A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Corpy2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,012
Like?
Re: PDAF -CDAF
In reply to Evildogofdoom, 4 months ago

Evildogofdoom wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

steelhead3 wrote:

You don't have an understanding of the differences of cdaf and pdaf

Not the gritty details, no. Will knowing them help answer the question?

In short, yes.

Thank you. I can't begin to tell me how helpful this particular exchange has been.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Corpy2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,012
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 4 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

someguy50 wrote:

I believe a77ii will be faster. Constant focusing due to SLT, and like the a6000, built for speed.

Even taking into consideration the lack of in-body stabilization, this does not account for a doubling in price.

Its cheaper than E-M1 (to put that in perspective). So, in a way, a77 II might be a steal... although priced in line with its direct competitors: 70D and D7100.

I have no doubt that the a77ii seems priced right, and if its autofocus capabilities are as people are predicting, perfect for objects in motion, and far better than the em-1.

My issue is my belated discovery of the a6000, for about half-price, and smaller, which seems (to my current ignorant self) to be providing virtually the same feature set, minus the in-body stabilizartion, and a cryptic reference to the two types of autofocus methods.

I'm not sure why I have to know the 2 methods in detail, but if these two methods create different AF capabilities between the a6000 and the a77ii, that impacts the feature sets, and is therefore important to know.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Corpy2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,012
Like?
Re: Olympus EM-1 not good for C-AF???
In reply to bimmerman, 4 months ago

bimmerman wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

Dude! I have the EM-1 and about what you've just said about its C-AF... Well... Ok, you're right about the C-AF. I wish it were better with all their claims about that fancy Olympus "Dual Fast AF" incorporating Phase detect sensors on the imaging sensor and yadda yadda yadda... Fact is, it's quite hopeless in practice. For that reason I am holding back on the upcoming Olympus 40-150 F2.8 lens. Perhaps getting a 4/3 lens like the Olympus 50-200SWD will yield better C-AF results and I was considering just that until Sony announced the A77II.

I'm not in the position to comment about the A6000 but if the A77II can C-AF while maintaining a smooth viewfinder image i'm sold! The Olympus EM-1 not only has poor C-AF but the viewfinder refresh lags terribly when the camera is doing C-AF.

+1 for the Sony A77II

Yes, we were fed a whole lot of bovine excrement concerning the continuous AF capabilities of the em-1, as opposed to the prior em5.

Now, I do generally love the em1. The em-1 is much more responsive than the em5, which was also a good camera, but, as you say, hopeless for continuous AF.

So, the a77ii. But the question is: Why not the a6000 then. That is my quest to find out.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,789Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

Corpy2 wrote:

VirtualMirage wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

  • Bigger body, more materials.
  • Better build quality with weather sealing.
  • IBIS.
  • Higher resolution EVF.
  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).
  • LCD screen has more articulating points.
  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.
  • Higher frame rate.
  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.
  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).
  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).
  • More powerful built-in flash.
  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

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

Thank you.

What does this mean: "Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action"?

Hi Corrpy - what it means is that the PDAF sensor in the A77II is separate to the imaging sensor - it works from the light refelected by the SLT mirror whereas the A6000 is using the iamging sensor itself.
So when the shutter (not shutter button) is used the A6000 has to have a break (like a traditional camera would but for different reasons.
As the A77II is using a different sensor the shutter has no effect on it.

If one is in continuous mode, and holding down the shutter, and shooting, is one not always in "in action?" How would the a6000 not be doing this?

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Corpy2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,012
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to 123Mike, 4 months ago

123Mike wrote:

  • Bigger body, more materials.

Which makes the A6000 lighter to carry.

  • Better build quality with weather sealing.

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

  • IBIS.

Lens based OSS works better than IBIS.

  • Higher resolution EVF.

A6000's EVF is just fine.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Higher frame rate.

12fps vs 11fps? Pretty much the same.

  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.

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

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

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

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

Is that really important?

  • 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.

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

Nah.

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

You have the a6000. How does it do a simple task like continuous AF using the center point aimed right at the subject, when the subject is moving towards you, away from you, or random motion? If ok, can you do it at the top speed of 11 fps, or do you have to slow it down?

In other words, if you can succeed in keeping the subject in the center of the frame, can you keep it in focus? And is your suggested 18-105 f/4 G autofocusing fast enough to do this?

Also, do you know how the Sony 55-210 4.5 to 6.3 would do for my scenario?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Corpy2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,012
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to JamieTux, 4 months ago

JamieTux wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

VirtualMirage wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

  • Bigger body, more materials.
  • Better build quality with weather sealing.
  • IBIS.
  • Higher resolution EVF.
  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).
  • LCD screen has more articulating points.
  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.
  • Higher frame rate.
  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.
  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).
  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).
  • More powerful built-in flash.
  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

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

Thank you.

What does this mean: "Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action"?

Hi Corrpy - what it means is that the PDAF sensor in the A77II is separate to the imaging sensor - it works from the light refelected by the SLT mirror whereas the A6000 is using the iamging sensor itself.
So when the shutter (not shutter button) is used the A6000 has to have a break (like a traditional camera would but for different reasons.
As the A77II is using a different sensor the shutter has no effect on it.

Thank you. That's certainly a detailed response. But in practice, what does it mean to someone who wants to shoot continuous at high speed of moving objects? Waht is the final difference based on what the a6000 is and what the a77ii is spcced to be?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,453
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

Corpy2 wrote:

JamieTux wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

VirtualMirage wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

  • Bigger body, more materials.
  • Better build quality with weather sealing.
  • IBIS.
  • Higher resolution EVF.
  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).
  • LCD screen has more articulating points.
  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.
  • Higher frame rate.
  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.
  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).
  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).
  • More powerful built-in flash.
  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

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

Thank you.

What does this mean: "Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action"?

Hi Corrpy - what it means is that the PDAF sensor in the A77II is separate to the imaging sensor - it works from the light refelected by the SLT mirror whereas the A6000 is using the iamging sensor itself.
So when the shutter (not shutter button) is used the A6000 has to have a break (like a traditional camera would but for different reasons.
As the A77II is using a different sensor the shutter has no effect on it.

Thank you. That's certainly a detailed response. But in practice, what does it mean to someone who wants to shoot continuous at high speed of moving objects? Waht is the final difference based on what the a6000 is and what the a77ii is spcced to be?

No one in here can tell until they have been subjected to the same tests and the only A77II bodies going around, are pre production and sparse...

In theory it means that the A77II doesn't have to rely as much on predictive AF algorithms as the A6000 during faster burst shots, simply because the AF sensors always get a signal vs an intermittent signal.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,399Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to 123Mike, 4 months ago

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.

  • 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.

  • IBIS.

Lens based OSS works better than IBIS.

Debatable.

  • Higher resolution EVF.

A6000's EVF is just fine.

Again, personal opinion versus fact.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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.

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.

  • 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,399Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

Corpy2 wrote:

VirtualMirage wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

  • Bigger body, more materials.
  • Better build quality with weather sealing.
  • IBIS.
  • Higher resolution EVF.
  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).
  • LCD screen has more articulating points.
  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.
  • Higher frame rate.
  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.
  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).
  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).
  • More powerful built-in flash.
  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

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

Thank you.

What does this mean: "Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action"?

If one is in continuous mode, and holding down the shutter, and shooting, is one not always in "in action?" How would the a6000 not be doing this?

On the A6000, since the AF sensors are directly on the sensor they cannot maintain focus during exposure since the shutter will be in the way of the AF sensors.  Because of this, there will be blips during exposure that the camera cannot focus.  So while it may be able to pickup back up quickly between shots, it cannot maintain constant focus at all times throughout the whole image exposure process.

The A77 and A77ii, on the other hand, can since the AF is being performed by a dedicated sensor that has nothing blocking it during exposure.

It's an advantage the SLTs have even over SLRs since on the SLR the mirror movement during exposure prevents the camera from focusing when the shot is being taken.

While we won't know what the real world difference in AF tracking performance is between the A6000 and A77ii until we can directly compare them side by side, the design and theory of peak performance favors the A77ii.

Small movement changes during fast exposures their may be little to no difference between the two.  But large or fast movements during fast exposures and movement during longer exposures should lean more in favor of the A77ii.

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,246Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

You have the a6000. How does it do a simple task like continuous AF using the center point aimed right at the subject, when the subject is moving towards you, away from you, or random motion? If ok, can you do it at the top speed of 11 fps, or do you have to slow it down?

In other words, if you can succeed in keeping the subject in the center of the frame, can you keep it in focus? And is your suggested 18-105 f/4 G autofocusing fast enough to do this?

You can pick a focus point, in which case you can set it to continuous focus on that point. It will do that 11fps full resolution and it will keep up with the focus even if the subject moves towards or away from you.

You can also pick a focus zone, where the nearest point anywhere in that zone is kept in focus.

Or wide, where the nearest point anywhere in the frame at all, is continuously kept in focus. This is great for shooting birds in the sky. No more focus and recompose. Just point the darn thing, and anything in the frame is in focus. It becomes a zero brainer in that case. It'll do that at 11fps as well. It's not for nothing that, setting the A77ii aside, the A6000 is the fastest of all cameras, or so they claim. I don't know if that is true, but it *is* fast I can tell you that. The nice also is that the focus point are all over the frame. Not just a limited set of points. With the previous cameras, it was really annoying, because you had only a limited set of points to work with. It's now all over the frame.

There is another cool feature. Lock on focus + start with shutter. What happens there is that the moment you focus something (in any mode above or any other focus mode), it will start tracking that point, and it can be set to keep that point in focus continuously. This is great if you have lots of things in a scene, and you wish to specifically track your kid or pet running around. There you'd set focus on center, then focus, and poof, a green tracking box appears and hugs around the subject. From that point, so long as it can reasonably track that subject, it will keep it in focus. The subject can move towards you and move away. So long as you see that box still up, it continues to track it. You can keep on bursting away and that subject will remain in focus. At up to 11fps again.

Also, do you know how the Sony 55-210 4.5 to 6.3 would do for my scenario?

Many of those lenses need their firmware upgraded, which is a process of running firmware upgrade software on your computer with the camera and lens attached. After that, allegedly, it's fast too. How fast I don't know. I know the 18-105 f/4 G is fast. I thought the 18-55 kit lens is fast as well.

Oh and all this tracking and everything, works with apertures wide open all the way to at least f/10 thereabouts.

 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
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,246Gear 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
zackiedawg
Forum ProPosts: 21,632Gear list
Like?
Let me put it more simply...
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

It all comes down to two different body styles, in two different classes of camera.  The same question could come up when comparing an entry-level Nikon body using the same sensor as their semi-pro APS-C model, and even borrowing some of the same focus technology - but the semi-pro model costs $2000+ while the entry-level body costs under $1000.

The A6000 is a compact mirrorless system camera - one of the finest Sony ever made for sure, and likely one of the fastest and best tracking of any mirrorless model.  It also has a great evolution of controls for enthusiasts, and yes, it can track fast motion very well indeed.

The A77II is a semi-pro type model - it's meant to be big, heavy, solidly constructed, with lots of direct controls on the body for those who know their settings and need quick access to them, it is weather sealed, more durable for bumps and bruises, and has an advanced focus system that works differently from that of the A6000 - that doesn't always mean the focus system itself will track better - that's unknown until tests arrive - but it will generally offer that tracking ability with a little more direct user control and settings options, and more importantly through a much larger selection of advanced lenses, including older lenses, which are designed specifically for sports, wildlife, and other action.

It doesn't always come down to pure performance as a single measurement - maybe the A6000 ends up tracking a moving subject at the same speed and ability as the A77II - who knows?  Even if it did, it doesn't mean the two systems are a dead heat - they are still very different systems meant for different needs.  Consider this:  A compact car has a special 'sport' model for $30,000 with a highly-pressurized turbo system attached to its 4-cyl engine...and it's really shockingly quick in 0-60MPH times - on the order of 5 seconds.  And there's a high-end German sports car with a big 8-cyl engine that costs over $100,000 - but gets roughly the same 5-second 0-60 time.  A person looking only for 0-60 times, and nothing else, would wonder what makes that German supercar worth 3-4 times more than the little sports compact.  But someone looking for the quickest performance in 0-60 times at the cheapest price can overlook tons of things and just get that compact car...while someone else may value the better design, better build, better materials, more luxury features, better top speed stability, better handling, better braking, AWD capability in bad weather, better resale value, and so on and so on.

There are, strangely to my mind, many here in the Alpha forum who seem to really despise the e-mount cameras and like to insult or ignore them (as if Sony users don't have to deal with enough crap from Canon & Nikon fanboys, now there's infighting within the ranks too)...and some e-mounters are mirrorless defenders to the death and brush off the Alpha A-mount as old or dead tech.  The truth is that they are two different systems - not having to directly compete with eachother, that have some crossover abilities or features, but two different approaches.

I own both a Sony DSLR, and the A77II which may be on my list to replace my A580, and the A6000, which I find to be an excellent camera.  The two in my mind only have a small overlap - I shoot action, birds in flight, with both systems and the A6000 is the first mirrorless I've gotten my hands on that can honestly match a DSLR for continuous focus of fast moving subjects.  Yet the greater long lens selection, the larger body that offers more direct control and better balance with big lenses, the weather-sealing and more durable shutter life and build made for heavier use, longer battery life, stabilization in body that works across all my older lenses...that still makes a DSLR/SLT body something I want in my collection, and would keep my A-mount as my primary sports/birding camera, with the A6000 an excellent lightweight second body with a very competitive focus system, but limited lens selection which I intentionally keep on the lighter side so I have an option to lighten my load.

-- hide signature --

Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PatrickNSF
Regular MemberPosts: 253Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

One big advantage of the A77/A77ii compared to the A6000 or an NEX camera that I've used is the joystick on the back. You can use this for focus point selection and it makes it much easier to move the focus point compared to the NEX cameras (and, from what I've read, the A6000).

As far as comparing C-AF to the A77ii, I found my C-AF experience more successful with the older A77 than I have with the E-M1. I'm still experimenting with the E-M1, but I'm likely to hold on to the A77 (which I intended to sell) specifically for this use.

 PatrickNSF's gear list:PatrickNSF's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Sony a77 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,789Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to Corpy2, 4 months ago

Corpy2 wrote:

JamieTux wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

VirtualMirage wrote:

Corpy2 wrote:

Now I'm really confused.

I needed another camera for certain shooting situations since my E-M1 really does not do great continuous Autofocus (though it's pretty darn godo in other ways). So I was thinking of the upcoming A77ii. But now I see the A6000 has virtually the same specs. Same APS-C, almost same frame rate, and (maybe?) same continuous autofocus capability.

So what's the deal here? The A77ii is almost double the cost of the A6000.

Can someone please explain? What's the dif?

  • Bigger body, more materials.
  • Better build quality with weather sealing.
  • IBIS.
  • Higher resolution EVF.
  • Better LCD screen (RGBW vs RGB).
  • LCD screen has more articulating points.
  • Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action.
  • Higher frame rate.
  • More buttons, dials, and inputs.
  • Faster max shutter speed (1/8000s vs 1/4000s).
  • Greater flash sync speed (1/250s vs 1/160s).
  • More powerful built-in flash.
  • Probably a longer shutter life (150,000 vs speculated 100,000).

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

Thank you.

What does this mean: "Dedicated PDAF sensor allows continuous AF even while the shutter is in action"?

Hi Corrpy - what it means is that the PDAF sensor in the A77II is separate to the imaging sensor - it works from the light refelected by the SLT mirror whereas the A6000 is using the iamging sensor itself.
So when the shutter (not shutter button) is used the A6000 has to have a break (like a traditional camera would but for different reasons.
As the A77II is using a different sensor the shutter has no effect on it.

Thank you. That's certainly a detailed response. But in practice, what does it mean to someone who wants to shoot continuous at high speed of moving objects? Waht is the final difference based on what the a6000 is and what the a77ii is spcced to be?

Hi Corrpy - I can't answer that for you - it will depend on lots of factors - in the scenario you asked Mike about (centre focus - subject moving straight towards you) I found the Panasonic GH3 to be among the best I've used though.

Putting hyperbole away for a while - here is someone's real world report of A6000 AF tracking (vs a high end Canon at one point) http://verybiglobo.blogspot.cz/2014/05/sony-alpha-a6000-worlds-fastest-af-part.html

But back to your question - the reason that no one can answer it or even give you a realistic best guess is because the AF system of the A77II is completely new - it's not a recognisable relative from anything that has gone before.

Paul (Virtual Mirage) gave you a spec sheet answer (the A77II can have the PDAF sensor on the whole time) - I think that even ignoring that the A77II will be better for tracking than the A6000 as this is what Sony appear to have been concentrating on with the A77II - whether Sony like it or not it will be measured against a whole different class of camera and AF system than the A6000 is (it has lenses that are designed for PDAF for a start).

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,246Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to JamieTux, 4 months ago

Putting hyperbole away for a while - here is someone's real world report of A6000 AF tracking (vs a high end Canon at one point) http://verybiglobo.blogspot.cz/2014/05/sony-alpha-a6000-worlds-fastest-af-part.html

He says: "I think (but I am not sure) that Lock-On AF is using only Contrast detection AF."

I think he doesn't know the camera well enough to make claims about it. I'm learning myself still, but it seems to me that when you use DMF mode (this lets you start with auto focus, and then you can fine-tune it by rotating the focus ring - at which point it will automatically show a magnification and focus peaking), so in DMF it will focus using CDAF. Presumably that's more accurate, and is allowed to be slower because in that mode it is your intention to fine tune. You can tell that the initial focus has that back-and-forth CDAF based hunting to home in on the focus. I suppose that that just is fundamentally more accurate than PDAF can ever be. But it's slower. In the other focus modes, you don't see this, and it'll just focus in one go, without the hunting and seeking and the homing in.

 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
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,246Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to PatrickNSF, 4 months ago

PatrickNSF wrote:

One big advantage of the A77/A77ii compared to the A6000 or an NEX camera that I've used is the joystick on the back. You can use this for focus point selection and it makes it much easier to move the focus point compared to the NEX cameras (and, from what I've read, the A6000).

The A6000 as well as some other NEXes and also the A3000, they have a rotating dial with a button in the middle. The dial itself also have direction buttons in all four directions. So in essence, it is a bit like a joystick as well, but with the added ability to rotate it.

 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
Timothy S Broadley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,418
Like?
Re: Let me put it more simply...
In reply to zackiedawg, 4 months ago

Justin:

I do agree with your points. I originally bought my 5n becuase I bought into the modular concpet idea. Basically I liked the idea of a "digital" back for any number of lenses but primarily my MC/MD lenses of which I have both a 600mm and 800mm. Tthen I discovered the beauty of having a small lightweight system  for just toodling around with especially with the hi IQ and Hi ISO performance of the 5n. Subsequentially I bought the external EVF and the LA-2 adapter for this modular little jewel.

What I found in usage was that I didn't use the external EVF very much because of the way that it mounted. I felt it was cumbersome. The LA-2 did get some usage as  did the MD/MC adapter. However as you understand the 600mm/800mm lenses are pretty specialized so it really wound up being a light weight/compact system to supplement my DLSRs (a99/a900).

As I evolved with the nex 5n, I found that three requirements were "lacking" I suppose would be  one way of saying it.

1. No real flash attachment and a miniscule flash at that

2. No internal EVF

3. and for some reason, I  really wanted everything to be 24 MP. (Not sure I understand this myself but there you are!)

Then, I started doing some trips where weight was a real consideration!! So I started taking the a99 withe 5n as a backup body with the LA-2 adapter. Normally I would go with the a99/a900. As a result the AF performance of the 5n in native mode became an issue. Not because of the LA-2 which is pretty snappy but because the 5n now became a supplimental camera with its own specific usage i.e. lightweight walk-around kind of deal.

So Voila, out came the a6000 which I promptly got on board with.

FWIW, while I am still on a voyage of discovery with this thing, I have tried it with my HVL58 and flash triggers and all that works just fine. In fact with this set up, the a6000 isa really lightweight system that enables me to set-up the lights and generally walk around shooting without feeling like I have this huge lump  in my hand i.e a DLSR. There is a certain freedom in that feeling.

The 24mp is certainly more stressing on lens then the 16MP ever was and here the lack of lenses has got me rethinking where I want to go with this thing. The 50/1.8 is a real jewel and with the firmware update is pretty snappy. I tried it on a train coming towards me as it was accelerating in RAW+JPG and everyone of the 12 I shot is dead -on relative to focus. This was without Obj tracking on so I got the dancing green squares light show which I found somewhat distracting. This reminds me of my EOS-1V HS which would do a similar  dance except  you could structure the EOS so as it would be group the AF points across the entire area i.e reducing the AF from 51 to 11 as I recalll. You didn't lose them you,  just didn't see them. This is something I wish Sony would consider.

So now I am thinlg that I might get the Sony 35mm/1.8 and maybe the Sigma 19mm. I did buy the 55-210 with the DH1758 because I was so impressed with your stuff using that combo. For low light work, I am going to use my Minolta 100mm/f2 and the 200mm/2.8 both of which are pretty light and actually feel fairly balanced in my hands at least.  Then maybe I will go for the 18-105/f4 as a zoom. The Sigma 19mm/sony 35/50mm will seem to give the sensor the best possible chance of really good IQ in pretty  much all conditions in a very light weight compact package that I can throw in small bag for general walk around purposes. I might just get the HVL-20 flash for it

So thaat is kind of my vision. I just wanted also to thank you for you considerable nput on this forum as it has been very useful to me.

Tim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,399Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to 123Mike, 4 months ago

123Mike wrote:

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

What is it that you don't understand the differences between fact and opinion?

Fact:  The a77ii has a higher resolution EVF than the A6000.  There is no denying that.  A higher resolution display typically costs more.

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

No, what you experienced was a very good predictive AF algorithm.  There is no way the camera can focus in real time while an exposure is taking place.  That was my point.  The A77 and A77ii, on the other hand, can continue to focus while an exposure is taking place.  But this all stemmed from my stating there was a dedicated PDAF sensor, which is an extra part which will add to the cost of 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.

Yes, the difference is small and I never refuted that, but it is true that shooting at 12fps puts a greater demand on the hardware than 11fps.  For the hardware to remain reliable, it needs to have a higher level of durability which can increase the cost.  That was my point.

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

There are some things that a dedicated button or dial is helpful where an MR mode or a menu access cannot do or is too inconvenient.  It still doesn't escape the fact that more buttons and dials add to the cost, which was the whole point of the post.

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.

Again, personal opinion.  You are reflecting only what is acceptable to you and assuming that fits everyone's needs and that it supersedes the fact the flash is weaker.

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.

Not being negative, I am being truthful.  Your comment was an excuse to justify not needing a more powerful flash, or a flash at all for that matter.  You compensated my comparison by stating you don't use a flash and would much prefer a faster lens.  While it strays away from the fact comparison, I pointed out the double edge sword when shooting at a large aperture and that it isn't always ideal.  Nothing more.  There is a time and place for it but that doesn't mean it is a replacement for flash.

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.

Maybe for you, but again, this isn't about you.  It is about the capabilities of the camera.  Facts versus opinion.

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!

Wow, such a childish statement.  What did you win, by the way?  I didn't realize this was a competition and that prizes were being given away.

My comments weren't an argument of what is better in the eye of the beholder, but what is better in terms of specs and what can contribute to a camera that costs more.  You, and only you, took that as an offense and decided to justify your purchase, a camera I have no issues with and actually like.  A camera that I have highly recommended to others, as a matter of fact.  And while I find it tempting, it doesn't suit me.  But that is not the point I was contributing to the OP.  I was contributing only facts.

And if you are going by higher numbers, 12 is better than 11.  But that wasn't the point.  There was no win or lose to that.

As for your tracking over a greater area of the sensor, yes the A6000 has a larger coverage area.  But your original comment wasn't leaning on it having a larger coverage area.  Your comment was implying the A6000 can do object tracking and the A77ii cannot.  My response was simply stating the A77 and A77ii can do object tracking and, from my A77 experience, does a pretty decent job at it too.

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 was is actually better or more costly that contributes to the price difference.  I correct you of this and, clearly, you are taking offense as if I am trying to shut you up or bury something I don't like.

What points am I trying to shut you up on?

I post facts, you try to counter facts with opinion.  I correct you of such, nothing more.  It's pretty simple and straight forward.  I was being objective and factual, you were being biased and opinionated.  I neither swayed the OP towards one camera or another while you are pushing the A6000 hard.

As mentioned before,  I have no issues with the A6000.  I think it is a great camera for the price.  I've even been tempted by it but it doesn't meet my requirements.  In my last post I said the following:

Different horses for different courses.

Do you know what that means?

It's not a slight against one camera or the other.  It simply means one camera doesn't suit everyone's needs and that each camera caters towards a particular kind of photographer, job, need, and/or demand.

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?

The topic isn't specifically about the A6000 and your opinion of said camera.  The topic was about what is the difference between the A6000 and the A77ii and why does one cost nearly twice as much.

If you wanted to talk about the A6000 and shower your opinionated love of it to the OP, then respond directly to the OP.  Don't reply to my comment that was purely a factoid post and add counterpoints to my facts and try to turn it into an opinion piece.  When you do that, I take it as a direct response to me.  Which, then don't be surprised if I respond and correct you of your misreadings.

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PatrickNSF
Regular MemberPosts: 253Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to 123Mike, 4 months ago

123Mike wrote:

PatrickNSF wrote:

One big advantage of the A77/A77ii compared to the A6000 or an NEX camera that I've used is the joystick on the back. You can use this for focus point selection and it makes it much easier to move the focus point compared to the NEX cameras (and, from what I've read, the A6000).

The A6000 as well as some other NEXes and also the A3000, they have a rotating dial with a button in the middle. The dial itself also have direction buttons in all four directions. So in essence, it is a bit like a joystick as well, but with the added ability to rotate it.

I always found it far less useful to use the dial/button combination than the joystick. Most annoying/odd with the old NEXs is that you're force to press the center button first before moving the focus point. Not sure if they fixed this with the A6000.

 PatrickNSF's gear list:PatrickNSF's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Sony a77 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,246Gear list
Like?
Re: A6000 vs. A77ii Continuous AF - Very confused
In reply to VirtualMirage, 4 months ago

VirtualMirage wrote:

123Mike wrote:

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

What is it that you don't understand the differences between fact and opinion?

Well then, it is the generally shared opinion on average, the consensus is that the EVF on the A6000 is very good and good enough.

Fact: The a77ii has a higher resolution EVF than the A6000. There is no denying that. A higher resolution display typically costs more.

People that actually looked through the A6000 found it to be more than enough.

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

No, what you experienced was a very good predictive AF algorithm.

That's your opinion.

There is no way the camera can focus in real time while an exposure is taking place.

It can see between shots.

That was my point. The A77 and A77ii, on the other hand, can continue to focus while an exposure is taking place. But this all stemmed from my stating there was a dedicated PDAF sensor, which is an extra part which will add to the cost of the camera.

You think that you find the ultimate holy grail crushing blow providing the ultimate confirmation bias for yourself. But what if the A6000 *does* track well at 11 fps? Then what?

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.

Yes, the difference is small and I never refuted that, but it is true that shooting at 12fps puts a greater demand on the hardware than 11fps. For the hardware to remain reliable, it needs to have a higher level of durability which can increase the cost. That was my point.\

So you "won" by 9%. While you think that is a big victory, I think the vast majority don't care for that. Unless for people desperate clutching for confirmation bias.

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

There are some things that a dedicated button or dial is helpful where an MR mode or a menu access cannot do or is too inconvenient. It still doesn't escape the fact that more buttons and dials add to the cost, which was the whole point of the post.

A few buttons can't cost all *that* much. You're clutching at straws here.

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.

Again, personal opinion. You are reflecting only what is acceptable to you and assuming that fits everyone's needs and that it supersedes the fact the flash is weaker.

I guess both our opinions are different.

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.

Not being negative, I am being truthful. Your comment was an excuse to justify not needing a more powerful flash, or a flash at all for that matter. You compensated my comparison by stating you don't use a flash and would much prefer a faster lens. While it strays away from the fact comparison, I pointed out the double edge sword when shooting at a large aperture and that it isn't always ideal. Nothing more. There is a time and place for it but that doesn't mean it is a replacement for flash.

Trust me, you're being negative. My comment was that in my opinion for half the cost  you can have nearly the same quality photographic experience. Plus there are a few advantages of the A6000 over the A77ii. Video for one. Lighter. Smaller.

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.

Maybe for you, but again, this isn't about you. It is about the capabilities of the camera. Facts versus opinion.

The fact is that the A6000 is a very competent camera. Another fact is that the A77ii is better than the A6000 for some things. Also a fact is that the A6000 is better than the A77ii at some other things. Fact is that the A77ii costs twice as much.

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!

Wow, such a childish statement.

That's what I think about you. Trying to downplay every point I make. Being negative. Overlooking any constructive points I might make. I find all that very childish. I simply let you have a taste of your own medicine, is all.

What did you win, by the way?

A fact that you can not deny.

I didn't realize this was a competition and that prizes were being given away.

It's you that's been trying to compete and downplay and ridicule and all the rest of it.

My comments weren't an argument of what is better in the eye of the beholder, but what is better in terms of specs and what can contribute to a camera that costs more.

When people assess what product offers what, there are going to be opinions, whether you like it or not. Clearly, you do not like opinions that you do not agree with. You're trying to "win" the argument by reaching for what you think are facts. You happy pose opinions as facts. You're fantasizing how something has to be better. But for me to have an opinion about something, oh no, that's not ok. Then it suddenly becomes about "facts" again. You're making for a rather weak argument.

You, and only you, took that as an offense and decided to justify your purchase, a camera I have no issues with and actually like. A camera that I have highly recommended to others, as a matter of fact. And while I find it tempting, it doesn't suit me. But that is not the point I was contributing to the OP. I was contributing only facts.

Again, opinions are part of the assessment.

And if you are going by higher numbers, 12 is better than 11. But that wasn't the point. There was no win or lose to that.

But you *ARE* posing it as a "win", and you're trying to make it go full-stop right then and there. It isn't reasonable.

As for your tracking over a greater area of the sensor, yes the A6000 has a larger coverage area.

OMG you're admitting a fact.

But your original comment wasn't leaning on it having a larger coverage area.

Excuses...

Your comment was implying the A6000 can do object tracking and the A77ii cannot.

I did not say that. I said that the A77 anyway, and A77ii slightly less so, has larger gaps between the autofocus points. It therefore has to make compromises that the A6000 does not. You just distorted that to claiming that I said that the A77ii can't track objects. The A77ii can track objects, but it has a disadvantage.

My response was simply stating the A77 and A77ii can do object tracking and, from my A77 experience, does a pretty decent job at it too.

I'm sure it does. But the A6000 can see the object in more places, so it has an advantage. This isn't an opinion. I'm merely stating a fact.

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 was is actually better or more costly that contributes to the price difference.

Some others share my opinions. It is my opinion that the A6000 is as formidable a camera as the A77ii is. I think it is incorrect information to see claims how the A77ii's AF system has to be automatically superior. While I'm seeing how people state that ultimately, the only way to know is by doing side by side tests and comparisons, at the same time stories are constructed and parroted around how an SLT can see the subject full time, uninterrupted. While that may be true, it does not imply that the A6000 is automatically inferior. Perhaps all the A6000 needs is a single frame to draw the conclusions it needs, and it can get that frame between each 1/11s shot.

I correct you of this and, clearly, you are taking offense as if I am trying to shut you up or bury something I don't like.

What points am I trying to shut you up on?

You're trying to downplay every point I make.

I post facts, you try to counter facts with opinion.

You seem to think that all my points are meaningless simply because you are supposedly stating only facts. Well, the *FACT* is that you're also stating opinions all over the place. You're including assumptions. So it's ok for you to express opinions, but when I do it, we're going back to facts again.

I correct you of such, nothing more.

Some facts are meaningless. 12 fps vs 11 fps is not a significant difference. It's all about reasoning, assessing options, weighing things off. Normal people kind of stuff. But, if you must merely stick with facts. Fact is that you can not know at this point that the AF system of the A77ii is superior to the A6000. Fact is that there will be differences, with some aspects favoring one camera and other aspects favoring the other camera. It then becomes weighing them off. And that's where opinions will lead to choices. Opinions are a reality, and simply shouting"but..but... the facts the fact... the plane... the plane".

It's pretty simple and straight forward. I was being objective and factual, you were being biased and opinionated.

As are you. Very much so.

I neither swayed the OP towards one camera or another while you are pushing the A6000 hard.

That's what happens in a conversation. You're trying to come up anything you can think of to have it your way. Oh, but but the OP this and the OP that. In a  discussions, things lead to other points. It's a normal course of conversation. And I've been trying to be constructive.

As mentioned before, I have no issues with the A6000. I think it is a great camera for the price. I've even been tempted by it but it doesn't meet my requirements. In my last post I said the following:

Different horses for different courses.

Do you know what that means?

It's not a slight against one camera or the other. It simply means one camera doesn't suit everyone's needs and that each camera caters towards a particular kind of photographer, job, need, and/or demand.

That's great and everything, but you're still pretending that you're sticking to facts, while in fact you're including opinions.

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?

The topic isn't specifically about the A6000 and your opinion of said camera. The topic was about what is the difference between the A6000 and the A77ii and why does one cost nearly twice as much.

Which led to other discussions, to which you contributed offering your opinions.

If you wanted to talk about the A6000 and shower your opinionated love of it to the OP, then respond directly to the OP. Don't reply to my comment that was purely a factoid post and add counterpoints to my facts and try to turn it into an opinion piece.

It's a free world, and if I feel I can contribute something, I am not going to let someone like you control me.

When you do that, I take it as a direct response to me. Which, then don't be surprised if I respond and correct you of your misreadings.

Knock yourself out.

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads