The A6000 was in some cases back-ordered as well. Sony must be better at manufacturing than Nikon is. Besides, why bother, the A6000 is much better anyway.
Nikon is a very special sponsor. It's how they've manipulated exposure since day one.
123Mike: Conclusions:1) noise per sensor is equal (enough) on all 3.2) the A7r gives you more resolution without sacrificing low light quality.3) the A7r provides the most bang for your buck for image quality.
You're not comprehending the noise-per-sensor thing. The A7r is no worse than the A7s for stills.
Conclusions:1) noise per sensor is equal (enough) on all 3.2) the A7r gives you more resolution without sacrificing low light quality.3) the A7r provides the most bang for your buck for image quality.
Good grief that's a turn on.
photosen: Good review; it's an interesting camera, I don't see the interesting and affordable lenses... But I'm willing to be illuminated!
If you're willing to put up with the size, the 18-105 f/4 G lens is pretty good! Save the $150 on the kit lens, and apply that to this $600 lens...
ekaton: Put a decent lens on the a6000 and it leaves mft and Fuji in the dust, at least for stills and irrespective of price.
18-105 f/4 GProblem solved !
Menneisyys: Too bad its video IQ doesn't even approach that of the RX100 MkIII, let alone the even better RX10... It's on exactly the Nikon D3300 / D5300 level, resolution-wise. Otherwise, it'd be a tempting camera, apart from the lens problem, obviously.
BTW, two mistakes / overlooks in the article:
- "advantegs" on the Conclusions page
- "While some people will never step away from a DSLR, the a6000 makes a very strong case for being able to do everything a Nikon D5300 or EOS 700D/Rebel T5i can do, even in terms of autofocus." - the D5300 also has GPS (smething immensely useful if you don't want to keep a separate tracker and/or maintain a constant Wi-Fi connection to an Android / iPhone)
In the video still demonstration, the A6000 shows it was focused on nearer objects, like the bottle or that flock of hair. The D3300's version looks less sharp on those details. But the flat parts like the charts that are behind it, the D3300's look sharper. Also, it look like a sub-par lens was used for the A6000, which was probably the 16-50 lens (I haven't actually checked), which isn't very good at all.But scrutinizing and finding those focusing differences, I think that the A6000 is probably better for video than the D3300 is.Also question comparisons with other cameras as well. The focus is often what screws up these tests. This goes for their still tests as well !
ProfHankD: I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)
This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.
I think that's just sucking up to the hand that feeds it...DPR is not really a Canikon shop though. Fro that turns out doesn't really know photo that much, for instance, now THERE is the ultimate Canikon. He won't acknowledge Sony even exists. There are others like that. Those Hong Kong boys, the one with the British accent that one, doesn't fully appreciate Sony for obvious reasons also.
midimid: Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?
Believe it or not, but portraits using the 18-105 f/4 G lens come out pretty good!
caravan: Seems like a good product.pleased that it does not have a touch screen,biggest con for me is the articulating LCD.
Thanks for the review.
The screen articulates, and does it very well. You can make it point up or down. It's much handier than the side flip that others use.
hippo84: A6000 samples at base ISO in RAW look sharper than D610.
Beware of focusing mistakes during tests though. Don't judge sharpness! Judge things like noise and the control of it.
Hazza1: Microphone jack is neither here nor there. A 3.5mm unbalanced mic is only marginally better than the inbiult mic. If you want decent sound, shoot double system.
This camera is only a disappointment because it is curently top of the line Sony mirrorless APSC.
I have a Nex-7 and Zeiss 16-70 (which DXO Mark has never reviewd - work that one out), and which side by side with my tests with a 5D MK3 with crappy 24-105 so-called L series - even in low light , is superior to the 5D.So what I want Sony is an APSC camera with the performance of a 1DX.
I want a "high end" APSC mirrorless. - no I don't want to switch to Fuji.
Why have Sony abandoned the high end APSC format philosophy? The Nex-7 with phase detection a/f (and continuous focus on burst) + weather proofing would be my dream camera.
Microphone input becomes possible through an add-on on the shoe socket.
mosc: How well does this thing focus with LA-EA1 adapter? Any improvement in speed with older alpha lenses designed for PDAF? Does this camera's focus strengths negate the need for the LA-EA2?
LA-EA1 and 3 adapters only AF with lenses with a built in motor, and does it excruciatingly slow. The 2 and 4 adapters turn the camera into an SLT camera, which is still good, just not as good, as it overrides the AF system with an older system. It removed 1/2 stop of light as well. Those have a built in screw motor so old AF lenses work on it as well.Much better to avoid all this and stick with E-mount lenses. The 18-105 is a particularly good choice IMO. Large though.Sigma E-mount lenses work fine, but only do PDAF at the center for reasons I don't know. But they'll AF. The 30mm/2.8 one is cheap and uber uber sharp.
Thanks for the review DPR !
It costs more and it is not nearly as good as the Sony A6000, which currently is an unbeatable camera ! ! !
Could this be *the* sharpest APS-C zoom lens Sony has? This is awesome!
$800, fixed lens, video is only 30 fps.The Sony A6000 with its fast PDAF and 60 fps video and exchangeable lenses, is a far FAR better choice !
gmke: I am NOT interested in this camera because of some Sony snake oil. Here we have the world's premiere maker of photo sensors building a defect into a camera design that seriously hampers deep ISO. The claim is that the "translucent" mirror only steals 1/3 of an f-stop. Go to the SLT-A77 jpeg noise page and choose the Oly E-M5, Nikon D5100, and Panasonic G3 for comparison, all at normal or standard noise reductions. Note that the noises at ISO-3200 on the E-M5 and D5100 are very well controlled. Then drop the ISO back to 800 and notice how noisy the A77 getup is. Roughly speaking, one might conclude that the translucent mirror makes the A77 as bad as the four thirds sensor in the Panasonic G3. That's a two stop drop, not 1/3. These observations make it very difficult to care about improvements in the AF system.
It has nothing to do with "jpeg". It has to do with more noise combined with poor in-camera denoising algorithms. But, times have moved on, and things have gotten better. I'm sure the A77ii will be better both in terms of initial noise and denoising. I have an A6000 and I see see that the denoising algorithm is better.People should stop calling it "jpeg engine". It's so silly. The jpeg part is just plain old run-of-the-mill compression algorithm. It is all about the pixels that go in *before* the jpeg compression algorithm. Who came up with that anyway? "jpeg engine". Good grief. The jpeg algorithm hasn't changes in, what, 20+ years?
HaroldC3: Curious how this compares to the AF system in the A6000.
People that want the A77ii to be better are making claims that it is better, and they're claiming the A6000 can not be as good unless backed by evidence. And then every bit of evidence that the A6000 is downplayed. In other words, a lot of wishful thinking.