Previous page Next page

Sony a6000 Review

May 2014 | By Richard Butler, Jeff Keller
Buy on Amazon.com From $444.00


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
777
I own it
215
I want it
47
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 764
1234
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
jennyrae

I did not know that putting touchscreen can cost so much......NOT ! Sony just cut significant corner with that missing feature.

2 upvotes
Everlast66

A touch screen will undoubtedly increase your photog skill at least 10-fold, probably even more! hehe

Come on, 30% of the time it gets in the way and 30% of the time it's quite helpful. For some people it may be more useful than a hindrance, but I wouldn't call it a key feature.

6 upvotes
bluevellet

Turn it on when you need it. Turn it off when you don't.

The demand for touch screens is not just because of rival mirrorless cameras, those upgrading from smartphones also expect it

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Everlast66

"those upgrading from smartphones also expect it"

Don't they expect to be able to make phone calls with the A6000 as well?

7 upvotes
bluevellet

Cute, but if they're buying mirrorless (or a DSLR), they're probably expecting a step-up in IQ.

For most though, smartphones are enough of a camera to not buy a real camera.

2 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

everlast, there's no reason to make childish remarks.

A touchscreen is useful for those that want it, and can be turned off for those that don't. Sony's stubborn refusale to put them on their cameras (esp when they have a mobile division) is shocking.

3 upvotes
jennyrae

in agreement that everlast66 missed picture.

0 upvotes
abortabort

I can just see the updated 'cons' list now, had it had a touch screen:

Cons -
Touchscreen cumbersome to turn on and off.

Because it is a Sony... If it were Olympus it would be genius.

1 upvote
jennyrae

not really. just your imagination.

0 upvotes
plasnu

Does anyone still choose DSLR over this at this price point?

7 upvotes
D1N0

Anybody who would like some grip and shoot with long and heavy lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
bluevellet

AF tracking is better in even entry-level DSLRs.

OVFs still have fans as well.

0 upvotes
Everlast66

People that think bigger is better or have been told that if they want to get into photography they have to get a dslr. But this misguidance will soon go into history.

8 upvotes
G1Houston

And many have already invested in Nikon and Canon with their favorite lenses. I love the Sigma 17-50/2.8 on my D90 and am buying a D7100 so I can use this lens for a few more years. Sigma does not make one yet for the E mount. I love the A6000 but buying and testing lenses is just too tedious. For compact system, I already have m4/3. To cause a major migration to SONY, it needs lenses that are good and reasonably priced.

1 upvote
forpetessake

Many ordinary (i.e. ignorant) people buy DSLRs mostly because it's a Canon or Nikon. Those brand names mean a lot.

3 upvotes
attomole

DSLR' s still have significantly more and better options for lenses

1 upvote
Richard Butler

@attomole - Neither Canon, nor Nikon, has been great in terms of providing useful primes for APS-C shooters. There are certainly more lens options, but better isn't as clear-cut as it might seem.

4 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

not when you can slap on an adapter and use w/e lens you want

0 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

@ Richard Butler

In addition, Live view performance (both speed and accuracy) on sony and MFT cameras are still light years ahead of DSLRs.

1 upvote
inlawbiker

I cannot fathom why anybody would buy an entry or mid-level DSLR over this thing. Sony will have to market it heavily though, the idea that DSLR's are better will be difficult to overcome.

2 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

I think it's mostly because entry level dslr's are widely avail from most retailers. Sony still needs to work on that.

0 upvotes
attomole

@Richard Butler Although recent investment in APSC lenses by DSLR manufactures possibly does not match Fuji and Sony, there is a huge legacy of FX lenses that work perfectly well on APSC and an arsenal of third Party, I like this Sony allot but Sony and Zeiss even Sigma have made some odd chooses when is comes to outfitting it with lenses , why so many 30 Something mm primes? Compare with Nikon 1.8 series of budget primes and legacy wide angles + third party Zooms and Sigma art, I maintain my claim DSLR's have more and better lens options.

0 upvotes
Banhmi

Of course! -- the U.S. market is full of mildly retarded people who are obsessed with giant cameras and have absurd ideas regarding the quality of mirrorless cameras.

1 upvote
D1N0

It's just that people who shoot mirror less have to ridicule DSLR users to justify their choice. According to them mirror less has no disadvantages and people who can't see that are clearly very stupid. Very narrow minded of them. I can see a use for mirror less, but it's just not for me yet.

0 upvotes
Paks

Mr Butler: The review states as I quote below:

"The thing that's interesting to note is that, despite this attempt to apply less noise reduction in areas of detail, the a6000 does no better in retaining the fine texture in the light blue detail crop. "

"no better" than what? Please clarify.

1 upvote
Richard Butler

Sorry, it should say 'no better than its peers in retaining...'

I'll correct the text.

1 upvote
Timbukto

While you are correcting that, it should be noted that light blue detail crop (if you are talking about the image often used for the NR comparison widget) is pretty poor by today's standards in comparison. On the other hand using the *new* studio comparison tool we can see the AI-NR being used to great effect in high ISO jpeg compared to many other cameras...quite impressive actually.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

@Timbukto - we're aware that the light blue low-contrast detail crop isn't perfect. There are things in the works.

The noise reduction can work well, but doesn't seem to distinguish well between low-contrast detail and smooth areas, meaning a very high level of NR is sometimes applied to areas of subtle detail.

0 upvotes
jrn145

This is my next camera. Coming from an original NEX-3, it should be well worth it (and about time, too).

4 upvotes
Everlast66

I've got an NEX 5N and am very tempted, mainly due to the excellent AF.

1 upvote
Everlast66

... but also the RX100 III is quite tempting as well.

1 upvote
Paks

And as an a6000 user, the RX100 II and III are tempting...maybe I should buy my wife a gift for Father's day, hmmm

1 upvote
Rooru S

I sold my NEX-5 (almost 4 years old) and decided to buy a A850 with a bunch of Zeiss and G lenses meanwhile until Sony comes up with more APS-C E-mount lenses.

This should be a great camera to get into the E-mount train again but will wait until the RX100 mk.3 arrives and see what fits better my needs for small camera.

0 upvotes
b craw

Paks: that's thinking.

0 upvotes
FiveForm

I'd love to see Sony make a G series, 16-85mm f2.8 walkaround lens for the a6000. Not sure if they can manage the top end being that long, but one of my favorites for my Nikon D series cameras was their 16-85. I'm currently shooting the Sony original 18-200mm and while nice, it's just too heavy and bulky and makes a small, light ILC a bit too cumbersome. Zeiss glass is great, but they know it and charge through the nose. I can buy two decent Nikon prime or zoom lenses for the cost of one Zeiss prime.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
forpetessake

Sony should copy the lens roadmap from Fuji, they did all the right choices. If only Sony also could approach Fuji in optical quality ...

3 upvotes
bluevellet

Too late for that. Sony too busy starting starting over with FE lens development. Mirrorless APSC lens development on hiatus, perhaps permanently.

2 upvotes
DtEW

Basic math makes your desired 16-85mm f/2.8 *huge*. Its front element would need to be even bigger ( = 30.36mm entry pupil) than that of the full-frame Canon EF24-105mm f/4 (= 26.25mm entry pupil).

(It needs to be remembered that since the angular FoVs are similar as well, the front element will be comparable.)

I *have* the EF 24-105mm. Trust me when I say you do not want anything on that scale on the A6000.

The SEL1670Z is a good compromise that works with both the ergonomics and performance intent of the A6000. If you really want a f/2.8 normal zoom, you want the full grip typical of dSLRs, and perhaps of bigger MILCs in the future.

3 upvotes
Seeky

So you find the 18-200 too large but you want a 16-85 f2.8??? I can assure you that such a lens will be heavier and larger than the former, IF it would ever exist.

If you want small, light, fast and sharp, take a good look at prime lenses.

2 upvotes
larrytusaz

Having shot with the NEX-6 before I would miss the level gauge. I can't shoot a level landscape without one if my life depended on it. There's always a Joby aftermarket spirit level, but then you can't see it if you're using the EVF. Why in the WORLD was this left off from the NEX-6?

However, I love what they'e done with having so many AF points covering so much of the frame. This is something that DSLR makers still don't seem to get--we don't want to have to "focus center and recompose," we want to compose as-is and then be able to place an AF point pretty much wherever on the screen with our current composition already accounted for. Even models like the D7100 don't provide enough coverage, to say nothing of the D3000 and D5000 series. Whenever you say "I want about 150 AF points covering the WHOLE screen" they look at you like you're asking for the moon or something. Sony proves that in fact you're not asking that at all.

2 upvotes
FiveForm

The level gauge on my NEX-7 was nice, but the brain is a better all-round gauge and what isn't perfect on the original is very easy to level in post, IMHO...

1 upvote
Matt Random

Same with me. I'm quite proficient at getting crocked landscapes. I don't want to crop in post since that changes the composition I was going for.

0 upvotes
forpetessake

What can be easier than correcting the image in PP? Moreover, I would have the 3x3 grid lines and not the level turned on, it's simpler to align the horizon with the grid than trying to catch the level.

3 upvotes
Greynerd

@forpetessake
"What can be easier than correcting the image in PP? "
Using a NEX 6 and not having to rotate and crop the image in PP would be the answer I presume and PP would be no use if the image is tightly framed.
The dropping of the level gauge is an inexcusable omission, probably because of a rush to market, but people will still try to make out there is merit in it.

0 upvotes
ZKaiLe

i dont know but when i realized that full PDAF works only with some few lenses (it doesnt work with sigma and zeiss for example), I've got many doubts buying it.

1 upvote
razorfish

Make a smashing new camera with great performance, cripple some key features like the viewfinder and electronic level, now you've created an "upgrade path" to your essentially dinosaur "full frame" models. How do you still get a gold award? Underprice it a lot compared to competing brands, and even seasoned reviewers won't notice the crippling going on.

2 upvotes
Matt Random

The level is baffling. For me that would be a deal breaker. I use the level all the time and Sony has such a nice 2-axis implementation.

I've been wowed by the AF speed in the store. It rivals my SLT. Wish my RX1 was that fast.

0 upvotes
jrn145

The viewfinder has more accurate colors and less lag in low light compared to the one found in the NEX-6... that, to me, is more than worth the drop in resolution.

That said, I would expect the next generation a6000 to have a higher resolution EVF.

2 upvotes
chrisfromalaska

A bit disappointed that the level, audio/headphone jacks and touch screen were left off too - with no other E-mount model having those features outside of the A7. I bought one of these to serve as a B cam to the A7, but I know a more feature rich Ax000 is right around the corner and I would prefer those features, so I'm returning the A6000.

0 upvotes
FiveForm

If they can make a higher rez EVF that doesn't block up the shadows in low light, then fine. Otherwise, I have no issues with the 1.4M EVF. Where I'm spending real time looking at playback is in post, anyway. I'm glad they kept the price down by dropping really unnecessarily "features." More than a future upgrade path, I see the elimination of certain toolsets in favor of superior focusing and image quality as money savers where I can roll that into lenses, instead, anyway...

0 upvotes
captura

- or an upgrade path to a "super APS-C" A7000 model for next year?

1 upvote
OBI656

I have this camera. When I came back home from my "testing photo-shot" where I did use Leica Summicron M 50 mm f/2.0 on this camera I did not believe what I have seen. This combo did produce absolutely awesome quality images which I have shot in RAW format.
Rich saturated with profound details and silky smooth hightails.
In short I can tell you, that this A6000 is finest cam I did ever have in my pocket.

4 upvotes
photog4u

Well that's great OBI-WAN, how bout showing us those great shots? Can we get a link please?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
OBI656

I am commercial photographer doing studio work for ad agencies. I am not active on social media networks posting my photos since they do not belong to me.
If I take some photographs on my way to Starbuck they are mostly of personal nature. But thank you "photog4u" for your interest.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
photog4u

I would have thought that the conclusion segment of this review mention just how amazing this camera performs with the Zeiss Touit lenses. I mean they are after all THE stand-out e-mount primes available for this system so why not talk it up. AND Zeiss claims to be releasing a firmware update soon that will allow Touits to function correctly with the a6000 hybrid phase detect auto focus. At that point, 80 Gold with a kit lens is 85 Gold with the Zeiss ALL DAY LONG.

3 upvotes
G1Houston

Is the lack of an external charger really a negative?

I have come to appreciate the fact that when I carry these cameras on a trip, I do not have to pack all the bulky chargers with them. I just have to bring a single USB cable that I already use to charge my phone and tablet. Is that really so difficult to charge a separate battery at night time in the camera? It is also possible to use those external batteries we have for the smartphone to quick charge the "camera" in the filed. I thus suggest Dpreview to reconsider calling the lack of external charger a "pro," to encourage companies to simply the accessary. It drives me mad that each one of my camera has a different battery with a different charger.

3 upvotes
dmartin92

I may be wrong, but I wonder if USB doesn't really turn out enough electricity to quickly charge a camera battery. Maybe with telephone batteries there's enough to do it somewhat quick, via USB, but maybe camera batteries are bigger, etc.

But I'm not sure about this. It's just the question that I am asking myself.

1 upvote
ET2

Jeff Keller puts this "con" everytime he reviews cameras but never mentions that being able to charge with USB without carrying a charger is a big po. You can charge while driving, on a plane, in a hotel, etc.

This seems to be Jeff Keller personal agenda, even though external charger with two batteries (made by third parties) included are less than $20 on amazon

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
W5JCK

I agree, G1Houston apparently doesn't understand that charging the battery in camera with a USB cable takes an estimated 5 hours. Without an external charger, you can only charge one battery at a time, so 10 hours are required to charge two batteries for the next day. The good news is that you can get really inexpensive and good third party batteries and chargers, like Wasabi. The a6000 batteries are the same as in older NEX cameras, so if you have an older NEX use its charger and batteries.

2 upvotes
forpetessake

External charger should have been included, it's pretty much a necessity with those small batteries. One or more batteries (depending on use) should always be charging while camera is in use, so you can swap them. Sony simply decided to hide the charger cost from the price of the camera.
And it's correct that the USB charging is very slow. USB port is rated just 0.5 amp.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
FiveForm

As for external battery chargers and the "NEX" series of cameras I can say that I won't get through a day on one battery with either the NEX-7 or the a6000. Fortunately, I've picked up a few spares, third party vendor, as well as OEM, along the way. I do, however, agree that having the convenience of the internal charger and ubiquitous standard power bricks and cables is good, but charge times and tying up the camera just aren't in good form - sorry. I always buy spare batteries, but would never dedicate the camera as a charger for them...

2 upvotes
Cheng Bao

You can take any cellphone usb charger. i.e. I am using Iphone's usb charger with a standard usb micro cable, which is rated 2.1a, 4 times as faster as included a6000 charger.
On my a7, it took 40 minutes to charge to 80% from 0%. 1 hours and 20 minutes to 100%

1 upvote
Matt Random

Outlets are usually at a premium in a hotel room. Another advantage of the USB charging is that I can use one of those plug-in gadgets that has 4 USB ports (and is still smaller than a standard battery charger) and charge my camera, iPad and iPhone all at the same time. The one I have has good output so the charging times aren't bad and excessive heating hasn't been a problem.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

No external charger means the camera needs to be tetered to recharge the battery. If you're on a trip, this is a serious limitation. USB charging is not bad in itself, it just shouldn't be your only option with a device where you can easily take out the battery.

Buying an extra A6000 as an external charger for your primary A6000 is silly. :p

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (6 months ago)

Bulky chargers? Throw an external wall charger in your suitcase and that "bulk" no longer matters. Being able to set a battery to charge while you take the camera along is a great benefit. Also, whenever you plug your camera into anything you're introducing another failure mode. Power spikes or faulty charging circuitry could easily fry the camera. I never plug my camera into anything. Take the battery out to charge and take the card out to download.

0 upvotes
G1Houston

"means the camera needs to be tetered to recharge the battery."

No. There are a lot of external batteries designed to recharge a dead cell phone that can be used to quickly recharge your dead camera. You must already have a USB charger in your car which you can use to charge the camera on the go. If you do need multiple batteries, is it that hard to charge them in the hotel at night? Why do you need your camera when you are asleep? To download and play with the images, you just need to take out the memory card and the camera can be left plug in to charge many batteries a night.

0 upvotes
G1Houston

"i.e. I am using Iphone's usb charger with a standard usb micro cable, which is rated 2.1a, 4 times as faster as included a6000 charger."

Exactly. If you use the charger for iPad or any other tablet, you can cut down the charge time in half.

1 upvote
G1Houston

"Also, whenever you plug your camera into anything you're introducing another failure mode. Power spikes or faulty charging circuitry could easily fry the camera. I never plug my camera into anything. Take the battery out to charge and take the card out to download."

Is that how you charge your phone, tablet, or laptop?

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (6 months ago)

I'm not given the option. Given the option I would charge externally. Anytime I'm charging or my PC is on during a storm everything gets unplugged as soon as possible. I've had friends and family who have lost appliances (tv's, microwaves, and iPods) fried due to power spikes or brown outs. Also, given the option I plug in expensive electronics using surge protectors and voltage regulators. I adapt every device to every situation rather than using one technique on everything no matter what. I can store all of those random preferences and requirements in my brain for instant use. If I was older, slower, and unaccustomed to technology it might be more difficult for me to change my methods. For example, after decades of NiCd batteries I'm finally getting over the habit to discharge things fully before recharging.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
benny_wong

U can charger more than 1 batterie at a time with a single external charger ? How ?

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (6 months ago)

Sorry to say, but I'm not convinced and actually I don’t see much value anymore in the reviews. This is mainly caused by the way the comparisons are made. DXO has a bit more value for me, the lenses are tested in combination with the body.

And don’t misunderstand me, I like the Sony camera’s a lot!

First of all I don't see any example pictures with tele-lens. 70mm is max or do I miss something? The Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS is BTW one of the better lenses. It is difficult to compare this configuration with the bad-commented Olympus E-P5 configuration with less qualitative good lenses and then draw conclusions. Try the E-P5 with the new Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm 1:2.8 PRO!
And... in picture DSC00032-ISO100 it looks that the so called ‘shutter shock’ issue also pops-up in the Sony cameras. There are plenty other pictures online shot with longer lenses that have the same effects. But I don’t read anything in the review about this effect?

3 upvotes
W5JCK

I agree. Plus DXOmark tests the sensor capabilities, not just the lackluster kit lens that typically comes with a consumer or enthusiast camera. On DPReview you can have a gold medal camera at 80% and a silver medal camera at 84%! WTF! The DPReview system of rating seems very flawed and not very useful at times. I much prefer the DXOmark system of rating.

1 upvote
Revenant

DPR reviews cameras, while DxO rates sensors. The former is much more useful to me.
Also, DPR's percentage scores and the awards aren't connected. They're intended to tell you different things. There's a page somewhere here on DPR that explains their scoring system and the awards.

2 upvotes
Scott Everett

Here's the link to our scoring system overview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (6 months ago)

Oke, I see. Thanks for explaining. But then DP shoud not compare cameras the way they do now. Now it seems a bit mixed somehow. When reading the E-P5 review they look at other cameras including the A6000 but in a complete different configuration. My point is that if you compare, then compare what is comparable....

0 upvotes
matty_boy

Like DXO Mark reviews are infallible, they are as subjective as they come with many articles pointing out how flawed their methodology is. I also seem to remember that EISA decided DXOMark couldn't be used as an objective measure os sensor performance due to the exact reason. At the end of the day people will always err on the side of reviews that tend to agree with their own view point or experiences they are all subjective..

0 upvotes
Herschel

I'm debating the RX100 M3 over updating my NEX-5N body to an a6000.

The f3.5 kit lens vs the f1.8 lens in the M3 means you can shoot at roughly 1/4th the ISO on the M3 to get equivalent IQ on the a6000. The studio shots bear this out - ISO 1600 on the M3 looks indistinguishable from ISO6400 on the a6000.

Sony has done a great job on their cameras - I just feel like they need to spend more R&D on their lens lineup like Fuji has to make their mirrorless portfolio compelling.

0 upvotes
Jogger

I used to have a 5N as well and gave it away after getting the RX100m1. The image quality is not quite as good, but, the performance/portability ratio is unbeatable; i just wasnt using the 5N anymore. But, i also have a Nikon FF set-up for when image quality really matters... so, the 5N was in no-mans land for me.

The RX100m3 will have much, much better video than the A6000, if that matters to you.

0 upvotes
forpetessake

The RX-100iii lens is equivalent to 16-46mm f/3.3-5.0 lens in A6000. So you get very close performance to the kit lens. But that's not the end of the story. With interchangeable lens design you have a choice of many lenses, from small pocketable ones to large telephotos. For most people who are the target market of the NEX/A6000 cameras, the RX is simply not an acceptable trade-off. Though it's a reasonable solution to get RX in addition to A6000 and get rid of the kit lens.

1 upvote
Tapper123

forpetesake is incorrect.

The aperture range of the RX100 III _is_ f1.8 - 2.8, period.

There is no equivalence in aperture AKA lens speed -- it is a ratio. What forpetesake is confused about is the depth of field, in which case yes, the RX1000 III is roughly equivalent to the kit lens. BUT, and this is key, it is MUCH faster in terms of light gathering. You will not find a comparable compact lens for the NEX system. Ever.

Unless you specifically need what the A6000 offers, i.e. interchangeable lenses and super fast AF, the RX offers an unmatched package for its size.

0 upvotes
2eyesee

@Tapper123: "RX1000 III is roughly equivalent to the kit lens. BUT, and this is key, it is MUCH faster in terms of light gathering."

You're wrong here. f/2.8 = f/2.8 in terms of light intensity received by the sensor, but the A6000 sensor is 3.2x larger, which means in terms of light-gathering it receives about 1.5 stops more light. Think of it like leaving a bucket out in the rain - the larger buck gets more water.

forepetessake just expressed this as aperture equivalence, and he's correct - the A6000 with the 16-50mm kit lens is pretty comparable to the RX100M3.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET

It may be spec wise. But the 16-50 is a rather pathetic under designed piece of garbage.

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=1

The a6000 is a compelling product. But if you need a proper standard zoom be ready to fork out some cash. The 16-70 I tested was excellent. But that will drive the price up.

If you will use the standard zoom your better off elsewhere. Fujifilm or m43.
http://www.photozone.de/m43/844-panasonic1442f3556ii?start=2
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/853-fuji1650f3556?start=1

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
2eyesee

@BarnET
The problem with those reviews of the 16-50 is that they review it with the corrections disabled - which is not how it's designed to be used.

The corners are soft at wide angle, sure, but even that PhotoZone concludes that it's actually 'pretty decent' in the 20-50mm range (30-75mm equivalent).

0 upvotes
BarnET

at 16mm the corners are completely black. no software correction besides cropping(which makes it less wide) will fix that.

I am fine with software correction for distortion and chromatic aberation. as this has very little side effect. But vignetting means boosting signal which leads to more noise.

Corner sharpness must at least be decent. and the 16-50mm isn't decent in the corners.

The Panasonic 14-42mm i mentioned is also designed to be used with software corrections. But it's a decent optic. good sharpness across the frame and well controlled vignetting. distortion is pretty bad but that is something the software can adress effectively.

All in all the A6000 is still a great camera. But it just deserves better glass smacked at the front.

0 upvotes
bzanchet

Wow! Sony is producing the sharpest cameras on the Market IMO. Some better lenses would have made their cameras the best availabe.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
W5JCK

I'm more of a Canon guy, but I have to admit the a series of Sony mirrorless are finally looking to be much more attractive. The good thing about them is that they can use lenses from many other systems via adapters. You lose some capability, but you gain much better lenses to choose from. On the a6000, you can even use a variety of full frame lenses with the Metabones Speed Booster adapter and get a quality of image near to what it woyld be on a full frame camera. Just something to think about. Waiting for Sony to produce a good line of lenses is going to be a long wait I'm afraid.

2 upvotes
Theelderkeynes

The Oly M10 looks sharper to me especially when you raise the ISO levels. And also in the corners, so maybe the Sony lens is also a bit iffy compared to whatever was on the M10.

3 upvotes
FiveForm

Setting the focus point is what we used to call "manual focus," and that is easily engaged by programming it to the AE button (or button of your choice), wherein if you have focus peaking and magnification turned on, you can instantly precision focus on any area of your choosing. To do the same with a touch screen is to have to remove your eye from the EVF, and free-up a digit to touch the screen. With touch screens, any frequent manipulation of the articulating LCD is risky, as it's more than easy to set focus while pivoting the screen back to position. This was my hands-on experience with the 5N. I'm personally quite happy without touch screens and will save those for my smartphones where all the main controls on on-screen...

1 upvote
onlooker

Actually, on some Panasonic cameras you can look through the viewfinder while guiding the focus point on a flipped out LCD.

1 upvote
Revenant

I would interpret "setting the focus point" as referring to choosing the AF point, and not to manual focusing.

0 upvotes
Tonkotsu Ramen

Apple isn't even going to update the iphone 4 with ios8 and you're still using it for professional reviews?

C'mon buddy, get a iphone 5S AND a nexus 5 or some NFC equipped android so you can tell us how the NFC handshakes work instead of avoiding it altogether.

1 upvote
steelhead3

I guess the reviewer was not familiar with the Sony lens line up "(there's no real portrait prime"; what is the 50 1.8? The ZA Emont 55 1.8 is also available.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ambercool

Any lens can be used for portraits, but I think what they are referring to here is an 85mm and above.

3 upvotes
Cheng Bao

55/1.8 is 82.5mm equiv.
I don't think that 2.5mm will make it less than 85mm for portraits

2 upvotes
joelR42

@ambercool Fuji nor Oly have an 85/90mm prime. They both have "equivalent" focal length lenses—as does Sony. Annoyed that DPReview is perpetuating the Sony doesn't have lenses meme with falsehood. Not to say that there aren't holes in their lineup but 55mm is a GREAT portrait prime on the A6000. The 50mm is a bit wide but has amazing value.

1 upvote
ambercool

I thought steelhead3 was stating equivalent lenses for the E-mount. So what you guys are saying is that they didn't release a 32mm f/1.8 until only recently? I'm not entirely sure why that makes any sense on Sony's part.

This almost seems like they were too lazy to make the proper equivalent conversions and just ported the focal lengths until a later date?

0 upvotes
steelhead3

Ms. Amber, I have not a clue on what you wrote. Of course we are talking equivalent, 50 to 70 in apc is portrait length. Sony has had a very good 35 1.8 since the beginning of E mount (not normally considered portrait length).

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie

E-mount has the Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS = 52mm or the Zeiss 32mm F1.8 Touit = 48mm, they would work just fine as a portrait prime, IMO not to mention the Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS = 75mm or the new Zeiss 50mm F2.8 Touit =75mm

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
FiveForm

Agreed! I have the Sony 50mm f1.8 and it is one sharp lens! Used it on my 5N, 7, and now on the a6000 and with the new firmware update for phase detection sensors it definitely kicks butt!

2 upvotes
Richard Butler

I'll admit, I'd forgotten about the FE 55mm F1.8 ZA, and have updated the wording, accordingly.

It's not technically in the classic 85-135mm equivalent range, but the difference is trivial, so I take your point.

2 upvotes
Cheng Bao

It seems the comments are not roll over from First Impression Review of a6000. Normally they will carry old comments into full review.

0 upvotes
munro harrap

As you can still buy Nex 7s brand new, why is there no option for comparison with a Nex 7, obviously what this machine suceeds?

0 upvotes
PazinBoise

My guess would be that the NEX-6 is the a6000's true predecessor and the NEX-7 is just old enough where a more relevant comparison is the NEX-6.

1 upvote
Retzius

"While some people will never step away from a DSLR, the a6000 makes a very strong case for being able to do everything a Nikon D5300 or EOS 700D/Rebel T5i can do, even in terms of autofocus."

Nikon and Canon need to wake up real quick... their intro level DSLR cameras' only real advantage any more is having an optical viewfinder, but the bean counters and marketing folks have turned them in to small dark tunnels that aren't much fun to look through anymore.

TBH, if you are looking for a small but capable camera the mirrorless segment is now offering a better alternative. The pro segment is an entirely different story, but I'm sure that will be targeted soon.

5 upvotes
PazinBoise

Hopefully mirrorless cameras will gain more wide spread acceptance from both high end users and casual consumers so we can get even more accessories and lenses. Canon/Nikon are lucky that most people moving up from point&shoots still equate DSLRs with "better photos". That's why when one parent gets one another parent gets one. Part of it is to keep up with the Jones' and the other part is that they feel DSLRs are "better" cameras.

Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic have to do a better job changing the opinion of the general public (as photo nerds like us already know mirrorless systems are the future) both by educating them about mirrorless systems and placing the cameras in the hands of the right trendsetters.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
67gtonr

Actually, Canon and Nikon's entry level DSLR's have one huge advantage to Canon and Nikon, that being profits, and lots of them!

0 upvotes
Carnex

Yea, Canon and Nikon have enormous back catalog of lenses and other accessories. Abandoning that would be rather foolish. Even Sony still supports A-mount with their STL line. Main reason Sony exploded onto DSLR scene is availability of ready Konica-Minolta lenses and accessories for their new cameras.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
DPJoe2

As a Nikon D800, D700 owner, I'm not sure an optical viewfinder is an advantage. 1st, the OVF can't show you what you will get before you take the shot so you can adjust before you take the shot. 2nd, the OVF nor the screen can show you what you got in bright daylight. The EVF can do both of these. I can't help but call EVF a major advantage. Does the OVF approximate what my computer monitor will show me. No. EVF? Partially.

1 upvote
Frank Petronio

Really how many times is the reviewer going to write "really"?

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
12 upvotes
Richard Butler

Really?

That's not good. I'll keep an eye on that, in future.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Carnex

Really?
That's really not got. I'm going to really keep my eye on that can get really annoying. In the future really, since i really didn't pay any attention to that up to now. :P

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

I'd blame your editor, really.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 764
1234