Previous page Next page

Sony a6000 Review

May 2014 | By Richard Butler, Jeff Keller
Buy on Amazon.com From $548.00


Review based on production Sony a6000

Sony's NEX-6 was a departure from the company's usual lineup of mirrorless cameras when it was introduced in the Fall of 2012. It slotted in between the various NEX-5 models and the NEX-7, and staked out a middle ground between the two, aiming to offer an accessible camera that offered a strong feature set for photographers. So you got a small camera with an electronic viewfinder and a degree of direct control. To this the NEX-6 offered two things that were yet to appear on any Sony mirrorless camera: an exposure mode dial and an ISO-standard hot shoe.

The new a6000 sits in the same place in Sony's mirrorless lineup and offers a broadly similar feature set, but adds a number of significant new features (while also losing the NEX moniker of its predecessor). The resolution and processor have been bumped up, the most notable feature on the a6000 is its updated Hybrid AF system.

Where the NEX-6 had 99 phase-detect points covering approximately 50% of the sensor, the a6000 has 179, with 92% coverage - by far the most comprehensive of any contemporary camera. This, combined with the new Bionz X processor, allows the camera to shoot continuously at 11 fps with subject tracking, according to Sony. The company also claims that the a6000 has the fastest AF performance on the market, though those statements should always be taken with a grain of salt.

The only major losses are that the a6000 utilizes Sony's lower resolution, SVGA viewfinder, rather than its top-end XGA panel. It also loses the NEX-6's level gauge - which seems like an odd thing to remove, just to help it hit a lower price point. However, those cost-cutting measures seem to have worked: the a6000's list price is $100 lower, at $649, than the NEX-6's was at launch.

Sony a6000 key features

  • 24.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor
  • Bionz X image processor
  • Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points
  • Built-in flash + Multi-Interface Shoe
  • 11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking
  • 3-inch tilting LCD with 921,600 dots
  • OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots
  • Diffraction correction, area-specific noise reduction, and detail reproduction technology
  • Full HD video recording at 1080/60p and 24p; clean HDMI output
  • Wi-Fi with NFC capability and downloadable apps

The major changes here are related to the sensor. The new 24 megapixel 'Exmor APS HD' CMOS sensor has on-chip phase detection like its predecessor, but it covers a much larger area of the frame. Sony promises better AF tracking, especially when shooting continuously. The a6000 uses Sony's latest image processor - Bionz X - which touts improved detail and smarter noise reduction as improvements.

While the specs of the a6000's movie mode aren't a whole lot different from the NEX-6, users now have access to a zebra pattern (a live exposure warning that can be set to indicate a chosen brightness level), and can output 'clean' video over HDMI. The menus have switched to the new 'Alpha' style found on the a7 and a7R (for better or for worse), and the camera can now be controlled via a Mac or PC over a USB connection. The Wi-Fi feature is about the same as on the NEX-6, offering remote control from a smart device, the ability to transfer images from the camera and options for uploading to the cloud, across Wi-Fi networks. The camera can also download and run Sony's feature-enhancing 'Playmemories Apps' of which there are an increasing number.

Hybrid AF System

If there's one area that makes the a6000 stand out from the crowd, it's the camera's improved AF system. While the 25-point contrast detect part of the system remains the same, the number of phase-detect points has increased from 99 to 179 since the NEX-6. All of those extra phase detect points give you a much wider coverage area: roughly 92% of the frame, compared to around 50%. The benefit? A wider area that lets phase detection autofocus do what it does best: track moving subjects.

Bionz X Processor

The company's latest 'Bionz X' processor is considerably more powerful than the previous generation, allowing what the company says will be more sophisticated processing.

Sony is being a little vague on specifics, but is touting the new processor as offering 'Detail Reproduction Technology' which appears to be a more subtle and sophisticated sharpening system. The company promises less apparent emphasis on edges, giving a more convincing representation of fine detail.

Another function promised by the Bionz X processor is 'Diffraction Reduction', in which the camera's processing attempts to correct for the softness caused by diffraction as you stop a lens' aperture down. This processing is presumably aperture-dependent and sounds similar to an element of Fujifilm's Lens Modulation Optimization system (introduced on the X100S), and, as we predicted when we first saw it here, it's subsequently appeared across several brands, including Olympus.

Finally, Sony says the Bionz X chip offers a more advanced version of its context-sensitive, 'area-specific noise reduction', which attempts to identify whether each area of an image represents smooth tone, textured detail or subject edges, and then apply different amounts of noise reduction accordingly.

Compared to a5000 and NEX-6

While most of the changes on the a6000 are for the better, there are a few things that have gone the other way compared to the NEX-6. For the sake of comparison we've also thrown in the a6000's step-down model, the a5000.

 
a5000
NEX-6
a6000
Resolution
20.1MP
16.1MP
24.3MP
Processor
Bionz X
Bionz
Bionz X
AF system (contrast/phase)
25 / 0 point
25 / 99 point
25 / 179 point
ISO range
100-16000
100-25600
100-25600
LCD design (tilt up/down)
Tilting (180° up)
Tilting (90°/45°)
Tilting (90°/45°)
EVF type / resolution
None
OLED / 2.36M dot
OLED / 1.44M dot
EVF magnification (equiv.)
N/A
0.73x
0.70x
On-screen level gauge
No
Yes
No
Max burst rate
4 fps
10 fps
11 fps
Video resolution
1080/60i/24p
1080/60p/24p
1080/60p/24p
Zebra pattern
Yes
No
Yes
Clean HDMI output
No
No
Yes
PC remote
No
No
Yes
Battery life (CIPA)
420 shots
360 shots
360 shots

In most respects, the Alpha 6000 is a big step up from the NEX-6 - the slightly smaller, lower resolution viewfinder is the only major step down in the specification.

As you'd expect, the a6000 is considerably more capable than the lower-cost a5000, unless you want a 180 degree flip-up screen. The trade-off for that feature is the lack of an EVF.

Kit options and pricing

The a6000 is available in silver or black, at a price of $649/£589/€649 for the body and $799/£719/€799 for a kit including the 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 power zoom lens.

The a6000 is available in silver or black

Accessories of note include an 'active sling bag', screen protector, and body case. Some users may also be interested in the BC-VW1 external charger, as Sony only includes a USB charger in the box.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
659
I own it
190
I want it
42
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 752
1234
RichRMA

Certainly do better body-wise for $800.00. Olympus E-M10 is a much better built camera. Handle both, you'll see. Plastic bodies should be relegated to cameras in the sub-$600 range.

1 upvote
DPJoe2

The a6000 is $599. And it has a much larger sensor.

18 upvotes
RichRMA

Amazon ads are geared to the geographic location of the poster. Prices shown on their ads for Canada range from $799 to over $900.

0 upvotes
Rob Sims

Handled both in the shop, and I felt the A6000 handled much better due to the larger grip, and rangefinder positioning of the EVF. The fact that RAW image quality is better, and that the Sony is cheaper than the Olympus is also pretty compelling.

IMHO 'feel' is just user preference, and should never be stated as fact. (eg. I don't have little hands, so will never be able to get along with the E-M5/E-M10).

7 upvotes
ACosmosis

Lens used in the review is $1000, it's not the cheap kit lens, do the math.

0 upvotes
kellydunwoody

bought both a6000 and e-m10 and returned e-m10 because control dial quit working and would only do manual mode in less than 15 days. Could be a fluke. I also thought build quality "felt" better on the oly vs. the sony until that happened.

0 upvotes
cashewNut

Thinking of buying this camera paired with the Tamron 18-200 mm E-mount lens mainly for travel. I don't make a living out of photography but mainly for recreational/hobby. Is this combination any good? Sony also has their own 18-200 mm E-mount, is the Tamron equal if not superior to it? Kindly shoot me with pro or con feedback. Thanks, eh.

1 upvote
Mike FL

Just a thought for using most of 3nd party lens in hi-speed/lowlight shooting, Sony has no "Built in Image stabilization", so does Tamron 18-200mm.

FWIW: In comparison, Oly OMD EM1 has "Built in Image stabilization" which can give you 5 stops advantage in hi-speed/lowlight shooting. Of course, m4/3 sensor may have 2 stops dis-advantage, but still...

BTW:
Most of Pany (not GM1), Oly, Pentax has "Built in Image stabilization".

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

For less confusing, "hi-speed/lowlight shooting" should be read as"slower shutter speed"...

0 upvotes
cashewNut

mike FL, the Tamron 18-200 mm lens has the vibration compensation (VC) image stabilization type. But cheaper than the Sony lens. Thanks.

1 upvote
Mike FL

cashewNut.

That's good.

0 upvotes
DVT80111

with single lens, you are better off with the RX10

0 upvotes
Mike FL

RX10 is truly unique with no competition as a bridge camera. also it is "weather-sealed". The F2.8 lens is 1.5 stop fast in wide angle, and 2 stop fast in tele comparing to other F3.5-5.6 zoom lens.

RX10 is kind of expensive, but this is one camera for all conditions.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MeaningOfLife

The 18-200 is fairly big. If it is for travel, do consider if size will be an issue.

0 upvotes
jellyhat

I just bought one and it's pretty impressive so far. I had the 5N previously and that too is a great camera but the EVF alone makes it worth buying...

2 upvotes
ACosmosis

The A6000 photos have been taken with a $1000 Zeiss lens. So keep that in mind when you compare the results, $1600 total equipment value, not $800 (with the 18-55mm kit lens)
Don't be naive and think with for $800 you will get the same sharpness and ultimately so sharp ISO800 as with the $1000 lens.

1 upvote
Bobby006

I really don't understand the reason why they didn't use the kit lenses. It would be more useful to compare with other cameras. And it is the option most of the buyer of this camera would have. Not many people would pay $1000 for lens used in these photos.

4 upvotes
ACosmosis

I am not sure if anybody noticed what lens was used in the test since the photos of the camera are showing the very cheap kit lens and there is not photo of the camera with the high-end prime lens in the review.

0 upvotes
Sjhizny

after reviewing with the studio image comparisons, I'm quite glad i opted for the a6000 over the xt-1. i also greatly prefer the side mounted evf to save some proboscis smushing. :-)

2 upvotes
ACosmosis

You will have to pay $1000 for the lens used in the review, it is not the cheap kit lens, but the Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*

1 upvote
tecnoworld

I also much prefer the rangefinder form over the SLR/DSLR one. I think it's the perfect shape for mirrorless cameras, saving space and allowing for nice EVF placement.

3 upvotes
DPJoe2

I can't find the lock out option to prevent the camera from taking a shot when there is no memory card in the camera. Yes, I am brain dead and old. Yesterday I took about 5 shots of my sister-in-law. Then, last night I went to import them into LR. Surprise, no card in the camera. How dumb. Help!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
DtEW

I just utilize the policy that I don't close the battery/card bay hatch unless I have a card in there.

The policy has a dual effect:

1) It indicates at-a-glance that you don't have a card in the camera.

2) If leaving the hatch open bothers you (it does for me), it incentivizes you to transfer your stuff quickly, and return the card to the bay quickly so that you can close the hatch.

This policy also addresses the brain fart of running out somewhere with the camera without a bag (which is presumably where you might keep an extra card). The electronic lock-out you are seeking will do nothing for you (aside from thwarting you early) when you don't have a card somewhere on you, right?

3 upvotes
woz

Interesting question, I looked at the manual and can find no reference to this and no obvious answer as to how you would prevent shooting. It does raise the questions:-
1. What would happen if you put a card with a record lockout on in the slot (and I wonder which cameras have a record lockout card sensor)
2.Why there was no warning that the shot(s) would not be saved as no storage was present. (I assume there was not?)
3. What would happen with a full card?
It will be academic for you now, having done that once you'll probably always have a card in.
Good luck with your new camera..

1 upvote
DPJoe2

Hey Guys, Thanks for your responses. And I think I will adopt your door open policy DtEW. Well woz, continuing to be old, I just for the 1st time looked to see if there was anything in the display about the card. Sure enough, bilking in yellow in the top left it says, and I quote "NO CARD". So how hell did I miss it? Yeah, getting old is not for wimps. So having no good alternatives available, I'll just suck it up, and keep putting one foot in front of the other. Old, but not dead...yet. Getting by with a little help from my friends. Thanks again.

4 upvotes
dibs1st

DPJoe2: Old but not dead... use the line everyday and relate!

0 upvotes
lawamainn

Can`t wait to buy this camera!!!

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC

I think Sony has finally caught up with color looks really good.

3 upvotes
Michael Ma

I wonder how much longer are they gonna keep milking full frame at over $1k.

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC

won't be long rumor has it they are going to announce a really cheap FF.

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS

So far the best Sony yet, one day when you can buy a decent lens for decent money, I might consider this product...

7 upvotes
quezra

The Sigma primes are super and dirt cheap. The 35 and 50 f1.8 primes are also good and in the affordable range. What are you after?

1 upvote
jojolapin

Could Sony make an alpha 6000 with big photosites like the announced alpha 7s? 12MP, body and features of alpha 6000, high ISO. That would be my perfect pick.

3 upvotes
cgarrard

Even using the same filterless sensor the K5IIs uses would be a great compromise between the A7s sensor and what it currently uses. 14stops DR in raw and excellent high ISO characteristics, with improved detail rendering at 16mp would make plenty of people happy, I'd think.

3 upvotes
MeaningOfLife

12MP at APSC size isn't attractive. The nex6 is already 16MP and dropping to 12MP won't make that much of a difference.

But if you are talking about full frame size sensor, then 12MP may be attractive... But I still doubt many will buy it if it is over $1k for a 12MP camera.

0 upvotes
DPJoe2

The a6000's metering appears to be superior to the metering of a D800. I went down to the beach and shot cranes sitting on the rail of a long pier waiting for hand outs from fishermen. The cranes' colors were dark brown. Shooting about 25 degrees from the Sun and at about 45 degrees up into a perfectly clear blue sky, focusing was instant, and locked onto the bird with three green boxes down the bird vertically. The exposure was absolutely perfect. That even though the bird was only 10% of the frame against a blastingly bright sky. Sky blown out? No, it too was perfectly exposed, a solid blue. The purpose of this outing was to specifically test the auto exposure and in-camera processing capabilities. The result was all exposures in daylight at the beach were perfect. Could I have gotten this result with my D800? Yes, but of course the D800 would have required a small amount of post processing in LR for the sky after I determined the correct exposure for the birds. Sony wins this round.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
mremonen

Sony NEX'es (or Alphas as they are today) tend to underexpose 2/3 EV. Or that has been my expreience with NEX-5N, NEX-6 and now with Alpha 6000. This can be easily verified from RAW-histogram using e.g. RawDigger.

That may be the reason why the exposure was dead-on in your example.

1 upvote
Mike FL

From what I can see, the a6000 has more noise than most, if not all, of Fuji APS-C cameras, I guess that one of the reason is a6000 has too many megapixels.

IMHO: It is always the problem for most of Sony; too many megapixels.

0 upvotes
BarnET

If you look at pixel level there is more noise. if you look at the same magnification as the other Apsc sensors you will see that it has about the same performance as the best.

This of course excludes the SLT's which bounce 1/3 stop of light away at all times.

Still i think your right about too many pixels. It offers some extra sharpness but for me it's not worth the extra time importing and exporting the files.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
brendon1000

Not really. Its a myth that greater pixels must also mean more noise. The A6000 measures better than the earlier Sony 16 MP NEX6 in noise.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-A6000-sensor-review-Little-wonder/Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-NEX-6-versus-Sony-NEX-7-Incremental-Improvement

The Fuji's have exceptional noise performance but not everyone likes the Fuji colors.

4 upvotes
BarnET

Fujifilm overates their iso values. There for iso 400 isn't really 400. it's more or less 250 when look at the exposures side by side.

Then they use another colour filter that has a larger pattern. This pattern is less efficient in terms of resolution but does kill of moiré and alliassing.

that means you don't need a olpf which increases resolution again.

Still in the end they perform very very well. It's just not as good as it looks in the first glance.

9 upvotes
simpleshot

Sony has done a good job here.
The image output quality very good for such a compact body.

2 upvotes
WillCyn

I got the a6000 (body only) right when it came out to replace my NEX7 and I must say that I am really happy I did. It is way faster at auto-focusing, which was one of my main gripes with the NEX7 since I use it mostly for candid family pics. I absolutely love how much more customizable it is even though it does not have the Tri-Navi system. Even though the EVF has a lower resolution, I prefer it over the NEX7's for it's brightness, clarity and performance. So far my a6000 does really well with my 24mm/1.8 zeiss, 12mm/2.8 touit and 50mm/1.8 OSS Sony E-mount lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mosc

I want an A-mount version of the A6000 with a proper grip, preferably in a $999 package with that 16-50 f2.8 lens of theirs. Who's with me? SLT be damned, just rip it out and let the chip do the work.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Petrogel

Make it 15-75mm f2,8 (remember the Sony R1 with the built in 14,3-71,5 f2,8) and count me in.
P.S Environmental proofing would be nice.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
DtEW

I think with a few tweaks to the tracking algorithm, and an even bigger buffer, such a camera can be a serious contender against the Canon 7D and its upcoming successor.

It could conceivably become the killer app for birders.

4 upvotes
tkbslc

They make a lens adapter for that.

0 upvotes
DtEW

@tkbslc: No. Not in a way that preserves the functionality of the A6000 OSPDAF.

The LA-EA3 will only enable CDAF.

The LA-EA4 adds its own PDAF, but that necessitates a pellicle mirror, which takes away 1/3-stop of light. Even that isn't quite as fast as the A6000's OSPDAF w/native lenses.

In addition, when you talk about A-mount, it is the norm to have IBIS, as the vast majority of A-mount lenses do not have OSS. Adapting the A6000 to use with A-mount lenses would leave you with a setup that features no image stabilization for just about all lenses.

This is why adding an A-mount body sans SLT, and instead using the A6000 OSPDAF, makes total sense, assuming it is technically possible. The A-mount has more lenses on the long end. The bigger, dSLR-like body enables the incorporation of IBIS and weather-sealing, and a full grip also helps handling those big lenses.

A common use of crop bodies like this is an addition to an existing FF system in lieu of a tele-extender.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Miwok

DtEW: If you never used a SLT, you will know than 1/3 stop difference doesn't make any difference in the real world.

3 upvotes
DtEW

@Miwok: it probably doesn't matter in most circumstances, but I would rather have it than not, esp. when OSPDAF has progressed to the point where SLT doesn't offer any particular performance advantage anymore.

Yes, I would think long-and-hard between a dSLR and dSLT for the light loss vs. AF/EVF performance advantages. But it is a short consideration when you can have the same advantage as dSLT without light loss with this newest version of OSPDAF.

As an aside, I don't think one needs to fear the decline of A-mount. You will always need a bigger body for IBIS with sensors of this scale (and bigger), and there are definitely handling advantages to full-sized grips/buttons/levers/etc. Plus there is a more-developed lens catalog, plus the Minolta legacy.

MILCs are the most obvious and flashiest implementation for OSPDAF. But its advantages will go everywhere.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Miwok

You're right.
I always been thinking than SLR was a temporary system, and your " dreaming camera" would be the next step.
I bet it will become reality very soon, now. :)

0 upvotes
40daystogo

Apart from the issue of aggravating existing A-mount owners, I can't see any other reason for Sony to keep the A-mount alive. The E and FE mount seems the way of the future. With the Sony A7 family, what is the point of prolonging the A series camera family? Pull the plug and get the A mount users to transition to the A7 series with adapters.

0 upvotes
brendon1000

^^ No, a vast majority of A mount customers like me will transition to a proper system like Canon or Nikon rather than go for a crappy NEX system. Using an expensive LA-EA4 adapter just to use my A mount lenses without any stabilization is hardly an option for any A mount user. An electronic adapter is basically adding 2 additional failure points to your system. Not a good option whatsoever.

Sony will only shoot itself in the foot if it stops the only lens system of theirs that is close to being a complete system.

No doubt the E mount is the future but not everyone wants a tiny body with tiny buttons and the lackluster mirrorless sales (compared to DSLR sales ) tells the story.

0 upvotes
acid592

If I want a camera for low-light and average cost, does it worth to carry an a6000. Or is RX100 good enough with being compact is its advantage?

0 upvotes
Thomasthetank

To me the A6000 is the way to go.
DSLR quality + small size = awesome camera.

8 upvotes
DPJoe2

I 2nd that. Especially since the price is about the same.

2 upvotes
mosc

At least Sony isn't protecting one product line from the other. They compete more directly than Canon or Nikon would like to have in their product lines. I think the RX100 is better because you're more likely to bring it with you but if that's not the case for you, the A6000 is a better camera.

I guess the answer is, would you ever mount a different lens than the kit lens? Yes? A6000. No? RX100

7 upvotes
bluevellet

Unless you intend to buy faster lenses for the A6000, I'd say the RX1000 is actually better. A6000 kit lens is pretty slow, forcing you to shoot at grainy high ISOs while the RX100 has a faster lens mitigating its high ISOs disadvantage while still being a smaller camera.

3 upvotes
acid592

Thanks for all answers. I was not thinking about buying any other lenses. I should consider all those factors now.

0 upvotes
Miwok

"Unless you intend to buy faster lenses for the A6000, I'd say the RX1000 is actually better"
True, but if you did, the IQ and bokeh of the A6000 + Fixed lens will BLAST the RX100.

If you need a camera for random shots, no need of a $800 camera, you can find very good one for a third of this price. but if you want make more serious work, 4/3 sensor is a minimum.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
acid592

Thanks Miwok. Do you have an idea which lens can be best for it? Considering I am not thinking about zooming much.

0 upvotes
acid592

Good ones seems to be very expensive for me I guess. But any idea which lens can make it a better alternative to RX100.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

Primes. Like the 24mm. But it's pricey,

Or legacy primes.

0 upvotes
Miwok

You have the Sigma 19 and 30mm, very good, the Sony 16, 20 and 50mm too (at reasonable price).
It's all depend what you shot. Myself, I mostly shot outside and can live just with my 16mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8.
And, as said Bluevellet, a lot of legacy lenses who are (for still) fun to use and can be find at cheap price.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
acid592

Thanks for answers! :)

0 upvotes
Thomasthetank

I just purchased the A6000 kit, along with an SEL 35 f1.8

I read online that a lens' firmware must be updated to Version "0.2" in order to take advantage of the dual phase/contrast autofocus.

Is this true if buying new? when i checked my lens firmware, it read "0.1"... which I have read means the lens is only using contrast autofocus. It seems silly to have to update you firmware on a brand new kit lens, as soon as you buy it.

on the other hand, the autofocus seems perfectly fast... just as fast as reviews i have seen online.

Thanks

0 upvotes
DPJoe2

It is common for firmware needing to be updated because a software update can occur anytime. If your lens was shipped to the retailer before the update existed, then it will have the old software on it until you update it.

1 upvote
zackiedawg

Thomas - this should not be a worry with the 35mm F1.8 lens - that lens at Version 1 is already updated to work with the PDAF system, and there is no firmware needed for that lens. You would have to apply the firmware update to an 18-55mm lens, 55-210mm lens, and some others, but not the 35mm F1.8.

3 upvotes
Thomasthetank

Thanks zackiedawg! That's good news.
Should I be worried about the 16-50 kit lens?

0 upvotes
zackiedawg

No - that one is already updated since inception...it debuted with the NEX6 which had the PDAF, so that lens was set to work with PDAF from the outset. Any new (past year or so) and future E and FE lenses will all be PDAF compliant.

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller

I am looking at this because of someone buying it, but why do you have to be region specific, "when it was introduced in the Fall of 2012.", with the timing of its release? I'm sorry, but as an Australian, I 'fall' about laughing at that term for Autumn. ;) Could you please remember it isn't just North Americans reading this & refer to the time of the year by month or quarters or something else that isn't region specific.

Thanks mate.
Cheers!

3 upvotes
DtEW

Why stop there? Why does it even have to be English for just the English-speaking countries?

I'm sorry, but this site needs to consider all the people that visit from elsewhere and make sure they not only can understand what is being said, but feel *totally* at home so as to not have their fine national sensibilities be bruised like an over-ripe pawpaw.

Therefore, the only correct linguistic choice for this site is Esperanto.

Ĉi tiu estas la plej bona maniero. Manĝi ovo.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
OliverGlass

Why STOP there?

I'm sorry but this site must consider all people. There must be a NAVAJO indian option and the 10 dialects with it. Archeologists must also have a CUNEIFORM and SANSKRIT option. Oh wait.... TODDLERS must understand the site too --- we must have a GERBER option!

"Therefore, the other correct linguistic choice for this site is gibberish"

Dweepeeerebuuu, gugu-gaga dadum. uywyye hkjhnvnb &^&!

dpreview must employ 97% linguists and 3% photographers and writers. Then and only then will we see happy campers posting in the forum.

(give the staff a break) :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Mac McCreery

what a silly response.

1 upvote
Ross the Fidller

I'm sorry to stir up trouble, but I just thought referring to a time of year in calendar terms rather than seasons (of North America) just makes more sense. "In the Fall" does indicate to me that it is the time of the year as seen in North America, but I guess some people are amused at our description of distances here being often given in travel times rather than km or miles (it's been many years since we used miles here).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bluevellet

Sorry mate. Your country elects Tony Abbott, we the world think you don't deserve autumn-free reviews, articles and posts.

So in about 4 months, it's autumn again. I'm looking forward to taking the kids out, letting them play with dead leaves and taking photos of it all.

1 upvote
Ross the Fidller

I like that one bluevellet! :)

0 upvotes
Shamael

autumn, what is that, I live at the equator

0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller

Your seasons would be hot or hot & wet, wouldn't it? ;)

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MattLangley

Really wish this had a touchscreen... I got a Sony A7 and love it... have a Canon 60D that I'd trade in and put towards an a6000 in a second if this had a touch screen (had been eying the NEX 5T before this). Of course a Full frame with this sort of focus performance and a touch screen would be even better ;)

1 upvote
marc petzold

The Sony SEL-1670Z F4 Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* Zoom Lens would be a ideal match for the A6000 - but then you'd pay almost the same like for the Sony A7 together with the FE 28-70 Kitlens...but the A7 is full frame...and you can use with cheap adapters many very good vintage MF lenses, without cropfactor x1.5
like on a APS-C Alpha/NEX Body.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
bluevellet

On the flipside, there are just more NEX lenses made for APS-C. No need to fiddle with any old MF lenses not really designed for digital sensors.

0 upvotes
marc petzold

well, i love mf lenses, especially primes, and the contax zeiss for instance are way good ones, could be bought relative cheap, too...and being used onto APS-C NEX/Alphas with a Lens Turbo/Speed Booster either way. :)

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Eleson

There is some kind of serious thruth in that cost ratio.
Electronics gets cheaper quickly, but mechanical(optical) devices just doesn't.

The only way to address this is as it is currently done: Design chepaer lens constructions and handle distorsion and vinjetting in software.

But this unbalanced scenarion will just increase: CPU Power and amd megapixel with both increase, putting higher and higher demands on the lenses, making them more and more expensive.

One reasonable way forward is to make the market accept that sensors should outresolve the lenses. In that scenario the need for AA filter goes away, to start with. Software handling of lens faults will not affect image quality to the same extent.
Pixel peepers just have to accept that images are soft at 100%.

2 upvotes
Lucas_

I bought the A6000 with the kit lens about three weeks ago, as a lighter/smaller option for my A99. It's not a stellar lens, but the camera's ability to correct for most distortion and aberration issues provides for a quite compact and light setup for everyday use with very acceptable IQ. I also bought, after some good searching, a Sony G 18-105 f4 OSS lens, a reasonably small, fast and awesome performer for its price. Additionally, I got from eBay a Sony LA-EA1 adapter for use with my small primes ( Sony 50/1.4, Minolta 135/2.8 and others ). With that set I have most of my intended use covered, anything above 135mm or under 16mm in F.L. is for the A99 to handle! Until now I haven't regretted for one moment having invested in that system, just wonderful!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
quezra

How fast is LA-EA1 with A6000?

0 upvotes
aiwentimotai

Was the soft skin effect turned off before comparing the jpegs to the ACR processed ones?

0 upvotes
Olgierd

Could someone please educate me:

"The a6000 uses a lower resolution OLED electronic viewfinder (when compared to its predecessor). It's smaller and features 1.44m dots instead of 2.36m. This equates to a 22% drop in linear resoltion, since it now offers an 800 x 600 pixel (SVGA) view, rather than 1024 x 768 (XGA)."

I thought 800x600 = 480,000 dots and 1024x768 = 786,432 dots. So how's that compare to 1.44m dots and 2.36m dots?

Thanks.

0 upvotes
Zdman

They count each red, green and blue sub-pixel as a dot. So 480k x3 becomes 1,440k and 786k x3 becomes 2,359k.

3 upvotes
peevee1

And in Sony White Magic displays, pixels consist of 4 dots (Red, Green, Blue and White). And in Samsung OLEDs, it is even more complex calculation as subpixels (dots) are shared by different pixels...

2 upvotes
Olgierd

That explains. It's interesting then manufacturers tell rather number of dots than the display resolution. Until now I was convinced those small EVFs are HD quality squeezed in such small area.

Thanks.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dheorl

That's exactly why they state the resolution in dots =)

2 upvotes
Olgierd

Marketing :-)

1 upvote
peevee1

" It's interesting then manufacturers tell rather number of dots than the display resolution. "

They do the same in sensor resolution too - every "pixel" there is actually one-color subpixel, and then color of each pixel at "full resolution" is estimated using the neighbors (and in case of Fuji X-trans, sometimes even not close neighbors). Only Sigma Foveon does it right, but even they have to provide number of single-color photosites as "pixels" to not be hopelessly outdone by the deceptive competitors.

0 upvotes
dcolak

I just got A6000 after using NEX7 for several years.

A6000 EVF is nowhere close to the one in NEX7!

It's so pixelated that it's hard to read the aperture-speed info text that is above and below the image.

Just looking the menus through EVF shows how pixelated and low resolution it is.

I have no idea what the reviewer was on when he said that it's fine EVF.

It's not. NEX7 gives you an ilusion of an optical view finder, A6000 is like looking at the old CRT TV screen, one can see the "space" between pixels.

The other problem I have is the brightness. NEX7 EVF is much brighter than that in A6000.

Maybe the reviewers eyes are not 20/20?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

maybe return the camera

3 upvotes
Lucas_

Wow! I've never noticed that "pixelation" on my A6000's EVF, you have quite a "microscope eye"! As for brightness, I simply adjusted it for my liking, is the range too small for you?

8 upvotes
dcolak

Check your eyes then :)

On max brightness it's still not bright as NEX7 evf from three years ago.

It's a far cry from NEX7 evf.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
DtEW

@dcolak, you must've never taken your NEX-7 into any place dark, or cared about seeing anything in the shadows when you compose.

Yes, the old 2.4m-dot EVF has the better resolution in good light. But it falters (in both noise and refresh rate) much earlier than this 1.4m-dot EVF as the light grows dim. Also, the 2.4m-dot EVF is infamous for crushing blacks/shadows. This 1.4m-dot is much better in that regard.

In terms of manual/DMF focusing, if you use focus magnification, both EVFs work as well as each other. It is conceded that the 2.4m-dot EVF works better than the 1.4m-dot EVF if you don't use focus magnification. But neither has enough resolution to allow you to hit critical focus without focus magnification, so I think this "advantage" is extremely limited.

In other words, the 2.4m-dot EVF is better on paper and at-a-glance, but actually use both EVFs in varying conditions and the 1.4m-dot EVF will reveal itself to be more useful.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
dcolak

I use it in the dark all the time. Can't see any improvement. In the bright light it's much worse than nex7 evf :(

I use mostly manual lenses so focus magnification is used all the time.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JanMatthys

every day there is either a Sony RX100III review or a review for a Sony camera, I guess the marketing dept of Sony is bankrolling DPreview

4 upvotes
peevee1

Or maybe Canon and Nikon do not release anything of note recently (although G1X Mk II was reviewed promptly).

15 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

or because sony cameras are much more interesting than others at the moment?

trolls still out in full force!

18 upvotes
brendon1000

Perhaps Dpreview should review the recent Canon 1200D. Whats new about that camera ? Same sensor as a 5 year old 550D, same AF system as a 20D which is 10 years old. Smallest viewfinder of any DSLR camera in the market and possibly even past cameras or last but not least its class leading battery life of 500 shots.

18 upvotes
Segaman

hey Brendon, if you got nothing to say good bout Canon, you know what to do!

1 upvote
Chanex

Or maybe because these are popular cameras? (hint: look at the number of comments and the popularity chart on the main page)

1 upvote
Shamael

the only thing that is on the right place on a Canon is the button to switch it off. Hope that is said something good about Canon now...sic.

0 upvotes
brendon1000

@Segaman - Hey I am no fanboi. Its not that I have nothing good to say about Canon. Its just that I have nothing good to say about the 1200D which I feel is an insult to consumers who would buy it just for the Canon brand name. A Pentax K500 in comparison is miles ahead in technology.

If you move up the food chain in Canon then things start to look great. The 70D, 5d mk 3, 1DX are all very good cameras.

0 upvotes
Segaman

@ Richard Butler
I like the way you test the AF in that scene with the bike coming towards you.
This is the kind of test we need, to give us a little info on the camera speed and quality of images.
The dynamic range on the house is nice too!
"Real world exemple...Keep on rollin!"

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
peevee1

We actually need reproducible test in controlled environment (including light) so it could be comparable to other cameras. And of course test in indoor light too.
Yeah, it worked in bright sunlight. It does not mean it is going to work indoors. Other way around is usually easy - if it works indoors, it in most cases would work in bright sunlight even better.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
luigibozi

I would like DPR to test and have it in the specs (for all cameras):
if using a quick release plate for a tripod allows the screen to freely tilt. I had a Sony RX100 (very good camera!) and when I visited a Sony store here in Toronto and looked at a Sony RX10 (that looks better in hand than in the images) I was surprised to see that when I attached a quick release plate (a small Gitzo) the tilting screen was obstructed. I wonder if this (I would like to keep my quick release plate on the bottom of my camera) is a designed "feature" that has some reason behind?!

0 upvotes
AFishEye

You cannot seriously expect a generic plate to be a perfect fit for every shape and size of a camera body.
There are custom plates that do not interfere with the screen swivel of the a6000.
RRS is just one example of such a plate.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe

You can always pull the screen out /before/ attaching a plate.

3 upvotes
Rob Sims

@Andy Crowe
Far too practical an answer, enough of that please!

2 upvotes
luigibozi

@AFishEye
I was talking about cameras, not plates.
In my opinion a good design should not make me waste my time+money. By the way, I checked RRS site for Sony RX and they do not have a QR plate for RX10, and those for RX100 and RX1 seemed to me ridiculously small, and respectively huge.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AFishEye

@luigibozi
If I understand you correctly, you want camera manufacturers to make sure their body design works with the numerous types of plates out there, or do you just want them to check with you before they go to the drawing board to verify it works with plate you happen to own?
That's your definition of good design, seriously?
P.S
Yes, the RRS is Arca Swiss and not QR. I started with QR and moved to Arca Swiss once I realized that more custom designs are available for this kind of a plate. And, yes, they have a custom plate for a6000. This article reviewed the a6000 not the RX10

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
luigibozi

@AFishEye
QR~quick release. My tripod is Gitzo.
Good design in this particular case would be to test, with the camera standing on a table, if the screen opens and closes freely, which is not exactly rocket science, if you understand correctly. I have a solution to this equation too: camera manufacturers could design the position of the screen 2-3mm up, and every plate (including a table or my Gitzo QR plate) would fit under without problems. And DPR would have to check this again and tell us, eh?
What a wonderful world...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AFishEye

@luigibozi
Thanks for the insight and enlightenment; DPR and camera manufacturers are on it and will report back to you promptly

2 upvotes
munro harrap

I have found that sharpening AFTER noise reduction and applying 0.2 radius and 400 amount gives a far better result than the very crude 0.8 pixel radius chosen here. I never even tgo to 0.5 which is the best Lightroom can do! it coarsens grain and detail. The results I get are crisper and not as noisy as these because there simply is no point having a high resolution sensor and using the kind of sharpening that was the vogue a decade ago. The greater the radius the more fine detail gets left behind.

2 upvotes
Arsen

I just picked up mine about an hour ago.. Must say for a small camera the image quality is very good. Still no comparison to my Nikon D800E , but for a light camera has lots of features that my wife wanted in a small package. Overall very satisfied with it. I bought it with the kit lens, Ok overall, but like the compact size. The reason that I bought this camera was to use it when my D800E would be too big to take along. Its hard to sacrifice great IQ. So Far I am quite impressed, but time will tell based on various shooting conditions..

0 upvotes
Underdog 3000

Just out of curiosity, when is your D800E not too big to take along?

7 upvotes
Arsen

I use the D800E 95% of the time, but sometimes with my 2.8 lens and external flash, little big to take along to a small function or restaurant, it gets too much attention. I refuse to use a cell phone camera to take pictures, so the A6000 is a compromise in between. I can always use a small 50mm prime and internal flash but again sometime I want something light to carry along with me.. The camera is going to be used 95% of the time by my wife, and with Wi-Fi and NFC she can easily post pictures on social media or share via email..

1 upvote
DPJoe2

I'd like to 2nd this logic. My D800 with the 24-70 and others plus a flash is just too much weight and too much hassle for anything except those times I'm going out to create a piece of art work or get paid. If it's casual, or I have no specific reason for using the big-gun, then the a6000 will do quite nicely. Did I mention I really like all the extra features not found on my 'professional' camera. I'm just getting into this little fun machine. And the 11fps is a blast. I think this feature alone was made for little get togethers. You really can capture the spirit of laughs in the moment. Fast! Haven't had this much fun since my first camera and a darkroom. That was 50 years ago. 70 and still having fun. Who'd thunk.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Shamael

who wants to use a 50mm prime on an APSC camera to go in a restaurant, except if your intents are to shoot your steak or the bartender on the other end of the room. I use a 20 or better a 24 mm for such events, eventually a 28, but that gets close.

0 upvotes
Arsen

The 50mm would be for FF camera.. Its my only prime I have.. All my other lens are 2.8 zoom..

0 upvotes
Thatsgr8

Nikon D800 is three times the price. No comparison. Apples to Oranges effect

0 upvotes
andrewD2

Page 9 with the pop up flash. Why use the camera upside down? :)
The other way up and you light from the top and your shadows go downwards. Because we are used to seeing people lit by the Sun the shot looks odd as you have it.

0 upvotes
Paul Kersey Photography

One criticism I have of these reviews; they all feature ratings based on things the reviewer perceives as important. These choices aren't necessarily shared by others. For example, I could not care less about a camera's video function or features. Secondly, I never use flash in my photography. Thirdly, don't care at all about lack of touch screen, in fact, didn't want it. No level gauge? No worries, don't need it. Get the idea here? Personal biases which are natural lead to different ratings based on feature preferences.

Incidentally, I have read reviews elsewhere that address the new evf is better than the former one on the Nex 6.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 42 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Richard Butler

The overall score is based on the combined input of the 12 assessment categories listed in the widget, weighted fairly heavily towards image quality (and with much less input from subjective factors such as 'value'), so they try to be as consistent and useful as possible. We're not going to significantly reduce a camera's 'features' score for omitting a level gauge, for instance.

The Pros and Cons list is a list of the key points for and against the camera that the reviewer thinks a would-be buyer might want to be aware of. These are more likely to have an impact on whether the reviewer chooses to give the camera an Award or not.

Obviously if there were lots of concerns about image quality, it'd be less likely to get a Gold but not all Cons have equal weight, in our heads - the Gold award for this camera was never at risk because of the missing level gauge.

We try to explain and demonstrate what we did and didn't like about the camera so that you can draw your own conclusion

4 upvotes
Richard Butler

Re the viewfinder: it's hard to say whether it's better, but I didn't think it was significantly worse. In pure spec terms it's a downgrade (smaller, lower resolution) but, as I hope the review conveyed, this difference doesn't have a major impact on the experience. The refresh rate and contrast are good, and I didn't find my self hankering for greater resolution, so it's certainly not a drawback.

3 upvotes
J Frank Parnell

Sounds like you know exactly what you want in a camera. So what do you care what a camera's review score is? Surely you can read the review and determine if the camera is for you or not.

9 upvotes
Paul Kersey Photography

J Frank Parnell: you needn't concern yourself with my concerns.

2 upvotes
Reinhard136

thanks Richard ....... which opens an intriguing but geeky possibility - easily done with a spreadsheet : if you published your individual 12 assessment criteria scores, along with their weightings above them, people could then change the weightings to suit themselves - rich people could put 0 on price, and IQ people could put 10 on IQ - imagine how hard it would be to whinge about the DPR awards then - you can give your favourite camera a gold award, and find out something about your own preferences at the same time ...........

5 upvotes
straylightrun

Congratulations. That's exactly the whole point of a review. A critics subjective opinion on whatever it is being reviewed.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler

Reinhard136 - the system was designed to do exactly that. We may yet introduce that ability.

3 upvotes
Reinhard136

:-) , might be fun ......... and playing with the factors would be a great alternative to going outside and taking pictures ......

0 upvotes
DPJoe2

If you have pets or kids, you have to have this camera! After getting help today to get the 11fps going, I shot my cats. All three survived. You won't believe the action stopping shots you can get with this thing. I haven't had this much fun shooting in years. What a blast. Fun shooting is why I got into photography in the first place, 44 years ago. Thanks for putting so much fun into the hands of a regular Joe, Sony. BTW, it is possible to do the same thing with a Canon or a Nikon, but it will cost you about $8K. Sony Rules!

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
craig707

This is a good replacement for the NEX-6. The only step backward that I can see is in the EVF viewfinder, which has about a million dots less in resolution. But still, 1.4m is not bad.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
DaytonR

I love the shot of the a6000 sitting on top of flowers ! :)
Excellent product photography, DPReview !

0 upvotes
beemerchef

The camera is wonderful. I take a lot of photos having been on the road for the past 8 years full time camping [with my Dog!] and as someone pointed out to me since I do not sell photos and my largest posted format could be at the most 900x... "why am I driving a couple Ferrari which can go 300mph [2 x Canon 5D Mark III "L" lenses] when I am only going 40!". It all made sense as very tired having 40lbs of camera around my neck The a6000 is perfect BUT, do not buy the 16~50mm lens which is part of the kit. I made that mistake. I should have read the reviews on it and not just the camera. It has the worse distortion, vignetting, totally black corners at 16mm! Shame on Sony for that. I am now waiting for the 10~18mm to arrive, meaning I am ending up spending more on a lens than the camera itself. I have read good reviews on that one. It will be worth it to me so we shall see what happens.

3 upvotes
McQuestion

I'm not kicking myself about the kit lens. At the discounted price, I almost consider it free. At worst, the power zoom makes it a very handy lens for video.

0 upvotes
brendon1000

@beemerchef - As McQuestion said, the kit lens is practically free, its incredibly small and while yes it has black corners at 16mm its still one of the widest kit lenses of all time on any camera systems.

IQ is not terribly good wide open but central sharpness is excellent 1 stop down. Can't ask much from a $150 zoom lens on a high MP sensor like the A6000. Adobe has a profile for this lens as does the Sony IDC convertor so the black corner problem can be fixed with a little loss of resolution and FOV.

0 upvotes
DtEW

If you're seeing black corners at "16mm" what is happening is that you are working in RAW and failing to apply the lens correction profile this lens *NEEDS* to function properly, and is normally automatically applied in JPEG. You are also looking at what is really a 14-15mm angular FoV perspective, with some part of that picture designed to be auto-cropped by the lens correction profile to rid those black corners.

(continued)

2 upvotes
DtEW

(continued)

The SEL1650 was never designed to be a traditional standard zoom, which as well all know is basically the size of half a can of soda in normal guise across all vendors. Rather, the SEL1650 is meant as an ingenious re-thinking of the genre given the common usage of that type of lens (you bring the standard zoom instead of better IQ primes/zooms because of the snapshot convenience), leveraging the relatively newfound processing power that cameras and PP software now have to correct distortion, vignetting, etc.

It is a convenience lens. Find me another standard-range zoom (much less one that goes to 16mm/24mm FF equiv.) that's nearly as compact and doesn't require software correction... then you would have some right to fault Sony.

You just had no idea what you were buying into (a lens that requires software correction to function correctly), and failed to realize/value the advantage what you bought into had provided (extraordinary compactness).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
DtEW

On a related note, you will need to apply a lens correction profile to the SEL1018 RAW output as well, especially on the 10mm end, for which the lens exhibits noticeable barrel distortion.

0 upvotes
McQuestion

Thanks for the additional information, folks. Honestly, even though I've processed photos for over a dozen years, lens correction profiles isn't a term that ever came up or stuck in my head until just recently. It was quite a surprise to see what I thought was otherwise a "true" photo nudge into perspective ever so slightly when I ran the profile for another lens that I've always understood to be free of aberration.

In any case, I've always had a thing for wide angles, and the prospect of some day using the 10-18mm has my head spinning. As good or bad as the 16-50 kit is, it doesn't cover those extra dramatic vistas and super peripheral views.

Look forward to reading about it beemerchef! You're going to have a lot of fun with that, I'll bet.

0 upvotes
DPJoe2

Is there any detailed book on how to use all the functions of the a6000? I have the camera, but something is preventing me from getting large burst rates. What setting am I missing?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
40daystogo

In the Drive-mode icon, by going up and down the left hand column, you select whether to go single, continuous or self-timer. When on the continuous icon, you can use the wheel to go left or right to give options for Hi, Mid and Lo. While it is a buzz to shoot at Hi to get 11 frames per second, I find that in ordinary shooting I get too many shots when I press the shutter button. So I set it for Mid or Lo, unless I'm doing fast action stuff.

3 upvotes
TakenUserName

I have to agree. Two instruction sheets provided with the camera is pathetic, particularly when you consider the time lag between announcement and the product shipping. One is the ultra basic quick start - charge and load the battery, insert SD card, change lens, turn on, install photo software. Nothing operational. The other sheet is dedicate to setting up the wireless. Worse, if you go into Sony support, there is not a legitimate manual to download.

1 upvote
DPJoe2

Thanks 40daystogo, that did it. Now to figure out how to use effectively. Yes TakenUserName, the documentation is truly pathetic. If it were against the law to write good documentation, and Sony were arrested, they would get of scott free. No evidence.

Thanks Guys

1 upvote
andry r

a6000 manual book,
http://support.sony-asia.com.edgesuite.net/consumer/IM/4532055111.pdf

0 upvotes
Marty4650

This A6000 is a really nice camera, but so is the NEX-6, which can be bought at a huge discount now. Amazon is currently selling it for $520... with lens, and $440 without.

Sony continues to amaze me with their incredible values in camera bodies (but not so much for lenses.)

They have so many irons in the fire right now (SLT Alpha, E mount, FE mount, FF SLT, high end compacts, etc) that you wonder if they risk becoming a jack of all trades, but a master of none?

I think so far they have done a pretty good job of offering innovation, performance and value. I just hope it all works out to profitability for Sony, so their users can look forward to another decade of great cameras.

4 upvotes
Vinand

Well they are currently the Masters of compact (RX100), Masters of Sytem camera (A6000) and arguable the master of FF (A7). The incredible lack of innovation from Canon and Nikon should be a confirmation that this position is most likely not going to change... However Sony only lose the battle when it comes to marketing and communications (branding). And the sad thing is that the consumer of today seems to care more about this marketing/branding than anything else.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Marty4650

I'd say you are right about the innovation part.

It seems that Nikon and Canon are resting on their laurels, while Sony keeps moving forward with new products and new concepts.

1 upvote
hydrospanner

Masters of compact? Absolutely. The closest thing to the RX100 is the Panasonic LX7, and while definitely aimed at a different purpose, is clearly edged out overall by the Sony offering.

The Masters of the MILC? That's definitely far more subjective, especially when you take into account that lens selection and availability play heavily into such things. I think that the E-M1 and X-T1 are the equals, if not betters, of the a6000 when you take all factors into account. Different animals, to be sure, but all told, it doesn't leave Sony as the clear leader.

Full frame...I think that's just your personal wishes talking. This is one area where Canon and Nikon, regardless of innovation, still sit comfortably atop the heap, even based on lens selection alone, but also from decades of leading the industry. That inertia will not be halted within a ten year span. Maybe 5-10 years down the road, Sony may be an equal player in that game, but for now, it's simply not the case.

3 upvotes
Paul1974

About MILC, what camera does Fuji (or other brands) offer that compares to the A7 triplet? :-) I consider Sony to be the clear leader.

3 upvotes
TakenUserName

The "sale" on the NEX-6 is a bit misleading. If you want just the camera/lens, yes there is a savings. However, if you also want a full kit with the 55-210 that Sony only discounts with camera purchases but never independent of specified camera purchases, then it is not a good deal. There is no discount with the NEX-6, but there is a $200 discount if purchased with the A6000. Reviewing B&H, NEX-6 with lens $519 + $348 for the 55-210 = $867. The A6000 with lens $748 + $148 for the 55-210 = $896. I think I would splurge the $29. Similar savings available with other lens like the Zeiss prime.

1 upvote
Raist3d

Marty, the A6000 is much nicer than the Nex-6. It's not just a cursory look at the specs but the usability/UI/workflow is vastly improved.

As for Sony keep also in mind they are the #1 sensor maker for cameras in the world, in marketshare and overall tech.

1 upvote
hydrospanner

Paul, that's not an accurate comparison (and I think you know it), but even at that, with the limited lens stable for their full frame mirrorless, Sony can only be considered the "leader" of the segment in which they're the only player because they're the only player.

That's like saying Leica is the leader in digital rangefinders. Outside of the Epson model, they're the only game in town.

If you're comparing based on versatility & price as well as sensor size, then I don't see the Sony full frames as competitive with any of the APS-C or m43 offerings...roughly on par with the Nikon CX system, though in the total opposite direction.

1 upvote
SiliconVoid

@Vinand
I believe others have accurately addressed the rather wishful proclamations.. however the battle that Sony will 'lose' is that the system will likely be abandoned before any significant lineup of lenses are available. The only consumer products Sony has maintained any significant product presence is televisions and video recorders, and even in video recorders they barely maintain any consistency with any one system.
Sony prides itself in being on the forefront of innovation, which is great for consumers and competition alike, but as soon as there are x% of players producing similar tech Sony moves on to something else. As a sensor fab they will likely have a 'presence' in digital photography for some time, like they do in many other technology fields, but their product history suggests they will likely not have a photography system to purchase into in the future.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
kecajkerugo

yet another great camera hits the market. More choice for us! More opportunities to take high quality pictures. Technical discussions are fascinating but endless spreading of criticism is annoying.....
I am not fan of Sony cameras (because do like the menu.... and do not consider Sony as a "photgraphic" company...so this is subjective) but I apprecioate the greate (oberall) cameras they design! As I do for the Fuji and Olympus, and others

3 upvotes
DPJoe2

Sony makes the sensors for the D800 and D800E. What do you mean when you use the term "photographic" company?

1 upvote
Donnie G

@ DPJoe2,

kecajkerugo brings up a valid point, which is that a majority of potential camera buyers don't associate the Sony brand with cameras. The perception in most people's mind is that Sony is a consumer electronics company devoted to making TVs, video games and other household gadgets, and that they are big in the movie and music businesses. Those are the products that come to mind when people shop Sony. Remember that cameras are a new business for Sony, and it's going to take time for the average consumer to become aware of this brand's commitment to providing quality cameras to the masses. It's all about perception and image. After all, neither Canon nor Nikon earned their reputations overnight either. Sony makes good cameras. The question for Sony is how much longer will it take for a large enough body of consumers to begin thinking of Sony in the same way as they think of the "Big 2" before buying their next camera?

1 upvote
DPJoe2

Agreed!

0 upvotes
Maklike Tier

I love the 'concept' of this camera, but if you have to stick a $1000 prime onto it to get quality shots from it, then you're looking at a $1600 package....with only one lens. For that sort of money you could get an EM5/10 with THREE f1.8 primes, or the EM5 Elite with the Pro 2.8 zoom.

I think Sony is an incredibly innovative and adventurous company, but they really do lack the 'X-Factor' that companies like Fuji and Olympus have.

11 upvotes
brendon1000

I understand most of their zooms suck but they have quite a few quality cheap primes like the 35mm f1.8 OSS, 50mm f1.8 OSS and even a good 18-105mm PZ OSS zoom. All these lenses are pretty inexpensive.

Even the cheap 20mm f2.8 pancake is a reasonably sharp lens. With a 24 MP sensor, you will still get more resolution, dynamic range and noise performance than a 16 MP m43 camera with a sharp lens.

The Fuji system has some amazing prime lenses, class leading primes and ISO performance that rivals FF cameras. But the cameras are pretty big and heavy (for a mirrorless camera).

3 upvotes
cybm

Maybe Iam wrong, but on the dynamic range page I selected Olympus OMD-M5, EM-1 and M10... and they overperformed the dynamic range of A6000...

0 upvotes
quezra

You are wrong

3 upvotes
Raist3d

Yup, you are wrong. Never look at JPEGs to call ultimate sensor performance.

3 upvotes
mister_roboto

Sony is a fabulous electronic company... not so much in the lens dept.

0 upvotes
McQuestion

The Olympus seems like a great camera, but isn't it a different class of sensor? 16mp Micro 4/3 vs. 24mp APS-C, correct? And with the exception of the $49 pinhole lens, all the others look just as expensive from what I've seen.

The Fuji is a direct comparison, but those lenses seemed verrrry expensive, as did the bodies.

'X-Factor'? This is Sony we're talking about. 3D stills. 4K video. Makers of some of the most intriguing, bewildering, and at times frustratingly innovative audio, video, and photographic inventions we've ever seen. Beta. Sony. If that's not 'X-Factor', I don't know what is.

1 upvote
Maklike Tier

'X-Factor' isn't tangible. It's not 'investment in technology' or 'wow, what were they thinking?' type qualities. It's the emotive quotient that makes you want to get out there and take photos, a sense of belonging to a community, the sense of being a 'photographer' rather than 'a guy with a small electronic black box'.

The lens issue is real for Sony, even if there is a couple of inexpensive primes available. What makes M43 so good is the working partnership between Olympus and Panasonic which means there will always be a much larger and more interesting range of lenses available. Sony may have Zeiss, but if you look accross the board, similar to Fuji the price does not equal the output, generally speaking.

0 upvotes
Andrew_Drouin

For those of you swaying back and forth about the image quality of the new a6000 vs. the old NEX series cameras - here is a screenshot showing the NEX7 vs. the a6000 at ISO 1600

http://cdnav.com/images/Image%20Comparator.png

Try it at whatever setting etc. yourself:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

There are still a lot of other variables, but wow - I'd say that seeing A vs. B side by side tells a pretty convincing tale.

Andrew

1 upvote
shoevarek

After reading few sections of that review I wonder what are the advantages of that new camera over Nex-7 and Nex-6. It looks like measured dunamic range is the same as Nex-7 and a little worse than Nex-6. The visible noise look very similar in all ISO levels. The usability may be an answer but having no experience in using any of those cameras I am not sure - A6000 has more scroll wheels than Nex-6 but it also has lower resolution EVF. Actually that new camera looks like Nex-7 rebadged as A6000. Is there any reason one would spend 800 USD for it rather than go and pick up hardly used Nex-7 for about half that price?

1 upvote
AFishEye

I have both NEX-6 (two of them) and a6000 and tend to agree with some of your statements. They are both equally great bodies!
The old NEX menu was the main reason why the NEX 6 didn't get the gold award. However, there are plenty customization options so it is actually user friendly. The DR and high ISO performance of the NEX 6 are outstanding.
I bought the a6000 for the new AF system (to be used with the new 70-200 f4) and for the slightly better cropping ability for wildlife (I also use it with the 70-400). However, the NEX 6 is no slouch when it comes to AF.
If you own a NEX 6 and don't extensively do wildlife, there is really no reason to upgrade.
As far as the EVF of the a6000 goes, you couldn't tell it's a lower res if you wouldn't read the specs; the colors are more natural, and, due to the different refresh rate, it's better in low light.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
McQuestion

Just went through this decision.

Nex7 has a better viewfinder, yes. However, if the best viewfinder was the deciding factor, I'd buy a Fuji, and the A6000 viewfinder is just fine.

The Nex7 has dual control wheels on top, side by side. I really like that feature, but find I can make all control adjustments just as easily with the back dial and top control of the A6000.

The A6000 has the Alpha menu system for changing settings, instead of the icon menu on the Nex. This is a major advantage, given how many settings variables there are. Cannot emphasize this enough, the Alpha menu layout is vastly superior to the old Nex layout.

A6000 has WiFi and NFC connectivity, along with PlayMemories expandability.

Nex7 is currently going for $600 and up, used, body only. A6000 was going for $600 body only new, $750 with 16-50 kit lens. Other instant rebates on lenses with purchase of A6000 make several lenses very affordable.

Very happy with my new A6000 and how much I saved on new lenses.

2 upvotes
Eleson

NFC/Wifi
AF performance, Speed and quality
I'd say Better jpeg engine.
Better video modes

But of course, only you know if these are worth anything to you.

3 upvotes
RichRMA

The viewfinder downgrade is irrelevant. The point of a viewfinder is composition and maybe to manual focus. 1M to 2.3M "looks" nice but it has no impact otherwise.

0 upvotes
HFLM

Did you ever do macro work?

4 upvotes
Maklike Tier

The A6k has more PDAF points?

0 upvotes
McQuestion

I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. The Fuji viewfinders are so clear that I was tempted to move over to their cameras. However, I don't think it's a deal breaker, and the A6000 viewfinder is actually quite good.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@HFLM Surely you'd be using the magnified focus assist for that, which makes a slight resolution difference (800x600 vs 1024x768) moot?

2 upvotes
HFLM

@ A.Crowe I find this to be extremely important. I have for comparison a Xt1 and Em1. The larger VF of the Fuji is often very nice, but precise focusing with peaking hides details and exact focusing is difficult. Using split screen without peaking works better here. The OMD has similar resolution but a smaller VF and it's much more accurate especially at larger resolutions.
Interestingly, I get the best results with my D610 because the OVF allows me to precisely focus (this may change however as I grow older and eyesight becomes an issue, additionally previewing exposure in EVF is very useful).

0 upvotes
tecnoworld

I tried the a6000, x-e2 and nx30 in a shop, to see what evf was the best.

Imo x-e2 has a clear edge. Then comes the a6000, last nx30. The a7 has a better evf compared to a6000, about on par with x-e2. X-t1 is the best.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey

a6000 with kit zoom is priced competitively against the Canon X7i 18-55 and Nikon D5300 18-55.

I'm pondering what advantage those APSC dSLRs bring to the table for the typical "non-technical" 1-2 lens owning photographer which that mid-range price bracket attracts. I got ... nothing. The only competition to the a6000seems to be from other mirrorless cameras, Fuji, Olympus etc.

If you are going to get into owing a dozen or more lenses then the outlook changes, but if you are going that far you are more likely to be looking at a D7100, 70D, K-3 or 6D, D610 and are no longer the target market of the a6000.

The only "hole" I see for dSLRs is the cheap end, where you can get an X7 or K-50 or D3300 which have a OVF, whereas at that price the mirrorless cameras tend to have no viewfinder. Set againt the increase in bulk, though, I''m not sure how many people that is likely to tempt.

0 upvotes
HFLM

In my opinion it's the native affordable lens choice which is still not there for Sony. You can get f1.8 lenses for E-mount, but in Germany at least they are expensive compared to Nikon 28/1.8, 35 1.8 DX, 50/1.8,85/1.8 (larger size, of course, but that seems to be no problem for most) + Sigma/Tamron/Tokina f2.8 dx-zooms (17-50 or 17-70 2.8-4 or 18-35/1.8). Additionally all my relatives and friends buy what they know, influenced by their parents choice usually (Canikon) and they buy once(!) for the next 5-8 years and don't care about new innovations every year (besides smartphones they deem to be good enough). I know nobody within the last 3 years (and I am a university professor and have a lot of PHDs and post docs and students working for me) who bought a camera. They all are investing in smartphones.

0 upvotes
Dirk Nuary

Why the review of this camera is sooooo loooooooong time?

0 upvotes
Luekutus

The viewfinder "downgrade" is disappointing — the viewfinder is what brought me to the NEX (6) system in the first place.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost

I am okay with the higher res EVF in NEX-6, but a6000 seems to have a better refresh rate which I think is more important than more pixels.

7 upvotes
Mupepe

Is a6000's EVF really better than XE-2's EVF?

1 upvote
russelg000

The XE-2 has a higher resolution. 2.3 M vs 1.4 M dots. However, higher resolution isn't always better. You have to account for lag, magnification, etc.

0 upvotes
BarnET

The xe-2 viewfinder with the update has less lag.
They now have the same refresh rate as the xt-1.
I am not sure about magnification bit it's probably very similar.

The xe-2 also has a better kit lens. But video with Fuji is downright terrible. And the Sony is faster with 11 fps with AF.

0 upvotes
photosen

Good review; it's an interesting camera, I don't see the interesting and affordable lenses... But I'm willing to be illuminated!

3 upvotes
123Mike

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...

0 upvotes
Rob Sims

Try the 35/1.8 or 50/1.8. Both very good and include optical stabilizer, and neither cost the earth. If you're after a compact pancake try the 20/2.8.

6 upvotes
Impulses

The UWA zoom is in line with most UWA zooms in the market ($750) and you can get f1.8 primes at 18mm, 50mm, and 75mm equivalent for $300-400, some of those even feature IS which is not often the case for lower priced primes. I've probably missed some other key choices, I'm not sure if there's an inexpensive 35mm equivalent prime that's brighter than f2.8. I'm a M4/3 user l, I was just looking out of curiosity this morning.

M4/3 definitely has a lot more choices at most FLs, especially if you're looking for longer teles or faster zooms (not to mention more body variety), but they're similarly priced for the most part. Fuji's X system is pricier across the board... E mount is really not that lacking in choices IMO, better off than I thought it was, future development is just in doubt right now. There's also the f2.8 Sigma primes at $200-240, great values, specially the 60mm (90 equivalent).

If you're comparing prices vs an APS-C DSLR it's not that different either, with the exception of the cheap 50mm (75 equivalent) primes there really aren't HUGE disparities, and you usually end with less prime choices and more odd focal lengths with most DSLR system, since Canikon are focused on full frame designs primarily (no pun intended). There's other exceptions here and there, like Canon's new $300 UWA zoom, or Pentax's prime line...

1 upvote
Richard Murdey

The E-mount lineup has filled out in recent years. Still doesn't grab me the same way that the Pentax or Fuji lineup does though. My complaints follow these lines:

1. Nice E mount lenses (Zeiss) cost the earth.
2. The cheapo E mount lenses have a really bad reputation.
3. There isn't that much in between 1. and 2.
4. What 3. contains is often relatively large and negates any practical advantage of carrying the smaller camera vs. a small dSLR like the K-3.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
HFLM

@Impules: Nikon 35mm/1.8 150 Euros, 50mm/1.8 180 Euros, 85/1.8 390 Euros (very good lens!), Tamron/Sigma 17-50/2.8 around 300 Euros, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 400 Euros, 18-35/1.8(!!) 650 Euros. I don't see comparable prices for similar Sony lenses here. Most zooms are only f4, only, too. Some Zeiss lenses may be better, but they are expensive and will not be bought by beginners.

0 upvotes
McQuestion

Sigma has some very nice 2.8 primes, all of which are available for $200 or less: 19mm, 30mm, and 60mm.

0 upvotes
Karroly

I do not understand why DPR reviewer is bothered by the vertical black bars on the rear LCD when shooting 3:2 stills. Obviouly, given the body size/layout, Sony designers could not make the screen taller with a 3:2 ratio. So why not use the available space on the left and right sides to display a larger picture in 16:9 movie mode ?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
Impulses

They could alter the body design? There's lots of other mirrorless bodies with more square screens you know... It's a valid point in the Con list IMO, up to the user to decide whether it bugs him. I think it's less about black bars per se than just getting a smaller usable screen than what the specs say (for stills anyway). Many would probably prefer more control points if a chunk of the screen is often being wasted, for instance, or even a touchscreen that makes better use of that space with programmable soft buttons.

0 upvotes
Karroly

@ Impulses,
I know 16:9 camera screens are not common. But PC monitors and TV sets with a 16:9 ratio are VERY common you know... As I shoot stills only to be watched on these kind of displays ( I never print anything) I appreciate when a camera features a 16:9 screen ;-)
And I am curious to know what is the percentage of non-professional photographers that print their pictures...and the percentage that watch their 3:2 or 4:3 stills on a 16:9 display with two black vertical bars...
What about you for instance ?

1 upvote
Eleson

Generally I would agree. Black parts of the screen is bad use of real estate. Our could be used to provide varia types of information.

0 upvotes
kadardr

This Sony screen is just too small. Without the evf it's usability goes down to mere guessing. The camera backs are too small either. For real work, especially with a touchscreen I would need a minimally 4-4.5'' screen.

0 upvotes
Eleson

That leaves very few options I guess.

0 upvotes
Impulses

@Karroly, I actually view most of my pictures on 16:10 displays (tablet, PC, etc), sometimes 16:9 (TV), but I'm not always watching it across the length of the display... The tablet is sometimes in portrait mode, the desktop has 3x 1920x1200 displays which are sometimes in PPP mode (so 3600x1920), etc etc. I'm an Android user 100% but Apple still owns a large portion of the tablet market and their tablets are definitely not 16:9...

Regardless of viewing habits, the sensors aren't 16:9, so if mainly shoot stills then a 16:9 display is absolutelya wasteful design unless you're shooting in 16:9 crop mode (in which case you're just wasting a chunk of the sensor's pixels all in the name of not seeing black bars). It's really not about the black bars, it's about the valuable surface space on a small camera body.

0 upvotes
Karroly

@Impulses,
The smallest resolution camera I own is an Olympus XZ-2 set to take pictures in 16:9 mode with a 3968x2232 pixel resolution. Although there are some pixel waste versus shooting in 4:3 (sensor ratio) it is negligeable when viewing it on a 1920x1080 display. And there is still room for cropping/digital zooming if I need it. I prefer to waste sensor pixels than TV pixels by displaying a 4:3 1440x1080 pixel "only" picture... The choice of adopting the 16:9 ratio for most of my pictures also comes from they are mostly landscapes. I also shoot at full sensor resolution when I want more freedom when cropping at 16:9. But I rarely do it because I do not want to spend time on my computer for post-processing...
So, I am the kind of user happy with a 16:9 camera screen...

0 upvotes
DPJoe2

@kadardr, Well you in luck. Download the app to remote control the a6000 on your smartphone. Use its 4-4.5" tochscreen to work. Problem solved.

1 upvote
pew pew

I´m saving for this camera mainly for video. Its almost perfect with great image no moire and aliasing issues that other cameras have, tons of controls and options , awsome af, ability to tweak the af speed on video for smooth transitions, I can´t find anything on par for 650$.

3 upvotes
Kawika Nui

You are right about the price point, but the price on new GH3s has dropped dramatically since the GH4 came out, and you might take a look at the GH3. Video offers more options and is of outstanding quality. Plus you have a wider choice of lenses.
I own both cameras (a6000 and GH3) so I'm not pushing one over the other--but for some situations, like long-range action video, I prefer the GH3 with 100-300mm lens. I keep hoping Sony will do like almost every other manufacturer and make a reasonably sized zoom lens of at least 300mm on the long end. 55-300mm would be nice. 210mm is a little short for many uses.

1 upvote
Total comments: 752
1234