Anyone try out the Sony A1 yet? RAW results?

Zack Birlew

Zack Birlew

Veteran
Hey, everybody, I see a lot of posts about the Sony A7S III but has anybody really delved into the Sony A1 for 8K filmmaking yet? There's a few articles out there with chart tests and such but that's way different from hands-on user feedback. Is the 8K a hit or a miss? A lot of reviews I've seen keep trying to test the thing at 4K but it's an 8K camera, use the 8K! I have looked at higher resolution options but there's hardly anything on the Ursa 12K, almost nothing on the ZCAM 8K, and the RED Helium 8K sounds like a real mixed bag with some loving it and others having nothing but problems so I'm wondering if the Sony A1 is any good as that would be a nice option to consider since I have an original A7S and a ton of adapters and E-mount accessories. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated!
 
If you type in "Sony A1 Review" in YouTube, there are at least 5 videos over 10 minutes long.

Surely, you/we can learn something from at least one of them.

Then there's also only non-RAW 8K test footage (although not all of it is uploaded in 8K).

I usually get a good sense of what to expect by watching a bunch of footage online over the months as it keeps coming out (if I don't just rent the camera).

So far I think it looks nicer than the a7SIII at times, but not sure how much color or dynamic range has improved (if at all). Still would use a RED over it if there was a choice although A1's AF is probably the best in the business.
 
Besides Atomos' ProRes RAW video, I saw this short clip the other day but it looks like RAW stills stitched together (plus it says the video is 8K RAW and it's also at 8K/60p).


___

P.S. This is the Atomos video:

 
Last edited:
Yeah but like I said in my post, a lot of articles and those videos review the camera like chart readers and Youtubers and not filmmakers. No offense to anybody of course but I'm not looking for info on how it does for travel videos or examples of constant slow motion shots in lower resolutions, that says nothing about the 8K and they keep using the same general line of "Oh, yeah it's 8K which is a lot for people - nice gimmick - blah - blah - blah", so I'm asking what DVXUsers think as every camera gets examined and deconstructed on here with practical information in mind. Currently, I'm not seeing a lot on this camera anywhere so I'm asking more about it than what little practical information is currently out there.
 
Let me ask you this…

When critically-thinking about the situation, if the A1 looked so amazing, like something that hadn’t been seen in a long time, don’t you think you would have already heard about it?

Maybe from a 50+ page thread like the FX6 has?

What exactly do you expect from the A1? (Genuinely asking.)

Because there was a real film in movie theaters across the country that was shot entirely on the a7SII with a budget of ~$7 million that grossed over $43 million worldwide.

So if the a7SII could do that, don’t you think the A1 is okay for “filmmakers” as well?

And there are many YouTubers who make beautiful short films and produce a variety of content for millions of people. It's about being a smart human; not one's title. Many YouTubers are makers of films.

___

With that said, even if someone on a forum tells you the A1's files are great for grading, will you purchase the camera because of that?

Don’t you want to find footage to download and grade yourself? (Maybe that's what you're asking for.)

___

As far as everything else…

Most hybrid camera operators could teach you everything about the body in 5 minutes because the general modern photo/video form-factor hasn’t changed in 15 years. It’s as practical as it ever will be if you shoot video in this type of body (and I do and think it’s great).

8K…yeah, most users will likely confirm that the 8K files are more detailed (as expected). But how much of it will go unnoticed on YouTube?

If there were any major improvements in dynamic range, we’d know.

In general, if you’re new to mirrorless cameras then it’s best to learn now that although companies have improved AF, IBIS [certain models], and offer 10-bit and 4K/60p/120p in a few more models, the overall IQ has changed very little in the last 4-5 years.
 
Zack Birlew said:
Hey, everybody, I see a lot of posts about the Sony A7S III but has anybody really delved into the Sony A1 for 8K filmmaking yet?
Click to expand...

Not saying this is anywhere near definitive but there are some very interesting observations in this video vis a vis 4k and 8k and various shooting options that might give you some pointers in reaching conclusions.

Chris Young

 
Surveying the photo-video universe, A1 is more of a hybrid 8K/stills camera while R5 is more of a 8K video camera (that can also shoot killer stills).

A usual disclaimer : I don't have an 8K (or 4K) monitor. Nor does my internet speed allow me to watch anything in 8K. The photo-video industry is pushing 8K but the reception so far seems to be muted. Perhaps, folks would have been more enthusiastic, had R5 not shut itself down on a whim. Either way, it looks to be ahead of the market. By the end of the year, it may not be.
 
It's always important to note the difference between:

(1) Using 8K for lower-resolution masters
(2) Mastering in 8K

If more affordable 8K cameras arrive then many people will definitely be doing at least (1).

With that said, if the perceived visual difference in the end-product continues to be minor between 8K and some of the very high-quality 4K then I don't know if it's worth it for many not only because of the overall hassle for anything longer than a minute or two on YouTube, but because most people's work simply doesn't need it.

But if the perceived IQ becomes greater and other parts of the image like dynamic range increase as well, then the transition is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Meaning if new 8K cameras will come with true 15-16 stops of DR - a stop or two difference form the last 10 years - then that's one way to change the market.
 
What, coincidentally they arrive simultaneously with more dynamic range than we've seen in any camera besides arri, red, or venice?

8K - I feel like I could enjoy that much resolution in landscapes. Maybe in product... but even in product, it could be a problematic amount of detail. For example, I just got a new macro that goes up to 2:1 magnification. (Side note: why does Laowa make such good lenses?) I was reviewing some rings footage earlier tonight and I was like ffffuck....look at all those imperfections and nicks on these rings that I never noticed when examining them by eye or on the monitor while shooting. The objects simply don't hold up to that level of detail/scrutiny. Which is why I sort of feel like gobs of detail is only useful in nature/documentary/sports - genres where reality/ugliness is what we seek.

Even in photography - dude, these people aren't shooting 40MP because they need to deliver it or want to oversample their deliverable. They're shooting it so they can crop in
 
8K TV's are already affordable - there are some sub $2000 sets out - but no one is streaming in 8K aside of YouTube and there's no interest in an 8K discs. As Tom's Guide pointed out, the current path to the 8K content is YOU - YOU shoot it => YOU watch it on your own 8K TV. Several smartphones have 8K video and, obviously, a lot of stills cameras are capable of resolution beyond 33 MPX. Yet, the lack of enthusiasm toward 8K is quite profound. Which means that, in terms of video gear, there is probably another generation (or two) of models until one would be asked to shoot and deliver an 8K content. And that's 3-6 years. Until then, it's a luxury item.

PS. When 4K began to gain popularity, those who were pro brought up the idea of "future proofing" and it made sense at the top tier product. Since then, however, the upscaling algorithms and the necessary processing requirements for these algorithms have gotten to the point where 4K-to-8K is barely inferior from the native 8K footage.
 
ahalpert said:
What, coincidentally they arrive simultaneously with more dynamic range than we've seen in any camera besides arri, red, or venice?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's always the idea. The mostly untapped potential is passed on to the next technical spawning.

The ones above are 15+, so the 8K models would catch up to them while the ones above would move to 16-17 stops (even though RED already advertised 17 stops in the past).

I'm not saying 8K sensor = more dynamic range, I'm saying 8K sensor = business opportunity for more dynamic range.
 
NorBro said:
Yeah, that's always the idea. The mostly untapped potential is passed on to the next technical spawning.

The ones above are 15+, so the 8K models would catch up to them while the ones above would move to 16-17 stops (even though RED already advertised 17 stops in the past).

I'm not saying 8K sensor = more dynamic range, I'm saying 8K sensor = business opportunity for more dynamic range.
Click to expand...

I got your point re:business opportunity. I'm not sure the tech is really there. And it's not as if RED and arri would conspire to hold their own cameras back
 
It's not about RED or ARRI conspiring because with my thought-process they would have to move on to the next level of DR which might not be possible yet.

This is mostly about everything below them catching up to a true 14-15 stops. Any new 8K mirrorless camera could be marketed as having 16 stops but be a true 14-15.

I haven't followed all of the DR tests out there, but I don't think anything less than $20,000 has hit 15 stops in any of these more trustworthy, independent DR tests. Not even sure how many are over 14 (although many camera companies claim that and beyond in marketing).
 
I've never seen anyone considering or comparing video dynamic range that way, but that's interesting.

(In general, I feel like video always had its own testing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top