a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Tone Row
Regular MemberPosts: 334Gear list
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to pew pew, 10 months ago

pew pew wrote:

well, this means the new A mount cameras will probably loose the translucent mirror, wich is good news, I just wonder why they didn't implemented this on the a7/a7r, maybe the extra focus points in the sensor reduces quality idk.

My guess would be that their OSPDAF R&D advances are coming so fast now that they didn't have this technology when it came time to manufacture the A7(r) sensors.

 Tone Row's gear list:Tone Row's gear list
Sony SLT-A55 NEX5R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cptobvious
Contributing MemberPosts: 545
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

To me the question is whether the current E-mount lenses can focus quickly enough to match the camera.  Even if the processor is more responsive, if the motors inside the lenses take too long to move the focus elements then the point is moot.  My experience owning the NEX-6 and Sony G lenses is that some of them took longer to rack focus from one end to the other than the newer Olympus MSC/Panasonic lenses for Micro 4/3.  If the A6000 and Sony lenses can match current M4/3 focusing speeds, then there's a good chance I'll switch back to Sony.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,788Gear list
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to EthanP99, 10 months ago

EthanP99 wrote:

its 49 jpegs apparently

so about 5 seconds

Wait, that's 9.8 fps...

D4s is 10fps for 20 seconds with full resolution RAW files with full autofocus/metering/auto ISO for each shot.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sean lancaster
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,549Gear list
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than A7/A7r, Good job SONY ???
In reply to arphoto, 10 months ago

arphoto wrote:

Why a "so bad so slow" autofocus in entry level A7/r ?

I am perplexed that Sony was apparently this close to having the "fastest AF in the world" and didn't put it in their revolutionary full frame mirrorless entries released not too long ago. $1,000 more for an A7 and the AF was spotty for me in available light settings. Then again, the A6000 has yet to hit the real world.

I wonder if the extra focus points on the A6000 sensor are going to impact light reaching the sensor and, thus, DxOMark scores?

-- hide signature --
 sean lancaster's gear list:sean lancaster's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony FE 55mm F1.8 OnePlus One +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,788Gear list
Like?
Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

For 3 seconds? How long of a burst do you maintain 11fps? And how many times can you do that in a minute? How many RAW images can you rip out per second?

I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

Because the mirrored D4s can shoot 10fps for 20 full seconds and crank out 200 full resolution RAW files with full tracking autofocus/metering/auto ISO etc. for each shot. And right away, it can turn around and do it all over again. All day long. Processor/buffer is just as important.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for. I'm just sayin', keep it all in perspective.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SDF
SDF
Senior MemberPosts: 2,131Gear list
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

Nikon D4 is $5000 and A6K is $650. Indeed, you get what you pay for.

stevo23 wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

its 49 jpegs apparently

so about 5 seconds

Wait, that's 9.8 fps...

D4s is 10fps for 20 seconds with full resolution RAW files with full autofocus/metering/auto ISO for each shot.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for.

 SDF's gear list:SDF's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony RX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,534
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than A7/A7r, Good job SONY ???
In reply to sean lancaster, 10 months ago

sean lancaster wrote:

arphoto wrote:

Why a "so bad so slow" autofocus in entry level A7/r ?

I am perplexed that Sony was apparently this close to having the "fastest AF in the world" and didn't put it in their revolutionary full frame mirrorless entries released not too long ago.

I'm not. The sensor in the A7R is basically based on a 2 year older design. Plus, the larger the sensor, the harder it is to get fast read out speeds, which is crucial for fast on sensor PDAF.

Maybe they could have made improvements to the original 36MP sensor in this regard, but that would surely have driven up cost too and margins are what Sony needs currently.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bryanchicken
Regular MemberPosts: 309
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

its 49 jpegs apparently

so about 5 seconds

Wait, that's 9.8 fps...

D4s is 10fps for 20 seconds with full resolution RAW files with full autofocus/metering/auto ISO for each shot.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for.

LOL. I just looked up the D4S, having never heard of it. Its a £4k+ camera in the UK and its blimmin' HUGE.

I'd pick the A6000 all day long thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Habs Fan27
Regular MemberPosts: 384
Like?
Re: Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

For 3 seconds? How long of a burst do you maintain 11fps? And how many times can you do that in a minute? How many RAW images can you rip out per second?

I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

Because the mirrored D4s can shoot 10fps for 20 full seconds and crank out 200 full resolution RAW files with full tracking autofocus/metering/auto ISO etc. for each shot. And right away, it can turn around and do it all over again. All day long. Processor/buffer is just as important.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for. I'm just sayin', keep it all in perspective.

I don't think potential A6000 buyers are cross shopping it with a D4s.  If the AF speed/accuracy/tracking is as advertised, it's probably good enough for 99% of the people out there and way better than anything remotely close to this price point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nevercat
Senior MemberPosts: 3,118
Like?
Re: Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

For 3 seconds? How long of a burst do you maintain 11fps? And how many times can you do that in a minute? How many RAW images can you rip out per second?

I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

Because the mirrored D4s can shoot 10fps for 20 full seconds and crank out 200 full resolution RAW files with full tracking autofocus/metering/auto ISO etc. for each shot. And right away, it can turn around and do it all over again. All day long. Processor/buffer is just as important.

You are right the D4 can shoot 7 times longer at (about) the same frame rate! But that speed has nothing to do with the mirror anymore. Sony could build a mirrorless  camera with the same buffer and processor and we would see the same performance.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for. I'm just sayin', keep it all in perspective.

To put the D4 in the same perspective:look here at the size difference

And take a look at the price: For the D4 you pay $5100
For the A6000 you pay$800

Indeed you get what you pay for. I know what lenses I should buy for that $4300 I save with the A6000....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KelvinHammond
Regular MemberPosts: 316Gear list
Like?
Re: ok... then try using a mirrorless...
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

for studio portraits. it sucks.   There's no way around it either. The mirrorless system reacts just like a camcorder, which means the rear screen and evf are worthless in cave lighting. (torches, or modeling lights). What the mirror does, is let your eyes and brain see right through the glass, without electronics pre-interpreting that information. The only way they could fix it is with some sort of active rangefinder setup that had zoom or focal length auto-simulations.

 KelvinHammond's gear list:KelvinHammond's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS 6D Samsung NX300 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nevercat
Senior MemberPosts: 3,118
Like?
Re: ok... then try using a mirrorless...
In reply to KelvinHammond, 10 months ago

KelvinHammond wrote:

for studio portraits. it sucks. There's no way around it either. The mirrorless system reacts just like a camcorder, which means the rear screen and evf are worthless in cave lighting. (torches, or modeling lights). What the mirror does, is let your eyes and brain see right through the glass, without electronics pre-interpreting that information. The only way they could fix it is with some sort of active rangefinder setup that had zoom or focal length auto-simulations.

Well I don't see what you mean here. I just tested with my Nex 5 (first generation Nex) and was able to manual focus on a subject by using the LCD the exposure time was 8 seconds by F4! How dark is it in your studio? When you are in manual mode then:  I think you should try to read the manual of the camera as there is an option to switch off the mode that try to show what you will see when you shoot at the given apperture/shutterrtime/ISO. When there is no such option you can open the flash and you will see the immage without problem...

By the way, the A6000 is not a real professional camera and it will miss more features you use in a studio...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,258Gear list
Like?
Re: Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

For 3 seconds? How long of a burst do you maintain 11fps? And how many times can you do that in a minute? How many RAW images can you rip out per second?

I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

I guess you should have added the caveat of, for the vast, vast majority of people, including most photographers.

Because the mirrored D4s can shoot 10fps for 20 full seconds and crank out 200 full resolution RAW files with full tracking autofocus/metering/auto ISO etc. for each shot. And right away, it can turn around and do it all over again. All day long. Processor/buffer is just as important.

How often does one need to do this?  Is this for "spray and pray" photography?  I doubt most pro photographers' cameras do this today.  Of course, if you need this, or some other feature, you should buy the camera that does it, but let's keep it in perspective.  

I can understand a 1 second buffer (in my Nex-6) is a bit short, but after 2 or even 5 seconds, I can't imagine what I'm still shooting.  The action is over with.    Anything longer, and maybe I should have used video.    At least then I have 60fps for as long as I want.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for.

And you do pay for it!  In money not just for the camera but for lenses, because you wouldn't just plop a kit lens on a $5000 camera.  And not just in money, but for the bulk. It's not exactly a good travel setup.

I'm just sayin', keep it all in perspective.

I think most of us are?

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,258Gear list
Like?
Re: ok... then try using a mirrorless...
In reply to nevercat, 10 months ago

nevercat wrote:

KelvinHammond wrote:

for studio portraits. it sucks. There's no way around it either. The mirrorless system reacts just like a camcorder, which means the rear screen and evf are worthless in cave lighting. (torches, or modeling lights). What the mirror does, is let your eyes and brain see right through the glass, without electronics pre-interpreting that information. The only way they could fix it is with some sort of active rangefinder setup that had zoom or focal length auto-simulations.

Well I don't see what you mean here. I just tested with my Nex 5 (first generation Nex) and was able to manual focus on a subject by using the LCD the exposure time was 8 seconds by F4! How dark is it in your studio? When you are in manual mode then: I think you should try to read the manual of the camera as there is an option to switch off the mode that try to show what you will see when you shoot at the given apperture/shutterrtime/ISO. When there is no such option you can open the flash and you will see the immage without problem...

Do you mean "live view"?  I think the Nex-5 always uses this -- you can't turn it off like you can with other Nex cameras.  But, yeah, it should try to brighten the view in the dark, unless it's crazy dark.  If you're doing a studio shot, you should probably add enough light to get a quality result.

Using your test, up to about 2" of exposure, I could still see well enough through the viewfinder/LCD to frame the shot, although it was grainy and lagged if I moved.  I'm not saying it's ideal, but that kind of low light is not ideal shooting conditions anyway.  At 5", the display was too dark and faint to see anything, while I could still see objects with my eyes.

But the bottom-line is, why wouldn't the live view give you a bright (if grainy) display in any reasonable light?

By the way, the A6000 is not a real professional camera and it will miss more features you use in a studio...

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Red G8R
Senior MemberPosts: 1,645Gear list
Like?
Re: Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to GaryW, 10 months ago

Having the fastest AF amongst mirrorless cameras didn't make the Nikon 1 a success.

-- hide signature --

Peter
Ontario, Canada

 Red G8R's gear list:Red G8R's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D600 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BRN KNG
New MemberPosts: 15
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

I'll wait until more reviewers are able to get their hands on the camera and test the autofocus in different situations before I crown the A6000 the king of autofocus.

Fuji claimed the X-T1 focuses in 0.05 seconds. So there's the claims under certain conditions and then there's the real world performance. I put more stock in the latter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LTZ470
Forum ProPosts: 11,002Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope.
In reply to Tom Ames, 10 months ago

Tom Ames wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

ApertureAcolyte wrote:

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

Shall we say that DSLR speed from now on is lagging behind latest mirrorless cameras like a6000? I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

That's not a rack focus speed.

Here' what sony said:

1.Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014. Determined with internal measurement method with E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS lens mounted, Pre-AF off and viewfinder in use

Lol, still grasping onto the believe that your $1,400, smaller m43 sensor, bigger and heavier body, humped, 16Mp, E-M1 is faster?

Hint: it will be so close, it won't matter.

Your E-M1 is beaten by a $650, larger APS-C sensor, smaller and light body, hump-free, 24Mp, A6000.

I can now see the resale value of the E-M1 dropping like a rock, and dropping again, ....

I can hear the pattering of feet of the buying public already, lines form on the left ...

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I had a thread just a few days ago looking for a camera in addition to my A7r. I would very much like to try the EM-1, but with fast auto focus being my main concern, I just may have to sit on the fence for a month and see what happens. Would suit me just fine if I could get a EM-1 to a very very good used price or perhaps the A6000 actually will be the better solution. I do like the layout and design of the EM-1, but it will be hard to justify, if the A6000 is better at focusing and have a larger sensor as well (important to me for indoors shooting).

Sorry Tom, but indoors the PDAF will not work and Sony CDAF will take over...it probably won't AF very fast and will struggle...same as Nex-6...

The old adage applies here since no one owns it yet...if it sounds too good to be true...probably is...

Then good AF long lens will be scarce...55-210 is nice, like the size, but all in all a not exactly stellar...even shooting in bright sun against the EM5 Oly the Nex-7 with 55-210 was too slow to capture the Blue Angels very well...the EM5 100-300 Panasonic did very very well...EM1 is even better...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,534
Like?
Re: Nope.
In reply to LTZ470, 10 months ago

LTZ470 wrote:

Tom Ames wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

ApertureAcolyte wrote:

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Well, 11fps with live tracking AF is something. It's faster than OMD E-M1 and mind you it's an APS-C sensor with 24.3 Mp! Fastest AF (in the world?) 0.06s CIPA.

Shall we say that DSLR speed from now on is lagging behind latest mirrorless cameras like a6000? I honestly see no point in any further mirror usage in cameras from now on.

That's not a rack focus speed.

Here' what sony said:

1.Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014. Determined with internal measurement method with E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS lens mounted, Pre-AF off and viewfinder in use

Lol, still grasping onto the believe that your $1,400, smaller m43 sensor, bigger and heavier body, humped, 16Mp, E-M1 is faster?

Hint: it will be so close, it won't matter.

Your E-M1 is beaten by a $650, larger APS-C sensor, smaller and light body, hump-free, 24Mp, A6000.

I can now see the resale value of the E-M1 dropping like a rock, and dropping again, ....

I can hear the pattering of feet of the buying public already, lines form on the left ...

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I had a thread just a few days ago looking for a camera in addition to my A7r. I would very much like to try the EM-1, but with fast auto focus being my main concern, I just may have to sit on the fence for a month and see what happens. Would suit me just fine if I could get a EM-1 to a very very good used price or perhaps the A6000 actually will be the better solution. I do like the layout and design of the EM-1, but it will be hard to justify, if the A6000 is better at focusing and have a larger sensor as well (important to me for indoors shooting).

Sorry Tom, but indoors the PDAF will not work and Sony CDAF will take over...

Based on which A6000 test is this claim?

This  (indoor low light), suggests otherwise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LTZ470
Forum ProPosts: 11,002Gear list
Like?
Re: a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

Indoors it will probably struggle Donny...this is probably in bright daylight only...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
buellom
Regular MemberPosts: 490Gear list
Like?
Re: ... and faster than all D-SLTs ...
In reply to Donny out of Element here, 10 months ago

Ooops!

-- hide signature --

********************
www.freude-am-licht.de
********************

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads