Previous page Next page

Sony a6000 Review

May 2014 | By Richard Butler and Jeff Keller


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 1998 - 2015 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
1380
I own it
356
I want it
128
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 833
12345
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
thx1138

dpreview clearly sets the bar low on AF performance. Not one of those frames is acceptably sharp on the face. Sure the hat is acceptably sharp in quite a few and it's clear the AF has been caught out focusing on the front of the hat not the face.

0 upvotes
Lab D

They are 100% crops, but lens they used is supposed to be very sharp ($1500 too) and the pictures are not the sharpest possible. Note the difference between the 1st and 2nd. Another review site (IR) noted the first shot is usually soft.
Still, a big advance for E mount mirrorless cameras.

1 upvote
Timbukto

It's plenty sharp, just not many folks are used to 24MP APS-C pixel density yet. It's a 100% crop...the widget they use remained the same size, but because of pixel density the overall area represented by the crop is *smaller* than the respective 16 or 18MP we are normally accustomed to with APS-C. They set high standards for in-focus on this one...I've seen plenty of popular images on Flikr with far worse standards of focus compared to the 'misses' here. The average Dpreview visitor is clueless when it comes to examining 100% crops and will call a 100% crop the size of a thumbnail as unsharp, but a thumbnail that is a huge downsize in resolution as sharp.

9 upvotes
olddog99

I'm happy with the NEX 7 and A7r. I'm primary Canon 5D3 and others but needed lighter weight for travel- old and rheumatoid arthritis. I still like the Canons, but I heard the same complaint's about the NEX series and lenses. Still I found both the sensor and lenses first rate. Got full benefit of the 24.6 C sensor and Zeiss lens.sam wit A7r and 36. it's different from what I was used to, but okay. Mirrorless focusing misses it on moving targets, at some angles, but I can live withit, I.e. In many ways I prefer manual focus sometimes. I added the A7r for obvious reasons,it's small and lightweight and imaging is first rate with the Zeiss 24-70 and the fat sensor. There are quirks in places, but with 50 years of Nikon, Leica etc, Sony is batting major League. There is a shortage of lenses in the E mount. But I'm having a lot of fun using the collection of Leica RF lenses with both the NEX and A7r --get an F1.1 50mm in focus on the A7s ... Cool. Add a few lenses.

2 upvotes
maxola67

So, can I resume?
Getting older? Sell all your DSLR stuff and buy some MILC.
MILCs are made for old people!)))

0 upvotes
cybergap

I have had the A6000 for two weeks now, and in general, really like it. The only issue is that I am having a hard time finding a lens that really brings out the sensor's capabilities. AngryCorgi pointed out below that the FE 55 1.8 is amazing, and it is. I was using the comparison tool with the Nikon 800e and I swear the A6000 is far more detailed with this lens on it. It's the only lens I have rented in the e mount line (Tried them all) that really makes good images, but it has no OSS and a 82ish focal length. Soooo. Great camera, EVF is fine, controls are excellent except for the movie button placement. Very fast on the draw which is fun shooting out the car window at 1/2000. You just have to pay for the FE55 and hope that Sigma and Zeiss port their best lenses to the mount soon. With OSS. At this price you really can't go wrong. Buy one if you can find it.

7 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost

Don't expect stabilization from any Zeiss lens (only way to get Zeiss and OSS together is if you shop for a Sony Zeiss zoom). Sigma doesn't do OS on its primes either... other than three long macros.

2 upvotes
Rob Sims

You might want to try the 35/1.8. Slightly easier focal distance to work with (equiv to 52mm). I found contrast and colour on that lens to be excellent, and it's also very light and compact.

7 upvotes
dcolak

Try sigma 60mm f2.8.

It is sharper than FE 55.

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost

Indeed. The 35mm f/1.8 OSS is my "kit lens",

3 upvotes
ijustloveshooting

that sel35F1.8 is an awesome lens...good sharpnes at wide open, very very fast focusing (compared it with Fuji 35 F1.4, sony is light years faster,,waaaay lighter..), great colors...it's a gem with that prices, also has OSS which helps a looot in lowlight.

1 upvote
Hazza1

I brought a 16-70 Sony Zeiss f4 for my Nex-7 - not cheap - but definately worth it. Blows the kit lens out of the water. The only zoom worthy of the Nex-7 sensor - apart from the FE 70/200 G sereis which is amazing too, but built of course for the new full frama Alphas - again, not cheap but amazing quality.

0 upvotes
blink667

In terms of noise at high iso, it's almost as good as the 5N.

1 upvote
RedFox88

A decent replacement of the nex7.

0 upvotes
thx1138

So is there not going to be an a7000? Only bummer is downgraded EVF.

0 upvotes
BarnET

Well what could Sony do to make a decent upgrade to the nex7.
No if you want something better go to the a7 camera's.

0 upvotes
Rod McD

Why is not having a touch screen a "con"? It's just a statement of fact. It seems that the position being adopted is that all cameras SHOULD have a touch screen. Sure some people like them. There are others who don't. I personally don't want a camera that does have one and this would put the A6000 higher on my list.

4 upvotes
RedFox88

Most touch screen devices have an option to disable the feature you know. And you don't pay anymore for it just like video.

2 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

What kind of consumer likes less features?

This is 2014, all cameras SHOULD have touchscreens.

3 upvotes
Caerolle

Sure would make it easier to select among all those focus points!

2 upvotes
new boyz

"Sure would make it easier to select among all those focus points!"

I doubt that. For a group of focus points, maybe. Precise one focus point, good luck. I don't know about you, but I absolutely hate typing on a touch screen. The only good thing about it is it makes screens bigger. Touch screen on camera doesn't have that advantage.

But like what other have said, it gives more choices. I'm okay if they include it.

1 upvote
jennyrae

because having touchscreen does not cost Sony and try to justify that it does. probably going into plan on releasing another camera with touchscreen and say it cost more. they cut corners to make it appear a6000 is really cheap but not cheap.

1 upvote
Impulses

"The only good thing about it is it makes screens bigger. "

I'm guessing you were alluding to phones there, I'd dare say it applies here too. They're using screens with a wider aspect ratio than sensor, it only makes sense that it should be a touchscreen that offers additional programmable soft buttons on the wasted space... Otherwise they might as well have gone with a smaller screen and additional hard control points.

This in addition to the big advantage in placing an AF point accurately (particularly when using CDAF). It's a valid negative IMO, one of the few this camera really has, but no camera's perfect.

0 upvotes
T3

@new boyz - even if it did have a touchscreen that allowed you to choose the AF point, you would still be able to select focus points the "old fashioned way". So there's nothing wrong with giving users a touchscreen. And yes, touch focus is a *much* faster and more convenient way of switching focus points than the "old fashioned way." Touch focus + touch shutter is an even faster way to get a shot!

Plus, your comparison to typing on a touchscreen isn't apt because typers generally like tactile feedback when typing (i.e., being able to feel the keys of a keyboard while typing), which a touchscreen keyboard doesn't give you. But that has nothing to do with selecting a focus point on a screen because there's never been any key pressing when selecting a focus point. It's always been about getting a particular area of the screen to "activate" for focus. And being forced to use a wheel or buttons to select what part of the screen you want to "activate" for focusing is arcane, and slow.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AngryCorgi

Geez...the one thing that really stands out from the studio shot(s):

the FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA is one insanely sharp lens. Look at the micro-contrast from that son of a gun. WOW.

6 upvotes
cybergap

100% agreed! I rented it as well as all the others, and it's the only lens that makes the A6K work like a dslr. But no OSS, sadly and $1K.

0 upvotes
Diopter

The Five is still the point of departure.
All other models of the NEX line seem to be a compromise of the marketing and short term buyer demands.
The a6000 is confirming this rule of thumb.
(-)

1 upvote
Richard Murdey

Care to explain?

0 upvotes
Dimit

Oh..fair review in general..

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dimit

''Not so good for shooters used to a twin dial camera'' !!!
C'mon guys,something more crucial??..I can say: ''Not so good for shooters used to handle a camera with a width of 122 mm (instead of 120)'' !!!
I got this little thing and it rocks..as of June 2014 certainly..paired with the fe 55/1.8 as well.
Anyone wondering why it's an immense hit ??
It seems that compact mirrorless is the synonymous to Sony e mount,forget abt scores and gold awards,just get it.......................................................

4 upvotes
McQuestion

It's a reasonable assertion. One salesperson I worked with tried to steer me toward a used Nex7 for the twin dial advantage. I have to admit, I really liked that twin dial set up. Of course, he did spend 10 minutes lost in the Nex7 icon menu... before I bought the A6000.

0 upvotes
GiovanniB

I don't understand the complaining about a lack of portrait primes in the review, because there's the amazing SEL 50mm f1.8 OSS which I love (!!) for its pleasant bokeh and great overall optical performance - plus stabilization. Not to mention the very reasonable price tag. The A6000 is an APS-C camera - no reason to ignore this one.

6 upvotes
G1Houston

In full frame terms:

50 mm is good for full body shots.
85 mm is good for half body shots.
105 mm is good for should/head shots.
135 mm is good for head shots.

Using a FL shorter than what is recommended risks facial distortion. For subject isolation, these lenses tend to be at least f1.8.

0 upvotes
Luimage

Agree with you 100% I've been using this lense on the a6000 for a week now and haven't took it off ever since.
Just shot a sweet sixteen beach shoot with it and I'm loving the results I'm getting for what I've spent on cam&lense.

0 upvotes
Kane009

I do not agree with u. 50-60mm (75-90mm FF) on APS-C is IMO perfect for portraits. With 24MP u have enough resolution even for a crop. With 135 mm FF the faces are a bit flat, also the distance to the object can be a problem, if you want to shot in house.

2 upvotes
Caerolle

Well, if that does it for you, you are a lucky guy, aren't you?

0 upvotes
Karroly

@G1Houston & Kane009,
You can explain how a focal length as a impact on face distortion, the distance from the subject and the bokeh (along with the aperture). But telling what is the perfect lens for shooting portraits is more difficult because it depends on the photographer's taste, the distance he wants to keep between him and his subject and a particular style he wants for his portraits.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey

On ASPC, 50mm is a bit short for duty as a classic portrait lens. It's a common problem for all APSC ILCs: tons of great 50mm lenses out there, but its an awkward focal length with the crop. Even 55 mm isn't ideal. Meanwhile the 85mm and 105mm full frame portrait lenses tend to be too long. There are just one or two 58mm lenses. Almost nothing around 60-75mm.

The best solution - I'm not kidding - is to move to full frame. That or Fuji X-mount. They had the problem tacked from day one since all the lenses were developed with the crop factor in mind.

1 upvote
McQuestion

Funny, I always understood 50mm, translated to 75mm full frame, to be a proper "portrait lens", as well. All of the sudden I'm being told that 100-150mm is proper portrait. Learning something new every day. Lots of good information here.

I agree, the 50mm 1.8 is a nice lens, an apt alternative to the 50mm 1.4 that I used to use on the A57 for "portraits".

I'm very curious about the Rokinon 85mm f1.4. Does anyone have experience using this on a Sony Nex or the A6000?

0 upvotes
NeilRW

http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/comment?replyToId=9855465435

Post comment
e Post a comment
Sony a6000 Review
оRichard Murdey I agree with you that
especially Nikon and Canon never made
the proper portrait lenses for crop body
DSLR cameras from the get go. Full frame
film cameras always had 85mm and
105mm fast primes going back to per
autofocus days. Neither Nikon or Canon
made the equivalents when digital came

1 upvote
NeilRW

http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/comment?replyToId=9855465435

Post comment
e Post a comment
Sony a6000 Review
оRichard Murdey I agree with you that
especially Nikon and Canon never made
the proper portrait lenses for crop body
DSLR cameras from the get go. Full frame
film cameras always had 85mm and
105mm fast primes going back to per
autofocus days. Neither Nikon or Canon
made the equivalents when digital came out. They should have made a 58mm 1.8 and a 70mm 2.8. When I have talked to Nikon reps and pinned them down they admit that I'm right. I knew there are 3rd party 70mm lenses but I bought a Nikon camera so I could shoot with Nikon glass. I've never understood why Nikon never made the equivalents for a great pair of lenses that worked magic for 50 years.

0 upvotes
NeilRW

@Richard Murdey I agree with you that
especially Nikon and Canon never made
the proper portrait lenses for crop body
DSLR cameras from the get go. Full frame
film cameras always had 85mm and
105mm fast primes going back to per
autofocus days. Neither Nikon or Canon
made the equivalents when digital came out. They should have made a 58mm 1.8 and a 70mm 2.8. When I have talked to Nikon reps and pinned them down they admit that I'm right. I know there are 3rd party 70mm lenses but I bought a Nikon camera so I could shoot with Nikon glass. I've never understood why Nikon never made the equivalents for a great pair of lenses that worked magic for 50 years.

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher

Canon & Nikon users, start bashing and pixel peeping! 3 2 1 GO!

1 upvote
DtEW

I think a lot of Canikon users/fans are watching, and I think a great many them aren't trolls/fanboys (merely the silent, cordial majority), and the fact that mirrorless is now completely viable as a full-function alternative to dSLRs have got them either considering adding a new tool to their arsenal, and maybe asking "where are you, Canikon, on this new development?"

Perhaps this is about time Canikon starts to feel the pressure and begins developing this technology/format seriously.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

If the EOS-M forum was any indication, the moment canon was able to stuff it's sensor into an AFFORDABLE small portable body, many people were happy and leaving faster & larger equipment behind.

Canon should improve its live view performance, something other companies are doing much better than them now.

0 upvotes
Ken______

I agree with DtEW. I am presently using a Nikon D5100 for BIF. I am interested in upgrading to something with better auto-focus. I would prefer to upgrade to something with PDAF on the sensor, which appears to be the future. So I am very interested in the a6000's on-sensor PDAF and its performance for BIF.

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey

Just a certain amount of introspection: "Why am I lugging this APSC dSLR around with me all day?"

1 upvote
The Name is Bond

The DR tests, it strikes me, don't really test DR. The only cameras that really pump up the DR significantly are the Fujis (DR400% etc, two stops extra in the highlights). These 'DRO' and sometimes 'HDR' tests seem merely to flatten the tone curve and lighten the darks. That's not DR.

1 upvote
AngryCorgi

Yes, the built-in "DRO" setting is not a DR EXPANSION setting. It is a DR curve modifier. The DR400% setting (and the like) that you refer to is an in-camera push of an underexposed shot with a tone curve adjustment to compress more highlight info in an area below the clipping level, in essence. Hence why the resulting ISO setting changes with the expansion setting. DR200 = a 1EV push. DR400 = a 2EV push. The SNR drop at these settings confirms this, as fine details start to degrade. You are better off looking at section 9 "Image Quality" in this review for information regarding the flexibility of the raw files, as you would have to manipulate your files manually to achieve the same results. The good news is that the review demonstrates at least 3EV of flexibility, vs the 2EV offered by Fuji's in-camera cooking. Again, anytime you do this, the image will degrade to some extent. The X-T1 review covers the need for manual tone adjustment when shooting in raw as well.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AngryCorgi

X-T1 snippet:

"Both Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One recognise the DR mode tags in the Raw files, so render their output at the correct brightness, but neither applies the different tone curves necessary to incorporate any additional highlight information. This means so you'll need to manually adjust DR200 and 400 images to get the full benefit."

0 upvotes
Brev00

It seems to me that all the cameras referred to in this review scored 80 points. If they are scored relative to one another, that would seem to indicate that they are all mediocre. I can see the score if it were relative to a more advanced body. But, if scored against other similar bodies, the scoring seems harsh to me. Is 80 the new 100?

0 upvotes
Impulses

The scoring system is just pointless and weighed counter intuitively, very nice review tho, just ignore the scoring. I can see the usefulness of a scoring system for individual aspects like IQ etc, but the overall score just incites infinitely more noise than aid (no pun intended). They should just stick to the awards IMO, have three award tiers, bronze for anything competitive and without major flaws, silver for stuff that innovates somehow, and gold for best in class. After that it's up to the reader to decide whether they value lens choices more than video or video more than ergonomics etc. Not like most of the ILC cameras they review aren't all solid choices.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi

Throngs of Fanboys: "How did this camera get a Gold Award?!?! Gold Awards go to cameras I would buy and I wouldn't buy this one!!! I guess Sony drenched DPR in piles upon piles of cash yet again!! We all know that [insert other manufactuer] Rules!!! I'm canceling my DPR account right now!!"

6 upvotes
OutOfFocus student

That's a great widget for accurate comparison of video resolution. Thanks a lot, dpreview! It would be even more useful with the frame at different ISOs (at least every 2 stops). Finally being able to download a short raw video (say 3 sec) of this scene might be useful for even more realistic assessment of how the video looks.

0 upvotes
justmeMN

DPR: "The a6000's kit lens isn't great from an image quality point of view, regularly producing images with very poor corners ..."

That's a significant flaw, that should have prevented it from getting a Gold Award.

1 upvote
Tonkotsu Ramen

sorry canon troll

not when you can just change the lens

16 upvotes
quezra
0 upvotes
DtEW

If we are to let the performance of a kit lens dictate the rating of a camera, esp. when it is available to be purchased without one...

What are we to say about cameras that don't come with kit lenses?

"This Nikon D4S gets a rating of zero, because it is obviously defective, as it cannot produce any picture at all. The included kit lens is plasticky, lacks a glass element, or even a pinhole..."

Let me clue you in: these are INTERCHANGEABLE LENS cameras that are intended to be used with a variety of lenses to achieve a variety of results to a variety of ends. The kit lens is merely a starting point that helps facilitate some people. It is not the be-all-end-all, nor even a significant part of the experience for many people.

I for one got my A6000 with a Zeiss SEL1670Z. It came as part of a Sony-sanctioned package. Why not let that dictate the score?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
viking79

Buy the body only if you don't like the lens.

2 upvotes
AlanG

I have the Nex 6 and like the 16-50 kit lens because it is so small and light. I rarely care that much about corner sharpness wide open. And the barrel distortion often enhances the photos and can be corrected easily when needed. So what is not to like for only about $150 more? I really don't want an expensive camera/lens combo for something I typically carry around for fun which may take some bumps along the way. I t could be better but is good enough for my purposes.

As mentioned there are "better" lenses available too, but this compact lens sold me on the Nex 6 in the first place.

1 upvote
Impulses

Kit lenses get refreshed pretty often too, I don't agree that it should reflect on the score for the body. That'd make it a very fast moving target, Panasonic has had something like 4 kit lenses in nearly as many years (with significant changes, sometimes for the worse but recently for the better) without even counting other types of zooms that get kitted besides the normal zoom.

The A6k was sold with ands without it from the start, and it remains a valuable choice if you crave portability and/or just want a tiny zoom to throw in the bag as a backup amongst a few primes. Those collapsible kit zooms add a lot of appeal to any mirrorless system even if it rankles the enthusiasts and experts.

1 upvote
Paul1974

Why does it say "no microphone port" when there are external mics like Sony ECM-XYST1M? I know it doesn't have 3,5 mm jack plug but you don't need one. When a camera has a non-ISO-compliant hotshoe, would you state it doesn't have a hotshoe at all?

2 upvotes
msolea

because some people, including myself, would like to use a higher end microphone, like one of the RODE microphones, which has very good sound qualities... It might be more expensive than the Sony microphone, but to some it is quite worth it.

1 upvote
alpha604

@msolea

A high end mic fed through an 8mm mini jack is a bit of an oxymoron in tech... A mini jack connection is always a bottleneck for high end mics. That said, if you don't like the omitted mini jack, the sony Bluetooth mic will have an 8mm input on the side to plug in 3rd party options.

2 upvotes
msolea

Thanks for the input, but I am assuming you meant 3.5 mm mic input jack. However, looking at the sony options for their alpha/nex line, there is no mic input options on their wireless, just the headphone jack so you can monitor the sound.

While to those who are really into audio, 3.5mm mic jacks might not be high end, they do offer some decent options, at least those that are better than the built in mic. Sony does not really make a good mic for their camera hot shoes. Apparently. their wireless one is decent, but then it needs to be used in an environment where you can put the recorder near your subject ~ hence loosing the casual, spontaneity of taking videos. But yeah, I would in all actuality probably only take videos on a rare occasion outside, at home or at work, as such it might be possible to go the wireless route along with the hotshot mic that is a small step better than the built in mic, but with a wind screen.

0 upvotes
Lab D

For those who say, "AF tracking is better in even entry-level DSLRs"
by "entry-level" do you mean D4s?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/up8K_xd_iwU

3 upvotes
JunzInc

Petty good hit rates in C-AF in the DPR tests for the Sony A6000.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lab D

JunzInc, The video compares the A6000 and D4s along with 2 other cameras. The a6000 fairs well.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
G1Houston

D4s has basically the same AF system in D7100, which is about $1,000. D5300 and D3300 has the 39-AF point module which is also outstanding.

0 upvotes
Spectro

Well most entry dslr have 1 to 11 af points. And 1 is crosshair type, then this sony with larger af coverage should do bettter for af c. But for lowlight I will pick the d7100, 7d, k5 over this for action with its coverage with more crosshair type af.

0 upvotes
BarnET

G1 Houston. The d3300 has the poor 11 point focus system. With just 1 cross type. It does have a great sensor though.

The d5300 does indeed have the 39 total 9 cross af module which is rather good.

1 upvote
D1N0

These sony camera's should be used with compact light weight prime lenses. (this probably goes for any compact mirrorless ilc except the Pentax Q-7.)

0 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

Sony needs to make some more affordable stabilized primes for APS-C E-Mount.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
iseeu

what percentage of prime out there are stabilized, especial;y wide angle and standard.

1 upvote
D1N0

IBIS would be better since you can use a lot of legacy glass on it with the right adapter.

2 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

Sony should look @ olympus/MFT and start making stabilized bodies + stabilized lenses, then just have the IS set at "Lens Priority"

Would solve issues for a lot of people.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET

Panasonic has this too. You can also set the lens stabilisation to horizontal only for panning.

Too bad that pans only has ibis with the gx7.

0 upvotes
sdh

To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?

Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid.

In my experience a physically level camera yields an image that looks tilted, more often than not.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
Petak

That is why it is called "level gauge" instead of "composition gauge".

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mirfak

"Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid."

Agreed.

6 upvotes
Matt Random

Having both is useful - grid & level is my default display. Sometimes perfectly level makes the composition look askew and sometimes there's not a convenient line in the composition to eyeball from. And seeing that the level gauge is off always reminds me to double check the overall composition in cases where i'm focusing a little too much on my subject.

Also, the 2-axis level is really helpful when taking pictures of boxes where I want to keep distortion to a minimum.

1 upvote
iseeu

don't you know now a days people wants everything in the camera
even the feature they might not ever use,

4 upvotes
G1Houston

I find a level gauge most useful when photographing young children at their eye levels. They spend a lot of time crawling, running, or rolling on the ground and it is difficult to follow them and to keep track whether everything is leveled.

1 upvote
sdh

Interesting replies.
I agree on principle, that it generally sucks when a new version of something loses a feature that a previous version had.
But I can't help feeling that the level gauge was marketing fluff from the beginning.
A lot of these comments left with an unanswered question: How can physical level-ness of the camera be more important than visual & compositional level-ness of the image?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Karroly

A level gauge is useful for stitched landscape panoramas, especially when shooting/panning handheld, for better results. When using a tripod, you can slide a spirit level into the (hopefully now) standard hot shoe...

0 upvotes
Impulses

Sometimes you want to represent the true decline in the environment and a level would be more useful than the grid in those cases... Personally I agree with having it as a Con, even cheap P&S have level guides sometimes, seems silly to omit it when previous models had it. My own camera lacks one btw (GF6), and it bugs me there too because my pocket cam and a G6 we also have do have the gauge so I'd gotten used to having it.

Why do people take issue with any small con, are they not reading the review as a whole? It was a very positive review, no camera's perfect, they can always benefit from tweak and/or copying competitor features. The pro/con list if there to summarize what it lacks relative to the competition and what it does well, not as an absolute gauge of how pleasant the camera is to use, read the review for that (and ignore the pointless score).

Heck, I even appreciate them pointing out even more insignificant stuff like USB charging in the pro/con list. They list it as both but to me it's totally a positive, I don't care about having to buy a discrete charger separate for faster charging, having the option to charge in camera off a phone car charger or a USB battery pack is huge when traveling. I wish more mirrorless cameras with relatively small batteries featured this.

0 upvotes
Jerry Fusselman

By the way,

179 = 11+10+11+10+11+10+11+10+11+10+11+10+11+10+11+10+11

if you are wondering where 179 focus points comes from. The arrangement of the a6000's focus points must be an alternating pattern like the American Flag's stars arranged in the pattern 50 = 6+5+6+5+6+5+6+5+6. (Almost 50 years ago, I was taught in school that the pattern was a brilliant discovery.)

Was anyone else curious about 179? :)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

Like the little burgundy crosses in this image, you mean?

7 upvotes
Jerry Fusselman

Spoilsport! :) But yes, you're correct. I hadn't noticed that.

1 upvote
calxn

Interesting how much more detail the A6000 records in this specific test compared to the other 3 mirrorless vendors.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 833
12345