Who’s buying the Sony a1MK2?

[DavidT]

I bought into the "Nikon has better glass" thing which is how I got here. But I think knowing what I would know now, I would say "Nikon has better mid tier glass". The 400 4.5, 600PF, and 800PF are budget marvels. If you're in the $5K - $10K range, I don't think a better system exists for wildlife photography.

However, if you have a 400TC or 600TC - you'll always get better quality images from those lenses, which means there often isn't a reason to have the 400 4.5, 600PF or 800PF unless you just want to save weight.

At the top end (think $15K+ budget) most people are going to have their 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 that all brands have, and while the built in TC is really nice - I value precapture raw, more FPS, better AF, etc. more than that built in TC. in most cases you're paying $3K USD+ for that built in TC as well, which can get you a lot of other glass, bodies, or accessories (CF cards).

My expectation (and I'll post more when I learn if I was right or wrong) is that the A1 II + 300GM + 600GM combo will outperform any of Nikon's current offerings for the majority of people.

Even adapting my 300GM to Nikon bodies (which means reduced image stabilization and AF), the 300GM with TC outperforms both the 400 4.5 and 600PF, meaning those don't provide much, if any value.

A man who gets it! Well said!

 

[DavidT]

I think the built in TC flexibility is just as important (fast) as pre-capture or any af difference. Pulling a lens off to add a TC is a pain and can't be done when you need it right now, you'll miss moments. It almost turns a prime into a zoom. The TC is not something I would compromise on for high end lenses.

Pre-Capture doesn't do anything a large buffer cannot if you don't mind scrolling through the shots, which is sort of like fast forwarding video. It's more a convenience, a nice one, but you'll still get the shot with Nikon's buffer. It's essentially unlimited with the right card and HE*/HE in use. The A-1ii is using its equivalent after all to shoot 30FPS instead of lossless. I know it's a bit strange holding the shutter down for a minute or more, but it's no different than just recording video clips. There's no shutter to wear out.

If I were you I'd do what Steve has and buy the A-1ii and use it with the 300GM and TC's and keep the Nikon gear. You'll have a Z9ii in a year and the 10 FPS and pre-capture difference will be gone, likely the AF difference as well.

That way you'll constantly have the best kit on the shelf any given year. If I had the money that's exactly what would be on my shelf.

Right now the best lenses on the market are those Nikon TC's and Sony's 300GM, just have the bodies to run both.

All you need is to add the A-1ii. Heck sell a Z9 and have one of each.

No way in the world just holding a shutter button down for minutes is the same as pre capture. Clearly you haven’t used it on a Sony camera.

 

[KarenSchofield]

I was Nikon for 18 years and I am happy with landscape and astrophotographers shots. I have too many Nikon accessories to completely sell off. If the subject is BIG and slow Nikon is fine.
That said, two years ago I got 2 Sony A1 bodies that I needed for bird photography and an African safari. Nikon just could not perform for fast-action and tracking. I would have enjoyed a Z9 if it was not three pounds heavy.

For now the A1s will suffice for fast action shots. I’m anxious to hear what the new Sony performance reviews say.

 

[daran]

If only Sony would have come out with an A1 ll with a builtin battery grip and make it a little larger like the size of an R3 I would be all in on Sony

Have you tried to hold a A9III style body? I have "normal" hands for a tall male and don't see why I should wana carry any more than that body and my 600GM.

 

[DavidT]

Have you tried to hold a A9III style body? I have "normal" hands for a tall male and don't see why I should wana carry any more than that body and my 600GM.

You’re right the a9III body and now a1mk2 body are the best feeling cameras I’ve ever held.

 

[daran]

Even adapting my 300GM to Nikon bodies (which means reduced image stabilization and AF), the 300GM with TC outperforms both the 400 4.5 and 600PF, meaning those don't provide much, if any value.

Outperforms in terms of AF? Outperforms when used naked? I have no experience with those Nikon lenses, but optically I would expect the 600PF to be superior to the 300GM with TC2.

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I share the same views . I am happy with my A1 & just ordered a Sony 300 f 2.8 with 2 TC . Of course if Sony offers a free exchange scheme for A1 , I will certainly take it

 

[MikeInMI]

When I bought my A1, I debated as to where I would purchase it. Then I realized that since I had an Amazon Visa card, if I bought it from Amazon, I’d get over $300 back in Amazon credit towards anything else that Amazon sells. Something to consider.

 

[sh1209]

You’re right the a9III body and now a1mk2 body are the best feeling cameras I’ve ever held.

Having three different Sony bodies currently, I can truthfully say I like the ergonomics of all of them. This is probably one of the biggest factors in my choice to switch from Nikon to Sony. The A7RV is only a couple millimeters different than the A9iii and I agree it’s a very comfortable body and I like the rear Screen. I still absolutely love the way the original A1 feels as well. For a small APSC, the A 6700 can easily be shot all day comfortably. I truly hope Sony stays with the smaller bodies because that is definitely in the top three reasons I chose the system to go with.

 

[Lee R]

No way in the world just holding a shutter button down for minutes is the same as pre capture. Clearly you haven’t used it on a Sony camera.

I have precapture on the Z8, I completely understand what it does and is. It's a convenience. I'd love to have RAW precapture as it keeps the moment concise in review.

However if the buffer never slows and is unlimited as it is on the Z8 /Z9 (HE/HE* RAW) you'll get the same shot just running 20FPS for minutes on end. 30FPS would be even better as that's 30% more pose opportunities.

Z9/8 have had pre-capture in JPEG a lot longer than Sony. It's not the end times if you don't have it in RAW. You can absolutely do the same thing by just letting it rip nonstop. There's almost 40 minutes strait of 20FPS shooting on a 1TB card in HE raw. There's no shutter to wear out. This applies to the A1 as well if it's similar in a compressed RAW for unlimited buffer, I don't know as I don't have an A-1 if that's true.

Pre-capture is a convenience and a very nice one, but you can do the same by just shooting longer waiting for the moment. The penalty is in review, not in missing a shot because you didn't have pre-capture.

 

[Venkatesh VT]

Sorry guys, by "all in" I mean for my Sony kit I'm committing to the new camera, not going 100% Sony and ditching Nikon. I'm still shooting both. This year and a good part of last was mostly Nikon gear (since they had a lot of new releases), but it seems like they are cooling off a little on new stuff so 2025 will be a lot of Sony shooting I think. I want to spend time with the a1-2 and my 300 2.8 is still feeling' pretty new so I have to change that

Steve. I waited for you to share your experience with Sony 300 f 2.8 to bite the bullet ( like I did with A1) . How ever i followed in the advice of Arbitage to buy it along with 2 TC since we am going on a whale & wild life safari to Sri Lanka next month.
Presently my wife is using Z9 with 400 f 4.5 . I think I will have to let her have the Sony combo since in India ladies are still the weaker sex

 

[mackster]

I'm a Nikon shooter (Z9 & Z8), so no. I am curious to hear comments on how people like the a1MK2 once they get it, however.

 

[RikWriter]

Intriguing…
Nikon has the better the glass and I’m not sure the A1ii benefits alone would compensate.
Perhaps Sony are refreshing their own telephoto offerings next year?
Time will tell

Nikon has more versatile glass design but the actual quality of their lenses isn't any better.

 

[sh1209]

Nikon has more versatile glass design but the actual quality of their lenses isn't any better.

From being a long time, Nikon shooter I personally think the image quality is very noticeably superior with the Sony G master lenses. They are also lighter and have more features than the Nikon counterparts. I am in no way saying the Nikon Z lens are not phenomenal because they are, but I think the Sony G master lenses are just a step above. Just an opinion

 

[DO101]

...
I will sell my A1 but no rush so will have both side by side to run a few tests back to back between them before I sell it. I found some real regressions in the underlying non-tracking AF behaviour between the A9III/A7RV (which had AI chips) compared to the A1/A9II/A7RIV without the chip that I didn't like and I want to confirm that back to back a bit more.

Could you please provide clarification or some links regarding the mentioned difference in non-tracking AF behaviors between the cameras with and w/o the AI chip? Thanks

 

[nmerc_photos]

I think the built in TC flexibility is just as important (fast) as pre-capture or any af difference. Pulling a lens off to add a TC is a pain and can't be done when you need it right now, you'll miss moments. It almost turns a prime into a zoom. The TC is not something I would compromise on for high end lenses.

Pre-Capture doesn't do anything a large buffer cannot if you don't mind scrolling through the shots, which is sort of like fast forwarding video. It's more a convenience, a nice one, but you'll still get the shot with Nikon's buffer. It's essentially unlimited with the right card and HE*/HE in use. The A-1ii is using its equivalent after all to shoot 30FPS instead of lossless. I know it's a bit strange holding the shutter down for a minute or more, but it's no different than just recording video clips. There's no shutter to wear out.

If I were you I'd do what Steve has and buy the A-1ii and use it with the 300GM and TC's and keep the Nikon gear. You'll have a Z9ii in a year and the 10 FPS and pre-capture difference will be gone, likely the AF difference as well.

That way you'll constantly have the best kit on the shelf any given year. If I had the money that's exactly what would be on my shelf.

Right now the best lenses on the market are those Nikon TC's and Sony's 300GM, just have the bodies to run both.

All you need is to add the A-1ii. Heck sell a Z9 and have one of each.

People always bring up the "just shoot with an infinite buffer" argument, and I don't find it valid. I want less garbage images to sort through, not more. Also even if unlimited buffer, my Z9 cannot seem to get good frames going from static perch to in the air. Not sure if it's a function of the AF, the "only" 20 FPS, or what.

Having tested the R5 II, I was able to use that system to get every shot I wanted with ease.

There's no point to me in keeping Nikon gear for a "what-if" situation in a year or two. Camera gear prices only decrease, and I'm not interested in being a multi system shooter.

If Nikon leapfrogs and brings back something interesting (hello Z9 II + 300TC???), I can always swap back easily.

This is quite a statement, I would probably highlight YOU BELIEVE they do not provide any value TO YOU as the the concept of outperformance is very subjective.

I think you're taking it out of context and too broadly. I'm saying for anyone that can afford the 300GM + TC's, they outperform the 400 4.5 and 600PF, meaning anyone in that situation would not have a need for them.

I've yet to see anyone suggest otherwise.

Outperforms in terms of AF? Outperforms when used naked? I have no experience with those Nikon lenses, but optically I would expect the 600PF to be superior to the 300GM with TC2.

Outperforms in terms of image quality and flexibility.

I think if the 600PF wasn't a PF lens, I would tend to agree. But in my experience with PF vs "normal", the PF lenses have a lot more "restrictions" when using them. Their images fall apart more quickly under inclement weather (haze, atmospheric conditions) or when shooting at further distances.

I also just find the IQ and bokeh of the 300GM + TC's to be much better than the PF lenses.

When I compare the 300GM + 2x to a 600TC, they look to be in the same caliber. When I compare the 600PF to the 600TC, I don't feel the same way.

As always, YMMV.

 

[EJARAN]

I thought about it (maybe 3 minutes) and decided I’m staying with my A1 & probably opting to purchase the GM300 f2.8
Having pre-capture and the swiveling monitor would be nice, but the sensor is still the same. I have NO complaints about the images produced by this sensor, so I’ll hope for maybe a firmware update and wait for the next iteration of the A1.

 

[nealabello]

My A1 is already great for my purposes, my next change will likely be to upgrade my A7RV to a second A1.

I will probably do the same.

 

[Lee R]

People always bring up the "just shoot with an infinite buffer" argument, and I don't find it valid. I want less garbage images to sort through, not more. Also even if unlimited buffer, my Z9 cannot seem to get good frames going from static perch to in the air. Not sure if it's a function of the AF, the "only" 20 FPS, or what.

You want convienience.

The fact is your getting the shot at 20 FPS if you roll shutter for minutes or concisely if you snip it with pre-capture in a much shorter duration. You get the shot if the shot is attainable at 20 FPS RAW either way. Some of us are willing to sort and not pay the hefty price for that efficiency boost.

Now if 20 FPS is limiting your pose opportunities and JPEG won't cut it, then you have the R5ii or A-1ii right now to give 30 a shot or the R1 at 40 and beyond that the A9iii for 60 and 120. If that's what you need then that's the only option for now.

AF is its own separate issue. If the camera is slow to respond and you already set AF to erratic and tried the fastest response options then you have to be creative and use Zone focus or other tried and true techniques photographers have been using for decades. If you want AF to handle that instead give the Sony or Canon a try and see if it can do it. Maybe it can or maybe it cant. The A-1ii has already had a few issues with AF pointed out so I would not get hopes to high with these systems as they all will have issues in certain conditions and you have to adapt and get the shot with your own skills.

If you have the money swap them out and have a blast. But I'm not buying that you can't get the shot unless you have Pre-Capture. I have pre-capture after all and the buffer works.

It's simply a time saving tool unless you don't have the skill to read a subject and know when to start recording. But that's not a camera issue it's a photographer skill issue. You'll record the moment using either function if the framerate of 20 is adequate.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Lee,

I have an OM-1. With a 300f4 it has AF pre-capture @ 50 f/s.

1-I tried getting a shot of a male Painted Bunting flying towards me at Laguna Seca Ranch. Every time the bird showed up, I was in pre-capture, and I tried getting the shot for 3 days. I scored one (not great) shot and if I held down the shutter every time I tried it would probably be over an hour @ 50 f/s. I can't imagine 120 f/s which the OM-1 does. Technically, pre-capture is a convivence but in the real world it is a requirement.

2-20-24mp is an issue because to get the subject reasonably large in the frame you need to crop. This was even true at Laguna Seca when shooting a small fast bird like a Painted Bunting. Even at 45-50mp you could wind up cropping too much. It is easy to get the BIF in the frame when the subject is small in the frame. I sit in my back yard and catch Finches, Lesser Goldfinches and the like land and take off from the birdbath. Unfortunately, I am about 50 feet away so even with the 300f4-2.0TC (1200mp ff equ.) the shots aren't worth much. (Come summer I will sit closer.)

3-To properly frame a shot keeping the subject in the frame while creating a sufficient space in the frame to capture the bird in the pose you want requires a zoom, carefully setting the zoom amount and, unfortunately cropping in post although hopefully not too much. It is not clear to me than any of the Big 3's zooms will AF at 50-60 or even 20F/s. (The Om Systems 150-400f4 will.) In my backyard I have a feeder station about 12 feet away. Bigger birds like Western Bluebirds, Scrub Jays do show up. I am forever adjusting my zoom (150-400+ 1.4 TC 1120mm ff equ.) and shooting @ 25 f/s hoping for a decent shot with the BIF large in the frame.

Tom

 

[nmerc_photos]

You want convienience.

The fact is your getting the shot at 20 FPS if you roll shutter for minutes or concisely if you snip it with pre-capture in a much shorter duration. You get the shot if the shot is attainable at 20 FPS RAW either way. Some of us are willing to sort and not pay the hefty price for that efficiency boost.

Now if 20 FPS is limiting your pose opportunities and JPEG won't cut it, then you have the R5ii or A-1ii right now to give 30 a shot or the R1 at 40 and beyond that the A9iii for 60 and 120. If that's what you need then that's the only option for now.

AF is its own separate issue. If the camera is slow to respond and you already set AF to erratic and tried the fastest response options then you have to be creative and use Zone focus or other tried and true techniques photographers have been using for decades. If you want AF to handle that instead give the Sony or Canon a try and see if it can do it. Maybe it can or maybe it cant. The A-1ii has already had a few issues with AF pointed out so I would not get hopes to high with these systems as they all will have issues in certain conditions and you have to adapt and get the shot with your own skills.

If you have the money swap them out and have a blast. But I'm not buying that you can't get the shot unless you have Pre-Capture. I have pre-capture after all and the buffer works.

It's simply a time saving tool unless you don't have the skill to read a subject and know when to start recording. But that's not a camera issue it's a photographer skill issue. You'll record the moment using either function if the framerate of 20 is adequate.

Yes, I agree with all of that. I thought it was a given that all this new tech is for convenience. Nobody "NEEDS" 45MP, or 30FPS, or autofocus, or AI, or precapture. They're all luxury items. People have been getting the shots we're trying to get, for 30+ years. If you have the time and patience, it's all technically doable.

Take Tom Mangelsen's 1988 "Catch of the Day" (the most famous wildlife photograph in the world) of a bear with a salmon mid air at Katmai. He did that with an ancient Nikon body, 2 FPS, and none of the fancy stuff we have today. That shot took hours, if not years to get. Nowadays if you have an A9II, A1 II, or R5 II - you can essentially guarantee you'll get a similar shot during your trip.

I don't want to waste hours being frustrated in the field when another system can easily execute the exact same shot. I take wildlife photos to enjoy and share with friends and family, not to make stuff hard or tedious for the sake of it being hard and tedious.

Especially in this world where money is so plentiful and easy to make, and time is and always will be a limited resource - I'm always going to pick the tool that will give me the best odds of executing what I want done.

Doing direct comparisons between the A1, R5II, and Z9 it is quite clear the ease at which the other systems can get shots that the Nikon struggles with.

 

[arbitrage]

Could you please provide clarification or some links regarding the mentioned difference in non-tracking AF behaviors between the cameras with and w/o the AI chip? Thanks

Just my personal experience.

 

[Mommacat]

I have to say I'm confused that many hear think the z9 AF is subpar. I'm currently an A1 with 2-6 shooter who rented the 600GM and the Z9 with 600 TC this summer and found the Nikon AF superior to the Sony, at least for the subjects I try to document and their challenging environments. Perhaps the A1ii has better AF but according to Jan Wagener, who is honest and accomplished, it had some struggles. I will also say the Nikon VR, buffer, and cards were far superior to either of the Sony setups. Those are very important in my book.

Yes, all of these setups, including Canon and others, produce beautiful images and as many have said we are fortunate to have great options. I just wanted to share my experience again and give some "love" to Nikon.

Wishing everyone success in their photography and their decisions.

 

[sh1209]

I have to say I'm confused that many hear think the z9 AF is subpar. I'm currently an A1 with 2-6 shooter who rented the 600GM and the Z9 with 600 TC this summer and found the Nikon AF superior to the Sony, at least for the subjects I try to document and their challenging environments. Perhaps the A1ii has better AF but according to Jan Wagener, who is honest and accomplished, it had some struggles. I will also say the Nikon VR, buffer, and cards were far superior to either of the Sony setups. Those are very important in my book.

Yes, all of these setups, including Canon and others, produce beautiful images and as many have said we are fortunate to have great options. I just wanted to share my experience again and give some "love" to Nikon.

Wishing everyone success in their photography and their decisions.

I think you are correct in the fact that all modern cameras are more than capable. This is what gives me great apprehension about purchasing a second generation A1 that’s really not much of an upgrade. I don’t think you can go wrong with any of them.

 

[RikWriter]

I have to say I'm confused that many hear think the z9 AF is subpar. I'm currently an A1 with 2-6 shooter who rented the 600GM and the Z9 with 600 TC this summer and found the Nikon AF superior to the Sony, at least for the subjects I try to document and their challenging environments.

What do you shoot? I've never had any AF difficulties with the A1.