Without a doubt, the announcement of the Sony A1 is one of the most significant events in the photography industry, as this is the first time a mirrorless camera is truly set to challenge the top-of-the-line offerings from both Canon and Nikon, who have dominated the action photography genre for decades. The Sony A1 has very impressive features and specifications, but how do they compare to the Nikon D6 and Canon 1D X Mark III flagship DSLRs? In this article, we will take a look at these three cameras and compare them side-by-side both in terms of their ergonomics and specifications.
First, we will compare the physical appearance and ergonomics of the three cameras.
Sony A1 vs Nikon D6 vs Canon 1D X Mark III Ergonomics
The above image is a clear example of the drastic departure of the mirrorless system compared to traditional top-of-the-line DSLRs, and this is the message Sony is trying to send with its A1 camera – a high-end photographic tool does not have to be large and heavy. In fact, Sony stuck with a similar footprint as its A9 II camera, featuring a similar ergonomic design with some modifications. For those photographers who are used to the big and bulky D6 and 1D X Mark III camera, this might potentially look like a disadvantage, but Sony has a solution that comes in a form of a battery grip that extends the size of the camera, boosts battery capacity and offers a grip for vertical orientation shooting.
In terms of overall ergonomics, both Nikon and Canon have been refining their DSLRs for many years and they offer exceptional handling experience in the field. Both D6 and 1D X Mark III have very smooth and curvy appearances, with deeply recessed rubber grips for exceptional handling. Sony is relatively new to the high-end game, and while its cameras offer insane customizability options, it certainly lacks in the ergonomics and menu design for now, in my opinion.
When looking at the back button layout and design, it is clear that the flagship cameras from Nikon and Canon offer a vastly different experience. Nikon has a total of 17 buttons (and that’s not including the D-pad, switches, dials, and joysticks), while Canon is not far behind with a total of 16 buttons. Sony, on the other hand, only has 9 buttons in comparison (11 with the vertical grip). While on one hand, one might argue that more buttons make it easier to access some settings quicker, others might argue that they only clutter up cameras, making them more confusing to use. I would say that it is up to each individual to decide what they like better.
When looking at the top view of each camera, both Nikon and Canon once again have more buttons for quick access to camera settings, whereas the A1 is dial-heavy – it has a total of 4 round dials, one of which has a sub-dial underneath it. Note that the A1 does not have a top LCD either.
Personally, I wish Sony went with a whole new design and button layout with its A1, but Sony shooters who are already used to cameras like the A9 II might disagree with me. I would love to see a curvier, more comfortable design with a nice grip and more spaced out, illuminated buttons that make it easier to use the camera with larger gloves. For example, the top C1 and C2 buttons could be moved to the front of the camera, similar to what Nikon and Canon have done with their D6 and 1D X Mark III cameras. The exposure compensation dial is not necessary – a simple button would do. This would provide plenty of space for adding a top LCD, which I find to be hugely convenient when shooting in the field.
Sony A1 vs Nikon D6 vs Canon 1D X Mark III Specification Comparison
Let’s now take a look at how these cameras compare in terms of specifications:
| Camera Feature | Sony A1 | Nikon D6 | Canon 1D X Mark III |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor Resolution | 50.1 MP | 20.8 MP | 20.1 MP |
| Sensor Type | Stacked BSI CMOS | CMOS | CMOS |
| Sensor Size | 35.9×24.0mm | 35.9×23.9mm | 36.0×24.0mm |
| Sensor Pixel Size | 4.16µ | 6.45µ | 6.58µ |
| Sensor Dust Reduction | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Image Size | 8640 x 5760 | 5568 x 3712 | 5472 x 3648 |
| In-Body Image Stabilization | Yes | No | No |
| Image Formats | RAW, JPEG, HEIF | RAW, JPEG | RAW, JPEG, HEIF |
| Native ISO Sensitivity | ISO 100-32000 | ISO 100-102400 | ISO 100-102400 |
| Boosted ISO Sensitivity | ISO 50, 51200-102400 | ISO 50, 204800-3280000 | ISO 50, 204800-819200 |
| Image Processor | 2x BIONZ XR | EXPEED 6 | DIGIX X |
| Illuminated Buttons | No | Yes | Yes |
| Viewfinder Type | 9.44M-dot OLED EVF | Pentaprism OVF | Pentaprism OVF |
| Viewfinder Coverage | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Viewfinder Magnification | 0.9x | 0.72x | 0.76x |
| Built-in Flash | No | No | No |
| Flash Sync Speed | 1/400 | 1/250 | 1/250 |
| Storage Media | 2x CFe Type A | 2x CFe Type B | 2x CFe Type B |
| Shooting Speed (M Shutter) | 10 FPS | 14 FPS | 16 FPS |
| Shooting Speed (E Shutter) | 30 FPS | 10.5 FPS | 20 FPS |
| Buffer Size (Max FPS) | 155 shots | 200 shots | 1000 shots |
| Max Shutter Speed | 1/8000 to 30 sec | 1/8000 to 900 sec | 1/8000 to 30 sec |
| Shutter Durability | 500,000 cycles | 400,000 cycles | 500,000 cycles |
| Autofocus System | Hybrid | PDAF | Hybrid (in Live View) |
| Autofocus Points | 759 (PDAF), 425 (CDAF) | 105, 105 cross-type | 191, 90 cross-type |
| AF Detection Range | -4 to +20 EV | -4.5 to +20 EV | -4 to +21 EV |
| On-Sensor PDAF | Yes | No | Yes |
| Video Compression | MPEG-4 H.264 / H.265 | MPEG-4 H.264 | MPEG-4 H.264 / H.265 |
| Video Maximum Resolution | 7680 x 4320 (8K) up to 30p | 3840×2160 (4K) up to 30p | 5472×2886 (5.5K) up to 60p |
| 4K DCI | Yes | No | Yes |
| RAW Video Recording | Yes | No | Yes |
| 10-bit HDMI Output | Yes, 10-bit 4:2:2 | No, 8-bit 4:2:2 | Yes, 10-bit 4:2:2 |
| Video Autofocus | Phase-Detect AF | Contrast-Detect AF | Phase-Detect AF |
| LCD Size | 3.0″ diagonal TFT-LCD | 3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD | 3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD |
| LCD Resolution | 1.44-Million Dots | 2.36-Million Dots | 2.1-Million Dots |
| LCD Touchscreen | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Built-in GPS | No | Yes | Yes |
| Built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Built-in Wired LAN | 1000 Base-T | 1000 Base-T | 1000 Base-T |
| Battery | NP-FZ100 | EN-EL18c | LP-E19 |
| Battery Life (Shots, per CIPA) | 430 (EVF), 530 (LCD) | 3,580 | 2,850 |
| USB Type | USB 3.2, Type C | USB 3.1, Type C | USB 3.1, Type C |
| Weight | 737g (Inc Battery) | 1,270g (Body Only) | 1,250g (Body Only) |
| Dimensions | 128.9 x 96.9 x 69.7mm | 160.0 x 163.0 x 92.0mm | 158.0 x 167.6 x 82.6mm |
| MSRP Price | $6,499 | $6,499 | $6,499 |
Wow, how quickly the high-end game has changed. If just a few years back the Nikon D6 and Canon 1D X Mark III were in the “untouchable” category, the Sony A1 shows the true potential of the latest mirrorless technology. With Sony featuring 50.1 MP stacked BSI CMOS sensor with IBIS and crazy 30 FPS shooting speed, both Nikon and Canon are far behind – it is not even a contest here. Aside from small weaknesses here and there, the Sony A1 simply dominates in almost every category, with Canon following as the close second and Nikon being the last.
The biggest weakness of the Sony A1 is its battery life. With Nikon being able to push up to 3580 shots on a single battery charge and Canon getting 2850 shots, the A1 can manage 430 shots when using the EVF and 530 shots when using the LCD. At the same time, Sony’s strength is in its small footprint and very lightweight construction, so if battery life becomes an issue, one could add an additional battery when using a vertical grip, or simply pack more batteries in the bag – the weight savings are still significant.
It will probably take a few years for Nikon and Canon to be able to come up with high-end cameras that can match such capabilities. And by then, Sony will already be showing off its A1 Mark II…
With all due respect, isn’t your comparison/conclusion a bit one apple to two oranges? How about a comparison between three apples – Sony A1 to Canon R5 to Nikon Z7II…three mirrorless offerings with similar pixel counts albeit a spread in price. Seems to me the D6 and Mark 1DXIII are meant for a completely different target…sports – where high pixels aren’t as important as in-the-heat-of-the-moment-action capability, but where things like battery life and weather-tolerance are critical. And also, how much of any pixels above 20MP can we really use unless we’re printing billboards. We can’t even see the full 50MP on any display that I know of. If you’re comparing three $6500 cameras for features-for-price, fine, but I’m not sure “taking Nikon/Canon a few years to come up with such a high-end camera” is a fair conclusion. Those two other mirrorless cameras have far superior colour rendition than any Sony. Seems to me the casual shooter who simply wants high resolution would not go to a D6/Mark1DX but to one of the other two.
Bill, it is not apples to oranges. The Sony A1 is a direct competitor to the Nikon D6 and Canon 1D X Mark III. Look at the specs yourself…it is not just the price.
The A1 is aimed at sports / action photography. That’s why you get insane FPS, and the latest AF tech. If Nikon or Canon could do 50 MP, they would. But they don’t have the tech to be able to accomplish it on high-end bodies yet. More pixels are always more desirable for action photography due to cropping and downsampling potential – ask any sports / wildlife shooter. That’s why high-end bodies have only increased sensor resolution, from 12 MP to 16 MP to now 20-24 MP.
Color rendition is a myth (for the most part). You can achieve any color you desire with any camera system on the market. If you are talking about JPEG colors, then I can understand. But who shoots JPEGs with $7K cameras nowadays?
Since you said ask any sports shooter I’ll bite. More pixels aren’t always better. 20MP to 24MP is already more than we need. As a pro who has shot up to World Cup and Olympic level Bill makes many good points. The Sony has one huge advantage in FPS but it’s ergonomics and battery life are terrible for sports shooting. I shoot a minimum of 2,000 shots a game and often up to 4,000. Nikon’s bodies can do all that on one battery. Speed is also key for us. The ability to spin the camera into vertical and have the same set up is vital, as is being able to drop it to the turf as we grab a different body and know it’s rugged enough to take being thrown around. Sony is indeed taking aim at the D6 / 1DX and will get many Toi switch but the form factor / poor battery life / terrible ergonomics etc also means many like me will wait and see if Nikon get it right with the Z9 before doing so.
John, thanks for your feedback. I have many friends who shoot action (mostly wildlife), and they always crave for more pixels. In fact, some of them use the D850 for wildlife photography because of the cropping potential when shooting small birds.
I heard photographers previousy say that 12 MP was all they ever needed (D3, D3s, etc). And yet we are shooting with 20 MP+ bodies already. Tech will advance and move, so even if you genuinely believe today that you won’t need more than 24 MP, it will still happen, and I am sure you will welcome it when the time comes.
The only reason why we have not been able to get more than 20-24 MP on high-end bodies so far is because neither Nikon nor Canon had the technology to push more bandwidth. As you increase resolution, you need more CPU, memory (buffer), faster storage and overall processing, because the FPS cannot drop below the previous generation. Sony has pushed the limits of what’s possible with the A1, and others will follow eventually.
I fully agree with you on the Sony ergonomics. That’s why I am still a Nikon shooter, as I can’t stand the convoluted menu of the Sony system and the overall feel in hands. If you read my commentary regarding the ergonomics in the above article, you will see what I mean…
I’ll jump in to back your first comment! Whilst I don’t know about sports, extra resolution for wildlife is really important. I bought the 1DX iii thinking that 20mpx would be more than enough, but I just cannot afford to crop one bit! And printing at 300PPI, your print sizes are a bit limited (all the prints I have ever sold were longer than 60cm on the long edge). I have received the R5 yesterday and will put it to the test (I am mainly interested in AF).
To John’s point, I am not sure that the limiting factor for Canon is bandwidth, but rather industry habits. Everything is done in the 1DX iii to allow fast output from camera to print/screen/web, from inbuilt ethernet to more efficient codecs. They must have asked the big players what they wanted to see in a pro sports/action body and something tells me that bigger heavier files were not on the table/wish list.
Thanks for the reply Nasim. I think one issue in all this is the common category of “sports / wildlife” that we see on many sites related to photography. Although there is some overlap in requirements I think grouping those two very disparate types of photography (especially as regards workflow and post processing) together is a mistake. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen non pro shooters review a camera online and claim it to be perfect for sport. Invariably they use focus modes few pros do / have the shutter speed way too low / test none of the vital aspects that we use in work everyday. I can see why more megapixels are better for wildlife but in sports (which rarely even uses RAW in most situations) a camera that can get a perfectly focused but unedited jpegs to the sports desk as fast as possible is what we desire. 99.99% of our work will only be seen online in a smaller factor. Reliability, solid connectivity, the ability to change settings instantly without taking your eye away from the viewfinder, focus speed and FPS as well as ruggedness are what we want. Video is becoming more common but it’s still a tiny fraction of what we do. I’m sure the A1 is a beast – but it’s also probably better suited for shooting beasts rather than athletes.
John, that makes a lot of sense. I never really shot sports professionally, but I am glad to find out that there is still demand for lower-resolution cameras.
Either way, it is exciting to see all these innovations. I wonder what Nikon and Canon are planning for their high-end mirrorless cameras. I would love to see a top-of-the-line mirrorless Nikon with D6-like ergonomics and capabilities.
Exactly, that was what I meant to say before I read your comment. While wildlife shooters may have an advantage (so is Brad Hill with the Z7II) they don’t have the need nor are in a rush to send your freshly made 4000 images to the office to be published. With a 50 MP camera this is just NOT feasible, not today. I agree with Felix as well (that’s why I wrote the sweet spot imho is 30 MP but no more).
Hi John,
I am not buying in regard to more megapixels – I mainly shoot fast moving animals and wildlife. It’s definitely demanding in terms of speed and need for durability. Now, I want everything (except maybe full frame, because willing to give up a potential image quality for extra reach / pixels on subject) including more megapixels. It’s why so many wildlife photographers love the Nikon D850. The improvement in detail like fur and feathers is absolutely noticeable.
But I want everything without sacrificing a bunch like great ergonomics. I want an EVF that doesn’t noticeably lag. I want high frame rates and amazing autofocus. I want it durable enough to withstand weather and a little banging around. I would like to have good video autofocus. To me, the Sony pretty much checks all the boxes except ergonomics.
I am a Nikon shooter and my favorite camera is the D500, a low resolution model, but I would kill for a higher resolution version in a mirrorless body. If that means having to move to a full frame body, so be it. I hope the Nikon Z9 has will have everything including Nikon ergonomics, Sony A1 level AF and high megapixels. If the Z9 is what I think it will be, you can bet I will be getting one ASAP and will love all the improvements.
I’ve read all the comments and here are a few points: you did not attach the grip to the A1 to make the arguments on how many photos can be shot. I suspect you would have to triple the claim of 525 as you would have 3 batteries in use. Personally I don’t care if it’s one or 3 batteries so long as it gives me what I need. Presently on my A7r3 i can get 1500 pics on one battery using the LCD Screen and lasts me for 2.5 dsys of shooting. Second, saying that 50MP is to much and cannot be transmitted fast enough over the ethernet connection makes no sense as you have the ability to downsample images to 21Mp. I mainly shoot birds and wildlife, so what I need is fast and accurate eye AF, light weight as I hike quite a bit to see these creatures, decent battery, and weather resistance. So far, the A1 and perhaps the R5 gives me this, not the other 2 oversized bodies. Last I also need a decent price, which is where Sony loses for now.
Craving for more pixels to what end? Are they going to print MURALS 10 feet wide? The people who want more pixels presumably for pixels sake reek of amateur technonerdism
Nasim, good morning.
I don’t agree here. I don’t see many pros shooting long bursts of 50 MP images at Olympics. Even if the camera CAN shoot them, the time they are transferred and ready to be published it’s already Olympics 2024. It’s simply not practical. My opinion is that the sweet spot for everything is around 30 MP and that’s a pity Canon didn’t release the 5D MkV. Everything beyond that limit has to be considered for serious studio/landscape /portraiture BUT sport. Neither print sizes nor available hardware need such monsters.
Isn’t it very useful to shoot JPEG in, let’s say a sport event, and being able to send out the JPEGs right after the shoot BECAUSE you don’t need to edit colors, sharpness etc.? I would say good JPEGs are a plus even in 2021.
Bill, one more thing – I am sorry if my comment sounds too critical of what you said. That’s certainly not the intent, just trying to be helpful.
Nasim, thank you…I appreciate your comment and the reverse is also true. I highly respect your experience with photography, which I’m sure is miles above mine. It just doesn’t seem to me that the A1 is anywhere in the same comparison ballpark as the D8/1DX. Both ballparks are totally correct for those existing in them. The ultra-high-resolution D850/5DSR versions are available for birders and it looks like the A1 would fit real nicely in there as well. But gauging the other responses, I don’t suspect that you’ll be seeing many A1s on the sports sidelines any time soon.
These cameras are not comparable in terms of professionalism and field of application. I agree with you. To me the main reasons I regard the Sony A1 not as a professional camera as the Nikon D6 (5,4,3…) or Canon 1DX are:
Body design: too small, too edgy, vertical grip not integrated (an attachable grip is not that rigid)
Battery life: pure amateurism. This is ridiculous.
Illuminated keys: missing. Again, this is amateurism.
50MP: How should that be transferred quickly to the editor? Speaking of JPG for professional journalism, how are they transferred. Is there a system like Nikon’s (WT-6) or Canon’s?
This camera should rather be compared to the semi-pro mirrorless cameras as the Z7 or R5 as you said.
I agree wholeheartedly. Whilst the large viewfinder sounds great, the battery life is unacceptable. Minimum 2000 shots on one battery has been required since forever. We need to distinguish between advanced amateur sports photography, who go out once or twice a month in good weather, and professional photographers who are out every day in all weathers, often over 8-hours at a time. The reality is there are loads of amateurs who buy D6 / 1Dmkiii these days, without scratching the surface of the capabilities, but those bodies are designed for serious use. The A1 is clearly the all-round master-camera with it’s high MP and great video specs. It competes specifically with the R5 and Nikon’s best effort at the moment is the D850/A7ii. It’s likely the Nikon Z8/9 will be the real competitor, but the D6/1Dmkiii will still be the pro-sports body, which is why that’s all you see at serious sports events. Balancing hand-held with serious lenses is also critical, which only size and weight can provide. Sony deciding to use a form factor similar to A9 size shows there is no intention to seriously rival professional sports bodies, which is fair enough because only 3,000 of those are sold each year. Sony wants to attract the wanabe sports photographer, of which there are far more.
Looking at the size of these mirrorless cameras. I wonder how people will shoot sports hand holding a 500mm f4 with the tiny bodies.
While I am not shooting now, a Nikon D3 ~ D6 is the perfect size to balance the whole set up if you are shoot lenses 300mm f2.8, 500mm f4 etc. ( Change to the applicable Canon lens / body size if you are a Canon user )
You can’t really make this comparison at all yet. A1 is a tier above anything Nikon has right now and the R5 is not Canon’s Pro flagship. Its their current “Flagship” only because they haven’t released their actual all out pro flagship. Yes you can compare a lot about the A1 and R5 but the R5 is actually Canon’s middle tier and caught the entire industry off guard to the point of where Sony’s best matches Canon’s middle tier. Basically think of the R5 as a 6D. Whatever Canon decide to do with their rumored 80MP pro camera will be their mirrorless 5D Mk IV/1DX MK3. Which will be interesting to see Sony’s response since they are marketing the A1 as “The one” their ultimate camera. But Sony is no stranger to messed up naming schemes so who knows maybe “The Two” will be better than the A1 or we will see an A1R1 to match a Canon R1.
Also Rip Nikon. They can barley match the A9MK1/A7RIII let alone anything else Canon/Sony/Fuji has. We are seeing the death of Nikon and the Rise of Fuji
I think it is a bit too soon to draw conclusions on the base of a specs sheet.
The A1 Sony is coming in march …
Realworld tests will prove what these specs are worth.
It will be interesting to see if sony has made a mirrorless camera that can compete with these pro bodies from NiCa.
One thing that already is clear is the relative poor battery life of the Sony and the fact they have not made a pro-vertical battery grip attached to it.
So what use is a big buffer if your battery is dead in 15 seconds? And prove that it can focus on fast/irregularly moving objects as either the Canon or the Nikon!
CIPA rating is based on normal real-world shooting over the course of a day, not high speed capture over the course of a few minutes. Mirrorless’ major drain is the EVF and the sensor constantly being on in order to meter as well as IBIS if it’s on. In a high-speed shootout you’d likely get DSLR performance re shots per charge because you’re taking them in one go so the cumulative impact of the EVF and sensor’s standby time go away.
My D5 bodies can go for about a week or about 6,500-8,000 images per charge. Even two Sony batteries can’t even offer much more than 1,000 images. So that’s a drastic difference, but that’s just the start of many drastic differences! The Sony is priced and claimed to be a “flagship!” So comparing it to the D6 and Canon 1Dx is definitely ok. See my above comment for more, but I don’t see the A1 matching the other two in many ways.
I agree and disagree, we can speculate based on current available bodies. I have two D5 bodies, had a D6, returned it after about a week. I’ve tested a friends Sony A9 and A9 II. As a photojournalist I have a lot of connections and abilities to test lots of gear from Canon and Nikon, and sometimes Sony. It’s a fact that the Sony A9/A9 II are not built to the same standards as the D5, D6, 1Dx series. It’s instantly apparent, and so is the quality of the buttons and overall ergonomics. The Sony even goes as far as putting the lens release button on the opposite side than every other manufacturer in the industry. Beyond that, the weather sealing and durability is not the same either. I’ve dropped my D5 twice while out in the field, and both times it survived without a scratch or issue. Also Nikons just work, they don’t overheat, they don’t hit an endlessly long buffer/card clearing, like Sony does, etc. I could go on and on, but the mount itself is another concern. I watched Ken Wheeler snap a Sony mount like it was a twig, whereas Nikon and Canon have very strong mounts. Lastly although, I could go on, is the Sony A1 has a tilting screen, for heat dissipation and that’s another weak point. I don’t think Sony is going to match the build quality, weather sealing, battery life and performance or overall durability that Canon and Nikon flagships offer. I’ve been a Nikon flagship user since the D1 in 2000 and I’ve never once needed a repair on any body or lens, that I’ve ever owned. That’s a bold and true testament to build quality and maybe a bit of luck, but I wouldn’t trust my $7,000 to a Sony product. Had the A1 come in at $4999 or something, I wouldn’t even be here to comment! Yet they are charging the same price as the D6 and 1Dx Mark III, so therefor it’s okay for my to say all of this. Maybe Sony improved the build quality and weather sealing some, but the A9/A9 II were nowhere near what the D5/D6 are and even Sony admitted this. I’ve yet to hear Sony say that the A1 is built to the same standards as a flagship Canon or Nikon. They have previously admitted the flagship A9 series were NOT! So I find that interesting. The specs are amazing, but I’m curious to see how many photojournalists like myself will be switching to Sony. The 20-30fps without blackout is amazing and all, but nobody I know or work with want thousands of 50mp images to sort through. Maybe there’s a medium quality mode like on the D850, but why pay for 50mp, when you don’t want 50mp? I don’t see the target audience adopting many of these, wildlife photographers will buy a few, but who else? We’ll see I guess?
I am sure the Associated Press will be buying lots.
Glad I’m not the only one who sees the benefit of having a top LCD display. That was one of my main reasons for getting the Canon R5 over the Canon R6.
Yeah, perfect example of not judging a camera by its paper specs. Your bias is showing. Doubling the image size by slashing the pixel size does not automatically confer an advantage in a camera. We’ve seen that with Samsung’s absurd 100+ MP flagship smartphone and pixel binning -a gimmick that never works as well as larger (but fewer) pixels to begin with. This is also borne out by the Sony’s abysmal low light performance, and dead last ISO sensitivity ratings.
But don’t mind all that -the smaller footprint and a doubling of your post-processing ingestion time are totally worth it if you’re willing to tote around extra battery packs and extension grips.
As a 20-yr Nikon user, I continue to be dismayed as Canon eats their lunch on frame rate and cost of glass, but don’t kid yourself… Sony’s mirrorless is still light-years away from displacing either.
Sony needs a cleanup at “ergonomics department”.
I can see the Sony taking a chunk of the advanced amateur market but I doubt they will put much of a dent in the professional market pretty much locked up by Nikon and Canon.
They all have their purpose.
If you go war to cover history – take the D6 or 1Dxiii with you. If you go to the park to photograph birds – bring the A1.
I have seen many pros on sidelines for football in EU and I can tell you they are in a different mode than your presentation here ( specifically SPORTS) . they shoot JPG , they do not have time for RAW and editing, they get 3 bodies, one on small tripod behind the goal triggered by remote with wide lens. ( mostly D3…or so) and one on monopod with Nikkor 400 2.8 or similar ( likely D5, now D6), one with 70-200 2.8 for closing action ( D4s or so) , and wide zoom 2.8 for pre and after game.
they scramble to upload images (JPG) after the shoot and most editing they do is cropping since they nail it right, and if hot game high stake …ethernet to feed the guy with the computer behind them or wifi high end.
Those Pros will not settle for Sony A1 for nothing…they cannot take the risk for the 50 mega you described, they want reliable bodies that is thrown, tossed around when they drop the 400 mm 2.8 with the d5 on the turf to run with their 70-200 to get the players celebration when scoring a goal……
One thing about the battery. If you use the rear screen on the big DSLRs their battery life drops below that of the mirrorless. If you put a battery grip on the mirrorless you can triple the battery life on the DSLR if you need to any of the huge list of EVF benefits, or video.
I think this is a fair comparison to make. The A1 could use a small RAW option for sure, but the speed and viewfinder improvements are amazing IMO over a DSLR. Also note that the max shutter on the A1 is 1/32000, only 1/8000 in mechanical, which you will almost never need to drop in to.