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).

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 and likely a 500/4 (Sigma or 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....

I don't think anyone is going to jump on you for sticking with your D500.. use what you enjoy. For me silent shutter was the thing that pushed me over, it makes my photo experience more enjoyable but that isn't the same for everyone.
 
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. .

No DSLR loathing from me. But I will say that even after reading all the positive reports from early mirrorless adopters I didn't really grasp the immense benefits of mirrorless until I tried one myself. I don't hate DSLR's, but I'm never going back to them.
 
$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.

The D6 a1 comparison is a good example of "good enough" vs raw specification. From a specification and performance standpoint, there's no contest, the a1 easily smokes the d6. It has a far more sophisticated AF system, more than double the frame rate, plus all the mirrorless advantages that come along for the ride.

However, for the vast majority of high-performance wildlife work I do, I can use either camera and get the shot. he D6 may not be better on paper, but it's performance is good enough for just about any user. Only on the rarest of occasion do I run across a situation where the a1 is essential for getting the shot vs the D6. However, that also doesn't mean I don't enjoy the higher performance features (and mirrorless features) on the a1 - they make it easier to get the shot and make photography more enjoyable, at least for me.
 
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....

I for one don't hate DSLRs, but I do see why people develop a dislike for them after shooting mirrorless. The thing is, it's not so much that using a DSLR is miserable - heck, I think the D6 is downright fun to use - it's that mirrorless makes it easier and solves lots of problems that have been a nuisance for years. For instance, once of my biggest pet peeves with DSLRs (long before mirrorless in fact) was that I didn't have AF all over the viewfinder. So many times I wanted to keep an AF point on an eye that was just outside of the AF area - so I either had to focus and recompose (and redo it every time the animal moved) or back out so I could keep the AF point on the eye and crop later. Mirrorless solves lots of problems like that and I think once you get used to having those options, it's tough to go back to a DSLR where they don't exist. (Of course, it's way more than AF - we now hav much faster frame rates, WYSIWYG exposure, viewfinder magnification, IBIS, silent shooting, better tracking, and on and on).

Again, I for one don't hold any disdain for DSLRs, but I also now choose mirrorless most of the time.
 
I for one don't hate DSLRs, but I do see why people develop a dislike for them after shooting mirrorless. The thing is, it's not so much that using a DSLR is miserable - heck, I think the D6 is downright fun to use - it's that mirrorless makes it easier and solves lots of problems that have been a nuisance for years. For instance, once of my biggest pet peeves with DSLRs (long before mirrorless in fact) was that I didn't have AF all over the viewfinder. So many times I wanted to keep an AF point on an eye that was just outside of the AF area - so I either had to focus and recompose (and redo it every time the animal moved) or back out so I could keep the AF point on the eye and crop later. Mirrorless solves lots of problems like that and I think once you get used to having those options, it's tough to go back to a DSLR where they don't exist. (Of course, it's way more than AF - we now hav much faster frame rates, WYSIWYG exposure, viewfinder magnification, IBIS, silent shooting, better tracking, and on and on).

Again, I for one don't hold any disdain for DSLRs, but I also now choose mirrorless most of the time.

I fully understand your reasoning, and in the same way, I am not against mirrorless at all. I was in fairly early with the Sony A7RII, Canon Eos-R and Nikon Z7, and still use the A7RII.
But still to me, what you are describing are limitations that don't neccessarily prevent you from enjoying birding/wildlife photography and getting wonderful shots.
The limitation that mirrorless brings is more objectionable to me: lack of lenses that are not either top end inaffordable, or compromised consumer type in anything longer than 400mm.
I find that múch more constricting.
I can get a Sigma 500/4 for 6500,- a used 500E for the same, a 500PF for 4000,-
Such options are not available in mirrorless, and worse, appear to be nowhere on the horizon. Next to that, the crop high performance camera body segment has been obliterated with the transition to mirrorless.

In the light of that situation, I find the D500 a delight to shoot still. I guess I care more about the lenses in the end and a favorable cost/performance ratio. I keep my hopes up for e.g. a Canon 500mm f4DO or a Nikon 600mm f5.6PF or even a Sony 500mm f4, and a high end crop body, but am realistic enough to see that the market is polarizing into high end and low end.
 
Mirrorless solves lots of problems like that and I think once you get used to having those options, it's tough to go back to a DSLR where they don't exist. (Of course, it's way more than AF - we now hav much faster frame rates, WYSIWYG exposure, viewfinder magnification, IBIS, silent shooting, better tracking, and on and on).

I've been using mirrorless cameras alongside with DSLRs since 2011... These days, when I grab my D500, I miss only 2 things from the mirrorless cameras:

1) IBIS as it allows me to be more sloppy with hand holding of the camera and I can push lower ISOs for static shots.
2) having an unified performance between tilty/flippy screen Live View and OVF usage, so I don't have to do yoga when trying to get some unusual angles.

Other than those two items, for me at least, the mirrorless advantages are nice to haves and useful in a very case by case way.

I never really had that "How did I live without this before in my life" moment with any mirrorless I've tried (among them the Canon R5/R6 and Sony's III generation of A7 cameras).

P.S:
If Nikon would come up with a Z9 that matched the Sony A1 in both price and performance and a D880 that was the D6 AF with the Z7 II's sensor and live-view at around half the Z9s price, I'd go for the D880 and be very happy for the next 5-8 years :D.


P.P.S:
After writing that, I do feel like those people back in the 1900s who, when asked if they want an automobile they said "Naaah...just give us a better horse!".
 
Last edited:
No DSLR loathing from me. But I will say that even after reading all the positive reports from early mirrorless adopters I didn't really grasp the immense benefits of mirrorless until I tried one myself. I don't hate DSLR's, but I'm never going back to them.
Yeah…none for me either. My recent upgrade to the Z7II had nothing to do with mirror or not…it had to do with wanting the improved AF modes and better sensor along with a move to FF. Secondary was the EVF with actual exposure so one doesn't have to guess. The problem is that none of the companies are spending anything R&D wise on DSLRs…it's all going into mirrorless so if you want those newer software, AF, and sensor things…the lack of a mirror just comes along with it. The biggest thing I've learned so far is that having the Z will probably get me into only mirrorless sooner than I thought…originally I was going to…and have been…taking both the Z7II and my D7500 along so no lens swap needed. What I've found out is that the way the DSLR and the mirrorless work is different enough…and the buttons and features are different enough…that shifting back and forth is confusing…but part of that might be I am not fully trained up on the 7II operations yet. I'm personally hoping for a mirrorless D500 equivalent for a couple reasons…extra lens reach due to the crop factor and lightweight kit for walking around and for travel when photography isn't the primary reason for the trip. Barring that…I'll get another FF Z model.
 
The D6 a1 comparison is a good example of "good enough" vs raw specification. From a specification and performance standpoint, there's no contest, the a1 easily smokes the d6. It has a far more sophisticated AF system, more than double the frame rate, plus all the mirrorless advantages that come along for the ride.

However, for the vast majority of high-performance wildlife work I do, I can use either camera and get the shot. he D6 may not be better on paper, but it's performance is good enough for just about any user. Only on the rarest of occasion do I run across a situation where the a1 is essential for getting the shot vs the D6. However, that also doesn't mean I don't enjoy the higher performance features (and mirrorless features) on the a1 - they make it easier to get the shot and make photography more enjoyable, at least for me.
When I see someone driving nails with an A1 I may start believing :) (That's a joke!)
 
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.

Speaking only for myself, mirrorless solved several problems I'd had with DSLR cameras. I've loathed DSLR cameras for a long time but the DSLR was the best option. Now there are better fits for my uses. For example:

IBIS - every lens is stabilized, even my old manual-focus Micro-Nikkor and the fabulous APO-Lanthars and Leica APO-Telyt.
WYSIWYG exposure in the viewfinder, helps avoid blown out highlights. Lots of birds have white in their plumage.
Silent mode with fast readout. Very handy for small birds at close range, it means I can get many exposures without the bird reacting to the camera's sound.
AF all over the viewfinder, with tracking. The camera finds the bird, finds the bird's eye, and tracks it all over the viewfinder.
Manual focus is hit/miss with the DSLR, viewfinder magnification in the mirrorless camera makes nailing manual focus simple.
AF accuracy, no need to micro-adjust focus.
Mass & bulk. The typical high-performance DSLR is much too big fat & bulky.

I loathed DSLRs for every one of these reasons. They were the best tools in their time, there are better options now. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
I fully understand your reasoning, and in the same way, I am not against mirrorless at all. I was in fairly early with the Sony A7RII, Canon Eos-R and Nikon Z7, and still use the A7RII.
But still to me, what you are describing are limitations that don't neccessarily prevent you from enjoying birding/wildlife photography and getting wonderful shots.
The limitation that mirrorless brings is more objectionable to me: lack of lenses that are not either top end inaffordable, or compromised consumer type in anything longer than 400mm.
I find that múch more constricting.
I can get a Sigma 500/4 for 6500,- a used 500E for the same, a 500PF for 4000,-
Such options are not available in mirrorless, and worse, appear to be nowhere on the horizon. Next to that, the crop high performance camera body segment has been obliterated with the transition to mirrorless.

In the light of that situation, I find the D500 a delight to shoot still. I guess I care more about the lenses in the end and a favorable cost/performance ratio. I keep my hopes up for e.g. a Canon 500mm f4DO or a Nikon 600mm f5.6PF or even a Sony 500mm f4, and a high end crop body, but am realistic enough to see that the market is polarizing into high end and low end.

Doug actually made some the points in his post I was going to make. And I agree, I can still do wildlife with DSLRs, no question, did it for years and thoroughly enjoy it. However, if I had spent all my life hammering nails with a wrench and someone offered me a hammer, that would quickly become my preferred tool :)

And while the difference between mirrorless and DSLRs isn't as striking as that of a hammer and wrench, there is a difference - at least between the current high-end mirrorless and DSLRs. For me, mirrorless makes it easier and does solve problems I've had with DSLRs. Of course, I had solutions to those problems with DSLRs, but mirrorless offered even better solutions. I'm confident in my ability to get the shot with any type of camera (mirrored or not) it's just that mirrorless makes it easier and allows me to concentrate on more artistic aspects of the image - and in some cases, the technology allows me to capture images that weren't was easy / possible with DSLRs.

One quick example of that is tracking. Last year I was photographing swallows - or trying to - with a D6. They were landing on a bridge and I'd focus on the bird and chase it as it took off. Despite the AF point being on the bird (GRP in this case, but I tried several others with equally bad luck) after a half an hour I had exactly zero keepers. Just for fun, I tried the a9ii and used its tracking mode and immediately started getting keepers. The a9ii had technology the D6 didn't and it allowed me to get a difficult shot. (Also, I have captured swallows with D5/6 and even D7500 series cameras under different conditions, it's just that this scenario stymied the D6).

Still, in the end when I'm out shooting, I really don't care what style of camera I'm using - as long as it's not holding me back, I'm a happy camper :D

As for lenses, it depends which mirrorless system. They are all still in their infancy and more lenses will come in time. As I mentioned in a recent video, if you're happy with your DSLR, now is a really good time to hold tight and see what happens. Good times ahead no matter what :)

(Oh, and I agree - there really is an extreme polarization starting to happen between low and high-end gear, although it's always sort of been there to a greater or lesser extent. - only recently did we get an "in-between" lens like the 500PF)
 
When I see someone driving nails with an A1 I may start believing :) (That's a joke!)

LOL :)

BTW - So far, the a1 and a9ii have been pretty tough, although I haven't taken them to the rainforest or kicked them around in Africa yet. I don't know if they'll hold up like the D5/6, time will tell.
 
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.

I think you just nailed my impressions when I tested the Canon R5 and 100-500 zoom - it's a good lens, but certainly no better than the 500pf and yet the images are just so spot-on focused that it seems the lens is in a different tier of performance. That's been my biggest revelation with my R5 experimentation - I can't wait to see what it does with a stellar lens instead of a merely good one.
 
LOL :)

BTW - So far, the a1 and a9ii have been pretty tough, although I haven't taken them to the rainforest or kicked them around in Africa yet. I don't know if they'll hold up like the D5/6, time will tell.
@Steve I’m curious now that you have taken the a1 to Costa Rica for several weeks, what’s your impression of its durability?
 
@Steve I’m curious now that you have taken the a1 to Costa Rica for several weeks, what’s your impression of its durability?
No issues at all. The funny thing is, Rose was using the Z6ii with a grip and it didn't seem to like the humidity. The Z6ii kept locking up and the only remedy was pulling the grip. The a1 (and a9ii) had zero issues - no problem with the humidity, no problem with the rain, no problem with the rough roads. They worked flawlessly.
 
No issues at all. The funny thing is, Rose was using the Z6ii with a grip and it didn't seem to like the humidity. The Z6ii kept locking up and the only remedy was pulling the grip. The a1 (and a9ii) had zero issues - no problem with the humidity, no problem with the rain, no problem with the rough roads. They worked flawlessly.
Put another nail in that coffin, why don't you? ;)
Not completely surprising though, A9 and A1 are touted as pro bodies when the Z6ii certainly never has been, but the D750 and D780 aren't known to be sensitive to humidity (my D750 certainly isn't and I have abused the poor thing) and those two would be direct comparisons to the Z6ii.
 
Put another nail in that coffin, why don't you? ;)
Not completely surprising though, A9 and A1 are touted as pro bodies when the Z6ii certainly never has been, but the D750 and D780 aren't known to be sensitive to humidity (my D750 certainly isn't and I have abused the poor thing) and those two would be direct comparisons to the Z6ii.
I was honestly surprised about the Z6ii. We've had Z cameras in Costa Rica before with zero issues, and no one else with a Z camera had an issue. I just thought it was interesting since everyone always talks about how "fragile" Sony cameras are and how "tough" Nikon bodies are. :D
 
I was honestly surprised about the Z6ii. We've had Z cameras in Costa Rica before with zero issues, and no one else with a Z camera had an issue. I just thought it was interesting since everyone always talks about how "fragile" Sony cameras are and how "tough" Nikon bodies are. :D
Good to hear! I think Sony has evolved, just like people complaining about the menus, well those have been updated as well with the a1. Old records being played which is common no matter the brand.
 
I for one am looking forward to Sony's response to the R5. Apparently, it appears the A9 was discontinued recently. I'm wondering if they are ending the A9 line due to it's overlap with the alpha 1 or if t hey are perhaps preparing for a launch of an A9III that competes more directly with the R5 and leaving the A1 to compete with the Z9/R3/R1 (eventually).

edit: could also just be B&H messing up again and labeling something discontinued that isn't.
 
Good to hear! I think Sony has evolved, just like people complaining about the menus, well those have been updated as well with the a1. Old records being played which is common no matter the brand.
I’ve heard Sony has improved the menus and I’ve always wondered how bad they could have been. I dislike the menu systems of most cameras and hate going into them to look for settings. I don’t find Nikon’s menus to be intuitive either. I‘m sure as more features are added to mirrorless cameras, the menus will only get bigger and it will be important to get them right.
 
I have seen several people say that there should be an A1ii coming next year. Does anyone have any information on that? I asked the Sony rep recently while they were in town and they said no time soon since its still a relatively new body. I just don't want to consider getting one only to have the new version come out a few months later :)
 
I for one am looking forward to Sony's response to the R5. Apparently, it appears the A9 was discontinued recently. I'm wondering if they are ending the A9 line due to it's overlap with the alpha 1 or if t hey are perhaps preparing for a launch of an A9III that competes more directly with the R5 and leaving the A1 to compete with the Z9/R3/R1 (eventually).

edit: could also just be B&H messing up again and labeling something discontinued that isn't.
Sony had been selling the a9 and a9II side by side. It makes sense to discontinue the a9 now and yes a a9III has got to be on the horizon. It is kind of like RAM trucks selling their classic model along side the newer model at the same time. The classic like the a9 fits the needs of many and at a lower price point. I suspect Sony made more money as well.
 
I have seen several people say that there should be an A1ii coming next year. Does anyone have any information on that? I asked the Sony rep recently while they were in town and they said no time soon since its still a relatively new body. I just don't want to consider getting one only to have the new version come out a few months later :)
Nah they won't do that. The a1II I would suspect we would see in 2023. Sony seems to be upgrading the pro bodies on a 2-3 year cycle. This could change with the a1 as they probably have headroom built in for improvements via firmware. I would say until a sensor that handles high iso better there isn't that much you could improve with the a1 that you likely couldn't do via firmware.
 
Back
Top