yabokkie: if the AF is really good, and better if good with EF lenses, many of us should be able to put m4/3" behind us.
Many people are using their Sony camera bodies as a "nice system".If you find what you need, you have it, right there.
Paul1974: It seems like DPreview is ignoring the increase in megapixel count from 16 to 24. Why? For me, upgrading from Nex-5n to Nex-6 for better handling only, was not good enough. However the prospect of 24 MP (a6000) makes it tempting.
"NEX 7 had 24mp but most people (and tests) agreed that the NEX 6 has just as good or better IQ, with the 24pm just adding more noise and pointing out flaws in your lens. "
Yes, let's ignore the fact that with most of the lenses available, it outresolves any Sony 16MP out there. Measured.
And the noise story is getting old too, usually ignoring the fact that the NEX 7 understates ISO's compared to most other cameras.
Paul1974: DPreview says both"The a6000 does not have microphone [or headphone] ports."and:"Toward the center of the photo you'll spot the 'Multi-Interface Shoe', which combines an ISO standard hot shoe with extra pins for attaching a microphone."Please clarify?
No ports for standardized mic or audio jacks.But there is the propriety connection hidden in the front of the hotshoe, which can be used with Sony external microphones or even the XLR module for balanced audio out.($$$)
Grumpyrocker: I sold my NEX-6 yesterday and have a Fujifilm X-E2 being delivered today. I was taking a risk that the NEX-6 replacement wouldn't be the camera I wanted. I was right - especially given the reduction in EVF resolution. Though my decision to change was more about the lenses on offer - the A6000 still looks like a fine camera, just not right for me.
EVF refresh rate is also related to processing power.
scotbot: though the one thing that's not available is a live view of whatever you're about to photograph.
Well who would need that when shooting from their Mac or PC?
It is available. See for example here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f9ue2FJB4(2:54)
Zeisschen: Seems like APS-C DSLR will have a hard time beating this little speed monster. Everyone paying more money for a lower overall performance and twice the bulk and weight must be insane. This can do 99% of what consumers want to do with their camera.
Actually, resolution is expressed and compared per single axis. You're comparing total pixel count.
Thorgrem: Nice camera for a nice price. But, where are the lenses? With big holes in the APS-C e-mount line up it's almost pointless to make more camera's than the entry-level (a3000, A5000).
"They're too slow!""They're too large!""My favorite focal length is missing!"
Mostly comments from people who were never interested in the first place, just looking for a stick to beat the dog and you'll always find one, as we tend to say in the Netherlands.
Fuji's faster lenses are on average larger still, so those aren't going to win the compact argument either. µ4/3 systems have small lenses because their lenses project a smaller image circle and most of the time pass less total light (not to be confused with density or light per unit area, translated into f stops) to the sensor, all else (f stop et al.) being equal. Hence they are easier to design small (for the same FL equiv. and f stop).
Every system is a compromise, so is the Sony system. If you want smaller lenses or faster lenses still, or can't find your favorite FL and can live with MF, plenty of choice. Those times size isn't an issue, the LA-EA4 adapter can do great things too (long and fast lenses, fast AF).
Right, because capturing the perfect moment of say, kids running, playing around, playing sports isn't going to be done with cameras like these and the fact that previous iterations had trouble tracking, let alone do burst and tracking, was never mentioned as a con.
Correction regarding battery life: in the table you compared 2 different measurements for battery life between the NEX 6 and A6000. The quoted 360 shots for the NEX 6 is using the LCD (270 for the EVF) and the 360 for the A6000 is when using the EVF (430 for the LCD). Which would suggest battery life has been improved by 19% (LCD) or 33% (EVF) respectively, compared to the NEX 6.
To be complete, the A6000 does allow for a mic and audio out, but only through hot shoe add-ons (using the proprietary connector at the front of the shoe), see for example the XLR-K1M. Which indeed is a lot more limiting regarding choice and size, but those looking to use the HDMI uncompressed out already need to invest in an external recorder. What's another "few" hundred.... ;)
Bervilat: No words on macro?
But not many are leaving their phones at home when they bring the Nikon, which means that the AW110 just adds size to the existing phone.
HappyVan: To be honest, I wouldn't depend on the phone for photos.
I would slip the Nikon AW110 into my other pocket. Its footprint is even smaller than my Sony Esperia S. It's rain and freeze proof, and comes with wifi.
You can even take semi-submerged shots of a flood. Of course, it has an optical zoom.
On a budget, there is the Nikon S32 $129.
Willing to carry a chunkier camera? There's the Nikon One cameras with PDAF and able to print a clean 18x12. The J1 kit is available for $249
But if you do't need the zoom, the Nokia is able to pull a lot more detail out of a scene than the AW110, which also lacks RAW. Plus saves you from filling up another pocket and/or switching between devices.
Horshack: Raw support in a camera phone? The bell tolls for thee, P&S manufacturers.
The point is more control. It's like wondering what the benefit of RAW is on an APS-C camera shooting at say ISO 1600 to ISO 6400. Noise/detail control, access to fully custom curves, WB, etc.
Without RAW access (had to wait for LR support back then) on my 1/2.5" sensor FZ18, output was so much worse and more limited. Like a different camera.
And before the usual mantra enters, it can be rewarding/worth it for a phone camera too, because it's often the only camera that is always with you. Not every shot might need RAW or extra processing (time). Choice is good.
Digitall: Does Sony just makes updates to products that will sell poorly? has some logic. Certainly many users are waiting months for a some light to enlighten the RX100 in some aspects? Oh no, after all, the RX100 and RX100 II sells well. No need upgrades. Sony philosophy.
It's actually the other way around. Those that have gotten updates, were usually the hotsellers. Leading to criticism that only the popular cameras get their support. And this example does not contradict that theory.
Flying Snail: No firmware update can fix a failed concept.
He said educate.
naththo: You need to watch out for vignetting at lower f stops like around F1.8 or F2 or F2.8 or so. That is very good lens I must say, very high level of sharpness but distortion is fairly significant that may be common through Sony lens even incorporated with Zeiss glass. I found that Sigma lens has a lot less distortion when combined with Nex 7 to compare to Sony fixed focal lens. Sony need to improve in manufacture over lens to have less distortion and vignetting that would be nice if they do so.
" Sigma E mount 19, 30 and 60mm have a lot less distortion than Sony normal E mount lens according to SLRGear review"
I didn't say there was no distortion, I said less than the Sigma 60mm and practically no distortion on APS-C (the Sigma's are after all APS-C lenses at best...), the latter confirmed by DXO and SLRGear.
SLRGear did not even test the 60mm and shows between 0.19 and 0.5% distortion for the 19mm and 30mm on APS-C, just 0.1% for the FE 55mm on APS-C. Vignetting of the 55mm was also tested to be lower on APS-C than both those Sigma's at SLRGear. DXOmark also shows both distortion and vignetting to be lower on the FE 55 on APS-C, than any of the 3 Sigma's.
I wonder what you're really looking at.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
"BTW, 55mm is an FL of oddish side. It looks like they had troubles making fair 50"
Yeah, just like they had troubles with the Otus doing the same. *shakes head*.
Measurements done by DXO and SLRGear disagree with you: very low distortion on FF, practically no distortion on APS-C.
Not sure which Sigma you're talking about, but if it's the E mount 60mm, it was measured to have more distortion.
All else being equal, I find physically longer lenses easier to hold stable for having more feel and control over the angle of the camera. Longer FL's/larger magnification is a different matter of course.
As a whole, it's comparable in length/depth to a DF plus 50mm f/1.8. Just a smaller diameter of the lens itself (and obviously a body that is less tall and wide):http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.395,495.353,ha,t
jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.
Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.
This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.
I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.
I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .
" Everyone should take a page from the Pentax book if they're talking about small sized systems. It can be done. DA70/2.4."
The distance between sensor and the tip of that DA70 is only 17mm shorter than that of A7R/A7 plus FE 55mm Zeiss. The A7R/A7 plus FE 35mm Zeiss has 18mm less distance between sensor and lenstip than the DA70 plus camera. In fact, it's within 5mm of a Pentax plus the thinnest pancake in existence (40mm f/2.8).
The wonders of flange distance.