A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,245Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to VirtualMirage, 4 months ago

VirtualMirage wrote:

123Mike wrote:

  • Bigger body, more materials.

Which makes the A6000 lighter to carry.

Still doesn't escape the fact that more materials means a greater cost.

I can see that point. Weather sealing is probably a finicky manufacturing process as well.

  • Better build quality with weather sealing.

Weather sealing is nice. But the build quality of the A6000 is pretty decent.

Personal opinion versus fact. Also, decent doesn't mean it is better.

It doesn't. But neither sucks.

  • IBIS.

Lens based OSS works better than IBIS.

Debatable.

That was my experience anyway. I always thought the IBIS of the A33 and A65 and A57 was kind of lamish. It just didn't help that much. I always felt the need to use bursting for anything I really wanted a sharp picture of. Almost always one or two from a burst series was better than the rest. It showed me consistently that taking a single picture is just unreliable. I'm seeing that that with OSS the success rate is higher. However, I still feel the need to burst all the time.

  • Higher resolution EVF.

A6000's EVF is just fine.

Again, personal opinion versus fact.

I have as of yet see anyone complaining that the EVF is not good enough - the ones that have used it.

  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).

I'm an 100% LCD guy myself, and I would appreciate that. I can set the LCD of the A6000 to "outdoor" more, but at times I wish it was brighter.

  • LCD screen has more articulating points.

LCD screen of the A6000 is done just fine.

Again, personal opinion versus fact. What is just fine for you may not be enough for someone else.

I also would like that to be better. That's a plus for the A77ii.

  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.

A6000's sensor based PDAF keeps up just fine, even at full burst

Again, personal opinion and it still can't do what the A77II can. Since the PDAF is directly on the sensor, it cannot focus during exposure whereas the A77II which should give it an advantage in tracking.

It tracks a moving object in real time at 11fps and keeps it in focus. I've observed it doing that.

  • Higher frame rate.

12fps vs 11fps? Pretty much the same.

True, but facts are facts and it is a higher frame rate which puts a higher demand on the camera.

I think the only people that can't agree that 12 vs 11 is in all practical terms, just as good, are just arguing to the sake of arguing, and purposely giving a hard time. It's simply not reasonable.

  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.

A6000 has plenty of button. Also, its menu layout is very good, and the Fn function is very helpful.

Still doesn't avoid the fact that more buttons, dials, and inputs add more to the cost due to extra materials. Some prefer most of their settings to be mapped to buttons than menus too.

There are many customizable buttons and features. It also has MR mode where you can program 3 sets of settings for quick access.

  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).

True, but how often would you need faster than 1/4000s though?

Your personal opinions are really driving this away from the facts. Again, higher shutter speed means more demand on the hardware. As for how often it is used, while not often I do find it indispensable when I do need it. So, thus, it is a requirement for me.

Fine. I was just curious why is all.

  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).

Is that really important?

Again, opinion versus facts. Maybe not for you, but for many others it is. I find it very important when I do my studio work.

Again, I was just curious why this would make a difference.

  • More powerful built-in flash.

True, but the A6000 needs less flash power due to its better sensitivity. Besides, it's much more fun to avoid flash altogether using a focal reducer with a fast legacy lens. Eg. a 50mm f/1.4 lens becomes a 35mm f/1.0 lens... That's bright where you can avoid flash in pretty low light conditions.

Wow, that is such a load of crap. Sorry, but that is the lamest excuse to justify a weaker flash (especially for a sensitivity difference of .5 stops or less). The flash power rating for both cameras are rated at the same ISO speed. The fact is a more powerful flash allows a longer reach at any given ISO as well as the ability to provide more fill, even at base ISO.

I'm not justifying a weaker flash. I was simply explaining that I prefer to avoid using the flash. I prefer to capture the natural lighting. So the need for a more powerful flash isn't there for me. Yes, that's an opinion, and I'm expressing it. I thought it might be interesting to explain how I maximize this. You're being only negative here, and not constructive at all.

While I prefer not shooting with flash, it comes in handy in those situations where you have no other choice. Even then I prefer a dedicated flash.

Your needs are different from mine obviously. I can live with the limitations. I had an external flash, but I sold it, because I was never using it. I thought maybe I might use it for some portraits, but I prefer the natural lighting.

As for your fast lens excuse, besides the fact you need an adapters to shoot with anything faster than F/1.8, a large aperture is not always the answer to shoot in low light since you sacrifice depth of field and, for many lenses, sharpness.

What you call an excuse (again, you're so negative), I see as something that is exciting, a way to improve on things. As for sharpness, the focal reducer makes the image sharper. I found that the Sony 35mm/1.8 lens almost covers full frame, with little vignetting, and only in the very corners. The sides are degraded a little, but it works for a cheap solution. The results can be quite good. Normally, you'd have to stop it down to f/2.2 or so to make it tack sharp. It seems that with the focal reducer it's sharp right wide open. The results are far better than what I expected. A lot of (negative) people were making all kinds of assumptions and have been making claims and dismissing it beforehand. They were wrong.

  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

Nah.

Nah as in you think the shutter life is the same or nah that you don't care?

I used my previous A57 a fair amount. I think it was around 65k clicks after two years. I suspect I'll use the A6000 for two years as well. It might use 80k clicks, I don't know. At that point I'll sell it, and move to the next camera. It is unlikely I will see the shutter break.

While they may be the same, it has been typical of Sony's lower end cameras to have shutters that are rated for only 100,000 clicks while their higher end cameras are closer to 150,000 clicks. I was listing the possibility of a difference which would add to the cost of the camera.

I do know that manufacturers often do this thing called "planned obsolescence", where they intentionally limit the life span so that the customers comes back for more, quicker. Domestic cars are made that way. The parts manufacturers for domestic cars are brilliant in making sure that things like shocks and fuel pumps and what not, need replacing at least once or twice in a car's life time. It's huge business. Kitchen blenders are purposely made to die quickly. Those things always have a weak link, usually the transfer from the motor axle to the blender part, where something breaks. The manufacturers know darn well where the weak links are, and it's 100% on purpose. But with cameras, would they purposely limit the lifespan of a shutter? They probably just use what's good, and use more expensive methods to produce the higher end one. But that doesn't mean that the lower end one is specifically engineered to break within a given amount of time. I would not be surprised that the lower end on will not break after much much longer than 100k clicks.

There are probably a few other things I am missing, but this is a quick run down.

The A6000 with 18-105 f/4 G lens is a great combination. The video is awesome on it. Very low light video capabilities, and you can set the aperture from wide open to like f/10+ and still retain continuous auto focus. For stills, the number of pdaf + cdaf auto focus points are very high and they're *all* over the frame. You can select wide area continuous focus mode which capture super high action very effectively. There are a bunch of other new things, that the A77ii may or may not have. Lock on AF with shutter for instance. What happens there is you focus on an object, after which is starts tracking it automatically and it won't lose it anywhere in the frame. You can then recompose and burst at your heart's content. The subject can move closer or further, and the continuous AF will track it perfectly, even at 11fps shooting.

The A77 and the A77ii already have a capability like that called object tracking. A square pops up on the screen and you select the object you want to track. Once selected, the camera will attempt to keep the object in focus as it moves around the screen, even towards and away from the camera. Nothing new.

Yes, but it has to work with a limited set of focal points. When the subject is not behind a focal point, the camera has no choice but to wait until it sees it behind one of those points again. With on-sensor pdaf (plus cdaf) you get so many points that it covers the entire frame and dense enough where you don't run into that problem. The A77 had more points than the A57 which was my previous camera. They upped it on the A77ii, but the A6000 still has more of them, which makes the A6000 better than the A77ii in that regard. I'm purposely writing it this way, because that's what you have been doing. You're arguing over things like "but 12 is better than 11, so there, I win, you lose". Well then, this one *I* win. Ha!

The A77ii may be also a great camera, but it's not going to crush it by any means.

A77ii versus A6000, different horses for different courses.

To sum it up:

Sorry, those are weak counterpoints that have nothing to do with what the OP was asking.

Always with the OP this and the OP that. Trying to shut up points you don't like.

The OP was asking what are the differences between the two that may contribute to the cost difference. All you did was lay down your opinion of what YOU find useful or not and not what is actually better or more costly that contributes to the price difference.

I'm simply helping raising awareness. The topic *WAS* also about the A6000 after all. So I can't talk about an A6000 in a topic that is about the A6000, just because you say so?

 123Mike's gear list:123Mike's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS A3000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
f/8New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow