We Need to Talk About the Sony A1 II

[dandobi]

Great video, I love this take and totally agree. As a person that primarily shoots video, I think the R5 feels WAY too similar in the video specs to justify upgrading. Yes an A1ii would be cool but if I was starting from scratch, I would def go with the fx3 r5 combo

[Florence-bt]

You are really knowledgeable about different camera.IMPRESSIVE!!!

[howardshooter]

I had the A7RV and upgraded to the A1 mk2. I found the rolling shutter to be a massive issue for even street work. The A1 mk2 is a much more useable camera and ergonomically feels so much better too. It costs too much in my opinion but it is a much more complete camera for both stills and video.

[MadeByJane]

I'm so glad I found your video! I've been comparing the Sony A9 III and the Sony A1 II. I've been using my Sony A7 III for six years now, and it’s been my reliable backup camera. When the A7R V came out, I preordered it immediately—it was my dream camera. Now, my backup camera needs replacing, and I’ve been wondering if I should upgrade further instead of just getting a second A7R V.

What are your thoughts on the A9 III? It seems like an incredible camera. I know megapixels aren't everything, but the global shutter feature really caught my attention. Would love to hear your perspective!

[RandumbTech]

For travel, the A7C line makes more sense. I don't think Sony is going to sell many of these cameras - at least not at $6500. You can buy a brand new Z8 for $3, 500 and, with the exception of the screen, does just about everything the A1ii does for a lot less.

[puckhead]

You get the A1 cause it can do everything including it has a high burst rate at 50mp. It also now has Pre-Capture that only the A9 has but at 50mp.
So its for capturing speed- wildlife and action.

It def makes sense to NOT get the A1 for a lot of people, especially since its $6.5k
Id rather have 2 cameras as well, one for vid one for photos.

[yusei]

some one is missing some really context here. The a1ii sensors is stacked, it's a faster and better performing camera in photo so you wont get little to any rolling shutter. the 8k in the a7rv is pretty pointless too. The 8k in the the a7rv is also cropped. I owned and used all of these cameras you're talking about and can tell you the a1ii is a way better camera than the a7rv but if you're just doing portraits then the a7rv is amazing and will kill it or weddings. Currently im looking at trading in my a1 to upgrade to the a1 ii and pair it with my a9iii. But the most important thing is that you just create with your stuff. The fx3 is just a goated cinema camera and sometimes I wish I owned one instead of renting one as opposed to my fx6 that I own but use very rarely. But yeah I dont think you can go wrong with any of these cameras, its just really about budget but please know that the a1ii really does curb stomp the a7rv in a lot of ways.

[ShotbyMilesMentis]

How can I get my audio sounding like YOURS

[CollinSnipesX]

cool, would love to see it in action...can you shoot some vid, and show the difference b/w the 2 cams?

[LiquidusSnake]

actually A1 II can do video at 8K30 with minimal rolling shutter vs A7RV capping at 8K20 with significant rolling shutter. It's a pretty big difference both ways.

[helloianzakharov]

Thanks for review. Actually the only one competitor on the market is a Canon R5II for wildlife. R7R5 is deadly slow for fast birds.

[JukkaLamsa]

Wildlife and sports photographers need speed. The A7R5 rolling shutter is really bad. Not suitable for fast shooting at all.

[_Suzuka_Joe]

I bought a like new A1 for $4k picked up, so much more camera for a few hundred over a new A7rV

[amigofavor]

What about getting A1 You can find it at a low price and it hybrid....but it doesn't get update for few next years like A1ii but still a better choice

[sidvicious]

You make some points here, but financially if you add up all the bodies that you shoot with you are over $9500 new, which is $3000 dollars over an A1 mkII with the FX3, A7RV and A7III. I also understand how good the FX3 is for video. 

Sony literally threw the kitchen sink in with the mkII. It includes all of the features that the A1 lacked and all of the other Alphas to include the ZV-E1series and even some FX series features up to some A9III features. Every one is doing the same video telling you what the A1 isn’t, but no one is telling you what it really is.

You have to remember Sony didn’t cut you any price breaks with the A1 before the A1 mkII, it was still $6500 new and people complained and in some cases write fully so. It now has all of the features asked for and some that weren’t and people are still complaining for the same price as the last model.  

Sony wasn’t going to gut the A9III by putting in global shutter and they weren’t going to cut the price. The A1 mkII is a true hybrid that can shoot professional sports if called upon, just under an A9III. Sony answered its critics and at the same price. Pound for pound there are more features while maintaining a small size than Canon, Nikon or Fuji.

[countdracula]

I’ll wait for the A1C that has 90% of the features for 2/3 of the price and 3/4 weight 😆

[marianH]

Epic Video! What is the name of the background music at the begining? Sounds great.

[TonyTone]

While I understand your perspective, I to have to disagree with you. Unless and until you've shot with the A1, you can't really compare it's performance ability in comparison to the A7RV, the A7III, or the FX3. I've shot with both and I can tell you for an absolute fact, that the R5 is no match. There's no question that if your goal is to cover an event that requires multiple cameras, it's much more cost effective to purchase the set up that you described. However, if you can afford an A1 for professional use, chances are that you're buying it as a multi-camera set up. You're buying it for what it can do in any situation and none of those cameras that you mentioned can hold it's own in any given hybrid situation like the A1 can. The FX3 is not very good at all when it comes to stills. The R5 is a way weaker video cam than a stills cam. The 7III, although a nice piece of equipment, is even older than the first A1 and can't ahold a candle next to it in any situation. With this in mind, I submit to you that your argument doesn't hold weight.
I've owned the A1 from day 1. I also own the A7SIII, the FX30, the A7IV, and I've used the R5 many times. None of them compares to my A1. That camera simply does what I want it it to do everytime and when I have to have the right shot or moment, that's the one I grab.

[stharlingdr]

You forgot to mention that the ergonomics of the Sony a1 are truly impressive; it feels significantly more comfortable and natural in hand. I have the R5 and when I held the a1 ii the differences was night and day better

[harryvuemedia]

You should not be comparing the A7RV to the A1-ii. How long have you been using Sony cameras? Or do you even understand why there are A7R, A7, A7S, A9 and A1 series?

Your video is all over the place. Are you talking about the A1-ii or are you talking about carrying minimum gears? Or are you talking about budget?

A7RV is not competing against the A1-ii or any of Sony's other Alpha cameras. A7R series is a Resolution camera aim at portrait and landscape photography.

A1 series is Sony's flagship camera that has the best of all the Alpha cameras. This is the reason why you would get the A1 series because you want it all.

A1-ii is likely Sony's last Flagship Mirrorless Rolling Shutter camera. Sony has reached their maximum peak with the A1-ii as there is nothing more they can do for their Rolling Shutter sensor. Updating the body, adding Type A 4.0 card reader and adding the Tilt-Flip LCD concludes the A1-ii. So if you want a perfect Rolling Shutter Sony Mirrorless camera, then the A1-ii is the route to go. A1-ii will easily last 20 years and still be relevant in 20 years.