I don’t think I’m denying Sony has introduced some exceptional tech. It’s clear they have. My observation is those differences don’t leap out of a screen or a print as being more outstanding than their peer competitors. Image quality seems to have pretty much plateaued and it’s getting hard if not impossible to describe what better looks like, either because you can see it or because you need to do extraordinary things to measure it.
After that you are left with the more and more and the faster and faster. Yet before we had for example zero blackout did it honestly get in the way, was 15fps insufficient , 4K (good quality 4K ) too poor etc etc?
If I use what I see on forums, websites, in multi media etc, you don’t need an A1 to accomplish any of it. Indeed you could do it all with an A6000 and some good glass.

Autofocus and the frames allow the shots. That is nothing that can be determined by looking at a picture. It definitely helps in getting the shots though.

Like I thought, you have not experienced it. Rent even the 2017 A9. It will blow you away for action shots.

I agree the A9 is an excellent camera. As noted there is nothing to see in the images that sharply distinguishes one flagship from another.
I really do think we have arrived at a point where it’s hard to say better or best. In terms performance , gear get faster and more efficient. This will plateau. 60 fps can become 120 fps but for most 60fps is over spec unless you have a specialist need.
I suppose I have stopped gasping in admiration at a tech race. It will end with a very close finishers. Pushing innovation is only of value where it makes a crucial difference. Outside the numbers game and back to practical application we are not much further forward than 5 years ago, and of course the limiting factor is the person behind the camera. Look back at any sporting or wildlife event portfolio shot by major brands and see that there is nothing new that has changed what already could be achieved a few years ago that really matters.

Yeah it still has that Sony color cast; but less yellowish green as before I would say.

When/where did Mark Galer dump on anyone taking pics of sparrows in their backyard?

That guy is a bit of an idiot IMO.

@ The Decisive Comment: Well, such comments are backfiring ... telling a lot about the one who comments ...

Poor Magnar and his bruised ego.

@ The Decisive Comment: Like I said ...

Lol sony nice colors? The world is going mad!

You have to admit there are different types of photo/video-graphy!
So in different kind of sports, events, journalism/reportage you do not really have much options for composition and light! And in this situations fast sensor paired with fast AF paired with fast lens HELPS A LOT!
If you are doing single portrait or lady bug per day it is little different story!
So do not try to fit everyone in your shoes.

Watch the super bowl this weekend. On the side lines you will see mostly 3- 6 year old Canon and Nikon cameras with a few newer ones mixed in. You 'll likely see a lot of Canon 7D and 7Dii bodies mixed in too. Gear does matter, but not in the way you think. Experience with camera, familiarity, and ergonomics matter.

If you have thousands of pounds of a manufacturers lenses I suspect for many Pros' there would have to be a very significant hike in quality to justify any change.

@misspiggy01
You are sure but all that blind testing proofs again and again this is just a dream!

@ misspiggy01: Would you? What about different lighting, difference in auto exposure, lenses and color charcteristics, different in-camera jpg profiles, etc.? How would you deal with this? And why side-by-side comparision? Photographs are not read and interpreted like this.

@misspiggy: I don't think the "knowledge" that allows you to spot differences between brands has much to do with photography. And anyway, those differences are so obviously swamped by the talent of the photographer, the geographic area, the time of the year, the hour of the day, etc., that I fail to see the point.

So you guys are saying that you can't see differences between one camera and the next. So why are you constantly fighting over which brand has someting over that brand?

Magnar, your whole online existence is saying over and over again how great sonys cameras are, you are completely devaluationg your agenda here. i will always quote this post to you, thank you for that.

This forum would be deserted if there weren't differences how insignificant they might be. Its like saying all cars are the same. Once you drive you cant tell them apart, especially if you use a different road. Utter nonsense.

@ misspiggy01: Thank you for your interest in everything I write in the discussion forums here on Dpreview.

Hello, welcome to DPR. Oh wait …

@ AKH: Don't worry! There are floods of those using other camera brands than Sony that have committed themselves to do this!

The good thing about the Sony imaging ambassadors is they will try hard to make the camera look as good as possible without comparing to other cameras. These are great marketing videos and should help sell the A1.
The people not paid by Sony keep spending much of their time comparing the A1 to the R5, but no one thinks the R5 and A1 are even in at the same price level or in the same category, so those comparisons end up benefiting the R5 the most because more people can afford them. People see they can get an R5 that is similar to the A1 but for almost half the price. And for those who could never afford the A1 they see the R5 as a competitive option (jared Polin for example kept saying 'very competitive')

@ AKH: You see? They are already here! 😂

@David Collopy: In your logic, what's the point of viewing any image on any type of screen? What do you propose, to show them only on digital billboards? Did you ever notice that you can zoom in on your screen in order to inspect the quality of the photos?

@ SteveAnderson: How blue is the sky?

@ SteveAnderson: Next question: How blue is your monitor?

Color is complex, and the color of the sky is not something fixed. That's my point.

Also, color can be adjusted in-camera for jpg output, to match the taste of the photographer or the clients, or can be fixed at post processing. So I don't think this or that camera is the issue.

Just take a look at different Canon camera models and compare, and you will find that the colors are all over the place. They don't match at all, so there is not one Canon color - there are many. By the way, which Canon color do you like best? 😉

I don't understand this concern over blue skies. As Steve says, there a thousand different hues and saturation levels of blue in the sky, depending on geography, time of day, climatic conditions, pollution levels and many other factors.

I doubt very much if anyone's memory of a blue sky is good enough to be able to say whether the image they see on their computer screen afterwards matches it precisely.

Mostly it's just about personal preference. Some people like skies to have a slightly violet hue, others prefer a slightly cyan view. And because it is quite evenly toned, sky colour is incredibly easy to tweak to your own taste, in LR, PS or any other image editor.

Easy to say Spectro. OOC colour performance is important for the vast majority of people.

Many wont notice at all though.

Those that do, know how hard it is to bypass CFA and tiny hue adjustments. Never mind levels and tone on top of that.

Not saying anything bad about a1 colour. How can I? There are 2 photos of a white guy with no direct comparison.

Ironically, on a camera like the a1, where many will take a lot of photos due to its rapid AF frame rate speed, the OOC colors and general quality comes to matter more, because with so many shots to cull from, it becomes more of a burden to edit.

So yes, OOC colors matter. And more so on a camera where many will generate a higher volume of photos.

use a grey card when you shoot portrait then. Most consumers, I never really hear complained about skin tone, it is mostly people on a photography website/ youtube forum. Ok, some client/ people might ask why you edit like that but that doesn't apply to this. My original raw to final edit are usually never the same for portrait and color grading is one part of it. Unless I do some bulk event shooting. Yes, I do calibrate my monitor.

A grey card doesnt fix colours though, just WB.

Have you tried something with horrible skin colours like a a6300 vs accurate and pleasing colours like a 7Dm2?

Its hardware baked in. Its really hard to massage nice hues around with an a6300 or similar.

a7III is really much better. The first Sony I found with quite decent skin tones.

You are correct that many people dont notice, and you are obviously maneuvering hues a lot manually.

It is a test that I encourage people to do. Most complain about colour with out ever actually taking these cameras out for a direct test. Or doing a hue test for our eyes, or calibrating a nice IPS monitor.

Here is a simple one, for everyone's enjoyment, not directed at you.
https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

@Spectro..Sony RAW skin tones were better than jpeg versions but still not preferable to Canon, Nikon, Fuji colours IMO. Using grey card to cure the yellow cast in shadows??? Please try gaining some knowledge about the subject prior to forming an opinion.

What should fix even horrible cameras: Use a Colorchecker. There are many tutorials out there on how to use it in a shooting to accurately calibrate the camera in your RAW process.

User, The older Sony cameras seem by opinion to have had good/better colour.

It was the switch to thinner, weaker CFA on the sensor to have better noise/DR that caused the terrible skin colours.

Many Nikon users think that the D700 was the best for skin colours for similar reasons.

Even DPR state in their review of the 80D that the colours were "not as lovely" as the cameras before it. The big difference in the 80D from all previous models was it had significantly better noise and DR.

It is not just the profiles. It is a hardware issue. The CFA.

Are you splitting hairs or is it really quite bad comparatively?

D850 or a7III or Z6 are much better?

I noticed that DxO gives the D7200 a very high score compared to my 7Dm2. But in real life, I had to turn NR completely off on the D7200 to get a similar skin quality texture. And by that time the noise levels were similar.

Also according to Jason Vong, in a very cursory test on a slow moving peacock on the ground, the bird eye AF is not so strong a feature...he got about a 60% hit rate..and again the bird is moving very slowly on the ground. And this was with his plumage not on display, where you might argue that the plumage has many eyes.

Now of course the a1 will be able to take some great photos of birds no matter what...I mean people have gotten great photos of birds with no AI in the AF...but it does appear that the Sony bird eye AF is probably not quite as good as the Canon.

According to Mark Smith Canon R5 AF isn't as reliable as Sony's AF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG6L8fMxhKU

I really like Mark Smith and I love the way he tells stories about the birds and their action sequences. I know others have remarked that he should have a show on Nat Geo or Animal Planet because he's such a great storyteller.

As for cameras, in that video he is extremely complimentary of the R5. He calls it a "great camera" and says the AF is "absolutely exceptional" and "brilliant." He says the R5 is "fantastic" and he is adding it to his bag and that he "highly recommends it."

@Thoughts R Us I didn't say he doesn't like the R5 ;) He mentions he gets out of focus shots when he shoots low down straight over the water (camera focuses on water instead of bird) or when his favorite bird (Osprey) falls straight from the sky and splashes into the water. He admits it might be possible to further tweak the AF settings but was unsuccessful after several outings.

And I also love the way he packs his shootings into a nice story :) And even when he "reviews" new gear it's all about the action and the result, not about technical specs and test charts and pixel peeping...

@fft2000, to be fair, Mark didn’t have a control in his test. We don’t know if Sony A9 series camera would have fared better or not.

The bottom line is that both the a1 and the R5 have pretty incredible AF systems and that both will deliver the goods in almost all situations.

Really we are just arguing about differences on the margin.

Now it is true that with the a1 will get with some lenses 30 fps whereas the R5 maxes out at 20 fps but again, in most situations, that will not matter. In fact I know a birder who has an a9II and he dials down the fps because he feels that in most cases 20 fps gives him too many photos to go through.

I suspect it is the same with the AI of the AF. In some situations one may slightly outperform the other, but overall both will work very well. And of course good photographers can get the shot without the AI component anyway.

I am glad we are in agreement re Mark Smith. He's really good at what he does and I hope he succeeds because he seems like a really nice and sincere guy.

Hey, maybe DPR should enlist Mark to do some reviews for them!

Actually Mark said also other stuff that somehow TRU missed to point out? Maybe I see some BIAS here?
So what he said actually?
https://youtu.be/wG6L8fMxhKU?t=540

There are few things about it I do not like it. I need to spend I little bit more time with it to make sure is not user error. I DID HAVE CAMERA LOCK UP ON ME QUITE FEW TIMES, ABOUT 5 TIMES, IT IS JUST FROZEN, I HAVE TO POP OUT THE BATTERY ..........
-
So this is it for ultra reliable, ultra sealed, mega PRO, ultimate birders machines! Prior that also he mentioned ROLLING SHUTTER issues with one shot with fast motion - what a surprise.............

BTW TRU this topic is for A1 ultra fast high res camera, not for mid-range cameras like R5 right? We know already that you try to push R5 in every other topic and for every other purpose GET IT, THIS IS 5D REPLACEMENT NOT 1DXIII REPLACEMENT!
So for normal 5D usage and some video here and there camera is good. But nothing common with sport camera or good video hybrid!
Of course you can shoot some sport, exactly as you can with 90D, 5D, 6D or whatever camera.
And in Canon camp birders camera was mainly 7D1/2. Not sure how exactly this crowd will be moved to R5 because of few influencers ........
Much more logical move is to 90D/m6 II. How many people in the world could afford some of this - R5, 1DXII/III, D6/D5, D850, A9I/II, A1 + pair it with long and fast lens just to go and shoot birds? I mean this narrative is starting to be ultra ridiculous!
And your exaggerations like person 1 is getting good BIF shots with R5 = this means the ultimate sport and everything camera.......

Thoughts R Us - Don’t know what video you are watching but that isn’t what he says in his Q and A video. He says that the R5 has trouble losing focus when a bird is at water level. Says that he doesn’t use bird eye af but uses zone focus and gets better hits. Lastly he says he is sticking with Sony. Only tests other cameras because he wants to be familiar with cameras that people use in his workshops.

Getting better and better. I always prefer Sony colors in landscape, while now Sony skintone is also very good.

In general, a Sony tends to emphasize more "cool" colors and the Canon more "warm" colors.

Look at this video by Sara Dietschy on the a1...at the end she shares some comparison video and shots with the R5...the link I posted take you to one of those shots but you can back up a bit to see the comparison videos as well...

https://youtu.be/6oAy97GfX6w?t=820

With the Canon, you can see warmer skin tones, the red tint in her hair, and the peach color in her sweater...with the Sony, everything looks more pale..her skin looks white pale white, her hair brownish, and her sweater doesn't show the peach very well.

Obviously these can all be adjusted...but still...you can see a difference.

Sony's skin tones are not the problem, IMO. I find them quite good, actually. The problem are the greens (grass, foliage), purple tint in the shadows very often, overall cool look (lack of warmth), etc. I posted more specific comments a few days ago.

Jared Polin notes that one really needs to the use the CFExp Type A cards to get the most out of the camera if you are using the high speed shooting, which of course in one of the main reasons why you would buy the camera.

T Northrup noted that with the high speed/high res shooting that really one might need even more than 160GB because the card can fill up so quickly and he is saying that someone should make a 500 GB card...but of course that would be very expensive.

So the CFExpress Type A cards are right now very expensive but one needs to factor that into the cost of owning the camera. Of course if one is buying a $6500 camera in the first place, then arguably you should be able to afford expensive cards..

@Thoughts R Us

Tonight's Jackanory will be presented by Thoughts R Us.

Actually the opposite of what you say is the reality - you can exploit all of the camera's features with just SD cards and not S90 ones either - which is remarkable. The camera will record duplicate oversampled 8K streams to SD, whereas the Canon R5 requires a CFExpress card to record any 8K at all.

LOL you can do 8x12 prints that look amazing with just your phone... Or if a phone is too expensive with a used >10 year old 100$ camera. I made 16x20 prints from a 7MP cropped image taken with my Olympus E-510 (10MP 4/3 sensor) and everybody thinks it was taken with an expensive professional camera!

I think once we remove the same canon employees posting the same thing, we'll find out that no-one is saying that the A1 makes the R5 look good.

R5 is at least 90 to 95% of the a1 for 60% of the cost. Arguably, the differences are at the margin, and will not make a difference to the vast majority of shooters in real world use.

In some areas the R5 is superior. The bird AF seems to be better, and it has some advanced video modes like 4K HQ that the a1 lacks.

Just the fact that the R5 is compared to the a1 speaks well of the R5 considering the cost differential.

“Arguably, the differences are at the margin, and will not make a difference to the vast majority of shooters in real world use.”

But for the people who will benefit from the A1 (like sports photographers) may show interest in the camera.

@TRU
Your trolling is spread over hear with full power?
So lets calculate as you trolls do R5 90-95% of A1..........
-
How much is R5 from 1DXIII??? Maybe 150%, or maybe 250%?
-
So how much is a difference between 1/60 and 1/200? 5 to 10%???
-
How much is a difference between 20 fps/12 bit and 30fps/14 bit??? 5 to 10%?
-
How much is a difference between max speed 1/8000 vs 1/32000???
-
How much is a difference between flash sync 1/250 and 1/400 Second???
-
How much is a difference between Viewfinder Magn. Approx. 0.76x vs Approx. 0.9x????
-
How much is a difference between EVF resolution 5,760,000 Dot vs 9,437,184 Dot???
-
How much is a difference between no external RAW recording vs 4K/16bit/ RAW external, and no 8K external over HDMI vs up to 8K/8bit and 4K/10bit external???
-
Continueeeee ......

How much is a difference between:
Mechanical Shutter
Up to 12 fps at 45 MP for up to 180 Frames (Raw) / 350 Frames (JPEG)
Electronic Shutter
Up to 20 fps at 45 MP for up to 83 Frames (Raw) / 170 Frames (JPEG)
-
Electronic Shutter
Up to 30 fps at 50.1 MP for up to 155 Frames (Raw) / 165 Frames (JPEG)
Up to 20 fps at 50.1 MP for up to 238 Frames (Raw) / 400 Frames (JPEG)
Up to 15 fps at 50.1 MP
-
What is a difference between no LAN vs LAN port????
-
When you will stop to be troll like this? Where did you get this 90-95%?
You are purely lying here!!!
I mean every 2nd or 3rd of your posts here are pure lies! You need to have some shame!

Photomecanic for sport shooters.
it would probably mean when shooting raw only you can have still decent JPEG hires files when downloading thru imaging edge app.

Entoman with my A9 and A9II it depends. If you’re in aperture priority shutter priority or manual mode then the aperture is changed real time. It seems if you’re in P - Program mode the aperture is kept wide open. As soon as you start a burst the aperture stops down and tracking continues while stopped down I can’t tell if this initial AF acquisition happens before or after stopping down. The A1 can PDAF down to F/22.

If there’s not enough light, even if you’re in Manual, the aperture will open to autofocus and then close down again.

Whether any of this has changed with recent firmwares or is different on the A1 I’m not sure.

Also. All of the above is AF-C. With the A9 I know very few people that ever use AF-S since AF-C and tracking is so solid so that scenario becomes mostly irrelevant.

Here is one of the Sony af-s threads regarding opening the aperture all the way to focus. One reason that it's controversial is that no platform can truly correct for focus shift:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4246876

In addition there is option Live View Display – Setting Effect ON:
Which is dealing with mentioned behavior:
https://www.markgaler.com/live-view-display-setting-effect-on-or-off

Thanks guys, my question is because I may at some stage get a Sony body, and one of the attractions was that I can see the effect of d.o.f., bokeh, specular highlights etc every time I touch the shutter button.

I love my Canon DSLRs, but one of the things I don't like about DSLRs is the way the viewfinder dims when previewing d.o.f. On a MILC it's much handier to have the working d.o.f permanently displayed, than to fumble about with a preview button, when shooting in a hurry.

Unfortunately, (R5 owners - please correct me if I'm wrong), Canon MILCs carry out AF at full aperture, so for me, stopped-down AF is a point on Sony's favour.

It’s definitely helpful to be able to see in real time as you adjust the aperture. You really can dial in just the right amount of background blur without taking the shot and without suffering from the dimming viewfinder.

If you go all the way down to f/16 or smaller in dim light the live view gain is increased and sometimes it gets a little noisy but not so much so that it impacts your ability to see what your shooting and the alternative in DSLR world is a view where you can barely make out anything in the dark.

Looks like the R5 has a dedicated DOF preview button, and it's apparently designed for use with rf-mount glass:

https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART178258

It's a strong indication that Canon MILC does not have full-time wysiwyg capability, like Sony does.

You'd expect a DOF preview button with adapted DSLR lenses, but not on a ff MILC platform that's using native glass, it's a fail.

Bank Shot - I think it's just a deliberate move by Canon, to make the R5 experience as close to a DSLR experience as possible.

Many people, myself included, value familiarity and continuity of ergonomics and functions, and Canon recognise that.

So I wouldn't regard it as a fail, but just a different choice, that was probably the result of feedback from pros who currently use Canon DSLRs.

I can see good and bad aspects in all cameras, whether Canon, Sony, Nikon or anyone else. I'm brand-neutral and will buy the tool that suits me, so I'm just weighing up different aspects of various models.

//Not a single image that might feature the unique high frame rates or flash capabilities of this camera or any of its special qualities. The people "hired" to put this together need to think about who and why someone might buy this camera.//

I'd love to go shoot some fast action sports, it'd be great to really get in close with the athletes, and the stands packed to the rafters with cheering fans.

Oh wait, we're in the middle of a pandemic. And we've had about 18 hours of non-gloomy Seattle weather since we got the camera.

Rest-assured, we'll have a lot more images coming when we're able to.

Sorry, but that's a lame excuse. Mark Galer has a gallery full of action shots.

mick232, leave it off, please.

I think no-one would ask Carey or anyone else to undergo the danger which rises at the moment due to more infective Covid variants, just to get some photos.

Please don't so ask. A virus knows nothing about politics, opinions, etc. -- it just does what it does, at any target of opportunity.

Sorry, but that's a lame excuse. Mark Galer has a gallery full of action shots

Ahh...Mark Galer is in Melbourne Australia. We have no lockdown here. No community transmission of covid for 28 days. Its summer here.

Hardly fair to say mark could do it, why cant you. Talk about feeling entitled.

Daniel - Were you there when the photos were taken?

If not, how can you possibly know what the colours of the real scenes were, and how that compares to the camera output?

The "colour science", as a Canon user, looks perfectly fine to me, and if you don't like it, maybe you should try Lightroom, Capture One or any other image editor, which will enable you to tweak the colour balance, contrast and saturation to your own preference.