Keeper78: Go with Oly. I have the A6000 and I am disappointed. Battery life is misserable, I hunt for a good lens for two months an picture quality is average. Just not worthy. It is an annoying camera.
piepie22, have you checked the firmware on the Long zoom? I had to update the firmware on mine in order to get it to focus well on the a6000. Still not as fast as the 16-50 or 18-105, but it seemed pretty fast at that point.
Viva Santo Nino: EVF is the trend now which started by Sony. When will Canon and Nikon catch up? OVF is so yesterday!
I know EVFs go at least as far back as the Panasonic FZ10 (2003).
zodiacfml: I wonder what Sony is thinking about this camera.This indeed has monster specs sold at a reasonable price as they didn't have to outsource most of the expensive parts such as the sensor, cpu, and displays. They should have added their NAND memory storage as they design-manufacture it too.
My first nitpick with digital cameras is the LCD display. It was rarely pushed to improve, only got bigger up to 3 to 3.2 inch but the display tech lagged behind cheaper but larger screen devices having IPS or OLED displays.
Next is Wi-Fi enabled cameras. How come most if not all WiFi cameras cannot make a backup/copy to a personal computer while shooting only to connect to another device? This Samsung even has a monster WiFi spec which should last 5 to 6 years (Two spatial streams, ac standard).
Next is CPU. Why is it non-Pro cameras struggled with CPU horsepower where the fps changes between capture formats, jpeg, raw, raw+jpeg. CPUs are cheap and powerful nowadays.
Also, the 6000 does jpg/raw/raw+jpeg all at the same speeds After that it's typically a function of the buffer and read/write speed of the card. The card write speed does appear to be limited however, somewhere around 30MB/sec. Nowadays I'm more inclined to bet many non-pro cameras are just artificially limited by the manufacturers, either cheaping out on the CPU or just limiting it in software.
What I'd really like to see are larger buffers. RAM is cheap nowadays. And Samsung Shines at RAM.
On one hand, it is a very nice APSC camera. On the other hand, it's about twice as expensive as Sony's current Top of the Line APSC Offering, body for body.
I won't compare pricing with kit lenses because the Sony 16-50 is pretty bland kit-lens fare, whereas Samsung's 16-50 option is a 2-2.8 affair that according to amazon adds 1500$ to the body price.
But, I think that says it, in a way. Samsung is trying to go for the upper-echelon APSC with this market, whereas I see Sony trying to use their APSC tech to provide value in the Sub-1K body range. I found it amusing that they compared the 7D II as the 'closest competitor' for AF/Shooting speed, but the A6000 does 11fps. Heck, for the price of the Samsung body alone you could get the a6000 with a 18-105 lens.
The downside, however, is that it will probably be a cold day in hell before Sony gives APS-C users a lens of Samsung's Caliber.
sportyaccordy: No love for E mount or MFT anymore? That's disheartening :(
All I want are some F1.8 speed 24 & 35mm E mount primes for ~$500 a pop. I think that is possible, no?
I'd like to think that the a6000 alone has solidified the existence of a decent market for APS-C E-Mount. The trick at that point would be to provide better value for both sizes. For example, if they could provide a 10-20 FE Lens for a price competitive with (or ideally undercutting) the 10-18F4, it would be a win for both APS-C and FF E-Mount users.
Focusing on primes and zooms that would have value for both segments would be their best bet for mass adoption. But, that isn't necessarily what they want to do; Sigma themselves claim they would rather sell 'high end' than 'high volume' from a business sense.
gLOWx: You want small body AND lenses ?That's why i gone m43 sensor, and don't regret it a bit ;)
You can't get all. If you choose APS-C, you will get equivalent lens size/weight, mirrorless or not. Because mirroless change mounting flange distance, nothing else. Mirrorless has strictly no impact in lens design size/weight over reflex.When you get very small APS-C lenses,it is because they have reduced aperture (f4 vs f 2.8) or reduced quality (like sliding storage position).
Here, we have a constant f2.8 zoom quality lens. It can't be smallerI even find it very small for those specs ;)If real world quality follow the specs, it is an amazing lens for a very small size.
You want smaller ? Go m43, it is the only other way i see.Chasing small lenses on big sensors is not logical, until you limit your choice to pancake lenses or fixed small focal length (like an X100) :D
SEL20F28 is a better example, primarily because it's a little less embarrassing from a quality standpoint. ;)
As a happy a6000 owner with a nicely built out kit...
GO HOME SONY, YOU'RE DRUNK!
But on a more serious note, my gut tells me that the sensor on the QX1 is probably one with the older, painfully slow and not-that accurate AF.
There was a reason I left my F3 in DMF mode at all times...