Sony A6000... - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

05/20/2014 09:54:39 AM · #1

I'm so confused.

I want to change to a lighter system for travel. That's where I take most of my interesting photos...often finding places worthy of making canvas or other prints, showing and selling. Mostly landscapes, some architecture, rarely people though sometimes.

I do like the benefits of a higher res camera...at least I think. 24 MP seems ideal...36 would be good too for landscapes.

I was sold on Zeiss optics with my RX100, and to some extent, Sony.

It also made me value a very light kit. And wonder why I needed a full frame camera. My main type of shooting is landscapes (and architecture), and mostly they need deep depth of field anyway.

I tried to buy into M43, but I bought the G5, with the kit lens, and the 100-300 (200-600). Nice size lenses. But I didn't like the G5 that much. The M5 was a consideration, but I felt it was too expensive. But it hindsight, it would have been better, since it would give me more choices of lens (non-stabilized). And perhaps I would have liked the controls better than the G5.

Next, when the X-T1 was released, it was tempting. Then they finally release a 10-18mm lens, and it was even more tempting. But wow, so expensive to switch. And some negative reviews RE the control buttons being hard to press, and impossible with gloves on for cold weather.

Still coveting Zeiss glass, but not being one to manually focus, the Sony system looked very tempting. I could buy Zeiss for my Nikons, but not autofocus. And very pricey of course.

I was tempted to buy the RX10, which would mostly be a travel camera (but again where I shoot mostly), but then I'd never go wider then 24mm.

So when the A6000 + Zeiss 16-70 went on sale for a bit more than the RX10 ($300 off), I decided to bite. The Sony 10-18 was $100 off, and had been really praised by Trey Radcliffe and others. (Trey even said that it worked well with the A7R, in full frame mode!)

Well, they're here. Now I have to test and decide. I will do so and post some of my results and equipment comparisons jere. I already did a few indoor tests with the A6000, and for high ISO, it looks to be very close to the D7100, which would be expected. Maybe the D7100 had a slight edge, but that was just subjective--they were very very similar. Though I still need to see who can pull up shadows best.

I am however, very nervous about the fact that there's no really good lightweight tele glass for the Sony compared to the M43. And I really wanted to end up into the Fuji system based on all the photographer raves. But per the caveats above...and only being 16MP and very expensive, was a put off. But Sony makes me nervous...will they put out more FE lenses? A better long telephoto? They seem into innovating cameras without committing to supporting lens systems.

More to follow regarding the tests. I know there are a million threads on going mirrorless, and I've contributed to many of them, but I wanted a place focused on my tests, and specifically for deciding whether to keep the Sony's (and what to do otherwise!).

[Oh, to make my decisions even harder...now there's the RX100 iii. I would give up the 10-18 if I go that way, but it may be as good or better than the A6000 + Zeiss 16-70 given that the Zeiss is F4 and the RX100iii is 1.8 - 2.8). But of course, a much smaller sensor.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/20/2014 01:07:41 PM · #2

youd think it wouldnt be this hard.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

05/20/2014 01:46:22 PM · #3

Originally posted by Mike:

youd think it wouldnt be this hard.

Why wouldn't it be...cameras and lenses are not cheap!

And they always come with drawbacks. The FZ200 got great reviews, raves, and it seemed like a good deal for a bike camera when it was on sale. But it doesn't work as well for me as other people because I don't shoot jpeg, and I am spoiled by the RX100 as far as what I expect in a "P&S".

In fact, the whole desire I have to downsize is all the RX100's fault. I won't be selling my D600 though...I couldn't imagine showing up for a pro gig with the A6000. (The Fuji has an advantage there because at least it sort of looks like an SLR/Pro camera.) But for landscape work/traveling, not looking like a pro is not a disadvantage, and it may be an advantage in many cases.

ETA: I just received and unpacked the Sony 10-18mm. Together, the A6000 + Zeiss 16-70 + Sony 10-18, my landscape kit minus tripod, weighs 2.03 lbs!

Message edited by author 2014-05-20 13:47:49.

Apple iPhone 5

05/20/2014 03:02:26 PM · #4

My only advice; Don't pixel peep - it's the path to misery. ;)

Message edited by author 2014-05-20 15:02:51.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

05/20/2014 03:29:53 PM · #5

The A7S is super tempting to me right now, maybe you'd find the A7R equally attractive if you really think you need 36MP.

They're not cheap though.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

05/20/2014 03:38:44 PM · #6

of course it is confusing... we need therapy.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

05/25/2014 01:42:47 AM · #7

So far my testing shows the sensor is basically on par with the D7100, except for DEEP shadow recovery, where the D7100 bests it handily, and both are TROUNCED by the D600. Note that I used an EXTREME test of this...shooting something almost in the dark at ISO 100 and then boosting exposure to see what happens. The Sony image was very green...it completely missed on white balance. The two Nikons did better there. The D7100 recovered the information in the dark area, but there was a banding like noise throughout. The A6000 looked worse than that. The D600 almost looked normal after raising exposure 5 stops (maximum in LR).

Grain level/noise level is higher in both cameras than I'd like. But if you don't pixel peep, they are both capable of good results to 12,800.

Both are probably 2 stops better than the RX100 for noise at high ISO.

D7100 versus A6000 at ISO 6400 (I use this small poster because it's professionally printed, so not "fuzzy" close up like a printer test page would be.

ISO 3200 N7100 versus A6000

Interestingly, corner performance is not perfect in the Zeiss 16-70 lens, but readily beat the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 even though it was stopped down to 4 and the Zeiss was wide open at F4. But the Nikon didn't seem to be performing on the top of its game. I think it works much better on the D600.

RamblinR

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

05/25/2014 02:00:36 AM · #8

Did you look at the OMD EM1

05/25/2014 09:46:40 AM · #9

Originally posted by RamblinR:

Did you look at the OMD EM1

Very much so! I've never used one, but Micro 4/3 has a great stable of lenses. I actually have a Panny G5 and a 100-300/200-600mm lens. I used it the other day, but what I don't like about the Panny is the controls. I always accidentally push buttons while holding the camera with my right hand. (The Panny FZ200 doesn't have this problem...and has a much smarter set of controls all together.

Back to the OMD-EM1, it certainly would have been another choice for me because of all the lens choices and because I already had a m43 body. I did read reports of people who left the M43 series, complaining of noise at base ISO in the sky, for example. That I wouldn't like. I don't know if it's true. But I am not a big fan of noise...it's still the part that makes me wonder if I should have gone with the Fuji XT-1. Fuji's reputation among photographers draws me in, and the XT-1 is a great design, albeit marred by what people say are hard to press buttons, and a pretty high price tag. But they seem more like a photographers company, and I think they do a much better job than Sony supporting existing cameras (Sony's great at just churning out new ones!)

However, both the Fuji and the M43s cameras are 16mp, and the my Nikons are both 24mp, as is my new Sony. I love the detail you can get with 24mp. Actually, 16 may be fine, because I get blown away with the detail my RX100 carries at 20mp. I think it's as much the lens too. Which is why the RX100 was a gateway drug...I wanted Zeiss lenses (and I wanted autofocus). That narrows it down to Sony/Fuji mirrorless (and Sony has more Zeiss designs than Fuji, which only has the two Zeiss lenses (a new one is coming out). Sony has the same two (and the new one), plus Zeiss designed lenses made by Sony, like the 16-70mm one I have, which is fantastic (and small).

Honestly, one of the main reasons I went Sony (and thinking about keeping it) IS the Zeiss 16-70 (a lens as good, or better, than my Nikon 24-70 at a fraction of the weight and with IS (though it's F4). And what tipped the scales are the raves about the Sony 10-18mm wide angle. They say it's sharper than the Zeiss. I haven't had a real chance to test mine because I haven't been able to get a screen protector yet for the Sony, so taking it out in the field is not an option--they say the screen scratches easily. The screen protector for the Sony is not in stock anywhere...I finally ordered the NEX-6 screen protector, which I'll have to install upside down to make it fit (the "space" near the LCD is opposite, though they are the same size otherwise).

In fact, Trey Radcliffe, who raves about the 10-18, uses it on his A7R in full frame mode and says he gets very little vignetting, yielding a higher res, wider picture than he would get using it in compatibility mode.

The 10-18, 24-70 seem like the "perfect" travel lens kit...though I probably would want to add the 55-200mm, for casual candid people shooting from afar. But the first two lenses would meet my landscape needs perfectly! (Oh, and I bought the kit lens as part of the package, but the bundle deal meant the A6000+Zeiss 16-70 were only $1300 together...added 150 for the kit lens...for an almost pocketable solution).

The A6000 + Zeiss 16-70mm F4 + Sony 10-18mm F4 weigh 2.05 lbs, with lens hoods.
The D7100 + 24-70mm F2.8 + sigma 10-20mm F3.5/5.6 weighs 5.5 lbs and is significantly bulkier. (ETA: the 24-70 isn't really the right lens though for the D7100, since it's then 36-105mm. If I didn't go Sony I could have bought the Nikon 16-85mm F3.5/5.6. That would have shaved approx a lb off of the Nikon kit. It would have been cheaper overall, but still relatively heavy (and I actually like some of the other benefits of mirrorless. And I doubt it's as good as the Zeiss or the 24-70)

Here are some pictures comparing them (the Nikon has a tripod QR on it...it's one that supports the Cotton Carrier and it's screwed on, and I was too lazy to remove it!)

To be fair to the Nikon, I used the 24-85 VR (FF) as a stand-in for the 16-85 VR (APS-C) (since I don't have one). But in my opinion, picture quality wise, the Zeiss 16-70 is more comparable to the 24-70 (though not in F stops):

Message edited by author 2014-05-25 10:46:34.

05/25/2014 10:21:14 AM · #10

Originally posted by RamblinR:

Did you look at the OMD EM1

I should have added to all that...how do you like the EM-1? Are you happy with the picture quality and lenses (esp. the 12-40) so far? It does sound like a great camera!

Message edited by author 2014-05-25 10:23:09.

05/26/2014 10:37:22 AM · #11

I have tried out the wifi. MUCH more limited than the demos I've seen on the Fujis. All you can do is see what the camera sees and press the shutter.

No controls.

And I can't get NFC to do anything. But I don't really know how to use NFC.

Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 MF

06/13/2014 05:24:00 PM · #12

An update...

I REALLY loved the camera, it was so freeing to walk around with a very small and light kit of good glass, including the 16-70 (24-105) Zeiss and the 10-18 Sony.

Caveat...While I took a LOT of test shots, real world experience was more limited. I didn't have a screen protector yet (out of stock) so I only took the camera out of the house twice--once in the neighbors yard and once for a walk around Union college. And in the latter case, I never put the camera in a bag so as not to scratch the LCD (and I carried it, not on my neck).

What I liked:

I really like the Sony feature set, and focus speed was excellent, face and eye recognition oh so useful...can't ask for more. The burst speed of this camera is incredible. And of course, like my RX100, it has the useful built in HDR and multiimage noise reduction features. Sweep panorama works very well and is more flexible than in the RX100.

The 16-70 had great Bokeh and sharpness. And it was light and small (compared to the same focal length SLR lenses). It was kind of like my Nikon 24-70 f2.8 in terms of image quality, but much much lighter. And it was F4 fixed aperture. Mine did have a bit of softness on one side, suggesting it was slightly decentered.

The 10-18 was also great, light, and reasonably sharp (usual corner issues for wide angle). I didn't do enough with it really evaluate it fairly.

What wasn't so good (I returned the camera and lenses):

1) The Zeiss got very soft over F16. I mean REALLY soft at F22. F16 was softer than I'd like as well. Diffraction sets in above F11. While I understand it's just physics, it was definitely not on par with my even lower end APS-C Sigma 10-20mm on my SLRs, and certainly my 10.5mm APS-C fisheye. Why do I need F22? Star effects on lights or the sun, especially backlit landscapes.

2) The camera was the problem. I saw "green" blotches in the shadows in regular exposures. I am used to a fair amount of exposure latitude in my Nikons. In my testing, I found green splotches in shadow areas with undexposure of less than 1/2 stop. I think my camera was defective, but I decided that if I had it replaced, and if it was a camera/sensor characteristic instead, I would end up returning the camera and selling the lenses. And while I got a great discount on the lenses, once you add in the 8% NYS tax I paid, and the discount for "used", it would be a lot of trouble to break even. So I returned everything.

I am a little sad about that, because it seemed like the perfect compromise camera for me, and otherwise I loved the camera features, weight, and form factor. I actually don't see another camera that meets the same downsizing requirements for me without some tradeoff I'm not willing to make.

DPReview rated it Gold at 80%. Nothing about green splotches. I posted in their forums, but some trollish fanboys just accused me of light starving the Sony and creating the problem (because in the quick test shots that I published the Sony underexposed by 1 stop and so in the side by side I published against the Nikon D7100, I had to boost the Sony exposure by .46 in Lightroom (which I would presume was 1/2 stop, but the shutter speed shows 1/125 versus 1/50th.

Actually, see the picture below to show you some of the green. Note that I actually did a lot of underexposure tests, because if you really force overexposure, you don't get green splotches. And I don't mean normal exposure, I mean overexposure, avoiding the bottom part of the histogram almost entirely. (At that point, I also didn't realize that the Sony tended to underexposure by 1/2 stop, anyway).

This is a 100% crop. LR Adjustment is .46 up exposure on the Sony. I repeated the test with the RX100 and underexposed by 2 stops, boosted it, and saw no green blotches like this.

Full View:

Sample splotches at 100%:

Here's a real world example showing small green blotches too:

Full View:

Sample Blotch:

And finally, an outdoor example

To some people, perhaps this is too minor, but it bothered me, and I could see it even in reduced form.

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 17:25:39.

ecmguy

Nikon D800

06/13/2014 06:22:17 PM · #13

Sorry to hear it, Neil. I ordered a Sony a6000 and it should show up any day now. In the pics you posted, the most obvious difference was the noise quality between the Nikon and the Sony, and it's one of my favorite features of my D800. There's not much noise, but the noise that's there is actually pleasant, not green or purple-ish.

My a6000 isn't intended to replace my D800, just to attach to a multi-rotor copter of some kind (still haven't ironed that out 100% yet) to get aerial video/stills. I'm still looking forward to getting my Sony, but now I'll have some things to check for myself once I get it. You've put some great in-depth analysis into this. Thanks for posting your findings.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/13/2014 06:47:56 PM · #14

I don't blame ya for 86ing it, Neil. That wouldn't have pleased me at all...

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/13/2014 09:39:29 PM · #15

Hey, I hear that a7R is really impressive. ;)

(although I'd go with the a7S because I like to shoot in the dark, handheld.)

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 21:40:47.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

06/13/2014 10:38:30 PM · #16

I just also cancelled my RX100III order! I was thinking of cancelling it because of the A6000, but now I returned that.

So why did I cancel? It would have shipped in a week or so!

Panasonic licensing the 1" sensor is interesting to me. The RX100 iii has great specs, and good reviews, but the LX8 could be even better with a 1" sensor. In any case, I should wait to find out. Both have viewfinders, which is one thing that limits my current RX100.

But the new FZ1000 is actually pretty tempting too! I bought an FZ200 when they were on sale...great lens, bad sensor. I thought...why dont' they use a sensor like the RX100 and it would be killer. Well. they did that (though it's not F2.8 constant (but only goes to F4), and it's 25-400mm rather than 24-600). Still, if it has picture quality like the RX100, it will be a very good travel camera. Big, but not heavy as it would be carrying lenses to match.

I might even elect to keep my RX100 for my pocket, and pair it with this camera for travel. I'd lose ultra wide angle though. But 25mm is still good for most landscapes IMHO.

On the other hand, Sony has some really good processing for panoramas and low light shooting that Panasonic has never matched. The Panorama feature in the FZ200 really sucks...it rocks in the RX100. HDR is great in the RX100 too.

armando_m

Nikon D800

06/14/2014 12:09:38 AM · #17

Interesting, I've looking a the a6000, or panasonic gx7, or one of the olympus

I also want a lighter more discrete alternative to my DSLR ,and something that does better than my V1