Sony Finally has a flagship camera that I can recommend for ALL users and its name is Alpha One. Available for Pre-Order NOW!
Tale of the Tape: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM -vs- Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art
PUBLISHED: June 8, 2023 Lens Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art Price $1,598 $1,599 Maximum Aperture f/1.8 f/1.4 Dimensions (ø
11 thoughts on “Sony Alpha 1 Available for Pre-Order NOW!”
Random question. Is it officially Sony Alpha 1 or Sony Alpha a1 as I’ve seen both. A of course is for alpha so would seem redundant to say Alpha a1 but see many sites calling it that. Is their official word on that naming? Thrilled to see its shipping so early in March!
Alpha 1 and a1 are both correct.
B&H Photo calls it “Sony Alpha a1” for purposes of search optimization.
Back with another question. While the question is ultimately about the a1, since that’s not available for testing yet, will propose the question in regards to A7S III since it sounds like that has the same CFExpress Type A and has the same new USB-C 3.2. In that camera (and presumably a1) when using a CF Express Type A, is the real world transfer speed to a Mac faster when transferring directly from the camera with the USB 3.2 cable or when putting the card directly in the Sony CFExpress Card reader which connects via usb-c?
Ideally would prefer to be able to just transfer via usb-c since it’s more convenient since it also charges. But with my A7RIV at least which uses SDXC 400MB Read Sony G Series card and usb-c, using a card reader transfers faster than via direct usb-c connection in my real world testing. So was hoping the upgraded usb-c in the A7S III (and presumably the a1) will make it so direct usb-c is faster (or at least as fast as using the card reader). Do you happen to know? Then again perhaps with the a1’s new wireless tech it might be even faster to do wirelessly, but assume direct connect will be faster in real world useage.
I recommend downloading via card reader and charging the battery in an external charger rather. Wireless transfer will always be slower than wired.
Curious why Sony keeps the syc connector. It was never great and I’m not sure how many are using one.
Perhaps the real estate cold be put to better use.
Like a9 series cameras, Sony Alpha 1 was designed to meet the needs of professional sports and news photographers. PC terminals are standard on DSLRs and they allow you to hard wire sync studio flash. They were left off early mirrorless cameras due to space, but Sony found a way to fit them into a9, a9 II, a7R III, a7R IV and now Alpha One.
Does the A1 include auto-focus-stacking?
I have not seen any mention of that. Sony Alpha 1 is targeted at professional news and sports photographers, I doubt any of them requested that feature.
Understood. I just thought since they included that incredible 16-ply pixel shift, they might have been targeting a wider appeal.
I wonder how much of a file size difference exists between Compressed Raw vs Lossless Raw? Would it be similar to med raw that is available with other brands
As with other Sony cameras, Lossless Compression should result in file sizes slightly smaller that the sensor resolution – somewhere in the 47-48 Mb range. Lossless Compression will be slightly larger than the pixel count – likely in the 52-55 Mb range. I doubt anyone will be able to actually see any difference between the two compressed formats but those who users clamoring for Lossless Compression can sleep soundly at night. Both formats record the full 50 mp resolution.
mRAW is a totally different animal. As with other camera brands, Sony mRAW will offer a lower resolution file. In the case of Alpha 1 that will be 21mp. Unlike other manufacturers, Sony does this through downsampling the full 50 mp sensor – NOT though line-skipping or pixel binning.