Camera
Analysis: New Sony a1 sensor offers class-leading dynamic range, along with high-speed and high-resolution
| Photo by Dan Bracaglia |
The Sony Alpha 1 introduces the next generation of full-frame stacked CMOS from Sony Semiconductor. It’s the second chip of its type following the one in the a9, and with it comes improved readout speeds on the order of 5ms or faster, enabling flash sync speeds of 1/200s with electronic shutter as well as decreased rolling shutter and risk of banding under artificial light, and focus and exposure calculations at 120 times per second. This silent electronic shutter underpins the camera’s 20 and 30 frames-per-second (fps) burst modes.
With our in-depth review ongoing, we wanted to take a look at whether these sensor capabilities came at the cost of other imaging attributes of the a1’s sensor; particularly, its dynamic range capabilities.
Class-leading dynamic range
With the launch of the a9, we found a slightly unexpected decrease in dynamic range. We say ‘unexpected’ because we’ve grown accustomed to cameras using Sony Semiconductor’s sensors offering high dynamic range (i.e. low noise) and had gotten used to exploiting this in our photography.
It appeared the a9 traded off dynamic range – by dropping readout bit-depth we surmised – to achieve high read speeds (nearly 1/160s according to Jim Kasson). While the a9 II improved matters significantly, noise levels in deep shadows were never as low as those of Sony Semiconductor’s benchmark sensors. Our dynamic range tests showed that neither the a9 nor the a9 II achieved the noise-free shadows (i.e. high dynamic range) of Sony’s own a7 III, while Canon’s 1D X III only competed with noise reduction that significantly decreases detail.1
It seemed that you could only have high dynamic range and modest readout / shooting speeds, or high-speed sensors with accompanying noise penalties. Put more simply, you apparently couldn’t have your cake and eat it too. With the a1, you can.
The sensor in the a1 proves that fast scan rates and high dynamic range need not be mutually exclusive. Compared to the chip in the a9 II, it offers a nearly 1 EV improvement in base ISO dynamic range2 while still offering at least a 20% increase in readout speed based on spec alone, and a 1.44x increase in linear resolution.
 |
| The a1 measures 13.71 EV base ISO dynamic range in all electronic shutter modes (including 20 and 30 fps continuous modes), compared to 12.96 EV for the a9 II in all its electronic shutter modes. This 0.75 EV improvement places the a1 firmly ahead of all professional sports-oriented cameras in low ISO dynamic range. High ISO dynamic range remains competitive, though lags slightly at very high ISOs due likely to a smaller pixel pitch and 1/3 EV lower dual gain step (ISO 500 vs. 640) compared to the a9 II.3
Note that all dynamic range comparisons are normalized to a common output or viewing size, for fair comparisons, removing disadvantages due simply to the presence of more pixels in higher resolution sensors. |
The 0.75 EV improvement in e-shutter base ISO dynamic range (0.7 EV in mechanical shutter) over the previous generation of stacked CMOS places the a1 firmly ahead of not only Sony’s own prior attempts at pro-oriented cameras in this regard, but all other professional sports-oriented cameras as well:
Base ISO dynamic range of pro-oriented sports cameras
| Mechanical | Electronic | |
|---|---|---|
| Sony a1 | 13.9 EV | 13.7 EV |
| Sony a9 II | 13.2 EV | 13.0 EV |
| Sony a9 | 12.6 EV | 12.6 EV |
| Canon 1D X III | 13.6 EV* | 11.6 EV |
| Nikon D5 | 11.4 EV |
* Canon 1D X III achieves this high dynamic range figure after noise reduction.
The a1 has 2.5 EV higher base ISO dynamic range than Nikon’s closest offering, while Canon’s 1D X III shows similar noise levels in base ISO Raws, but with considerably less detail due to the noise reduction that enables its low noise levels. Amongst its pro-oriented peers, the a1 sports class-leading dynamic range.
Not just good for a sports camera
The Sony Alpha 1’s dynamic range isn’t just good for a sports camera, though. It’s nearly a match for the very best full-frame cameras we’ve tested, despite the fast sensor scan rates that enable so many of its headline-grabbing capabilities. Have a look below at the a1’s dynamic range performance against the Sony a7R Mark IV (green), one of our current benchmarks for full-frame performance.
 |
| The base ISO dynamic range of the Sony a1 falls only 0.1 EV behind that of the class-leading Sony a7R IV in mechanical shutter mode, making it nearly class-leading in dynamic range compared to full-frame cameras. There is only at most a 0.2 EV dynamic range cost to e-shutter mode, which disappears at higher ISOs as amplification overcomes any extra read noise that accompanies the electronic shutter mode. High ISO dynamic range, which tends to vary with pixel size, the dual gain step, and upstream read noise, exceeds the a7R IV and compares favorably against other high-res full-frame cameras, albeit slightly less so against its lower-resolution pro- and sports-oriented peers. |
The a1’s dynamic range stacks up well alongside its class-leading high-resolution full-frame peers: the Sony a7R IV (and for that matter, Nikon’s excellent Z7 II), being only a nearly inconsequential 0.1 EV behind either.4 But what’s particularly impressive is just how little of a dynamic range cost – just 0.2 EV – there is to the e-shutter mode that underpins the camera’s 20 and 30 fps burst modes. Until now we’ve typically seen a noise cost associated with fast readout speeds; the a1’s sensor retains nearly the same dynamic range in both of its shutter modes despite a readout rate that’s within 1ms of a traditional mechanical shutter.
This means that the a1 can offer dynamic range competitive with the best landscape cameras even when using the fast readout modes that allow sports camera performance. A table below summarizes the base ISO dynamic range numbers for the cameras, alongside the a7 Mark III referred to earlier:
| D-Range (pixel level) | D-Range (24 MP) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sony a1 Mechanical | 13.4 EV | 13.9 EV |
| Sony a1 Electronic | 13.2 EV | 13.7 EV |
| Sony a7R IV Mechanical | 13.4 EV | 14 EV |
| Sony a7 III Mechanical | 13.8 EV | 13.8 EV |
Furthermore, although 30 fps bursts require you switch to lossy compressed Raw, we measured no additional dynamic range cost (there may still be potentially distracting local compression artifacts around high contrast edges of deep shadows in low ISO files).
It seems that with the launch of the sensor in the a1, Sony shows us there needn’t be a dramatic tradeoff between speed and image quality, in terms of either dynamic range or resolution.
All-round performance
So far we’ve primarily looked at low ISO settings, since these are the ones that you’d use if you were concerned about dynamic range. However, as light levels drop, the a1 remains competitive, especially when you consider its high resolution. Noise levels in midtones are only slightly behind class leaders Nikon D5 and Canon 1D X III. We take the position that signal:noise ratio of midtones is more relevant at high ISO than dynamic range, but it’s worth noting that the a1 fares well in both regards, exceeding the dynamic range of the a9 II at intermediate ISOs, but eventually falling slightly behind the a9 II and other lower resolution chips at the highest ISOs. Pay close attention to the noise levels of pushed shadows of the high ISO crops in the links above.
These additional visual results compared to the a7R IV, a9 II and a7 III confirm a clear pattern: there’s a small high ISO dynamic range cost to be paid for high resolution sensors due to the increased cumulative read noise from the extra pixels which, with the greater amplification at the highest ISOs, becomes more noticeable as visible noise in deep shadows. It also seems that fast readout still does come at the cost of at least some, albeit now small, noise cost.5 That considered, the a1 does compare favorably in high ISO dynamic range next to its high-resolution peers.
A visual comparison
While a single number isn’t meant to sum up image quality by any means, when comparing across the same sensor format, base ISO dynamic range numbers give you a reasonable idea of how noise-free shadows of Raw files are (and for the sensor geeks amongst us, how little downstream read noise the sensor and camera electronics add to the signal). The cleaner those darker tones are, the more readily you can brighten them for incorporation (or tone-mapping) into your final output. And, indeed, our measured numbers align very well with the visual results our tests, below.
Take a look at the dynamic range capabilities of these cameras – and our previously mentioned high-resolution benchmarks – by examining shadow noise in our ISO invariance widget below. Our ISO invariance test looks at how much electronic noise a camera’s sensor and electronics add to an image, which provides a rough idea of the noise penalty you can expect if you were to reduce the ISO setting to protect highlights at the time of exposure – while still using the shutter speed and aperture of a high ISO exposure – compared to using the high ISO setting in-camera to obtain a ‘proper’ exposure (learn about ISO-invariance here).
After a +6 EV push, the a1 shows similar noise levels in shadows to the a7R IV, as our graphs and numbers predict. Electronic shutter, the mode required for the camera’s highest burst rates, shows only the tiniest increase in noise in the darkest black tones (to the right of the newspaper crop above). There’s significantly less noise and more detail compared to the a9 II, and especially in comparison to Sony’s first attempt at full-frame stacked CMOS, the a9.
Compared to ‘pro’ offerings from Canon and Nikon, the a1 shows significantly more detail and less noise, with the 1D X III competing on noise levels due only to noise reduction that reduces detail. Switch the Canon to its e-shutter mode and the difference in dynamic range is rather stark (we use the R6 as a proxy here as the sensor measurements are identical)
Though measured base ISO dynamic range falls within 0.1 EV of Nikon’s Z7 II, engineering dynamic range does not account for the increased total light the Z7 II can tolerate at its lower base ISO of 64 (compared to 100 for the a1 and a7R IV), which does give the Nikon a leg up in shadow noise, provided the extra exposure is possible.
Conclusion
The sensor in the Sony a1 displays a marked improvement over the first-generation full-frame stacked CMOS seen in the a9 and a9 II, with increases in resolution, readout speed and dynamic range. Up until now it had seemed as though fast sensor readout and high dynamic range were mutually exclusive. The a1 has the fastest sensor scan rate of any camera we’ve measured, to our knowledge only roughly 1ms or ~25% slower than a traditional mechanical shutter
And yet despite the speedy readout and shooting rates, the a1’s base ISO dynamic range is class-leading compared its sport-oriented peers, and lies within our measurement error of its class-leading high-resolution full-frame peers. Meanwhile, high ISO dynamic range remains competitive, surpassing that of many of its high-resolution peers and falling only slightly behind lower resolution cameras that have less cumulative read noise due to fewer pixels.
That means you won’t have to worry about trading off any image quality for the capabilities the a1 bring that hinge upon its fast readout. High contrast scenes such as the one above, and more challenging ones, can be handled with ease if you expose to retain highlights and tone-map underexposed tones to be visible in post-processing. And the dual gain design of the sensor ensures low noise levels as light levels drop. The Alpha 1 should offer a great deal of flexibility regardless of your shooting scenario.
Addendum: What about lossy and lossless compression?
We’ve written much about Sony’s lossy compression, mostly about how it should be modified to not include local compression artifacts, in addition to being offered alongside lossless compression as it is for most other brands. The destructive lossy compression was the only form of compression for Raw files offered up until now (remember when it was the only Raw option?), but that’s changed with the a1.
With the a1, you now have three options for Raws: uncompressed, lossless and lossy compressed.
Uncompressed and lossless compressed files retain the largest dynamic range, while lossy Raw files pay a slight 0.11 EV dynamic range cost. 0.11 EV is within our margin of error, so you’re more likely to notice the local compression artifacts around high contrast edges of deep shadows than you are to notice this slight drop in measured dynamic range. Furthermore, if you’re switching to lossy compressed Raw to achieve the camera’s 30 fps burst rate, there’s already a 0.2 EV drop in dynamic range due to the use of a fully electronic shutter, which makes this 0.11 EV cost typically irrelevant.
Leave a Reply
Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners
The 11th annual International Landscape Photographer of the Year competition has announced the winners of its 2024 awards, showcasing stunning imagery from around the world. Photographers competed in various categories, including the coveted Landscape Photographer of the Year, requiring a portfolio of at least four images, and Landscape Photograph of the Year, recognizing the power of a single captivating shot.
This year’s competition saw Canadian photographer Andrew Mielzynski, an amateur with a deep connection to the natural environment, claim the top prize for his portfolio of stark images with simple color palettes. Ryohei Irie from Japan captured the Landscape Photograph of the Year award with a mesmerizing image of fireflies illuminating a forest.
Beyond the overall winners, the competition presented awards in specific categories, including Black and White, Aerial, Snow and Ice, and Forest, along with at-large winners. In addition to the overall and category winners, we’ve included several of our favorite photos from the 202 photographs recognized this year. You can visit the competition’s website to see all the winning images or to download its 2024 eBook.
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Cono de Arita in the Salar de Arizaro, Atacama Desert in Argentina
Description: The Cono is a perfectly cone-shaped volcano at 3,690 meters above sea level. It’s very graphic due to the contrast between the dark, perfectly formed cone and the bed of white salt that is found at its base.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Winter Cottonwoods, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Description: During the pandemic, I went out for a walk at a local park during a fierce winter storm. I ran across this scene. It seemed very chaotic, with many layers of trees. I loved how the snow, driven by high winds, was embedded into the bark of the trunks. The snow on the bark created a textural contrast that adds detail and interest to the trees. I took a few frames, trying to simplify the scene in front of me and settled on this one, loving the tones, the depth, the order and the minimalism. Even in a chaotic scene, there seems to be a sense of balance that feels orderly and pleasing.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Found in a roadside ditch near Heathcote, Ontario, Canada
Description: After a melt, we had a flash freeze with extremely cold temperatures and a clear blue sky. I was driving by a ditch on the side of a road that had been filled with water and had to stop and look (as we photographers do, can’t pass a ditch without investigating). This is what I found. Great textures and patterns, tones and flow, with lovely graphic lines creating a dynamic, abstract designs. I love this type of work – it’s so much fun, yet challenging to find just the right composition.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Pumice Field, La Puna, Argentina
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Seven Colors Mountain, Siloli Desert, Bolivian Altiplano
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Arita Cone, La Puna, Argentina
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Early Autumn, Vânători Neamț Natural Park, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Poisoned Beauty, Geamăna, Apuseni Mountains, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Whispers of the Sunken Trees Cuejdel Lake, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Ryohei Irie, Japan
Subject and location: Traces of Light, Ichinomata, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan
Description: The Landscape Photograph of the Year Award went to Ryohei Irie of Japan. He likes the mysterious atmosphere created by the standing dead trees and firefly light. “I have been visiting this Subject and location for several years during the firefly season, and it is an interesting place because the intensity and length of the firefly light and the Subject and location where the fireflies fly vary greatly, depending on the year and time of day, resulting in completely different works, even when photographed in the same way.”
Copyright Ryohei Irie / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Justinus Sukotjo, Indonesia
Subject and location: Mother Care Framing, Walakiri Beach, Sumba Island, Indonesia
Copyright Justinus Sukotjo / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Himadri Bhuyan, India
Subject and location: The Flow, Sohra, Meghalaya, India
Copyright Himadri Bhuyan / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Black and White Award
 |
Photographer: J. Fritz Rumpf, United States
Award: The Black and White Award 2024
Subject and location: White Tie Affair. Death Valley National Park, California, USA
Copyright J. Fritz Rumpf / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Aerial Award
 |
Photographer: Benjamin Barakat, Switzerland
Award: The Aerial Award 2024
Subject and location: The Final Dune, Namibia
Copyright Benjamin Barakat / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Snow and Ice Award
 |
Photographer: Jeroen van Nieuwenhove, Iceland
Award: The Snow and Ice Award 2024
Subject and location: Isþyrlu – Ice Swirl, Scoresbysund, Greenland
Copyright Jeroen van Nieuwenhove / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Forest Award
 |
Photographer: Shirley Wung, Taiwan
Award: The Forest Award 2024
Subject and location: Fireflies flying in the Misty Mountains, Wufeng Township, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Copyright Shirley Wung / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Exciting Sky Award
 |
Photographer: Federico Delucchi, Italy
Award: The Exciting Sky Award 2024
Subject and location: Aurora, meteor shower and other cool stuff, Rocca la Meja, Italy
Copyright Federico Delucchi / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Laura Bennet, United States
Subject and location: Sumba Island, Indonesia
Copyright Laura Bennet / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: William Preite, Italy
Subject and location: Pale di San Martino, Falcade, Dolomites, Italy
Copyright William Preite / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Siegfried Makedanz, Germany
Subject and location: Sandfellsjökull Glacier Lagoon, Southern Iceland
Copyright Siegfried Makedanz / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Sabine Weise, Germany
Subject and location: Moonscape Overlook, Utah Badlands, USA
Copyright Sabine Weise / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Yuriy Vantowski, United States
Subject and location: Mount Bromo, East Java, Indonesia
Copyright Yuriy Vantowski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Tanay Das, India
Subject and location: Kistwa, Himalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Copyright Tanay Das / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Rajesh Jyothiswaran, United States
Subject and location: Texas, United States
Copyright Rajesh Jyothiswaran / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
| Images: Canon, Nikon |
It wasn’t long ago that many of our reviews of APS-C cameras had to come with a warning: no matter how good the body was, you were almost certainly going to be limited by lens selection. This was especially true with Nikon and Canon’s mirrorless cameras. Sony has followed its longstanding tradition of letting third parties build out a healthy selection of lenses, and the selection for Fujifilm’s APS-C-only X-mount is second to none, but Nikon’s Z mount and Canon’s RF mount appeared to be almost completely locked down. As a result, you could count the number of APS-C lens options available on your fingers.
But things are changing. Over the past year, we’ve seen several APS-C lenses announced and released for Canon and Nikon cameras, filling notable gaps in the first-party lens lineups. But while the situation is improving, it’s clear that the two companies are still in control.
This week, Sigma released four APS-C primes for Canon’s RF mount, making good on its promise to release six licensed lenses for the system – earlier this year, it released the 10-18mm F2.8 and 18-50mm F2.8. Meanwhile, Nikon has allowed Sigma to release select primes for Z-mount – a trio of F1.4 primes at 16, 30, and 56mm. It’s worth noting the company’s 23mm F1.4 is the only one of its APS-C primes that it hasn’t brought to Z-mount; it likely isn’t a coincidence that Nikon’s only first-party APS-C prime lens is a 24mm F1.7.
 |
|
Sigma’s APS-C prime lens lineup is quite good, and now most of them are available for almost any mirrorless APS-C camera.
Image: Sigma |
However, Nikon hasn’t stopped companies like Viltrox and Sirui from releasing a slew of Z-mount APS-C prime lenses, complete with autofocus. If you pick up a Nikon Zfc or Z50II, you can get anywhere from a 13mm F1.4 (20mm equiv.) to a 75mm F1.2 (113mm equiv.) to go with it, as well as most of the classic focal lengths in between.
Your choices are no longer limited to a few first-party options, manual-focus only lenses, or glass meant for full-frame bodies
This is an important change for APS-C shooters. Even going back to the DSLR days, it’s felt like many manufacturers have viewed the format as a stepping stone to full-frame rather than something enthusiasts and pros might consciously choose. Neither Canon nor Nikon have been particularly prolific when releasing new APS-C glass. But with the gates being slightly opened, you’re no longer limited to a few first-party options, manual-focus-only lenses from third parties, or heavier, more expensive full-frame lenses. Now, there’s at least some selection of third-party lenses with autofocus to choose from, alongside Canon and Nikon’s offerings.
This isn’t to say that you can now buy any APS-C camera you want and be assured that all the lenses you want will be available – you are still at the mercy of what Canon and Nikon wish to allow. While plenty of primes are available for Z-mount APS-C cameras, no fast zoom lenses are available; Nikon’s all start at F3.5 and end at F5.6 or F6.3.
In fact, there are currently no third-party APS-C zooms available for Nikon Z-mount at all, despite the fact that two have made the jump from E and X-mount to RF – it also goes without saying that there are many others more available on Fujifilm and Sony’s systems. That’s a bummer for anyone looking to step up from the kit lens or wanting to shoot sports or birds in anything but ideal lighting without having to shell out for and lug around a full-frame 70-200mm.
 |
|
Tamron has promised to bring its 11-20mm F2.8 APS-C lens to Canon RF mount this year as well – no word on Z-mount, despite Tamron bringing some of its full-frame lenses to Nikon.
Image: Tamron |
RF mount at least has the two constant F2.8 zooms thanks to Sigma, with one more on the way from Tamron, though those are all at the wide end. However, there are far fewer autofocus primes available for Canon, as manufacturers like Sirui and Viltrox aren’t producing them. That’s not surprising; a representative for the latter once said that Canon had told it to stop producing products for RF mount. The 85mm F1.4 lens that Samyang announced for the system in 2020 also disappeared from the market not long after.
In a perfect world, these problems wouldn’t exist. Canon and Nikon would make the lenses that their APS-C cameras needed to stand on their own feet as a real alternative to full-frame options, and there would be robust competition from third parties, which would be allowed to make whatever lenses they want.
None of that seems particularly likely. However, at least those who choose to shoot with a smaller sensor in a Canon or Nikon body have gotten a wider choice of lenses, even if they’re still bound by the companies’ rules.
At the end of the day, that’s better for everyone interested in APS-C, because it means that cameras like the EOS R7 and Z50II are competitive with the Sony a6700 and Fujifilm X-T5 in a way that they wouldn’t have been with an extremely limited lens selection. With any luck, this trend will continue, and the APS-C landscape will become more competitive – even if Canon and Nikon aren’t giving it their full attention.
The Sony Alpha 1 II is the company’s latest flagship full-frame mirrorless camera. It’s built around the same 50.1MP stacked CMOS sensor as the original but now includes an “AI processing unit,” which allows its autofocus system to recognize seven different subject types and to automatically select one based on what’s in the scene.
Key specifications
- 50.1MP stacked CMOS sensor
- In-body stabilization rated at up to 8.5EV
- Improved autofocus subject recognition with automatic selection
- Continuous shooting at up to 30fps with full AF tracking
- Pre-release capture from 0.03 to 1 second
- Fully-articulated rear screen on tilt-out cradle
- 8K 30p video downsampled from 8.6K / 4K 120fps
- 9.44M dot 240fps viewfinder – full res up to 120fps
The a1 II will retail for $6,499.99 – the same as its predecessor – and will be available in mid-December.
Index:
- What’s new?
- How it compares
- Body and handling
- Initial impressions
- Sample Gallery
- Specifications
- Press release
What’s new
 |
Despite using the same sensor as its predecessor, Sony claims the a1 II will have improved image quality at mid-to-high ISOs thanks to its improved image processing engine. Presumably, these improvements will only appear in the JPEGs.
Improved Autofocus
The original a1’s autofocus system could recognize humans when shooting stills and videos, and animals and birds when shooting stills. The a1 II, however, inherits the dedicated “AI processor” seen in cameras like the a7R V and a9 III and can now recognize even more subjects: it adds insects, cars, trains and airplanes. All the recognition modes are now available in movie mode as well, and the system can specifically target key parts of recognized subjects, such as a driver’s helmet.
The a1 II brings an ‘Auto’ subject recognition mode to the Alpha line
Sony also claims that human and animal eye recognition should be around 30% better than the a1 and that bird eye recognition should be 50% better. The Animal and Bird modes have also been merged, meaning you won’t have to switch between subject recognition modes if you want to go from shooting animals to birds or vice versa.
 |
| The a1 II’s Auto Subject Detection mode lets you narrow-down the types of subject it’ll search for, to help optimize the performance. |
Not that you would necessarily have to switch modes manually. The a1 II is Sony’s first Alpha camera to have an Auto subject recognition mode, where it can determine what type of subject it should be tracking and lock on to it. As with the similar system on Nikon’s cameras, this comes with a small speed penalty compared to having a specific subject recognition mode selected. However, it can be useful if you need to quickly go between shooting a variety of subject types.
You can also speed up the system by limiting which types of subjects the Auto mode selects between; for example, you can make it so it only looks for humans, animals, and birds if you’re not planning to shoot any insects or vehicles.
Finally, Sony’s also adding extra small and extra large spot focus area options.
Pre-Capture
One feature that’s become commonplace since the launch of the a1 is pre-capture – a way for the camera to save the moments before you press the shutter, helping you capture key moments beyond your ability to anticipate them. The a1 II adds it, recording up to 30 frames in the moments leading up to you pressing the shutter button, though if you want to go above 20fps, you will be limited to using lossy compressed Raws instead of lossless compressed ones. When enabled, the pre-capture is activated by a half-press of the shutter, the press of the AF button, or both, depending on your settings.
You can set the pre-record window to be as short as 0.03 seconds or as long as a second, with several options in between.
Better stabilization
The a1 II’s internal image stabilization is now rated for up to 8.5 stops in the center of the frame and 7 stops on the periphery (a new CIPA metric), up from a 5.5 stop rating on the a1.
Viewfinder tweaks
 |
Hardware-wise, the a1 II’s EVF seems largely unchanged from the a1’s: it’s the same resolution and can run at the same 240fps. However, Sony says you can now run in 120fps mode with display quality set to ‘high,’ though you will still see a drop in resolution if you go up to 240fps.
There’s also now a ‘deep’ viewfinder eyecup included in the box, alongside the standard one
Video
 |
The a1 II retains most of the original’s video specs. This means 8K capture at up to 30p, full-width 4K capture at up to 60p and up to 120p with a 1.13x crop. The 4K isn’t derived from the 8K footage, though, so you don’t gain the detail benefit of 2x oversampling.
The a1 II adds a few quality-of-life updates, though. The most impactful will probably be the aforementioned support for using all the subject tracking modes while shooting video, but you can also now import up to 16 custom LUTs that you can use to preview what your Log footage will look like when graded. You can also embed the LUT alongside your files, so that someone else editing your footage can match your intended look.
Just as we’ve seen with Sony’s other recent large-sensor cameras, the a1 II only shoots the S-Log3 profile, which captures a very wide dynamic range. It no longer offers the less expansive S-Log2 option. The a1 II also gains the attractive and flexible S-Cinetone profile if you don’t want to color grade in post.
The camera also has the Auto Framing feature found on some of Sony’s vlogging cameras, where it will crop in on the subject and move the frame around to make it seem like there’s a cameraperson tracking them. There’s also a ‘Dynamic active’ image stabilization mode, which Sony says will increase the stabilization by up to 20% compared to the standard ‘Active’ mode, and a ‘Framing Stabilizer’ mode that’s meant to ensure that your frame maintains the same composition as much as possible when shooting handheld.
Noise Reduction Composite Raw
Sony has expanded on the a1’s pixel shift multi-shot mode, adding a noise reduction mode that shoots between 4 and 32 Raw images that can be composited together using a desktop computer running the company’s Imaging Edge software. Sony pitches it as a mode for low-light portraiture.
It’s most easily understood as a multi-shot mode without the pixel-shift movement. Rather than trying to boost resolution it aligns and combines multiple images to boost the signal-to-noise ratio (ie: tonal quality) at each pixel position. As with pixel shift mode, it’ll work best when there’s little to no movement within your scene.
The a1 II also gains focus bracketing, which the original a1 lacked.
How it compares
The most direct competitor to the a1 II is Nikon’s Z9, its pro-focused high speed, high resolution model. Canon’s EOS R1 lower resolution makes it more of an a9 III competitor, but it’s these models primarily and explicitly made for professional shooting in the most demanding circumstances that Sony’s trying to target.
However, given how much of the Z9 and R1 Nikon and Canon have included in the Z8 and EOS R5 II, respectively, it’s also fair to include one of those models here, too. Sony doesn’t use the two-grip and larger battery design for its pro models, which makes the comparison even more inviting, despite them being a different class of camera.
| Sony a1 II | Nikon Z9 | Canon EOS R5 II | Sony a1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $6,499 | $5,499 | $4,299 | $6,499 |
| Pixel count | 50MP | 45MP | 45MP | 50MP |
| Sensor type | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS |
| Max frame rate | E: 30fps lossy compressed Raw / 20fps lossless compressed raw |
20fps 14-bit Raw
30fps JPEG |
E: 30fps
M: 12fps |
E: 30fps lossy compressed Raw / 20fps lossless compressed raw
M: 10fps |
| Flash sync speed | M: 1/400
E: 1/200 |
E: 1/200 |
M: 1/200
E: N/A |
M: 1/400
E: 1/200 |
| Stabilization | 8.5EV center, 7EV periphery | 6EV | 8.5EV | 5.5EV |
| Max video res / rate | 8K/30 | 8K/60 | 8K/60 | 8K/30 |
| Video formats |
|
|
|
|
| AF sensitivity | -5.33EV* | -5.0EV (-7.0 in Starlight AF mode) | -7.5EV | -5.33EV* |
| Viewfinder | 9.44M dots 0.90x | 3.69M dots 0.80x | 5.76M dots 0.76x | 9.44M dots 0.90x |
| Rear LCD | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, fully articulating with tilt | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, 4-axis tilting | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, fully articulated | 3.0″ 1.44M dot, tilting |
| Connectivity |
|
|
|
|
| Stills battery life EVF / LCD | 420 / 520 | 700 / 740 | 250 / 540 | 430 / 530 |
| Video battery life (LCD) Cont. / Actual | 150 min / 90 min | 170 min / – | 150 min / 95 min | |
| Dimensions | 136 x 97 x 83mm | 149 x 150 x 91mm | 138 x 98 x 88mm | 129 x 97 x 81mm |
| Weight | 743g | 1340g | 670g | 737g |
* – Sony rates its AF sensitivity using an F2 lens, while Nikon and Canon use an F1.2 lens. We’ve adjusted Sony’s rating by -1.33EV to account for the difference.
The a1 II has the joint fastest shooting rate here and its sensor readout is quicker than the roughly 1/160 that the EOS R5 II can achieve. Likewise it has a built-in Ethernet connection, which the Canon lacks and, unlike the EOS R5 II and Nikon Z8, has matched card slots so that pros can focus on a single type of media and never have to worry about an performance difference between slots.
It’s much more evenly-matched against the Z9, which has a much lower resolution viewfinder but a low-latency readout path from its sensor to make the viewfinder more responsive. The Z9 can only shoot at up to 20fps in Raw, dropping to 12-bit readout and JPEG-only mode to hit 30fps.
Body and handling
 |
Given that the a1’s audience is professionals who use it day in and day out, it’s no surprise that Sony has been conservative with changes to its magnesium body and controls – the a1 II’s tweaks are largely the same as the a9 III’s, with the grip getting deeper and the shutter button being angled forward towards your finger.
 |
The dials and buttons are largely in the same places, though the exposure compensation markings have been removed from the locking top-plate control dial. The stills / video / S&Q modes have also been moved to a sub-dial rather than being settings on the mode selector dial, and the drive select dial now has a disable setting that lets you control the camera’s drive mode purely through menus.
The a1 II also features an additional programmable button on the front next to the grip. By default, it acts as a ‘Speed Boost’ button, upping your shooting rate as you hold it down. For example, you could be shooting at 15fps and press the button to start shooting at 30fps for a few seconds when the action speeds up or when you want to be sure you’ll capture a specific moment. This option can be moved to another button and the boosted frame-rate can be tailored to suit your subject.
 |
The biggest physical change is the display. It’s a bit larger and higher resolution than the a1’s, and it can now tilt in addition to being fully articulated. It’s a design we saw with the a7RV, and one that should make both photographers and videographers happy. It also has the slightly updated menu system from the a7RV as well, with the interactive settings tab.
As discussed above, the viewfinder is largely still the same, with a large 0.9x magnification and 9.44M dots giving a resolution of 2048 x 1536px. Its 120fps mode is nicer to use now that it doesn’t come with a substantial drop in resolution.
Ports and slots
 |
The a1 II’s I/O is largely unchanged from its predecessor, though the ports have moved around a bit. It still has a headphone and microphone jack, a USB-C port that runs at 3.2 Gen 2 10Gbps speeds, a full-size HDMI port, Sony’s micro USB ‘Multi’ accessory port, and a flash sync port.
It also has dual-band 2.4 and 5GHz Wi-Fi with 2×2 MIMO and an upgraded Ethernet port that runs at 2.5Gbps instead of the 1Gbps speeds the port on the a1 was limited to. That should make transferring large videos and batches of photos over long distances faster – try finding a high-speed USB-C cable that’s more than a few meters long – and is another sign of the pro workflows this camera is designed to support. The Ethernet port also now has a Wake on LAN feture that can be used to remotely turn the a1 II on using Remote Camera Tool.
 |
On the other side, the a1 II features a pair of the combined CFexpress Type A / UHS-II SD card slots for storage that feature on many of Sony’s cameras.
Battery
 |
The a1 II uses Sony’s NP-FZ100 batteries, and includes a dual-battery charger in the box, which it claims will charge two batteries at once in around 155 minutes.
The camera is rated to give 420 shots per charge when using the rear screen. As always, CIPA figures tend to significantly underestimate the actual number of shots most people will get, and this discrepancy gets significantly larger when you’re shooting bursts. But, while we’d expect a camera rated at 420 shots per charge to actually be able to shoot multiple times this number in practice, it’s usually a good indicator of how its battery life compares with other cameras (ie: if it gets a rating 50% lower than another camera, it’s likely to capture around 50% fewer shots per charge).
Initial impressions
By Richard Butler
 |
|
The a1 II’s AF proved very effective at staying focused on the player we’d specified, in our testing so far.
Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS | F2.8 | 1/4000 sec | ISO 640 |
When the original a1 arrived, just shy of four years ago, it represented an unprecedented combination of high resolution and speed. Despite a 50MP sensor, its Stacked CMOS design with on-board RAM let it capture stills at up to 30fps with readout speeds of around 4ms (fast enough to allow flash sync at up to 1/200 sec). This was around four times faster readout than the 20fps Canon EOS R5, which had previously come closest to offering high-speed and high res.
However, in the time that’s passed, both Canon and Nikon have produced fast high-res bodies and done so at something closer to a consumer-reachable price, leaving Sony’s pro flagship looking expensive, rather than exemplary. Don’t let this or Sony’s single-grip approach fool you: the a1 II is designed to square-up against the Z9 and R1, not the Z8 and R5 II. But it goes to show how quickly things have been moving that these more affordable models can match so much of the of the original a1’s spec and offer more advanced subject recognition.
 |
|
A pro sports camera doesn’t have to be used solely for sports, and its impressive autofocus can help maintain a very high hit-rate even when scrutinizing all 60 million pixels.
Sony 28-70mm F2 GM @ 70mm | F8 | 1/200 sec | ISO 100 |
The a1 II helps redress this balance, somewhat, pairing the same processing capabilities as Sony’s other pro-focussed model, the a9 III, with the 50MP Stacked CMOS sensor. This includes the gain of subject recognition AF modes with the first ‘Auto’ option that lets you pare back the range of subjects it hunts for, to hit an optimal speed/convenience balance for your photography. We’ve been very impressed by the camera’s AF performance so far.
The a1 II also gains the pre-capture option that’s been becoming increasingly common on action-focused cameras. It still tops-out at 8K/30 on the video side though, and has no option for 4K derived from this 8K capture, leaving it behind both the R5 II and Z8 in this regard.
Interestingly, the a1 II still needs to drop to Sony’s damagingly lossy Raw format at 30 fps: it can only shoot lossless compressed Raw at 20fps. The difference only becomes apparent at high-contrast edges after significant editing pushes, so is unlikely to be a major issue for action shooting, but it’s a surprise that this couldn’t be addressed with the Mark II’s greater processing grunt.
“It’s these workflow features aimed at professionals that try to set the camera apart”
Critically, the a1 II also includes a series of features from both the a1 and the a9 III designed specifically for professionals trying to deliver images quickly that the less expensive rivals lack. This includes a variety of transfer options, including SFTP and several ways of marking files to be transferred. We’d also expect the a1 II to gain the ability to encode C2PA authentication metadata to its files.
Unsurprisingly, it’s the cumulative impact of these workflow features aimed at professionals working in high-intensity environments that try to set the camera apart. And if you’re not one of those people (and most of us aren’t), then the a1 II almost certainly isn’t worth so much more than the more consumer-priced models.
 |
| Details such as a high-speed Ethernet port and options like Start-on-LAN to enable a goal-line camera to be remotely activated and controlled are what help set the pro-tier products apart from the very high-end enthusiast/crossover models. |
But how can these small details, an Ethernet port, that huge, high-res viewfinder and details like matched media card slots really add up to justify a 50% premium over the enthusiast/pro crossover bodies, such as the Z8 and EOS R5 II? Ultimately, it may simply be a ‘Pro Tax’: that $6K is how much a pro-focused camera costs. It’s the amount the market has shown it will bear, and it’s likely to be how much companies (including single-photographer companies) will have budgeted.
If there’s any doubt in your mind about whether the a1 II is worth the extra $2000 over the Z8 or EOS R5 II, then you’re not its target audience, and consequently it almost certainly isn’t, But if you are a Sony-shooting pro, the a1 II adds significantly to the skill-set of the previous model. But against dramatically improved competition and with so much Z9 and R1 tech trickling down to the Z8 and R5 II, it’s not the game-changer its predecessor was. We’ll get a chance to test this assessment as we continue using the camera.
Sample gallery
Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news1 year ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
Camera1 year agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
world news1 year ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
-
Camera4 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
Camera1 year agoSony a9 III: what you need to know
-
Solar Energy12 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
TOP SCEINCE7 months agoCan animals count?
Pingback: Google shares a deep dive into its new HDR+ with Bracketing technology found in its latest Pixel devices