF and all will have a decent selection of native and/or adapted lenses for wildlife photography. It will be hard to make a wrong decision in 2022. But it may also be hard to decide!!

$6500 for a Z9 (which we don't know yet) is bothersome but $6500 for an A1 isn't?

It seems there's a certain lack of rigor in general in comparing the performance of a new $6500 A1 vs a five year old $1500 D500. Or a four year old $3000 D850. At $4500 the a9ii isn't cheap either.

Right now it seems the best comparison to the A1 would be the D6.

 

[DavidT]

$6500 for a Z9 (which we don't know yet) is bothersome but $6500 for an A1 isn't?

It seems there's a certain lack of rigor in general in comparing the performance of a new $6500 A1 vs a five year old $1500 D500. Or a four year old $3000 D850. At $4500 the a9ii isn't cheap either.

Right now it seems the best comparison to the A1 would be the D6.

I’ll roll with you on the D6 to a1. a1 smokes it.

 

[eaj101]

I’ll roll with you on the D6 to a1. a1 smokes it.

I'm not in the market for either.

Where I am, it's the D850/D500 vs the A7r and a6x00, where in my opinion the Nikons are much more useful.

 

[Deleted member 115]

$6500 for a Z9 (which we don't know yet) is bothersome but $6500 for an A1 isn't?

It seems there's a certain lack of rigor in general in comparing the performance of a new $6500 A1 vs a five year old $1500 D500. Or a four year old $3000 D850. At $4500 the a9ii isn't cheap either.

Right now it seems the best comparison to the A1 would be the D6.

I don't own either, but what are you comparing? Just the price seems to be the only similarity

 

[arbitrage]

$6500 for a Z9 (which we don't know yet) is bothersome but $6500 for an A1 isn't?

It seems there's a certain lack of rigor in general in comparing the performance of a new $6500 A1 vs a five year old $1500 D500. Or a four year old $3000 D850. At $4500 the a9ii isn't cheap either.

Right now it seems the best comparison to the A1 would be the D6.

If you re-read what I said....$6500 is a lot to just meet my desire to use the 500PF on a competent MILC. If I was to sell off my Sony gear then $6500 is no issue and I'd buy the Z 600/4, 200-600 and adapt the 500PF. That would be one of my options. My other option is to sell the Sony gear, buy an R5 and/or R3 and a Canon RF 600/4 with RF 100-500. But the simplest option for me was/is to buy an A1 and use it with my Sony 600/4 and 200-600 (the sale of my R5/100-500/etc paid for my A1). It is very unlikely the Z9 nor R3 will surpass the A1 by any meaningful metric (other than those pining for a built-in grip). They may all become very similar options as I said by 2022 there will be no wrong choice and even more difficult to make a choice.

Sure the D6 is the best Nikon camera to compare to the A1 based on price point and them both sitting at the top of the lineups. But there are just way to many benefits of MILCs that I've now come to rely on where I could just never see myself spending money on a DSLR again. YMMV.

 

[ChrisM]

I have to say that switching to mirrorless seems to have a peculiar effect on some users, in the sense that it gives rise to a sudden and unmitigated dislike of dslr cameras. It is almost as if some have been going through hell shooting a dslr all these years, but surpressed their agony because they had to suffer it for lack of alternatives.
Switching to mirrorless apparently lifts the lid off, and out comes all the loathing. .

It's fine, I don't have that experience, I used the Sony A7RII for years and the Nikon Z7, and still enjoy shooting the Nikon D500 as much as I can imagine. My gut feeling is that that would not change with a Z9 or Canon R5 either, it won't suddenly make me become allergic to dslr cameras, and won't give me "stuck in the prehistoric ages" angst.

I simply look at best value and best fit. I prefer a crop body and prefer a high end prime lens, and don't want to spend 20.000,-
So the Nikon D500 500PF and likely a 500/4 (Sigma or a used Nikon) remain my best option. I can feel the nausea coming with the mirrorless gang, but hey, I have to use my equipment and have to pay for it...
I will certainly switch though when Canon makes a high end crop body and a 500mm f4DO, Sony makes a A100/900 and a 500/4 or Nikon makes a z900 and 600mm f5.6PF....

 

[Deleted member 115]

I have to say that switching to mirrorless seems to have a peculiar effect on some users, in the sense that it gives rise to a sudden and unmitigated dislike of dslr cameras. It is almost as if some have been going through hell shooting a dslr all these years, but surpressed their agony because they had to suffer it for lack of alternatives.
Switching to mirrorless apparently lifts the lid off, and out comes all the loathing. .

It's fine, I don't have that experience, I used the Sony A7RII for years and the Nikon Z7, and still enjoy shooting the Nikon D500 as much as I can imagine. My gut feeling is that that would not change with a Z9 or Canon R5 either, it won't suddenly make me become allergic to dslr cameras, and won't give me "stuck in the prehistoric ages" angst.

I simply look at best value and best fit. I prefer a crop body and prefer a high end prime lens, and don't want to spend 20.000,-
So the Nikon D500 500PF and likely a 500/4 (Sigma or a used Nikon) remain my best option. I can feel the nausea coming with the mirrorless gang, but hey, I have to use my equipment and have to pay for it...
I will certainly switch though when Canon makes a high end crop body and a 500mm f4DO, Sony makes a A100/900 and a 500/4 or Nikon makes a z900 and 600mm f5.6PF....

That or maybe people are just happy to have a quiet shutter and an autofocus that works really really good.