Sony a1 review

Agree 100%. The right B&W film and the right developer can do wonders. It can yield a tonal range that I can’t duplicate with my digital gear.

@Rob +1. And now Cekari added you to his unknown "book", too. :-) I love the Tonality of Film, and everything else.

Today it's being warm & fuzzy, sunny here. Think i do make a few Shots on Gold 200, some spare Rolls are being left over...it takes ages to fill a Color Film here. Or just using APX 100@200 ASA.

Good Light, a fine Sunday.

If this is not a noticeable difference to you... ok...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a1&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=nikon_z7ii&attr13_3=panasonic_dcs1r&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=803&x=-0.14009928295642568&y=-0.9912560557721849

Basically you made this big rant about how you don’t want one. And the only reason you state is because you think it’s not pretty.... oh. And they named it wrong.

Ok then.

I'm not sure that one buys an a1, or similar priced DSLRs for their design and/or name.

As you've put it, it's squarely a tool. It creates images. You can use it to earn money, or just for fun.

Every company has a design language. this Is part of their identity and this is what have caused the various mob (size, ergonomic, material, etc.) wars here.

No doubt that Fuji and Leica has distinctive vibes in their designs. Sony also have it. It resonates or doesn't makes sense to you, but it's there. Very firmly.

I've used a lot of Sony devices over years from Walkmans to Studio VHS devices to Hi-Fi equipment. You can remove all branding over them and put them side by side. They all scream Sony. For 40 odd years this language has not changed, but evolved. Alpha is Sony. As pure as it gets. I love their designs since forever and I love how subtle, understated but assertive their designs is. Leica has a similar, but more traditional feel.

It's personal taste nothing more, nothing less.

Thats like saying that Sony violated their naming convention when the a9 wasn’t A7 something.

TRY harder, because nobody has yet explained to me why it should cost more than FIVE times what a new discounted Toyota Camry does today. It does good handling and it's mpg about the same so if you need not 200mph, WHY BUY?
Who needs 200mph? Or sunroof. No racing enthusiast or dentist certainly. And the base cost does not include fibre carbon everything or the monster 22inch wheels you'll have to buy as extra too!

Who needs 30fps? Yes it is true that for many people, like you, see this as a completely useless feature. To me I see this as a fantastic feature. For sports it will greatly increase the chance of getting that shot of the ball meeting the bat or the finger tipping the pass. For wildlife it will give you far more chances of getting the moment of perfect stride or the moment of strike or the wings in just the right position (you wouldn't believe how many birds in flight shots you can get of wings in the same position at 10 fps).
Yes in a few years time many of these feature will filter down but to many having the chance to capture the moment now is worth the cost.

@Mlumiere: There's a reason why so many reviewers are comparing the a1 with the R5. It's because that is the most natural competition at this point.

Wait until the a1 ships...then you will even more comparisons with the R5.

Some Sony fans don't like to admit that though...

Canon r5 isn't on the list because it's quite obviously targeted at a different market segment, as Avatar pointed out. The r5 has weaker performance, i.e. no stacked sensor, and it's not reliable enough for pro use.

Some Canon fans are in serious denial about that, because they don't shoot sports and they don't understand modern technology.

The a7riv shouldn't be on the comparison list either, it's not a sports camera, DPR should have put an a9/d5/1dxmk2 in there instead, or better yet left the entire column blank.

The a1 has the same consumer body that other Sony cameras do. Really probably the best advantage over the R5 is its 9 million dot EVF, but even then the R5 EVF is great.

Wait until we see even more testing once the a1 ships and it will be even more revealed that with the R5 one can do almost the same things and with better ergonomics to boot.

As one sign of the a1 being ergonomically challenged: the lens release button is on the same side as the grip. Easy for someone to accidentally dislodge their expensive lens. Small grip, small space between grip and lens, maybe someone is wearing gloves, it's a poor design choice. Sony has always had great tech but for some reason doesn't think through these sort of details.

Video dynamic range of the R5 from Canon is very very poor

It's the worst of any full-frame camera currently on the market.

I own the camera for other reasons - Video in Sony and Panasonic and the large format Fuji cameras are vastly superior.

Watch the Gerald undone and other YouTube videos for the tests

Why do the Sony guys always argue with nothing more than tech specs and test results?

When people take pictures they are not doing some tech test in a lab. BTW on DXOMark they score the R sensor at 95...so that ought to be plenty good enough.

It's like there's no real world difference and so some just argue from meaningless specs and tests.

Pros may use R5 for their work, but Canon is not claiming that it's for pro. it's semi-pro. the A1 is aimed at Pro.
in fact, R5 does more than 1DXIII... so should 1DX be compared against R5?

Any camera is game for comparison if it can do a similar job. Why compare only those that are priced the same? So sure R5 deserves to be compared with the 1DXIII if both can do the same type of job desired.

The fact that the "semi-pro" R5 compares favorably to the "pro" a1 speaks well of the R5. That's the point.

@TRU
You know why, your argument is deeply flawed. Because by the same token, the a7ii is good enough, or the a6000, or even a smartphone - for most people compared to a much more expensive R5.
Moreover, if you're a sports or wildlife photographer, the a9 series is now relatively cheaper than the R5.
For video, the BM PCC 6k is a whole lot cheaper than your beloved R5.
For portraiture, the A7R series is again relatively better and less expensive.
The R5 is a good camera, but for many people, they would do better with something else.
All at a cheaper price.
So the R5 vs A1 is now in a better context, price wise.

Confusedabit I think you’re confused a bit.

Canon has released R5 and R6 and 1DXIII last year. That’s three cameras. And if they release an R1 that competes with the 1DXIII as the rumors suggest then how is Sony any worse?

Because they have a video focused A7SIII? Or because they continue to make their older bodies available for sale at a reduced price?

It’s really quite simple.

Sony’s FF lineup.
Low cost stills camera A7III. 24MP, 10FPS
Ultra compact, A7C, 24MP, 10FPS
High resolution stills camera A7RIV, 61MP 10FPS
High performance sports oriented, A9II, 24MP 20FPS E-Shutter
4K video focused camera A7SIII, 12MP, video focused
Do everything camera, A1, 50MP, 30FPS E-shutter

The previous generations are still available if your budget doesn’t allow the current generation.
You’re welcome.

#Confusedabit - "the new stuff prices are hiked more and more on each release becoming uncompetitive"

How is matching the sports DSLR pricing that Canikon set "uncompetitive"?

d6: $6500
1DXMK3: $6500
a1: $6500

The a1 is a much better performer than those DSLRs, for the same price. That is hardly "uncompetitive", it's much better ROI for your money.

No it competes the canon 1dx miii and nikon d6 in the Olympic games Tokyo

That is really insane!
It seems that the proposal for a moratorium on the technological development of photographic equipment is under preparation. As some are complaining here, it gives the impression that investment in R&D is quite a problem and unfair competition.
STOP SONY! ENOUGH!
YOU ARE DRIVING PEOPLE MAD! LITERALLY!

@Thoughts R Us:
Looking at photo & video specs the R5 and A1 are very close indeed. There are some points where there are big differences though. The most important difference between the A1 and the R5 is connectivity, the A1 has the possibility to send photo's by a wired network line, what is important for many professional sports shooters The R5 lacks that capability, so for the last group (the main target group) the R5 is useless.
Then there is rolling shutter, according to many tests the R5 has a bad rolling shutter, the A1 doesn't have that problem, so it is better in fast moving sports.
For many high end amateurs and many professionals the R5 is good enough, but not in the same league as the A1.

Nikon desperately needs to step up to the plate for the a9/a9ii stacked sensor.

It would give them better af than the r5/r6/d5/d6 has, and it would let the Nikon faithful know that Nikon has a future with performance sports MILC.

Given that Canon can't seem to make stacked sensors, Sony should cut Nikon a deal with the 24mp stacked sensor pricing, in order put another stake in the Canon coffin.

As far as trickling down, an a6xxx with a stacked sensor seems like a no-brainer.

Nikon smoked Canon with d5/d6 af, the 1DXMK2/1DXMK3 were always in second place.

I bet that if Nikon had a9/a9ii sensors, they'd put Canon in a world of af hurt. I'd love to see that :-)

I like what Nikon is doing with MILC, for the most part. It makes a lot more sense than what Canon is doing.

It is.
A chain is not stronger than its weakest link.
Sony has both the sensor and the processor.
Stronger in every link.
You see TRU you need also to push the data into the processor and it all depends on the readout time.
Readout time per frame that is.
Thats where the rolling shutter problem goes away.
Thats were the fast flash sync times comes in.
It also of course paramount for fps at high resolution.
Winning winning winning.
Game, set, match.

https://youtu.be/lpURG8VUVFM

@Smaug01 my cat's not rich she only has 2 servant's

Yes, Alex is an amazing photographer; always a treat to see his images.

BTN no let’s cut to the chase. You want to see snippets that show the R5 outperforming the A1. Tony didn’t show any snippets. He just talked about bird AF for a few minutes. But you guys all happy to repeat that. Alex doesn’t do any talking. Let’s the video do the talking. But it’s not good enough. Mark Galer has a 1 hour video out there. Go watch that. It’s okay we know you wouldn’t be caught dead with a Sony camera in your hands. And that’s okay. But it’s pretty easy to see right through your bias.

By the way go back a year or two and Alex has sequences posted with 150 shots all in focus on his A9... since well before tour beloved R5 was even a rumor.

First, the Northrups did an entire video that pretty much makes the case that the R5 is for all practical purposes as good as the A1. He shows his and his wife's techniques and results over and over. You may disagree with him, but he made his case as well as he can in such a video.

And oh yeah, in that video he shoots a $13000 lens on his a1 while his wife shoots a $600 lens on the R5 and she still comes out equal or ahead. So don't tell me that Tony didn't give Sony some edge in that testing.

And BTW, it's a good practice to have narration in a video. Nothing wrong with that.

But the point is that so far neither Alex Phan nor Mark Galer have done any comparisons with the R5. I believe Alex may be planning on that.

Mark is a paid Sony ambassador and so not exactly unbiased. He's still a great photographer but not unbiased.

Alex has and has used an R5 extensively since it came out.

I am not sure why Back to Nikon is so negative about Sony.
Tick tock.
Time is running out.

@BackToNature1

The Sony 70-200 GM is an excellent lens--i.e., very sharp, excellent AF speed with acquisition on par with the 135 GM (and the focus is mechanical focus, not focus by wire) and the lens is built like a tank. Only "problem" with that lens is it's loud when acquiring focus. You can hear it moving all those elements for sure.

As good as that lens is, I wouldn't consider it for birds, because it's not long enough. For birding, the 100-400 or the 200-600 would be a better option, unless you can get your hands on the 400 2.8 or the 600 F4.

Regarding the Northrups, they have no credibility.

Here's what LensRentals wrote about the Sony 70-200 f2.8:
"This is the top of the line 70-200 for Sony, but it’s unfortunately a little lackluster compared to other brands. If you absolutely need f/2.8, for sports and such, this is still your best option since native lenses always focus better than adapted lenses. Just don’t expect the same optical quality as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED AF-S VR. There’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, too. Just something to be aware of."

I do agree that 70-200 normally is too short for birding.

But that being said many expect an updated version this year to correct the flaws.

@TRU

I read that Lens Rental article years ago.

At that time, when the article was written, it seemed to me that Roger and many others were pretty much ant-Sony. Now that's not to say the Roger is not generally credible and that early versions of that lens may have had flaws that have since been corrected (who knows...); but it is to say I think his critique regarding the lens was hyperbolic, overly critical, biased. At that time, I don't think many in the industry took Sony seriously and I think he was one of the main haters on that bandwagon.

However, now he seems to have changed his attitude a bit. Why? Who knows.

Here's the thing, @TRU: You have a very cunning, manipulative practice of latching on to cherry-picked data points to promote Canon in any way you can. There is no doubt in my mind you are somehow compensated by Canon for doing this...lol

Alex knows his stuff. And of course he provides the evidence.

Very impressive, thanks for sharing.

That, of course, will not silence trolls (just because nothing will), but at least people genuinely interested in A1's features will now have one more reliable source of information.

BTW, also watched the video Bank Shot linked above: it seems like there are even more people willing to pay $6.5k for the Sony flagship than Sony themselves had anticipated... which isn't surprising one bit given what their powerhouse can do (thanks again for the link).

Alex is a great photographer no doubt, and as he notes, he doesn't really need bird eye AF.

But that 1 minute 24 sec video is one more data point, but hardly any exhaustive test.

And as someone pointed out in the comments to the video, the light was very good...and in most instances the contrast with the background was very good. For instance that Osprey...the background is a nice blank blue sky. So these conditions were pretty favorable.

That being said no doubt the a1 is very capable, and the bird eye AF will work, but I haven't seen anything that suggests it is better than the R5 WRT bird eye AF.

TRU you parrot around Tony’s comment as some definitive word.. and tony talks and doesn’t show anything. Alex shows and you say it’s only one data point. Alex demonstrated. Tony talked.

I believe Alex’s demo. Not Tony’s talk. Alex is a good guy who shoots all kinds of crazy configurations. He was showing a 1.4x + tube + 2.0x + 600GM... 1680mm f/11 autofocusing just fine. He has tested the R5 extensively as well. He has owned all the canon big glass.

Alex or tony? Alex Or tony? Alex every day of the week.

That Alex is a more talented bird photographer than Tony N is not in dispute.

But come on...that little video snippet is just that...hardly any definitive test. Tony talks a lot but also does show more of his work. That doesn't make him definitive but the point is that no one has yet to really rebut him either.

I readily admitted that Tony could be wrong....but the point is that we won't know until the units ship and you get full testing. And even then, given that reviewers each concoct their own tests, we may not get any definitive answers except that both the a1 and the R5 do very well. Which is what we really should have expected in the beginning.

Somebody must be paying @TRU to repeatedly parallel the R5 with the A1...lol

@TheOwl360, offcourse @TRU gets payed. He is all over every discussion regarding Sony camera’s, lenses and all that has to do with Sony. This man can’t have another job. He doesn’t has time left over. He is job is to bash everything from Sony day and night. He is a sort of Don Quichotte fighting for Canon. And then we also have that clown called Kandid.... But happily nobody takes him serious. Here is his signature 😄

lol

@Kandid, dear Kandid, there are more languages than English in the world. I’m from the Netherlands and in Spanish it is Don Quijote.

@Kandid, thank you, you nincompoopness ( did I spell it right?) Over and out.

I made a video about this phenomenon titled, "Why Reviewers Don't Agree." The key takeaway is that both Alex and I are right.

I did make a very detailed video showing both the positive and the negative behaviors of Sony's bird eye AF. The Canon R5 is really good at finding the subject and eye anywhere in the frame, which makes it easier to find flying birds without changing focusing modes. With the Sony, you really need to select the specific subject first with realtime tracking, and then if it does find an eye, it'll use that more precise point instead.

I could definitely make a video of clips consisting entirely of the Sony a1 bird eye AF performing properly. Having spent a couple of weeks with it now, it definitely likes to latch onto black spots on the backs of birds or dark parts of tree bark. Not everyone is likely to encounter those problems, because it depends on the subjects and surroundings. I didn't see any subjects like that in Alex's video.

But maybe not so much a bargain when compared to the R5? The R5 delivers maybe 95% of the performance for 60% of the price. And in some cases the R5 is better...like IBIS, bird AF, etc.

The a1 is fantastic camera...and it's up to each person to decide if it's worth it or not at its price...and for some it will be, esp if you are already invested in the Sony system. But the R5 matches up well for a lot less.

See TRU? Every opportunity you MUST bring up your beloved R5. EVERY TIME!

And you wonder why everyone thinks you’re paid by Canon. Not every comment thread has to include a discussion about R5...

Nope. As you said. “Put him right.” No shame in that.

Sometimes he is. Sometimes he isn’t.
I just think it’s interesting he has to take every Comment on a Sony article and reference the R5 in a reply.

Anyway you are just as bad with all your emojis. Take care both of you.

"Anyway you are just as bad with all your emojis. Take care both of you."

Canon pays him less and sometimes his cheque does not come so his quality of shilling for canon is not good.

And what do you think of 1DXIII or D6 ?

Piotr W is the man to go to for pithy and forthright views.

On the Leica Q2:
"monochrome camera is pure nonsense"

On a Canon Powershot zoom:
"what a useless product"

On the Zeiss ZX1;
"It is better to buy a car or two"

On NASA's curiosity rover's Mars panorama;
"Waste of money."

On 8K30;
"30 fps is useless, should not even be available."

On LuminarAI;
"you take a pic of a cow, you apply Luminar, and you get a dog"

Etc., etc.... 😀

@Piotr W

Ur comment: overpaid, end of reply.

I do not agree, I think most pros shooting with large lenses would prefer the larger body and will add a grip to the A1. This also gives them the vertical shutter and better battery. The grip transforms my A9 making it far more usable for me.

@ williams359: Then just add the grip. Why walk around with a large and heavy camera all the time?

Personally I prefer keeping the camera small and light when using long lenses, increasing the time I can shoot handheld noticeable.

Here's a description of how Andy Parkinson got one of the winning shots for the Widlife Photographer of the Year award:
"Andy spent five weeks watching the mountain hares near Tomatin in the Scottish Highlands, waiting patiently for any movement – a stretch, a yawn or a shake – which typically came every 30 to 45 minutes. As he watched, frozen and prostrate, with 50 to 60 mph winds surging relentlessly around him..."

Andy uses a Nikon D6, has used Nikon pro bodies for years.

Now my question is this: would a Sony a1 hold up under that type of usage? It may...I am not saying it wouldn't. But my point is that we know those Nikon and Canon pro bodies can endure in these type of conditions. And one can see why if you use one of those cameras. The Sony doesn't seem as if it would be as durable at the extremes...but I am willing to concede that I do not know. But there still may be a reason for those large pro bodies for some.

One word, well, actually an acronym: FUD

@Magnar W

That mirroless will be the future is a fact. If Sony can profit enough of it in time is here to see. The A1 is aimed at professional photographers and the majority of it is still using Canon and Nikon and still using DSLR's - not those of Sony. :-)

I have now one colleague using a Canon R5 and he's happy with it. Why? It's not a 'micro body' and it gives him a well build ergonomic body, even when using longer lenses. not a button/selector/wheel stuffed high tech mini brick. It also gives him the same user experience in relation to menu's and operation as with his Canon DSLR bodies.

There is by means of quality for the majority of professional photographers no use to switch (I personally get never the question if my images are made with a Sony or Nikon from my employer.) However I do get the question if I can send my images in max. 5mp as quickly as possible to the media desk. And that is possible with my Nikon as it is with a Sony A1.

I just don't understand how you can always come up with such nonsense that weight and size can be the knockout criterion for a body. High-light lenses are heavy and a small body is not ergonomic on them. It is difficult to control them. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but no bodies don't convey a sense of security. That is why the profi systems have larger bodies - made of mirrorless. The Sony have learned that the old concepts weren't that bad after all and pay more attention to ergonomics.
The extra weight of a larger body with a telephoto on it should hardly be relevant. the 250g hardly matter. A system like the Sony A1 is not intended for vacation shoots. If it's too heavy and too big, take a smartphone.

@TRU - "I don't know, I'm just asking questions, some people say"

Please check the image I linked and you will see it ! The edges are cropped. Check the image and you will see !

This can't be good for vignetting and IBIS travel. Also what about the telecentric path that light should hit the sensor ?

My intention wasn't to start a debate on the e mount size. But since reviewers never mention the e mount size for some reasons, maybe we should.

@ Funny Valentine: You have raised this question earlier, you have got qualified explanations from many on where lenses are mounted (not 30-50 cm away from the mount), and how light is spread over the sensor area (the E mount is good for f:0.63 lenses - and works fine on telescopes with several meter focal length), and still you are posting this! Are you a slow learner?

Also, what was your intention with posting something like this - again?

@ Funny Valentine:
"My intention wasn't to start a debate on the e mount size. But since reviewers never mention the e mount size for some reasons, maybe we should."

The reason for reviewers not mentioning it is that it is not a problem. Since you don't seem to get it when explained in camera tech terms, just think of the bumble bee. From a (pseudo)theoretical point of view, it can't fly, but against all (pseudo)theory it happens to fly just fine.

When your theory says something should not be possible, but reality shows that it is, which is then wrong - your theory or reality?

@ olstrup: Both the theory and real life results are just fine in this case.

The problem is when you trust and push false claims.

@ Yes, we agree. But i was referring to FV's theory, not ours. And FV's theory is obviously wrong since the Sony cameras don't have the problems he claim.

@ olstrup: Yes, when talking about false claims, I am also referring to FV. ;-)

please read these articles:
1)- https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-says-e-mount-diamater-is-small-and-makes-it-difficult-to-deisgn-high-quality-full-frame-lenses/

2)- https://fstoppers.com/originals/sony-e-mount-already-becoming-obsolete-461826

3)- https://photorumors.com/2018/10/23/more-on-the-claim-that-sony-e-mount-was-not-designed-for-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras/

Funny Valantine wrote: "My intention wasn't to start a debate on the e mount size." ...

I'm not starting a debate, I'm just doing an observation:

- The a7SIII and a1 do a crop during "active stabilisation" to give more space for the sensor to move in the small mount. Why would they do this if the mount was the correct size ?

- Sony lenses are bigger, larger and more expensive than the competition and they all have a tube attached on the back end.

- there are patents showing Sony is working on a new medium format sized mount since the RF and Z mount were launched.

Reviewers always bash Canon for crippling, Panasonic for contrast AF and Nikon for being outdated. But Sony always gets a free pass on its Achilles heel. Hmmmm.

#Funny Valentine - "I'm not starting a debate, I'm just doing an observation"

You are trying to troll Sony with false info, like you always do.

#Funny Valentine - "The a7SIII and a1 do a crop during "active stabilisation" to give more space for the sensor to move in the small mount."

No, that's wrong, it's digital stabilization, Canon does the same thing with the r5:

"Movie Digital IS"
https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/html/UG-03_Shooting-2_0120.html#Shooting-2_0120_2

#Funny Valentine - "Why would they do this if the mount was the correct size?"

Yes, why is the r5 using digital stabilization when it has a bigger mount diameter.

Hint: mount diameter is not relevant, your claims are wrong.

@Funny Valentine.

I've only heard this 'Sony have a tube attached to their lenses' from Canon users, and I have to say it's basically an indicator of either trolling or low intelligence. The only way all the lenses could have an extender on the end is if they were all designed to focus beyond the imaging plane. Why would a company design all their lenses to do this?

Most Sony lenses are smaller than the 'competition', not larger, because Sony prioritises smaller size.

According To CIPA, Canon's system is the best and Nikon's system is the worst. Since Nikon has the largest mount this suggests that mount size is not a factor. This is further supported by the fact that Panasonic has a higher IBIS CIPA rating than Leica and yet they use the same size mount.

One axis of compensation - roll - involves no translation the sensor at all, it merely rotates on the image axis so it is impossible for the imaging circle to be too small unless it is blocked by a baffle.

Practically speaking the E Mount camera and lenses can do pretty much what the other larger more modern mirrorless mounts do, at least for now. It reminds me of the situation with the Nikon F mount where engineering creativity largely overcame the limitations.

Now we still don’t have the really high quality f1.2 primes like with Canon RF and Nikon Z. And Sony has yet to equal the stellar designs of the Canon RF 70-200 lenses, both f2.8 and f4.

And the Canon RF and Nikon Z mounts do allow for more contacts between lens and camera and thus more information can be passed more quickly. As time goes by that may yield even more of an advantage.

So for now it may not be a big deal. But as camera become more and more like computers we may see the larger mounts assert an advantage.

#Thoughts R Us - "Now we still don’t have the really high quality f1.2 primes like with Canon RF"

"We"? You don't own any Sony gear.

That rf50/1.2 has much worse vignetting than the old ef-mount 50/1.2, it's down by over 4 stops in the corners, which is terrible: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1225

The bigger Canon rf-mount obviously didn't help with that, it's overhyped nonsense.

@BankShot: are you still arguing from spinning tech details? The RF 50 f1.2 has been acclaimed by just about everyone, and delivers some of the most amazing artistic images at that focal length.

Who cares about vignetting? It's easily corrected via software and some like a vignette for artistic purposes. I also recall that some of the more highly acclaimed Sony lenses have some serious vignetting.

Here's what the author of that site said in summary about the RF 50 f1.2: "A great 50mm prime lens has been high on the want list for many photographers and with the RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens, Canon has delivered big...The resolution and contrast are great...The Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens is very fun to use, the results are equally fun to view and this lens alone is a great reason to buy an RF mount camera."

So you can try to spin arcane technical details all you want, but the truth is that the RF 50 f1.2 and the RF 85 f1.2 (both versions) are very special lenses, unmatched by Sony.

@ Thoughts R Us: Can you point out one lens that is limited by the mount diameter of the exisiting full frame cameras, and argue why your claim is true?

#Thoughts R Us - "So you can try to spin arcane technical details all you want"

Actual facts are hardly "arcane technical details".

The Canon rf50/1.2 is down by over 4 stops in the corners. You must not be aware that vignetting stretches across the entire frame, it's not just the corners. So in general, the worse the corners are, the darker it'll be across the frame.

What's the point of paying for an f/1.2 lens when it's heavily shaded, despite having a bigger mount diameter.

@ Bank Shot: This is why I use a less bright lens for polar light photography and other types of night photography, where files often are stitched to pnoramas: Less difference in brightness between center and corners wide open. Many brighter lenses with strong vignetting bring less light to the corners than my technically speaking less bright lens.

That makes sense, wide apertures are a double-edged sword. The aperture may be bigger, but there could be a penalty with that.

My old ef-mount 45/1.8 Tamron lens has less vignetting in the corners at f/2, than the Canon rf50/1.2 lens at f/2.

@BankShot: It's amazing how the author of that test and article you cite wrote exactly what I quoted:
""A great 50mm prime lens has been high on the want list for many photographers and with the RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens, Canon has delivered big...The resolution and contrast are great...The Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens is very fun to use, the results are equally fun to view and this lens alone is a great reason to buy an RF mount camera."

So apparently for him, the vignetting was no problem. But again you leave out context in a deliberate way to mislead.

Sorry you don't have such a high quality 50 f1.2 prime for the Sony system.

We already got the part where you don't understand why vignetting matters, despite what Magnar and I posted.

no need for you to repeat yourself.

The take-home here is that the bigger Canon mount diameter is useless, as proven by the terrible rf50/1.2 vignetting numbers.

@Funny Valentine
Seriously, you have trouble with thinking ?

@Funny Valentine
> Please check the image I linked and you will see it !
> The edges are cropped. Check the image and you will see !
>
> This can't be good for vignetting and IBIS travel. Also what
> about the telecentric path that light should hit the sensor ?

Those who say that the diameter of the Sony E-mount is not suited for the full-frame format are:

a) ignorant about optics, which isn't a problem per se, as optics isn't a subject that normal people with a non-technical background are expected to have any competency in,

and

b) so ignorant about optics that they are even ignorant about their own ignorance, and start to proffer inanities about e.g. mount sizes or IBIS. That is a problem, because we then get in the Dunning-Kruger domain (see e.g. this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1480207925/what-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-s-new-14-24mm-f2-8-s-and-50mm-f1-2-s-z-mount-lenses?comment=7796548807 )

../..

../..

Ignorant people might argue that the Sony E-mount (despite having a larger diameter than e.g. the full-frame Nikon F or Leica M mount...) could e.g. crop edges and is thus unsuitable for full frame; such people are unable even grasp simple rules of LOGIC or PHYSICAL EVIDENCE — e.g. the ACTUAL EXISTENCE, for the E-mount, of high-quality supertele lenses like 600mm f/4, f/1.4 autofocus wide-angle primes, STF apodized lenses that show clean, circular bokeh balls even quite far from the image center and thus exhibit far less vignetting off-axis than the cat's eye-shaped bokeh balls and resulting luminosity loss / degradation of effective aperture due to mechanical vignetting that seem to be the rule, rather than the exception, with other camera manufacturers' lenses.

Regarding the possibility of very fast lenses, there actually exist third-party E-mount lenses with apertures like f/1.2 or f/0.95 etc.

../..

../..

The fact that the position of the E mount's electrical contacts, as well as the profiling of the in-body light baffles are compatible with a full-frame sensor opening — see e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9392150 — is either a remarkable and lucky coincidence, or a sign that Sony's engineers actually assessed the dimensional requirements needed to accomodate a FF sensor, and designed all aspects of the E mount accordingly.

My opinion is that this kind of dimensional coincidence doesn't happen by chance: for instance, when the Sony NEX cameras were introduced in 2010, Tōru Katsumoto / 勝元徹, the general manager of the camera division, stated thusly:

../..

../..

"[..] またフルサイズセンサーをαでだけ使うと決めているわけでもありません。（実際に商品化するかどうかは別として、技術的には）NEXにもフルサイズセンサーを搭載することは可能ですから。"

Translation: [ Furthermore, we haven't necessarily decided that full-frame sensors would only be used in α [SLR mount] bodies. (From a purely technical point of view, regardless of whether we actually produce one) it's also possible to put a FF sensor in a NEX [E-mount] body. ]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50943473678_89548dc629_o.jpg

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/396897.html

../..

../..

As Katsumoto says, designing the E-mount to be able to accomodate a FF sensor of course yields additional strategic flexibility when planning the market positioning of their α-mount and E-mount cameras.

Katsumoto is an alum of the Tokyo Institute of Technology (東京工業大学) and of Caltech（カリフォルニア工科大学）

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50943473913_c3c5efbe81_b.jpg

https://plgs.keio.ac.jp/event_03/8695/

IMHO, Katsumoto's insight and ability to correctly grasp and talk with confidence about the physics and engineering and product planning aspects of mount and sensor size are much more reliable than e.g. the non-technical people in PR / marketing departments who might get interviewed and quoted by the press elsewhere.

@Funny Valentine
> I'm not starting a debate, I'm just doing an observation:
>
> - The a7SIII and a1 do a crop during "active stabilisation" to give
> more space for the sensor to move in the small mount. Why would
> they do this if the mount was the correct size ?

Seems like somebody doesn't even understand that image stabilization principles for stills and movies are different.

For stills, you generally want to completely cancel the camera's angular and linear movements while the exposure is taking place.

For movies, it's implicitly expected by the camera operator that the image stabilizer doesn't "fight" and attempt to annul e.g. a deliberate panning movement.

../..

../..

With video cameras, heuristics must be used to try to determine the orientation in 3D space of the instantaneous rotation axis (a composite of roll / pitch / yaw) about which the camera is being rotated, and whether that axis is more or less steady (indicating a possible pan, a deliberate attempt by the operator to follow a moving subject) or involuntary (camera shake that should be, ideally, eliminated)

It's nearly impossible for a human, when panning a hand-held camera, to keep the instantaneeous rotation axis perfectly parallel to either the horizontal or the vertical edges of the image sensor.

If the instantaenous rotation axis is not perfectly parallel to the sensor's H or V edges, the tracked "scene" projected by the lens will rotate — instead of executing a parallel translation — on the sensor.

To "stabilize" the image without fighting the operator's deliberate pan movement, a sensor thus must be able to rotate.

../..

../..

Most lenses project a smaller, and more constrained "image rectangle" instead of a larger "image circle". Unfortunately, a rotating sensor has a higher probability of making excursions outside this constrained image rectangle, resulting e.g. in clipped corners. (That clipping would be conceptually similar to the clipping that would occur when rotating a picture several degrees in Photoshop, while trying to keep the canvas size unchanged)

Imagine a lens projecting a horizontal 24x36mm image rectangle instead of a ∅43.3mm image circle. If a floating sensor were to rotate a full 90° inside a static camera, changing e.g. from landscape to portrait orientation, the top and bottom parts of the resulting picture would be dark.

Of course, a sensor never has to rotate a full 90° to try to follow / not fight the panning movement of a hand-held camera panning about an instantaneous rotation axis that is not kept perfectly parallel to the sensor's horizontal or vertical edges.

../..

../..

Still, it's not unthinkable that a rotation of several degrees might be necessary to successfully, and stably follow a pan or a slight roll.

Therefore, to avoid clipped — i.e. dark — corners when stabilizing videos — i.e. not stills — taken with a lens that is projecting an image rectangle instead of an image circle, a precautionary cropping of some of the sensor's dimensions might become necessary.

Also note that it's far more common for lenses to be designed to project image rectangles than image circles, because projecting light that generally goes unused (as would be the case for a significant part of the image circle if the sensor is rectangular) could cause unwanted reflections inside the camera body, resulting in image degradation.

The "throttling" of the projected image circle into an image rectangle is typically implemented by a rectangular light baffle at the rear of the lens, e.g. like this:
https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/1233/008/html/06.jpg.html

@BankShot: you claim the "The take-home here is that the bigger Canon mount diameter is useless, as proven by the terrible rf50/1.2 vignetting numbers."

Yet many are using the RF 50 f1.2 and getting amazing results. The review that you yourself cited states the RF 50 f1.2 is an impressive lens and may justify the system for many.

I'm sorry if you can't accept reality.

Oh and BTW, not only does Sony lack quality f1.2 primes, but their 70-200 lenses are also lacking. Because with Sony only the lenses they've released in the last few years are of really high quality. Maybe they come out with a new 70-200 f2.8 this year...but will it be as innovative as Canon?

Please, let's not get too arrogant. The CEO of Sigma Kazuto Yamaki probably knows something if he says the E mount wasn't designed for full frame and it's a compromise.
Again I'm not making claims, I'm just reporting what industry experts are saying.

@ Funny Valentine: Who is the arrogant one here ...

What about citing your experts correct, for a start?

@Funny Valentine:

"Please let's not get too arrogant."

Huh? Does that mean that we should not contaminate the debate with factual knowledge?

Sony's Katsumoto has a strong science and engineering background.

On the other hand, Sigma's Yamaki has a background in economics and business administration (経営学科).

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50948882086_709244ff51_b.jpg

https://minsaku.com/articles/post656/

Now, who's the person likely to have more real expertise, insight and a better grasp of the design and the physics (including optics) and engineering aspects of Sony's sensors, mounts and lenses ?

An external, non-technical person like Sigma's Yamaki ?
Or an insider like Katsumoto who was ACTUALLY IN CHARGE of Sony's camera division ?

Hmm.

You can clearly see a big lump of plastic covering the entire sensor! No light can get in, no lens can be mounted. A $6500 paperweight!

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/alpha1sonyhandson_sq.jpg

Don't take my words, just look at it. etc. etc.

@Funny Valentine

For the sake of argument... Let's assume you're right...

Sony designed the e-mount for aps-c only.

They never planned to make another FF camera and certainly not a FF cinema camera. They were only going to be aps-c going forward...

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Answer: None.

Sony still has 40 FF lenses, reaching from 12mm to 600mm, including the sharpest lens Lensrentals has ever tested and class-leading lenses that no other manufacturer has ever made.

They still lead the market technically and in FF sales.

Even if you're right, it doesn't change a thing. 😀

I don't think they can be any doubt that Sony intended e-mount for FF, otherwise you would have to accept that they never intended to make a FF cinema camera, which is very hard to argue, but as you see from above - it makes no difference either way.

Have a good day.

It’s two stacked chips. One image sensor and a DRAM chip. The benefit is the image data doesn’t have to propagate to the edges of the sensor to be offloaded to a separate memory chip. It travels a much shorter distance through the many parallel connections to the memory chip instead of to the edges of the chip. That’s why the readout is so much faster.

But you already knew it was an image sensor and memory chip. I really just think you’re here for a different reason than true understanding.

Welcome to DPR... (registered Feb 11)

I also find it very interesting that save 2-3 earlier posts, you started posting 25 comments in 24 hours about an hour after Ric360 disappeared for good. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Mike, I don't necessarily mean this as a criticism...but I always find it odd when you or someone else bothers to do such research into a commenter's history.

I never bother to consider the history of a person posting a comment...I really couldn't care less, even if they are a "troll" or have used other pseudonyms. I don't bother to do some research into other commenter's past comments, yet some have researched my comments going back years. I don't particularly care or want to spend the time doing so.

It's just odd to me. I know we get into these debates, but I do it for fun. I don't imagine there's this world watching these debates and that it's going to have colossal influence, and so I must work to discredit anyone disagreeing with me.

Come on man. You don’t actually consider yourself “with” this guy who feels he has to abandon an account after a week and startup another one because he is spamming the comments with his anti-Sony drivel.

And you make it sound like it’s this extensive research. I have been a participant need for years as you have. The writing style is so obvious. It’s not hard. Then you simply check the history and the reality states you in the face.

Seriously. Why do you defend him?

Thoughts come on, there's nothing 'normal' about many of the contributions here, I grew up thinking photography was a big friendly hobby with everyone helping and routing for each other, it clearly isn't.

Last 3 years or so there is stream of such troll accounts who make account and right away bash sony and defend canon. (No other brand just canon). Looks like paid shlls to me.

Big sensor , photography is a big friendly hobby in a lot of places. Unfortunately it only takes a few highly vocal people to poison a whole environment. Ii have said before I have mostly moved to Facebook for the welcoming environment where people share their work and get help from each other. People don’t hide behind a username and avatar. And while there are fakers there they are outed quickly and blocked. You also get to know people beyond photography. You can understand where they come from and what they are about by looking at some of their other posts. It’s too easy to hide behind a handle here and DPR will be accused of silencing a point of view if they block people here.

DPR is the best place to get real camera gear news. The staff prepare excellent content and are on top of news relevant to all of our mutual interests. Why I stick around and comment? I’m not sure. People do have questions and I do think I know how stuff works generally. And I love to learn from others who post in good faith here. I try to be helpful. Even to the trolls that ask questions like what is a stacked sensor. Even when they ask it with an attitude. (See above). The level of aggravation with phony assholes is increasing for sure.

Those cards will come for sure. And the prices will come down. The good news is that if you don’t need the blazing fast buffer clearing you can still use your old cheap SD cards. You can even record 8k and 4K 120 as long as you’re not using the all I high bitrate modes.

Yeah. I hear you. Almost all restrictions while the buffer is clearing have been removed though. So if you take short bursts with some time to clear in between it seems not a problem to use the slower cards. I will likely buy this camera. And I will likely NOT buy CF-A cards up front. Maybe I’ll buy one later for RAWs. But I intend to continue to use my cheap and large 256GB and 128GB SD cards for at least a little while. To my knowledge the only thing the camera CAN’T do is a few of the I only 8k or 4k modes. All the IBP modes including 8k can be written to SD. And the burst speed is independent of card speed.

By the way the analogy I would use is it’s like having a super car and not pushing it past 70MPH. It’s still a lot of fun to drive.

Full disclosure the only other thing you can’t do while the buffer is clearing is review pictures that haven’t yet been written to the card, and start a video. But all the menu blocking restrictions have been removed.

(You also can’t change cards or batteries. Although interestingly the idea of “turn off the camera before changing cards” is gone as the camera supports hot swapping cards for continuous recording. Camera will switch from a full card to an empty one and you can swap cards while recording.)

Its not a bargain, it costs for what a camera like this can do costs. The competition is now looking like what brick cell phones looked like.

Considering that the R5 matches up very well against the a1, I’d say that the R5 is more of a bargain and hardly is excessive in terms of size.

Considering that the A9 matches up very well against the R5, and doesn't have the R5 slow sensor readout and overheating issues, I'd say the A9 is more of bargain.

Except that the a9 lacks the advanced video features and higher resolution of the R5. Oh yeah the R5 has better IBIS, EVF, and back LCD, and better animal/ bird AF.

And the a9 is not that much less expensive than an R5. So I’d say the R5 is still a better value than an a9.

But again, the a1 makes the R5 look like a very strong value.

'Considering that the R5 matches up very well against the a1, '

Clearly not. Not even close. A1 got flash synch speed comparable to 1DX III suitable for studio photography with flash and a no non-sense video performance recording in 8k. R5 couldn't even get their 8k practically usable out of the box.

Except that R5 lacks reliable silent shutter for action and 20fps, and it overheats so you need wait longer periods for it to cool down. Oh yeah the A9 has much more native lenses without adaptors needed, has much better battery life, and it can really do 20 fps without distorting action pictures.

And you get the A9 for 1000$ less than the R5. So I'd say the A9 is still a better value than the R5.

But again, the R5 makes the A9 look like a very strong value.

@Ying Yon
Then you must think that the A1 is MASSIVELY overpriced compared to the super value for money A9.......I mean the A1is $3500 more 🤣😂🤣

@Kandid, for what A1 does, it is indeed super value for money for one system do it all type. You have R5's 8k, 1DX Mk III's flash speed synch, A7R series resolution, A7S series video performance and A9's sensor read out speed and dual gain sensor design ALL in one package. 1DX Mk III has the same price, and it has no 8K and as a consequence, the resolution is much lower than 30MP.

@Kandid. I keep saying it because it is true. A1 is second to none and you can't accept it. lmao

Minolta Bob wrote: " I'd get some of the rolling shutter that's been talked about, but I really wouldn't care."

The A1 are for those who care, and who can affort such a camera.

Those buying the Canon R6 and R5 are the same group that are buying A7III and A7rIII/IV cameras, or maybe stretching the budget to the first generation A9 if action photography is the main use of the camera.

Sounds snobby.
A little camera for snobs?
It's not a Leica.
And none of the camera's you mentioned has the GOOD animal eye AF. Did you see the video review here? The A1 doesn't work so well either, hahaha! Jumped all over the place.

@ Minolta Bob: I have looked at some reviews, and I noticed a lot of flaws with one early reviewer that is often used as a "proof" for poor bird eye autofocus. Sure, with carefully picked camera settings and intentional seletion of video clips and photographs, you can "prove" whatever you want, until more consistent and repeatable tests procedures are used to settle the facts.

The speed of the A1 sensor can't be matched at all with the R5 or R6. Neither can you overcome the rolling shutter issue with the much slower Canon cameras, since this is a property of the sensor. Flash with ES on the Canon cameras? No. Using ES as main shutter? Hardly? You can ignore the flaws, like you do, though.

Software update will for sure give better animal and bird AF for the A1, since there is a powerful sensor and lots of processing power available.

Leica have much more expensive cameras, but nowhere close in speed and technology. So no, Sony is not the new Leica. Not at all.

No I don't need it, but like I said why shouldn't it have just as good of an LCD as the competition, especially when it is more expensive than the competition and pretty much all the competition has better LCDS.

@DCooper: What is most important: What you see, or the figures behind the specs?

I would like a bigger LCD which I can use to fire the Shutter by touch. That was part of the initial criticism of the camera, in my original post.

#DCooper - "as somebody who likes to see the composition using the LCD screen"

This is a 30fps camera, the target market for this camera is sports shooters, they seldom use the rear lcd screen. Sony did this camera right.

You can use you smartphone or a tablet, whichever you already have, no exta cost, to have that larger screen, touch commanding not just the shutter, but many important settings. Have you tried Image Edge Mobile? If you have any new generation Sony, you should!

#Thoughts R Us - "Using your smartphone screen is not very practical"

1)Hold a MILC body at arms length to take photos
2)Hold a smartphone at arms length to take photos

So they both fail for the same reasons, which is why this sports camera does not need a big rear LCD screen, it's not a DSLR.

#Thoughts R Us - "What if you are holding the camera down and tilting the screen up to get the shot?"

Link? To any of your sports photos that were shot like that.

Oh wait, I forgot that you joined DPR in 2009 and you've never posted a single photo during your entire time on this website. You apparently don't have any Flickr, Instagram, etc., either.

So are the claims you make based on experience? I'm guessing that you really don't know if MILC sports photos are shot with the rear LCD.

And no, with MILC people don't chimp photos using the vastly inferior rear LCD, that's usually washed out in bright light.

Then tell me, just how many small business, Succeed? Fact is, most don't. Continually going back to an argument we already have settled, changes nothing. Some can justify based on ROI but everyone can't.

A business can't argue for something it can't get(BUY/afford), period. All these hypothetical costs for a business is actually an worse argument than just buying, one $6500 item considering most Pros mostly need TWO. A ton of small business have to rely on OLDER equipment. And if you don't see That reality, Which was happening LONG before Covid. I can't help you. But now, it's even worse.

"How Covid-19 is Affecting the Photo & Video Industry - Lens ...www.lensrentals.com › blog › 2020/04 › how-covid-19...
Apr 22, 2020 Has your work and/or income been impacted by COVID-19? Overall, Photographers, Videographers. Yes, 96.20%, 96.83%, 93.57%. No, 3.8% ..."

ct 25, 2018,08:00am EDT
What Percentage Of Small Businesses Fail -- And How Can You Avoid Being One Of Them?
Forbes Finance Council
Chad OtarForbes Councils Member
"According to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy’s 2018 Frequently Asked Questions, roughly 80% of small businesses survive the first year.
However, from there the number falls sharply. Only about half of small businesses survive passed the five-year mark, ranging from 45.4% to 51% depending on the year the business was started. Beyond that, only about one in three small businesses get to the 10-year mark and live to tell the tale."
----------------------------------

So in the first year, it's likely a given business is Flush with Cash, That why so many may start a business, they earn enough, had a windfall, or whatever. But how you manage those resource the first YEAR is critical. Thus the falloff after year one. Spending recklessly, too much borrowing, are maybe you have an Nikon issue.

Report: 'Photographer' among 2018's worst jobs due to rise of freelancing, smartphones
Published Apr 22, 2019 | Brittany Hillen

"As far as photography goes, CareerCast noted an annual median wage of $34,000 for photographers working in the US last year, which is slightly lower than the nation's median wage across all jobs of $37,690. As well, the company projects photography as a career will experience negative growth of -5.6% from 2016 to 2026.

An increase in smartphones, which make the field more accessible to non-professionals, as well as an uptick in the corporate use of freelancers are cited as issues impacting the career's projected negative growth over the next decade. As freelancers are increasingly used, the photography industry has seen an elimination of salaried photographer positions."

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7564938322/photographer-among-2018-worst-jobs-due-to-rise-of-freelancing-and-smartphones

@BTN1 you forgot to like yourself

A few thoughts. First, pro's usually don't jump in and buy the latest and greatest; they always have been more focused on controlling costs, they realize it's more them than the gear, and they value going with gear they've already mastered. Most pro's I know are the least gear oriented people I know.

Now some larger press agencies, like the AP, are going to be obvious potential buyers of a new camera like this. Esp. since they are now establishing their bank of Sony equipment.

But even with the pro bodies, most sales are to enthusiasts. So I do think that Sony will do well with this model given its price. It has a lot of great features, and there are enough of the Sony user base that will want this camera, most being enthusiasts who are not working pro's.

Until now: "pros only canon or Nikon" based on press conferences and sports events where there are a lot of 1D and D6.

Now: "pros don't buy this kind of expensive cameras... they don't have the money..."

According to our resident material scientist anything black (especially when it comes to Sony camera) is plastic fantastic 😆

“I know there's a lot of debate about the body of the a1...is it truly a "pro" body...could they have made it more durable, etc...”

Not really. It’s mostly coming from you and the anti-Sony propagandist. Also RubberDials have shown you that A1 is constructed from magnesium alloy (same material as DX1 III) but you never respond to that.

“But it is interesting that the new FX3 that has been leaked...basically a video-centric alpha series camera...even more video centered than the a7sIII...does appear to have a more robust, stronger, industrial body.”

You know this because you have one in your hand and tested it’s durability? Just like you tested the durability of A1 with your testing rig in your lab?

By the way will you write over 30 posts in relation to the price of R1 when it’s released? Or is it only a Sony thing? Asking for a friend

Smaller and lighter without lots of mechanics and moving parts that is aligned pecisely, like a complex mirror box, is probably noticeable more durable than large and heavy with fragile parts. Guess which would take a fall best!

Misinformation spread by the competition's fanboys is the reason why Sony works harder to add even more actual features and innovation. Be it the size of the mount, the "color science", the "ergonomics" or the quality of the body.

CaNikon leans back in the meantime, waiting for people to buy their antiquated stuff because the mount is slightly larger. LOL.

@ Thoughts R Us: The compact A1 is probably already much more rugged and durable than what is needed for daily professional use, like reportage and sports.

I think your preception on "Bigger must be better" and "Bigger must be more durable" is something that could be valid fifty years ago, if constructions were not too large. This is no longer a truth, due to better knowledge about materials, calculations on strength and wear and tear, and so on (grown up with engineers).

Also note that elecronic and digital cameras are not clockwork any more - and if they still were, who would claim that a larger watch or clock is better than a smaller one? Quite the opposite. The bigger and more complex, the more care is needed.

I hope Sony keep the compact format. I bought the same ”A1 battery grip” for my A9ii and A7Riv. But I never use it since the cameras have overall better usability with smaller form factor and lower weight.
And yes, the removal of mirror boxes makes the ML cameras (regardless of brand) less sensitive than the big DSLRs (regardless of brand)

Mike: obviously I'm making an inference from the photos, but the FX3 does appear to have a more industrial build and I'm not the only one to say that. But you are correct: it may be similar materials just with a different color/texture. Of course we will see once it is released.

Sillen: the new FX3 retains the small form of the alpha series, but does appear to have a more robust build to it. So it's not like you can't have both.

Magnar: I am more than willing to be proven wrong with regards to build quality on smaller cameras. I do agree that new technologies enable new techniques. Time will tell.

Yeah. I guess you place much more weight on appearances. That must be why you always suggest the A1 isn’t a pro body because it’s small compared to the 1DX series. At least you’re consistent.

@tru
Touched a raw nerve there 🔥🔥💥💥 - you have the whole hoard on your tail.....👹👹

Ha not a nerve. Just when someone says something so ridiculous there are bound to be responses. I think you know this well.

@Mikeran
Well he certainly got you going.....😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

The camera that caught my EYE (hahaha) with bird eye AF is the R6. It's like a used car cheaper than the other cameras with bird eye AF and maybe the best. So keep your kidney!

@Mzro, not really. All an amateur birder would need for the backyard is an a6400 and 70-350 lens. That is a very small, light, and relatively inexpensive combo. At least it would put any micro 4/3rd system to shame, especially the accurate AF, IQ, low light, DR, and tracking.

Birding requires the camera and a long lens.

The R5/R6 are a good way to get into BIF relatively inexpensively. They have class leading bird eye AF and offer 2 super telephoto lenses that are inexpensive: the 600 and 800 DO.

Dude hates micro four thirds.

I just ordered an EM10. Someone here used one and damn if he doesn't have some of the best BIF shots with it. Vintage lens too. I'll never be that good.
What's the saying, your lenses are always longer on 4/3rds.

BTW, another good birding combo that's not too expensive, relatively speaking, is the Nikon D500 plus the 500 pf lens.

How is Canon able to make these cameras at such lower prices? Is it the cost of stacking sensors and the new VF that makes these so expensive?
In the videos so far autofocus is a toss-up.
Over time will cameras with the stacked sensors come down to something Joe American can afford? Even the R6 is very expensive to me but it does have the same bird eye AF.
Does the A7c have the same bird eye AF or better yet the A7iii?

Canon’s 1DXIII is $6500. Surely a larger and heavier metal casing doesn’t cost THAT much more. The stacked sensor is expensive for sure.

And are you Ric 360?

To steal what another guy said, I don't want to have to sell a kidney!
The 1DX isn't for me either though the big double grip with its own screen is cool. I assume that's a big chunk of the cost. It's got a bunch of batteries in it too so you can take literally thousands of pictures without recharging. It's like the price of a used car.
The R6 has the Bird eye AF and does a lot of the stuff and is like a third the price. I don't know how they do that. It's like a kidney less. It's almost what Joe American can afford.
Canon Sony update thr A7C I'd be happy with that. I don't need a million FPS.

Nikon just had their record sales of mirrorless cameras and lenses lol. It is actually on upswing side

What makes a "pro grade" body?

#g2tegg - "I don't see why there is so much praise here. There are a lot of pro-grade features, but it's not in a pro-grade body."

You bought a Canon r6, which is definitely not a pro grade body, then complained that: "I’ve noticed the shooting times kept dropping and the body of the camera heating up... but seeing the estimated video shooting limit drop from 25 minutes to 5 minutes is concerning. All I was doing was shooting pictures." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4543937

How do you figure that Canon is going to somehow magically recover from their r5/r6 debacle, and actually make that huge leap from their first-gen MILC efforts, into a pro grade body that doesn't melt down.

Canon can't seem to make stacked sensors, there isn't much of an rf-mount lens lineup to speak of, they don't have any linear voice coil af motors, etc.

@ g2tegg - the main limitation with Canon mirrorless aside from lenses is their DPAF. It makes it impossible to get extremely fast sensor readout, and it also makes it impossible to introduce cross type AF points. As things progress, that is going to become a major competitive issue for them. We can already see this on the R5/R6 with the useless electronic shutter for action and the horrible video rolling shutter. Whatever their R1 is, it will have to have dramatically different AF/sensor technology to compete with what Sony is doing and innovation is not exactly Canon's strongpoint. We will see I guess.

Secondly, a camera like the R1 is going to be targeted at sports/wildlife photographers, and they do not have a professional grade build quality 70-200/2.8 nor do they have any long tele's faster than F7.1 which is a bit of a joke. Adapted lenses are of course an option but far from ideal, and adds extra weight, size, and hassle with reduced durability.

I read on Jim Kasson's site awhile back the newer A7Riv sensor has a readout speed of 1/10th of a second. I think if you switch to some kind of compressed or lossy output it doubles to 1/20th.

The reason I mention this is the R5 is said to have a readout speed of 1/60th or 3 times faster. I think it is a single sensor and not a stacked one.

So how can you say DPAF makes the readout speed slower? Isn't it like 2 or 3 times faster than all the other full frame sensors where stacking isn't used?

Could you explain why it's so much faster even though you said it's impossible?

Also does stacking mean it uses multiple sensors? How many does the A1 need?

You know an awful lot about the regulars here like Jim Kasson for only being around 2 days. You must be a fast learner.

And since you asked the full 61MP readout is much slower than the lower resolution readout used in the viewfinder and for AF tracking. Otherwise your EVF would be a slideshow. So you can’t draw any conclusion about readout speed and it’s relation to AF calculations without knowing all the different readout modes and how that readout ties to the AF system.

@DualSystemGuy
Actually, the R5 shows very low rolling shutter, read-out rates are:

9.7ms for 4K/30p, 4K/60p, 4K/120p
8.7ms for 1080/60p
15.4ms for 8K/30p, oversampled 4K (from full sensor)

dpreview state in the review of the R5:
'There is essentially no rolling shutter to speak of on the EOS R5' (and gave the R5 a Gold award).

@Martian1

The R5 sensor read out is fast for 45mp, but there is still rolling shutter. The A7sIII still exhibits rolling shutter - albeit very minimal - and reads out faster than the R5:

8.7ms for 4K 60p / 30p / 24p
7.7ms for 4K 120p (1.1x crop)

Also remember that the R5 figure of 9.7ms is 12 bit. The A1 and A7sIII read out in 14bit.

Is there a way to turn off these flags or notifications?
I don't want to be notified every time someone says something after I do. It was fun for about 10 minutes and now its old.
I turned off emails that was really annoying.

Oh and fun history of rolling shutter. Old film camera had it. And animation adopted the look to show fast movement. So cars trains and other stuff would have a slanted look in animation. Buildings would slant too as things flew past.
It's still used today. We spent an hour on this in film class.

Kandid - would you be so kind as to point out specifically what is false "anti-canon fantasy" along with objective proof of the contrary? It's the least you can do if you are going to make an accusation.

Re: the A1 - nobody thinks it's going to be a big seller. It is clearly a low volume/high margin halo camera just like the 1DX and D6. It can do things no other camera can do right now, and it does it at the price of a 1DX/D6 which makes it a relative bargain. It also allows owners of the A7R4, A7S3, and A9II to consolidate into a single camera body, which is extremely valuable to some. Will the average enthusiast be buying it though? obviously not, but like anything, if you require it's unique feature set, it's easily worth $3000 more than something like an R5. It's also the only pro MILC that has a mature native lens system, or even a single decent long telephoto lens for that matter.

@ Kandid - you did a good job of more/less repeating what I said, but did not provide any argument or evidence whatsoever aside from a bunch of emojis.

RF mount has no native long teles faster than F7.1 that is a fact. People buying high FPS bodies are typically tele lens users (sports, wildlife, etc.)

RF 70-200/2.8 is a telescoping/dust pumping design which is highly unusual for a 70-200/2.8. It is impossible to seal or balance as well as an internal zoom design, which matters to professionals, especially in less than ideal environments. That is a fact.

Experts on sensor design have commented on DPAF being an issue for readout and cross type AF points. We can already see this is an issue in the R5/R6 as well as in every review.

As for your "brand crusader" comment, I own neither camera but am in the market, so I am in a position to be as objective as possible and choose whatever I want. I have changed systems many times over the years and have zero brand loyalty whatsoever.

I find the grips for my D850 and D500 very nice when it comes to properly balancing a long lens on a gimble head on a tripod. Without the extra weight of the battery grip, some lenses will not balance at all.

@Ken Seals that's because those lenses are front-heavy. The recent Sony telephoto lenses are not, the center of gravity is located near the back of the lens, therefore you won't have any balance issue. Problem solved!

"Bulky cameras aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but the ergonomics on a 1DX and D5 series are phenomenal and preferred by most big lens users that are shooting all day at the side of a track or football stadium."

Actually most of them seem use Mono or Tripods so the size of the camera body isn't an issue. I just can't imagine hand holding a long telephoto for hours at a sporting event.

I see those guys with two or three cameras with big white lenses.

How they hold them steadily with one hand then switch to a different camera is fun to watch.

I never realized how many vertical pictures they take until I watched them one day.

There are professional sports photographers, that get the job done, with far less. So you really have zero idea what you are talking about. So according to you, there wasn't folks even getting the Job done until now. By the way, the A1 isn't even available until, Expected availability - shipping will begin Thu Mar 04-2021.

So how any did world did anyone get anything done until the A1 arrived on the scene. Be blunt and honest with yourself, and admit you have no clue about what you are talking about. Folks have been getting the job Done long before the A1 an would have done so regardless of if Sony never even made it.

Sony provide a wide range of cameras for a wide range of end purposes at a wide range of prices. Nothings changed except they introduced a new high end top camera that is even more jam packed with tech than any they have ever made before.

The Sky is Blue.

Same for every other Camera Manufacture that survives. Their next will be best, so that's hardly news. When did Camera manufactures go backwards tech wise?

@ BackToNature1: If you think a $ 6500 camera would be the difference between surviving or perishing for a small photography business, I challenge you to calculate running costs, salary, other equipment, tax relief on investments, hiring office, car, etc., and then look at how many percentage such a camera will represent over, say, 3 years. Or how much it is per job done.

"If you think a $ 6500 camera would be the difference between surviving or perishing for a small photography business, I challenge you to calculate running costs,"

Okay we have already had an settled that debate. This isn't about that. What it is about, folks acting as if Sony is giving them something for free as compared to anything else. You are paying for that bump in performance. That's in a different context to, sure, pros buy something because of ROI. So apparently, PROs can't just rely on skill.

All of which brings me back to another point. So GEAR does matter, like I have being saying, All Day Long. Otherwise folks(Pros) would always settle, on what they already have.

“ pros buy something because of ROI. So apparently, PROs can't just rely on skill.”

Actually I always keep my technology up to date, the latest cameras and lighting allow me to do things that weren’t possible before, do stuff on location that had to be done in a studio or do things that were economically unrealistic before for my clients. Staying on the edge of what’s possible lets me remain competitive and stand out in a saturated market.

Imaging always has been a technological driven industry right from the beginning.

@ BackToNature1: My response is to your claim about saving some bucks when investing in a professional tool, blindly looking at the price label for a camera body.

Sure, you can do much with older cameras. But you can't stay competetive if others who use the latest tech are pushing the envelope beyond what is possible with the gear you use. I am not talking just about image quality, but also things like file transfer and other aspects of an efficient work flow.

@ Magnar

"BackToNature1: My response is to your claim about saving some bucks when investing in a professional tool, blindly looking at the price label for a camera body."

Then your response is misguided. I clearly stated you are paying for that performance boost. Not whether or not that a given person needed it or not. I simply pointed out that some folks, haven't needed it. That has nothing to little to do with your response. I also stated Gear Actually matters and ROI. So in reality, you are agreeing with me.

@BackToNature1, the A9 was $4500 2 years ago, the A7Riv was also a lot more expensive than today. The reason they went down in price is because Sony released more cameras. The A1 will be responsible for even more price cuts, and then the A1ii will cause the A1 to drop in price.
Also, that $6500 price is the same as the 1DX3 or the D6, but the A1 is a lot more powerful, so, compared to the competition, it's actually underpriced.

We don't compare Mirrorless to DSLR. Old Camera prices drop after the new models come out. Okay, the sky is Blue. Compared to the competition, it's not underpriced? We won't know if underpriced, overpriced or whatever until Canon and Nikon, bring out there, $6500 mirrorless models. Plus, the A1 hasn't even been properly vetted.

Yes, reviewers that don't know how to use Sony, and also DPR posters who don't know anything about Sony either ;-)

@ Ric 360: Tony Northrup, and many posters here, really want the Canon R5 to be among the very best. Fact is that in many important areas it doesn't even come close to the "old" Sony A9.

Everything work as should be -> boooring, less clicks. Report issues doesn't exist, make drama, Put SHOCKING in to the title -> boom way more clicks, more money. Later a video with the title I WAS WRONG, and he explain the mistake what he made -> more clicks again. That is Toneh's aka ClickbaitClown's strategy 🙂

@ Ric 360: The R5 is a good camera, with it's flaws, but it is not an A9.

Yes the A9 is more of a low resolution, low DR camera. The R5 is the opposite. We do agree. ( I can't imagine you saying the A9 to Z5 have more than 24MP - although the Z5 and R5 have a full EV more DR than the A9).

@Anula exactly! Tony is not a good photographer let's be honest, however he's very good at market analysis, and that includes his own channel. So he knows exactly how to maximize the amount of clicks, and that's how he got his winning formula. It gets him more money, but it's also dishonest. Well, we know what his priorities are now.

*SHOCKING* A1 failure, overheating, slow FPS => guaranteed to multiply the clicks by 3.

@pollup
"but it's also dishonest. Well, we know what his priorities are now."

Ah no you don't. What ever you claim he has or hasn't done as compared to all the other Sony Channel pawns that say everything Sony makes is PERFECT! They make Tony look like a Saint by comparison.