Sony A9 (nn) vs A1

[Palmor]

There a quite a few features of the A1 (or A9) that really peaked my interest. AF and silent shutter being just a few. Yesterday I was along side another photographer who was using a Sony A9 (???) equipped with the 200-600mm zoom. While my D500/850 sounded like a machine gun going off, his was totally quiet. I wasnt even sure he was shooting until I asked him. That said....

Yesterday, I was testing out the Nikon 500pf lens rental and it blew me away. While I have not used a lot of telephoto lens in the past, those I have come nowhere near to the sharpness of this prime. It will be very difficult to return this lens and go back to my own equipment. Likewise, with all the other great features of the A1 aside, I would not be totally happy if it, along with the 200-600mm zoom, did not deliver the same sharpness as the D500/D850 and 500pf combo did. Thoughts?

I have not pixel peeped or done extensive testing between my 500PF and my 200-600. What I can say is that I've never been disappointed about the sharpness of the 200-600 lens itself (issues with the person behind the camera sure ). Any potential minor differences in IQ between the two lenses is still not enough to make me go back to that combo.

In general I find technique and env conditions play a bigger role in sharpness than the difference between two lenses that are close in IQ. Give me a 200-500 with perfect atmospheric conditions and close distance to my subject vs a 600 f/4 where there is even a slight heat haze and I'm a little too far away.

 

[Roy]

While there are a number of YouTube videos that do this comparison, I could find little from a wildlife perspective. I personally have no experience with any mirrorless so I am starting with little or no knowledge on either. What I do know is that in Canada, the difference in price between the two is about $3K.
For those who have used or reviewed both, is/was the price difference worth it to you and if so, why?

Amongst the mirrorless cameras Sony still has a small lead.
Apart from that although a great camera the A1 specs are misleading and its a bit overpriced.

 

[Karl]

Yep. Over 400 ISO the resolution advantage of the A7R IV over the 42 mp A7R III is lost to noise.

I use the A9 which is plenty capable and the A7R III whose AF and EVF make me work harder but wow, the bird plumage detail is worth it.

I have the a7R4 and I shoot some pretty high ISO's... often into the thousands... it was a bit of a
problem until Topaz DeNoise essentially solved most issues. What I really like is the 61 megapixels for cropping... don't know if I could live without that. I only have one lens, the 200-600 which has been excellent for me... I don't know where/why people complained about it when coupled with the a7R4... no problems here.

 

[DavidT]

Amongst the mirrorless cameras Sony still has a small lead.
Apart from that although a great camera the A1 specs are misleading and its a bit overpriced.

I own one and don't agree with you. It is the best value of any high speed high MP camera out there. I am adding a second one to my fleet.

 

[geoawelch]

I have the a7R4 and I shoot some pretty high ISO's... often into the thousands... it was a bit of a
problem until Topaz DeNoise essentially solved most issues. What I really like is the 61 megapixels for cropping... don't know if I could live without that. I only have one lens, the 200-600 which has been excellent for me... I don't know where/why people complained about it when coupled with the a7R4... no problems here.

I find the Topaz DeNoise argument to justify noisier cameras interesting.

All things being equal, I don’t want to have to spend extra computer time if I don’t have to.

I round the A7RIV ‘sluggish’ in comparison to the A9, along with the issues Steve mentioned above.

George

 

[FB101]

Amongst the mirrorless cameras Sony still has a small lead.
Apart from that although a great camera the A1 specs are misleading and its a bit overpriced.

Expensive for sure but overpriced compared to what?

Compared to the R5, the difference in price is not so much spec related (a little) as it is about the shooting experience. Both the viewfinder and overall reactivity of the A1 create a shooting experience that feels actually more agile and more engaging than a DSLR, The R5 is anexcellent camera but it does still have lag and blackout. I find the difference between the two more than enough to justify the price difference.
Also the canon R lenses being more expensive, the difference in price for a system melts rapidly if you add a couple lenses.
Compared to the R3 I suspect the shooting experience will be equally pleasant, possibly even a bit better with canon. But it’s 24mp in which case an A9ii although not quite as good as the R3 is also cheaper.
Compared to the Z7ii... apples and oranges
Compared to the Z9, nobody knows how good that camera will be (likely amazing) and what it will cost.

If the Z9 exceeds the A1 and is cheaper then you will be right but for the last year+ the A1 hasn’t had any equal competition so why would Sony price it lower? The supply they have is flying off the shelf anyway. When supply disruptions go away and true competition (z9 and R1) exists, then Sony may have to adjust price, until then, they are priced right where they can be, which is expensive, no doubt about it.

 

[FB101]

I have not pixel peeped or done extensive testing between my 500PF and my 200-600. What I can say is that I've never been disappointed about the sharpness of the 200-600 lens itself (issues with the person behind the camera sure ). Any potential minor differences in IQ between the two lenses is still not enough to make me go back to that combo.

In general I find technique and env conditions play a bigger role in sharpness than the difference between two lenses that are close in IQ. Give me a 200-500 with perfect atmospheric conditions and close distance to my subject vs a 600 f/4 where there is even a slight heat haze and I'm a little too far away.

My first few hundred shots with the Sony 200-600 would seem to confirm that.
i think I noticed two things with the 200-600 vs 500pf that I will need to confirm.
First the stabiliser seems more effective, or it’s the lack of mirror vibration, either way, it seems I can hit lower speeds with better results than on the D850 with 500pf.
Second, backgrounds are smoother with the 200-600. Bokeh doesn’t seem to have that slightly contrasty edge I see on the 500pf

On the other hand I really miss the focus distance recall feature of the 500pf and the ability to manually focus without hitting a button first (both are great when AF is stuck on the background). But at $2000, I am glad Sony delivered on optics and dropped a couple features rather than the other way around.

 

[FB101]

Look forward to hearing your findings

Very happy so far but the two lenses do have differences.

The 200-600 on the A1 acquires focus a lot faster than the D850 + 500pf. You read it from everybody who changed brands, it’s hard to put in words, but it’s the most obvious difference. Tracking after acquisition is also more sticky.
The big difference on acquisition for me was also low light, where the D850 hunts, the A1 didnt.

Optically, I think they are very close, but for now I’d give the 200-600 a surprising small edge for 3 reasons. The stabiliser seems more effective (or it is the lack of mirror slap, either way I can get to lower speeds), the bokeh seems a bit smoother (it’s not an f:4 prime but oof backgrounds seem less edgy) and, wait for it... it’s a zoom which is more versatile (but usually comes with optical trade offs and so far I have not seen any), and with that, 600mm is also meaningfully more useful than 500mm

I have seen no flare and no drop in contrast in backlit scenes but I wasn’t deliberately testing for that either. The 500pf is pretty good in that regard as well.

The shortcomings af the 200-600 compared to the 500pf so far seem to be weight, weight balance, no AF distance recall feature and no manual focus available without setting a custom button for it (Or use the switch on the lens of course). But at half the price you’d expect some features missing.

that’s my summary after 1 day of shooting so take it with all the grains of salt necessary - some of those conclusions may change over time. What I can say for sure is that I got many shots yesterday I would have struggled to get with the D850 and 500pf but I “easily” got with the A1 and 200-600.
Conversely I also missed some I would have gotten with my Nikon gear but it was user error, not nearly mastering the A1 complex focus capabilities yet.

 

[Roaring 40s]

I have the a7R4 and I shoot some pretty high ISO's... often into the thousands... it was a bit of a
problem until Topaz DeNoise essentially solved most issues. What I really like is the 61 megapixels for cropping... don't know if I could live without that. I only have one lens, the 200-600 which has been excellent for me... I don't know where/why people complained about it when coupled with the a7R4... no problems here.

CPLs could cause problems. Ditto low light\low contrast settings. And low technique.
I paired the 200-600 with the A9 and 1.4 TC and got soft results compared with the 100-400 so ditched it. The only alternative has been expensive.

 

[Karl]

CPLs could cause problems. Ditto low light\low contrast settings. And low technique.
I paired the 200-600 with the A9 and 1.4 TC and got soft results compared with the 100-400 so ditched it. The only alternative has been expensive.

My conclusion: whatever works best for you.
Others have said the 200-600 works fine, even with a TC, on the A9 but not so well on the a7R4. My experience is the 200-600 is great with the a7R4 and very slightly less sharp with the TC even though I still use the 1.4 TC when the light is good and I need the reach (if the light isn't great, then I would skip the TC and crop more).
What are CPLs?

 

[RockvilleBob]

I'll be a lot wiser about that question after I get a chance to take the A1 and 200-600 out for the first time this week-end
What I can absolutely tell you is that the 500pf is a bit lighter and you can feel the difference (but not a massive one), what is quite a change is the weight balance. With Sony you have a heavier lens, and a lighter body so you do feel a more front-heavy set-up. Not to the point of being objectionable but it is very notable when you first pick it up.

The other surprise for me is that the sony 200-600 doesn't have a visible focusing distance scale - so you don't know when you grab it if it is at infinity or close distance or in between. It doesn't seem to have a focus distance recall option either that I could find. I don't think any of this is a deal breaker but I am used to setting a focus distance recall to help when the AF gets lost especially when I settle next to a promising bush with branches that might come in the way - so I will need to find a work-around (or figure out where it is in the 5000 pages of options in the menus...)

I look forward to learning about your time with the A1 and 200-600. That's what I plan to order - yes but - I am waiting to see what Nikon delivers. For my shooting the 200-600 is ideal for me since I spend 90% of my wildlife shooting sitting in a kayak. The 200-600 looks like a sweet lens for this versus the Sigma Sport 150-600 I now use.

 

[Roaring 40s]

My conclusion: whatever works best for you.
Others have said the 200-600 works fine, even with a TC, on the A9 but not so well on the a7R4. My experience is the 200-600 is great with the a7R4 and very slightly less sharp with the TC even though I still use the 1.4 TC when the light is good and I need the reach (if the light isn't great, then I would skip the TC and crop more).
What are CPLs?

Circular polarizing filters.
Though quality in big ones is hard to achieve.

 

[MikePapple]

Where would the A7Riv fit in this puzzle? Certainly middle ground price wise.

It is best to have an A1 for each of your Sony lenses, so dust on the sensor or back of the lens is not a problem.

The A7R4 is my backup camera. It is great for landscapes, and good for general photography. It is not intended for fast action / birding.