Sony Alpha A1 II, the EOS R1 Killer? Rumored specifications

#2
Well, I guess that you would die on that hill from other photographers that are close enough for hand to hand (using their feet) combat. The rest of us will use a telephoto lens or wide angle for astro landscape or pick a lens for underwater use or have the budget to have all the lenses (and have them on you when you need them)....
but I digress....

Maybe the A1ii will record 8k raw without codecs now that the memory cards can handle the bandwidth :cool:
It seems to be targeting the R5ii but 50% more expensive. It will probably have a better battery life than the R5ii though.
 
Upvote 0
#4
David - Sydney said:
Well, I guess that you would die on that hill from other photographers that are close enough for hand to hand (using their feet) combat. The rest of us will use a telephoto lens or wide angle for astro landscape or pick a lens for underwater use or have the budget to have all the lenses (and have them on you when you need them)....
but I digress....

Maybe the A1ii will record 8k raw without codecs now that the memory cards can handle the bandwidth :cool:
It seems to be targeting the R5ii but 50% more expensive. It will probably have a better battery life than the R5ii though.
Click to expand...

Craig means using the right telephoto instead of relying on cropping ie: if you have a 400mm lens, but absolutely need to crop to get your photos and composition, either you need to move closer or get a 600mm lens.

That's the hill he dies on. he and I have talked about it, and I've slowly backed away from those conversations :p
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#5
The A1mk2 seems to be a very poor fit in their lineup. As does the A9mk3 really. The A9 was touted as the professional body, following the logic of the Minolta numbering system. Then suddenly the A1. Then the A9mkIII was priced significantly higher. And they\'re not really vastly different from the original A9 (though global shutter is nice for those using strobes, if that had been the A1 it would have made a slight bit of sense vs the \"A9 but higher resolution\" situation).

\"mid-tier build quality\"? tell me more, Regardless of how I really want an R3, the A9-series is a tempting next step for me as a minolta A-mount user/fan... Would that be a step down from the A900 and A99?
 
Upvote 0
#6
The A1II is going to suffer the same crowd, as the R5II has.
A lot of people not realising that the respective older models are already amazing and most innovation and performance gains come through optimisation and software.
I mean, why would they need a new sensor, if the old one has far more potential if paired with new and faster processors.

I am very much looking forward to seeing a lot of crying fanboys in pretty much any direction talking about why their respective camera brand has the biggest numbers and videos of people taking photos of a blow-up doll and measuring how fast each camera has been finding the plastic eye.

And to the R1 killer thing... Well no...
Canon has done pretty much what Nintendo did with their switch console. They didn't care about the other brands as much as they took their own customers regards into consideration and built their device to those needs and wishes. So trying to "kill" their product with totally different specs will really not make a difference in that case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#7
Toamelicious said:
The A1II is going to suffer the same crowd, as the R5II has.
A lot of people not realising that the respective older models are already amazing and most innovation and performance gains come through optimisation and software.
I mean, why would they need a new sensor, if the old one has far more potential if paired with new and faster processors.

I am very much looking forward to seeing a lot of crying fanboys in pretty much any direction talking about why their respective camera brand has the biggest numbers and videos of people taking photos of a blow-up doll and measuring how fast each camera has been finding the plastic eye.

And to the R1 killer thing... Well no...
Canon has done pretty much what Nintendo did with their switch console. They didn't care about the other brands as much as they took their own customers regards into consideration and built their device to those needs and wishes. So trying to "kill" their product with totally different specs will really not make a difference in that case.
Click to expand...

All reasonable points. Fanboys and YouTube though....... :p
 
Upvote 0
#9
Nothing wrong with Canon making a camera for it's pros... but making two that effectively handle the same small niche... that might be a bit much. But the decision makes way more sense if the R3 was really the R1 and the new body was really a Mark II. If they were designed to be the same line, the similar resolution fits and makes sense.

I'm not one to crop... but when I do, I want Dos Equis, oh sorry, 50MPs. You can crawl up that hill and kill over if you want, doesn't change the fact that resolution is an asset in some forms of photography. However, I do recognize its a liability in others. For example, on a sideline where everything is perfectly spaced out and the action is effectively brought to you, 24MPs is more than enough (dare I say, even luxurious). But for most other things... I'll take 50MPs, thank you.

If I'm completely honest, I think the A9 III is already a fair step above the R1. Nothing is faster on the professional market (both read out and framerate), its more adjustable, cheaper, and just may still match the R1 in IQ (or it may be closer than many think). I do expect the R1 to feel better in hand, have superior AF (by some margin), have better displays (by some margin), and be more rugged. But based on the niche market needs, I can see many saying the A9 III is already a R1 killer. I'll rent an R1 and decide for myself, but I won't be buying one because 24MPs is a deal breaker for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#10
In principle, sure, always get a lens that is appropriate. In practice, if I can crop while schlepping around less weight while gaining more flexibility, I am doing that. If I were shooting field sports, then the two choices at the high end from Canon in my opinion are:

Canon R1 + RF 400mm f/2.8 = 1115g + 2890g = 4005g
Canon R5II + Grip + RF 100-300mm f/2.8 = 670g + 340g + 100g (add'l LP-E6P) + 2650g = 3760g

Cropping the R5II + 300mm down to 400mm nets me 25MP, about as much as the R1. In this case, I would probably take the R5II + 100-300 for both the lighter weight and more flexibility with a zoom and forgo the R1's build quality (probably not necessary in a stadium) and the 10 additional fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#11
frankchn said:
Cropping the R5II + 300mm down to 400mm nets me 25MP, about as much as the R1. In this case, I would probably take the R5II + 100-300 for both the lighter weight and more flexibility with a zoom and forgo the R1's build quality (probably not necessary in a stadium) and the 10 additional fps.
Click to expand...
and (if my calculations are correct) save USD4420 (lens difference, body difference + battery)... enough for a spare R5ii :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
MiJax said:
But the decision makes way more sense if the R3 was really the R1 and the new body was really a Mark II. If they were designed to be the same line, the similar resolution fits and makes sense.
Click to expand...
I guess there was a sale on tinfoil hats. Hope you got a good deal!

The R3 was intended to be the R3, because Canon didn’t believe mirrorless tech met their criteria for a 1-series body at that time. I posited at the time that it could be as simple as lacking cross-type AF, and gee…now we have an R1 with cross-type AF.

Having said that, Canon recognized that some of their customers wanted a pro-level body able to take advantage of the high-end RF lenses available, e.g., the 28-70/2 and sharp 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 primes. So they released the R3 just a year after the 1D X III, and followed it up with the R1 right on the 4-year 1-series cycle.

The R1 is aimed at 1-series DSLR users, just as the R3 was, so strong similarity is expected. Not sure why this causes confusion…perhaps because people think they know the market better than Canon, or because people think Canon should do what they want just because they want it, or some other ridiculous reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#13
neuroanatomist said:
I guess there was a sale on tinfoil hats. Hope you got a good deal!

The R3 was intended to be the R3, because Canon didn’t believe mirrorless tech met their criteria for a 1-series body at that time. I posited at the time that it could be as simple as lacking cross-type AF, and gee…now we have an R1 with cross-type AF.

Having said that, Canon recognized that some of their customers wanted a pro-level body able to take advantage of the high-end RF lenses available, e.g., the 28-70/2 and sharp 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 primes. So they released the R3 just a year after the 1D X III, and followed it up with the R1 right on the 4-year 1-series cycle.

The R1 is aimed at 1-series DSLR users, just as the R3 was, so strong similarity is expected. Not sure why this causes confusion…perhaps because people think they know the market better than Canon, or because people think Canon should do what they want just because they want it, or some other ridiculous reason.
Click to expand...
It’s because the cameras target the exact same niche. If the r1 was released as an r3 mark ii, no one would say it brought something to the table beyond what would be expected in a mark ii update.

If I had to speculate a sequence of events, what became the r3 was intended to be released as an r1, but just wasn’t ready for 2020. So they took the planned r6 sensor and processor, added a trick AA filter, and stuffed it in a 1dx body. Then olympics getting postponed gave them a good reason to release the pro R body as an R3
 
Upvote 0
#14
SvO2 said:
If I had to speculate a sequence of events, what became the r3 was intended to be released as an r1, but just wasn’t ready for 2020.
Click to expand...
They released the 1D X III in 2020. If you want to speculate that their plan was to also release the R1 in the same year, you go right ahead and speculate that. I speculate that Canon is not that foolish.
 
Upvote 0
#16
David - Sydney said:
10 weeks left for the year... what's the new RF lens count for 2024 (besides 3rd party)?
Click to expand...
By my count, we’re at just three for the year so far (35/1.4 VCM, RF-S 3.9mm dual fisheye, and 28-70/2.8).

Worth noting that Canon counts a lens when it ships, not when it’s announced.

The RF-S 7.8mm Dual lens had a development announcement and is expected to ship ‘later this fall’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#17
neuroanatomist said:
I guess there was a sale on tinfoil hats. Hope you got a good deal!

The R3 was intended to be the R3, because Canon didn’t believe mirrorless tech met their criteria for a 1-series body at that time. I posited at the time that it could be as simple as lacking cross-type AF, and gee…now we have an R1 with cross-type AF.

Having said that, Canon recognized that some of their customers wanted a pro-level body able to take advantage of the high-end RF lenses available, e.g., the 28-70/2 and sharp 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 primes. So they released the R3 just a year after the 1D X III, and followed it up with the R1 right on the 4-year 1-series cycle.

The R1 is aimed at 1-series DSLR users, just as the R3 was, so strong similarity is expected. Not sure why this causes confusion…perhaps because people think they know the market better than Canon, or because people think Canon should do what they want just because they want it, or some other ridiculous reason.
Click to expand...
3 years ago when that sentiment was first made, I too thought it was silly... but now, only a closed minded person can really say its not possible.
 
Upvote 0
#18
neuroanatomist said:
They released the 1D X III in 2020. If you want to speculate that their plan was to also release the R1 in the same year, you go right ahead and speculate that. I speculate that Canon is not that foolish.
Click to expand...
I actually thought Canon was foolish to launch the 1DX III in 2020. Then after buying an R5 and using a friend's 1DX III, I know full well... it was a foolish move. BTW, the R3 was a 2021 release.
 
Upvote 0
#19
SvO2 said:
what became the r3 was intended to be released as an r1, but just wasn’t ready for 2020. So they took the planned r6 sensor and processor, added a trick AA filter, and stuffed it in a 1dx body. Then olympics getting postponed gave them a good reason to release the pro R body as an R3
Click to expand...

Yeah no. If they intended it to be an R1 it would have been named an R1. The R1 was well into development when the R3 was released. They knew what they were doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#20
SvO2 said:
It’s because the cameras target the exact same niche. If the r1 was released as an r3 mark ii, no one would say it brought something to the table beyond what would be expected in a mark ii update.
Click to expand...
I don't particularly care about the naming either way but I think it is obvious if you place an 1DX3, an R3, and an R1 along with their price at launch and specification table next to each other and cover up their name plates, the conclusion would be "yeah these are three successive generations of the same camera aimed at the same market".

Megapixels202424
Max FPS w/ AE/AF16/203040
Viewfinder0.76x OVF0.76x 5.1M dot EVF0.9x 9.4M dot EVF
AF points19110534897
BatteryLP-E19LP-E19LP-E19
Flash X-sync1/2501/2501/400
MSRP at Launch$6500$6000$6300

There were some stuff (cross-type AF) that were missing on the R3 that were brought back on the R1, but other stuff that were available on the 1DX3 (AF-point linked spot meter, 16 fps mech shutter) never made it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
Replies
99
Views
69K
peederj
P
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu