Sony made waves last week with the announcement of its brand new flagship a1. At an eye-watering $6,498, it brings some notable technological advances, but early testing suggests that there are few areas where it seems to fall short or perhaps doesn’t quite live up to the marketing spiel.
Tony Northrup has spent a day photographing birds on the Sony a1 and has put together his initial impressions. Frustratingly, photographs shot by early reviewers are under embargo for another couple of days, which means that we have to sit tight until we can get a proper idea of aspects such as dynamic range and high ISO performance, but Northrup still goes into deep detail about the camera's performance.
The immediate comparison to the Sony a1 is the Canon EOS R5, which costs a massive $2,599 less and suddenly feels quite affordable. Fstoppers’ Alex Cooke gave his thoughts last week as well as digging into a few other reasons why the R5 still might have the edge, despite some of the remarkable features that Sony has crammed into their latest camera.
Few photographers will own this camera, but personally, I’m excited to rent one when the right job presents itself. Shooting fast-moving action at high frame rates has meant comparatively low-resolution images until the R5 came along. Now, suddenly, I’m spoiled for choice.
Is the a1 going to live up to the hype? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
So at what point does the creativity from the person behind the camera kick in? How many features (bells and whistles) does a camera have to have to be a "perfect" camera? At some point, the photographer/videographer has to have some creativity. IJS
So, where does it say having a perfect camera means lack of creativity? Some of those bells and whistles just helps make the job easier and more efficient for some folks. If you don't think it'll benefit you, then, don't buy it.
I'm not buying it, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on it. But if you need bells and whistles to be creative, you're not really that creative. Just pay someone to take pics for you.
So, where did I say just because you are not buying it you can't comment on it? You need to work on your reading. Nobody said you need bells and whistles to be creative...correction, you're the only saying that.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say you needed bells and whistles to be creative. I said "...if you need bells and whistles to be creative, you're not really that creative". But hey, no one is trying to dissuade you from purchasing this or any other camera. Don't take it personal, it will be OK, just breathe in and breathe out...
Lol, I think it's the other way around. Nice try though.
Aw, you two would make such a cute couple.
Indeed, life will be better once you realize that there will never be a "perfect" camera. Every camera, every lens, every system is a compromise. You simply cannot have everything. Focus on what you got and enjoy the ride.
Reginald,
I agree with you - photography is (or should be) mostly about the creativity of the photographer.
Yet I have a bit different take than you do. I think that the more capable the camera, the more it allows the photographer to express his/her creativity.
How is this so? Well, if the photographer has all kinds of creative images in his/her mind's eye, but the camera they are using is not capable of capturing those images that one thinks up, then the lower technology is actually holding us back and keeping us from turning our creative ideas into photographs.
The more capable a camera is, and the more advanced its features are, then the more it allows me to actually put my creative vision to fruition by capturing the images that I think up.
Hence, more advanced camera = more creative output.
Reginald, Excellent question! I think most of us ask ourselves that each time we look at a new piece of equipment. Recently I walked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and back up. I took with me just one Sony body and zoom - and my iPhone. 85% of my pictures were with the iPhone. Still I am really interested in the A1 because it is a camera that I can use for all of my interests, ranging from field sports to extreme expeditions to travel to street to landscapes. Yes, I could probably get all that with two bodies such as A7R series and A9 series - both of which I already have. Still...
No matter what choice you make, the improvements I see will help the whole industry to roll these to other cameras in the future like: Battery, buffer, evf at 240, 8k with no serious overheating.
Sony has done a great deed for Canon by showing the world just how good the R5 really is. If you're a Sony user looking to upgrade, the A1 would be a great choice, budget considered. However, the A1 doesn't have enough to persuade R5 users to switch, especially with that $2500 premium.
Of course the exact same thing can be said going in the opposite direction - The R5 isn't enough of a reason to switch to Canon from Sony either. The more important question is which one is the best choice from outside either user base? I definitely think Sony has the leg up there. Canon is making some solid mirrorless cameras but the lack of (serious) RF lenses and the only path to the best lenses being EF with an adapter leaves Canon stuck in a state of only supporting existing users, not attracting new ones. Sony is just the better investment for the net new user.
That may be true, but the whole A1 thing has been revolving around the R5 comparisons and the R5 holds up very well, again, especially considering the $2500 premium. Sony is making great strides for Canon in this respect. The R5 is Canon's best mirrorless camera. Sony came out with their flagship A1. It is a little better than the R5, just a little. We have no way of knowing, but I would think that the R1 will be better than the R5. It will be Canon's flagship. 'Nuf said.
I agree. I think the R5 will be an amazing camera. At least I hope it is. I'm simply stating that nothing Canon has done so far is enough to make most to switch from Sony to Canon and that Canon is (currently at least) more set up toward retaining it's customers and not wind up like Nikon. Which I think it's doing a great job of. But Sony is simply better set up to gain new customers.
"lack of (serious) RF lenses" Really? Rolling eyes at your entire comment.
Well I'm sorry for making your eyes roll and I appreciate the lucid, articulate counter argument but the fact remains that the best Canon lenses are not RF lenses. There are certainly some good RF lenses but would you seriously suggest that the EF lineup doesn't contain the vast bulk of the best glass Canon has to offer? If I'm looking to invest in a mirrorless camera and its lens ecosystem today, why would I buy Canon? It's only moderately better than a choice to buy Nikon mirrorless right now. In both cases, I'm mostly waiting on "roadmap" items and hoping I can have choices that suit all my needs/desires someday. I'm not here to defend Sony as some kind of superior product to either Canon or Nikon and they lack a few lens choices as well at the moment but they have definitely gone farther "all in" with their direction and I have solid lens options today without compromise. I'm not even knocking Canon for how they're rolling out the RF line but my point is that their focus seems to be much more about retaining current fans and customers as opposed to gaining new customers. Sony is absolutely in a better market position to attract net new investment.
Rolling eyes at your reply....with a chuckle too!
Matt,
To your first point, a friend of mine has been shooting with an A92 and an A7R4 for the past year and a half. When Canon came out with the R5, he immediately bought the R5 and the 100-500mm zoom.
He used the R5 a lot over the course of a month, for wild ducks in flight. After the month was over, he concluded that it didn't produce much better results than he was getting with his combo of Sony bodies, so he put the R5 and the 100-500mm up on Craigslist and sold them.
He doesn't leave anything to chance or hearsay - whenever a flagship camera comes out, he buys one, along with a lens or two, and shoots with it for a month or so, to see for himself if it will really be an improvement over what he is already using. That's really the best way to do it, unless you are limited with how much money you have to spend trying out new gear.
Personally for me the R6 was enough to make me sell my A7III and switch back over to Canon.
"lack of (serious) RF lenses". Are you saying that the only serious lenses are exotic primes? I ask because Canon has RF zooms covering FLs from 15mm to 500mm that are as good as any out there and prime lenses that are amazing. And as for exotic primes, there are plenty in the pipeline with probably some of the key ones to be released this year.
So, I dare say that lenses is not a serious weakness for Canon R.
I agree, especially the in hand feel. The colors can be remedied with a little extra work during post processing, but you can't change the ergonomics in LR. :-)
Because online everybody is always praising Canons „feel“ „usability“ and „colors“ so much, i recently almost went for the r5. Im 80% Filmmaker and 20% Photographer, but i was very surprised, that when i rented both canon and sony to actually USE i much preferred the sony considering handling and ergonomics. I also love the small and affordable yet superb Quality Tamron-Zooms in the system.
The final nail in the coffing was canons reluctancy to put clog2 or 3 in the camera (and despite announcing it as firmware never did!) keeping it crippled a good bit below the c70 (which is ofc. the reason they dont want to put clog2 in there).
But yeah, the much better codec options aside, actually the usability and how the menu was weirdly structured was my main gripe with canon... i just love we have so many options and everybody can choose what he wants. Canons „better usability“ is overrated imo...at least for my brain anyway.
It's all subjective for sure. I don't like Sony's in hand feel, so much so that there's little chance that I'd ever own one. But, that's just me. And, I can count the amount of video minutes I've shot with my cameras on two hands. Video doesn't interest me at all.
I would argue that depends on what you want out of a camera, David.
For example, sports photographers won't even glance at the R5 when something like the A1 exists because of A) it's rolling shutter with high speed sports, B) using a EVF that has zero blackout (a really beneficial experience) and C) FPS. The A1 is also better at shooting with a silent shutter under artificial lighting than the R5 because of the anti-flicker modes and the automatic adjustments to shutter speed to account for flicker for lights that do not operate at 50 or 60hz. For a lot of similar reasons, I think a lot of photojournalists would also go with the Sony as well. I am, at least, because the things I mentioned are a factor for my photography and can be a massive aid to help you while you're working.
So it depends on your needs. I think the R5 is great value for the money, however, the A1 ticks a lot of boxes that the R5 doesn't, and for some, that will make the decision over what to get pretty easy.
This is a camera that isn't going to be released to the public for another month. Sony will probably update the firmware at least once before release. The people saying that it doesn't compare to the R5 are comparing it with a mature camera. Don't forget that the R5 was basically useless for video when it came out and wouldn't even shoot pictures unless you let it cool down. Is it on its 3rd firmware version since release? I am surprised that Sony didn't call the versions of the A1 out in the wild right now "pre-production" which is a tactic that almost all brands use to get youtubers to beta-test their cameras.
I don't even use Sony cameras - I still have a Nikon D800. Maybe the most annoying thing about this is that the only source for these reviews is Tony Northrop, who is OK but has only had the camera for a day and is using it in 20f conditions. I'll wait for the opinion of actual pros shooting with the version of the camera that I can actually buy before I make my conclusions.
My big problem with this camera is that birds are animals.
I don't understand what you mean, or why you are saying this. But, as a wildlife and bird photographer, I am very interested.
Could you please explain what you meant when you said that birds are animals, and how that obvious truth applies to the Sony A1?
Thanks
There are separate Animal AF and Bird AF features. Well, birds are animals.
Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, birds are, technically, animals, as they belong under the nomenclature of Kingdom Animalia.
However, many peoples use the term, "animal" synonymously with "mammal". The two are used so interchangeably that there is some validity to the distinction. Remember, the definition of a word is actually based on how it is used, and not according what any so-called "authority" says.
Because so much of the world's population considers the term "animal" to refer only to mammals, it is good to make the clarification between animal eye AF and bird eye AF.
Additionally, the science between the two is entirely different. AF systems coded to detect mammal eyes often fail horribly when trying to detect bird eyes, and vice versa. We do need different systems to be engineered for mammal (a.k.a. animal) eyes and bird eyes, because they require such different programming and engineering. If you try to use animal eye AF when shooting birds, and you may get a few misses that would have been "hits" if the system had been engineered specifically for bird eyes. And vice versa.
Technically, this is an animal, but I'm not sure any "animal autofocus" system in the world could find the eyes.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iucn.org%2Fnews%2F...
So because Canon added 8k "for marketing reasons = click bait" they've now done the same thing. Adding "marketing" features as an excuse to up the price kind of sucks. I guess megapixel wars have now shifted to 4k, 8k, 12k wars. Start the dumb.
You lost me at Tony Northrup..
I'm not a huge Tony fan but he does a really good summary of this camera.
Yeah, but hes more like one of these cheap „newsshows“ that just always go after the next big punchline. Hes had some HUGE misinformations in his recent „reviews“ so im not trusting him anymore on buying decisions. I guess people make mistakes, but some are humble about it (eg. Gerald Undone) and some are Tony.
Anyone remember he spread news of sony announcing a „curved sensor“ design the day before sonys a1-announcement, just to get some extra cheap clicks? Cant take this guy serious anymore tbh
Ditto. Tony oversimplifies and doesn't contextualize what he's saying.
For example, when he says the R5 shoots 20 FPS all the time, he forgot to mention this only applies if you're using RF glass (EF glass slows the framerate down), and if you're fine shooting with basically an image slideshow through the viewfinder.
These are really important aspects of shooting 20 FPS on the R5, yet he fails to make the connection in his review.
I think Tony and Chelsea are awesome!
Not only do I really enjoy their personalities, but I also like the way they present the information. They both have a knack for taking things that are complex and hard to understand and breaking them down in a way that makes them easy to understand. They also have a great way of taking technical things like camera specs and capabilities and showing us how they affect real-world image-making.
I have seen many people on the internet say that they do not like Tony, yet after years and years of watching him, I cannot understand why anyone would feel that way about him.
If 5 different YouTubers make videos on the same camera or topic, Tony & Chelsea's is the one I will go to first. Every single time.
They pass more misinformation, falsities, and blunt lies, in their videos than anyone else on YouTube I know, you should expand your horizons a bit more and stop listening to these clickbait knowledge-less "influencers".
It seems to me that you really just don't like their personalities, and that is why you are so judgmental and fault-finding. I really like Tony and Chelsea's personalities! They are the kind of people I would enjoy shooting with, or hanging out with, and so I would be rather forgiving if I ever discovered a fallacy in the info that they present.
Edison Wrzosek said,
"you should expand your horizons a bit more ... "
My horizons are already quite broad. I listen to lots of different YouTubers, I attend in-person photography and art conferences and workshops, I shoot all over the US and road-trip extensively every year. I personally know photographers in every state I visit, and shoot with other wildlife photographers in 6 to 10 different states every year.
Over the past three months. I spent a week shooting in Montana, a week in Colorado, and two weeks in California, and am now planning and researching upcoming trips to Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, and Pennsylvania - all to take place over the next 15 months.
Not sure how I am suppose to expand horizons that are already so broad in the first place. Please explain what you meant when you said I should expand my horizons. Just because I prefer the Northrups to other YouTubers does not mean that I am some pathetic, sheltered homebody that needs to get out more.
Let me say this, if you investigate what they say, and how many times they've back peddled, you'll know they lie and misinform in the name of clickbait content.
So when I say broaden your horizons, I refer to weaning yourself people like these and finding ones with a little more integrity, intelligence and more knowledge.
But I don't really care about the information they present, nor the accuracy thereof. If I want pure information I will find it on sources other than YouTube. I watch Tony and Chelsea because I like them, and the way they talk and express themselves is an enjoyable experience, and makes me happy.
Haters gonna' hate. People that get their panties in a wad over YT reviewers..... :rollingeyes:
You don’t care if the information they present is accurate? You can like them all you want, but I find Tony to be a self absorbed ass.
Oh look, a "review" from Tony Northrup, channel / video muted.
Brad, they said, "COMPARATIVELY low resolution". That means compared to the other high-end, flagship camera models.
And they are right.
Actually, these days, 24 is rather low resolution - comparatively.
Until the R5 and the new Sony A1, the highest megapixel cameras did not have the high frame rates that the more specialized sports/wildlife cameras had. And the super fast sports/wildlife cameras did not have as much resolution as the other flagship models.
Things change. Standards and expectations change. And these days, they change rapidly. 24MP used to be considered very high resolution. Then several years ago it was considered average resolution. Now it is considered low resolution, when considered within the context of flagship camera bodies.
If you think that is wrong, then tell me about all of the full frame flagship camera models that have significantly less than 24 megapixels. You see, 24MP is down in the bottom end of resolution among FF flagship bodies. So the article was right, and you should not have bashed them.
In the world of the most current full frame flagship mirrorless camera bodies, 24MP certainly is low resolution. It is down near the bottom of the pile when it comes to this subset of elite cameras.
And your definition of "flagship" is different than mine, which is broader and more inclusive.
Within the realm of full frame mirrorless cameras, 24 megapixels is low resolution. This is so because so many of the models have over 40 megapixels. When 40 becomes the norm, then 24 is low.
What was high a few years ago is now low. Things change. Whatever definition of "low" you had 6 or 8 years ago needs to be drastically adjusted to keep up with technological growth.
"Low" or "high" are terms that are used relatively, when compared to other things in the same ilk. And when you're talking about full frame mirrorless camera models, 24 MP is on the low end of today's current models.
Context is important. Got that yet?