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
1396
I own it
356
I want it
130
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 833
2345
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) (Jun 3, 2014)

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) (Jun 3, 2014)

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) (Jun 3, 2014)

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) (Jun 3, 2014)

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
123Mike

Thanks for the review DPR !

11 upvotes
Peiasdf

Drop in a FF sensor, IBIS and GPS and we are talking. That's be the best camera of the year.

5 upvotes
Zeisschen

Sony A99 is there since two years for you. Or do you I want it in A6000 size?

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe

Will it ever be practical to use IBIS on a FF sensor?

0 upvotes
Eleson
1 upvote
thecameraeye

The lack of a twin dial is a little disappointing.

7 upvotes
quezra

Agreed. But DSLRs in this price range have just one dial and only one or two dials is par for the course for mirrorless at this price. Unfortunately.

2 upvotes
areichow

Huh? There's the top dial and the back dial. Three dials would be even better - it's a shame that you can't customize the front ring to act as on when you're not using MF, like you can on the RX100.

0 upvotes
quezra

I'd assume he meant twin dials on the top plate, which make for easy access. The d-pad dial really is not quite as handy. And you need 3 dials for full M mode shooting.

0 upvotes
audiobomber

You can't beat DSLR-style front and rear dials. OTOH, the EM-10 has them on a body this size, and everything was so scrunched up that I couldn't tolerate using it. Plus the a6000 has a real grip and the Oly doesn't.

> "DSLRs in this price range have just one dial"

The Pentax K-500 and K-50 have front and rear control dials in this price range (and a 100% coverage pentaprism).

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
thecameraeye

@areichow, the second dial replicates the function of the first dial IIRC. I don't know whether any Alpha mirrorless cameras apart from the NEX-7/alpha 7 have true twin dial or triple dial control systems.

And @quezira, there are cameras at this price point with two dials. The Fuji X-A1/X-M1 comes to mind.

0 upvotes
quezra

Yes, as does the A6000 and NEX-6. What you are asking for is 3+ dials like NEX-7 and A7 (so that there is a pair on top and the D-pad dial below), which is unheard of at this price point.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
audiobomber

The a6000 is a lot of camera in a small package, with decent controls and AF, and best-in-class sensor. I picked one up to carry along with my DSLR. It fits in a slot where I normally carry a spare lens.

B&H and Henry's are offering a package deal on the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2.8 lenses, about half the regular price ($US919). That's a pretty impressive start for someone who wants upgraded lenses. Mine should be here in about a week.

7 upvotes
mosc

How well does this thing focus with LA-EA1 adapter? Any improvement in speed with older alpha lenses designed for PDAF? Does this camera's focus strengths negate the need for the LA-EA2?

0 upvotes
Lab D

I think I read some Sigma E-mount lenses are not supported, so older alpha lenses may not be either. We need someone to confirm.

0 upvotes
123Mike

LA-EA1 and 3 adapters only AF with lenses with a built in motor, and does it excruciatingly slow. The 2 and 4 adapters turn the camera into an SLT camera, which is still good, just not as good, as it overrides the AF system with an older system. It removed 1/2 stop of light as well. Those have a built in screw motor so old AF lenses work on it as well.
Much better to avoid all this and stick with E-mount lenses. The 18-105 is a particularly good choice IMO. Large though.
Sigma E-mount lenses work fine, but only do PDAF at the center for reasons I don't know. But they'll AF. The 30mm/2.8 one is cheap and uber uber sharp.

0 upvotes
Hazza1

Microphone jack is neither here nor there. A 3.5mm unbalanced mic is only marginally better than the inbiult mic. If you want decent sound, shoot double system.

This camera is only a disappointment because it is curently top of the line Sony mirrorless APSC.

I have a Nex-7 and Zeiss 16-70 (which DXO Mark has never reviewd - work that one out), and which side by side with my tests with a 5D MK3 with crappy 24-105 so-called L series - even in low light , is superior to the 5D.
So what I want Sony is an APSC camera with the performance of a 1DX.

I want a "high end" APSC mirrorless. - no I don't want to switch to Fuji.

Why have Sony abandoned the high end APSC format philosophy? The Nex-7 with phase detection a/f (and continuous focus on burst) + weather proofing would be my dream camera.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

You're welcome to say that, but DXO scores the 5DmkIII at over twice the low light score of the Nex7 and it has a stop more DR at higher ISOs, so your comment wouldn't seem to be fully supported in tests.

BTW I do think the 16-70 is a really key lens for the APS E-mount cameras.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Lab D

External microphones vary. Some are significantly better than cheap internal ones. To say they are all only "marginally" better is incorrect.
Also,a touchscreen focal point selection is a big plus and it makes menu navigation easier.

2 upvotes
123Mike

Microphone input becomes possible through an add-on on the shoe socket.

0 upvotes
sh10453

I must be out of touch!!!

When did the Canon 24-105mm L become "crappy", and "so-called L"?

I don't think that you'd find many who would agree with such a statement.
If you have a "scientifically accepted" comparison test, we would love to see it.

3 upvotes
PazinBoise

Sony probably abandoned it the high end APS-C format because there wasn't enough market value right now . The a6000 offers all the same tech though they did downgrade some features to get it at this price point which in their eyes makes sense because the a7 line up caters those looking for a higher end camera. I'm sure they will fill the gap with something in the next year or two. It will probably be something like you mentioned coming in at the $1200 price range to complete with Fuji XT-1 and Oly's OM-D EM-1.

0 upvotes
Hazza1

Dear Lab D - by unbalanced, I'm talking about the signal path. 3.5mm *unbalanced* is much more prone to interference no matter how good the actual mic is, as opposed to XLR balanced (professional). I would only ever use audio from a 3.5mm unbalanced signal path as a guide track.

0 upvotes
Jogger

With touchscreen on real cameras, you either go all touch or no-touch. The in-between creates a lot of headaches in practical use.. esp. with a built-in EVF. Commenters crying about lack of touchscreen have no intention on buying Sony in the first place.

8 upvotes
Albert Silver

I have a Canon T4i and have no issues with the touchscreen. Quite the contrary: I love it, and note I only shoot via the viewfinder. So, I'm not sure about the complaint you are voicing.

8 upvotes
T3

This "all or nothing" attitude is non-sense. Sometimes, you want to use touch, and sometimes you don't. What's the big deal? If I'm shooting video or shooting stills off the LCD, I like using touch focus to change the location of the AF point. That's so much easier and quicker than trying to do with with fiddly secondary physical controls. Then, when I want to use the EVF, I switch to using physical controls. Again, what's the big deal?

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe

The touch-screen implementation on the GX7 is excellent, it adds a lot of useful functionality to the interface with no tradeoffs on physical controls, and you can completely disable it if you really wanted to.

2 upvotes
Pdf Ninja

I think touch focus makes sense. It can be faster than pressing a button 12 times, and more intuitive, too. Yes, it means you have to remove your eyes from the viewfinder, but this is not a professional sports camera anyway.

0 upvotes
hippo84

A6000 samples at base ISO in RAW look sharper than D610.

8 upvotes
123Mike

Beware of focusing mistakes during tests though. Don't judge sharpness! Judge things like noise and the control of it.

1 upvote
caravan

Seems like a good product.pleased that it does not have a touch screen,biggest con for me is the articulating LCD.

Thanks for the review.

1 upvote
viking79

Touch and articulation add flexibility. You don't have to use them if you don't want to, but there is no reason for a modern camera to not have them. I don't buy reliability, they have both proven to be perfectly reliable.

7 upvotes
T3

I think every camera should have a touchscreen, and eventually I think every camera *will* have a touchscreen. Touchscreens are a totally logical progression in human interface. Why use a secondary control interface (like a button or dial) to interact with the screen when you can interact directly with the screen? It reminds me of when ATMs and electronic kiosks didn't have touch and you had to use a track ball and buttons to navigate around the screen. Annoying! Imagine if tablets and smartphones didn't have touch, and you had to use a trackball or buttons to navigate around their screens! Yes, at one time we didn't have touchscreen technology, so we had to rely on secondary buttons and dials to interact with a screen's information. But that is no longer the case. At least give us the option of touch.

As for an articulating screen, if you don't need it, leave it closed. And when you do need it, just flip it out. It's a proven and reliable feature, just like a pop-up flash.

4 upvotes
Old Baldy

The lack of touch screen may be the thing that causes me to NOT buy this as my 4th NEX camera. I prefer using my two 5Ns compared to my 7 because of this very reason.

I would not buy a camera with a fixed screen. The articulating screen is just too useful.

2 upvotes
123Mike

The screen articulates, and does it very well. You can make it point up or down. It's much handier than the side flip that others use.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

Touchscreens were exotic and even gimmicky only a few years ago, but now, they are one of the fundamental features in most cameras. Sony's stubborness with ignoring the trend baffling though. What are they saving with each camera? 5-10 bucks? Is it really worth losing sales over?

3 upvotes
fz750

T3: Touchscreens are a totally logical progression in human interface.

I don't agree at all, and very few HCI designers wouid either.

The best interface is the one that you dont think about and just use naturally, and for many people (me included) that might be one with dedicated controls in the right place, not 5 levels of menu on a touchscreen. (or 5 screens..)

1 upvote
Old Baldy

fz750 - what could be MORE logical and intuitive than touching the spot on the screen where you would like to focus, rather than pushing or pulling a separate lever or 4 buttons to move a cursor up/down and then left/right over the screen?

3 upvotes
fz750

Of course I agree that in this example it is much more intuitive and logical if using liveview (I don't), but the statement made above was a rather all encompassing statement that touchscreens are the logical conclusion to all user/interface issues which is simply not the case. (exposure compensation and twin dials come to mind, for example).

0 upvotes
MtnGoatJoe

I have to agree with Baldy. I'm no pro, and touch-to-focus would be very handy for me and my wife (who doesn't have a clue about focus). The lack of this feature is probably why I will wait to upgrade my NEX-5. That, and the fact that I don't have any money :-|

0 upvotes
msolea

For me, the major con is that it does not have a microphone jack for higher end microphones. I actually like the fact that it does not have a touch screen. I have used touch screens before and I always found them irritating. While, I have only handled this camera briefly, it seems to be a solid camera. If Sony were to offer an A7000, I would like to see a MIC jack added and possibly internal 4HD. But, I am not that big into making videos, so the latter point is that that crucial to me. Perhaps, they can take out the AA filter too.

That said, there are a couple of lenses I would like to see for the E-system or FE system, like a 70-300mm G or Zeiss OSS variable aperture lens as well as a wider angle lens that would at least incorporate 12mm or 18mm equivalent in the DX format that is also of high quality ~ G or Zeiss quality.... But, with the 55mm filter size. After all, 24-70mm f/4 FE lens is a bit too wide for this body, but manageable. Hence, my dilemma based on initial impressions.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Summi Luchs

A 70-300mm lens for APS-C sized sensors will inevitably become big. Even more an FE version. The size advantage of the shorter flange distance doesn't play a significant role at 300mm. So I doubt that it is meaningful to put such big lenses on such small camera bodies.

0 upvotes
Stan

Without control over audio codecs and levels (hate AGC) how much good would a mic input do? Sony sells a hot shoe mic and even a hotshoe bluetooth mic you can separate. But is the AGC dealt with - no. So dual record and the easily autosync in your NLE or via something like Pluraleyes.

0 upvotes
Crixus

Nice read, thank you for the review. Great little camera, I can't wait to have one in my hands.

2 upvotes
tecnoworld

This camera has just two negatives for being the perfect body for my tastes:

1) lack of touch screen to set af point quickly (some others are better here)
2) small and not top res evf (fuji is much better here)

For the rest, I consider it the best aps-c body available now on the market.

Sony is very clever in its rangefinder alike design.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Crixus

I totally agree about the touchscreen. It beats me why a giant like Sony with so much touchscreen know how doesn't see fit to equip their cameras with good quality ones (unlike 5R's awful implementation). For me and some others would be very useful, while the ones who don't like the option could always turn it off.

Would this be such an expensive feature to add?

5 upvotes
tecnoworld

I don't think it has to do with costs, but rather with the fact that somehow touch is seen as not a 'high end' feature by some.

Since when I'm used to change focus point with one click, I would not want to come back to the several clicks routine.

In general I much prefer physical controls, but NOT for af point.

2 upvotes
Old Baldy

They could just have used the lovely 5N touchscreen (much nicer than the later 5 versions) on this camera for presumably very little cost increase. Pity.

2 upvotes
bluevellet

It's mostly a cost-saving issue, since Sony has no problem including it in any camera without a viewfinder (but not both at the same time).

But whenever the issue of touchscreens comes up, the mental gymnastics exhibited in Sony forums is quite a sight to see.

0 upvotes
Stan

Um focus and recompose? With the buttons set right you can keep the composition, AE, and Focus all separate and under your control.

1 upvote
tecnoworld

Yup, try this technique with a 2 years old toddler :)

Touch af helped me keeping focus on eyes even with a jumping kid.

1 upvote
Bhima78

Focus recompose is a slower, less streamlined way to shoot than compose, touch once to focus and it takes a shot automatically. I still use focus recompose when I'm looking through the EVF, but when I can use the touchscreen, it is noticeably faster to get the shot.

1 upvote
rodderslw

What a bargin! Just image quality alone those studio shots look great compared to their direct competition and beyond. Do they use the kit lens for the studio comparison? I have had this camera for about 6 weeks now and am very happy with it. Great to hold and shoot with and with the SEL35f18 prime it shines. Also great to use with my old Minolta 50mm f1.4 and other legacy lenses.

10 upvotes
Juhaz

The studio comparison shows the lens used if you hover the cursor over the "i" in bottom right corner.

They shot those with the FE 55mm Zeiss which is absurdly good, so that's no doubt part of why they look fantastic. But of course a fantastic lens doesn't matter if the camera can't take advantage of the resolution it offers, and this one clearly can.

3 upvotes
rodderslw

Awesome, thanks for the info.

0 upvotes
FiveForm

As it pertains to the "downgrading" of the EVF, I owned the NEX-7 and It would be difficult to tell the view quality apart in the a6000 from that camera. I tend to believe Sony when they have said that the lower resolution of the EVF tends to let it perform better in low light (I haven't seen that mentioned in any reviews, but is in one of Sony's official videos of the product). This performance mainly shows up in less blocking up of shadow detail that was encountered in the NEX-7 viewfinder.
As for the absence of the touchscreen, I had a NEX-5N and was constantly unintentionally resetting focus by touching the screen when I didn't want this. What is our fascination with touchscreens, anyway? Must be coming in from smartphones. Well it's best to decide on any given piece of technology if you will be managing it via hard controls or touchscreen, but when it's both then I feel that there will be issues. The a6000 is simply so good grabbing the focus I want, that it is fine, as is.

6 upvotes
audiobomber

> "I had a NEX-5N and was constantly unintentionally resetting focus by touching the screen when I didn't want this."

That is my main beef. A smaller beef is that touch screens get all smudgy and fingerprinted. No touchscreen is a Pro, not a Con.

1 upvote
Old Baldy

Weird. I've owned two NEX-5Ns and have yet to inadvertently move the focus point because of the touchscreen. No way on Earth would I consider the LACK of a touchscreen to be any sort of advantage, other than to save a few pennies. I tend to shoot more with my 5N than with my 7 because of it.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Eleson

@ "Image quality compared" , that cut-out @ 800 ISO with all its vertical lines did not look good on the D800E, I guess AA filter have a value after all !

Actually it doesn't look good even with the D800, someone care to explain?

0 upvotes
midimid

Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?

1 upvote
Carnex

Many consider portrait lenses to begin at 85 for APS-C and 135 for full frame sensors. And I kind of agree. But then again, i did use friends Jupiter 9 and Tair 11 with adapter and it works wonders. It's just that manual focus can be pain in the back with razor thin focus field.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
abortabort

Oh I see, Fuji are more 'serious' because their 'portrait' lens is a whole 1mm longer than Sony's... Ok got it!

8 upvotes
Carnex

Where did Fuji come from? Who mentioned it? Oh, it was you actually...

1 upvote
Miwok

You can also find the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 on E-mount.
Big and MF only lens, but really good and insanely cheap.

0 upvotes
Gregm61

Sony is just short on NEX system lenses, period. At this point, they've probably created more NEX/A6000 body models than dedicated lenses to fit them. In that respect, even Samsung has done a better job.

3 upvotes
abortabort

@ Carnex - Actually the reviewer did thanks.

0 upvotes
Carnex

@abortabort
My apologies then

0 upvotes
abortabort

@ Gregm61 - At last count Sony had more lenses than Fuji, than Olympus and also Panasonic (though not Olympus and Panasonic combined).

Sony also are the only of the 'big 3' mirrorless systems that also support a DSLR system still (Oly, Panasonic and Fuji all abandoned theirs, though Fuji didn't really have one to begin with). As such Sony are the only company of those that offer proper compatibility with their existing system.

None of the other mirrorless systems offer popular focal length ranges with constant aperture like 24-105mm equiv and 28-158mm equiv.

None of the other systems have as many third party lenses for it, Fuji lack Tamron and Sigma support, M43's lacks Zeiss and Tamron support.

So.... there that is....

4 upvotes
kadardr

As long as the missing portrait lens concerns there is the Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar. It is the best 135mm available, and there is also the LA-EA4 adapter (FF). Then this camera will not miss anything for great portraits.As a cheaper option there is the Minolta MAXXUM AF 85mm f/1.4 used (wonderful).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
123Mike

Believe it or not, but portraits using the 18-105 f/4 G lens come out pretty good!

1 upvote
audiobomber

55mm is the ideal portrait length on APS-C and is available in E-mount. 50mm is an acceptable substitute. The review needs to be corrected.

It is clear though that E-mount is lacking in telephoto choices.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
joelR42

@Carnex, actuality the reviewer listed the lack of a "portrait prime" compared to the competition as a fault. So, no the reviewer did not mention Fuji by name but the competition would be Fuji, Oly, and Panasonic—none of which have 85/90mm lenses. They have "equivalent" focal lengths BUT Sony does too. Of course a 85/90mm fast prime would be great but it was a silly false statement.

2 upvotes
BigJ2013

Who wants or needs a touch screen! Dumb thought to think that one is actually required. Even Audi & Lexus has done away with that annoyance and use other means of navigating the menus.

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe

I take it you've never actually used a touch screen camera? A touch screen is no replacement for good physical controls, but if you have good physical controls a touch screen makes things even better; You can have a quick setting panel with all sorts of obscure settings that on a non-touch screen camera would require menu diving, and being able to instantly set a focus point anywhere on screen is a big plus.

9 upvotes
viking79

All mirrorless cameras need touchscreens. You can instantly change focus point to any point on the screen. Note their con about changing focus points. Also, touch to shoot is nice when you want near zero lag from focus finish to exposure. It is also nice for using smart features and changing settings. For example, long passwords are terrible unless you have a touch screen.

5 upvotes
T3

Yeah, and I can't wait until smartphones and tablets get rid of touch, too! LOL.

Touch is definitely *not* dumb. Your thumb is already right there next to the screen. It's totally logical that you should simply be able to touch graphical buttons on the screen...just like you do on a smartphone. What's "dumb" is that you have to use secondary controls (like buttons or dials) to interact with the primary information on the screen, when it would be easier just to interact with the screen directly.

1 upvote
ProfHankD

I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)

This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.

23 upvotes
iudex

And among all your lenses do you find an E-mount zoom with f2,8? Either standard, with most usual focal length (say 17-50), or telephoto? ;-)
So apart from EOS-M (which is a joke) all of the relevant competition (Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic) has better lens range. So it is a con.

6 upvotes
Greynerd

@iudex
I am not sure if EOS-M is a joke any more. It has become so very sad that it would be in extremely bad taste to laugh at it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
Carnex

Sony obviously doesn't want to make their MILC cameras competition for their STL line. But what I don't understand is why Sigma and Tamron don't adapt their lenses for E-Mount and FE mount? Is there some problem with Sony and/or their autofocus/optical stabilization. It's not like it would be hard to modify lenses, just extend them in the back for right optical position.

2 upvotes
ProfHankD

I don't have or want any f/2.8 or faster zoom I've seen. If I did, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Lens for Sony Alpha will AF nicely using my LA-EA2/4. BHPhoto lists 40 lens choices in Fuji X mount, but 57 in E and another 7 in FE... and then there's the hundreds in Sony A mount that fast autofocus with any E/FE body using the Sony adapter... including a bunch of f/2.8 zooms. Although I PREFER manual, fixed-focal-length, lenses for everything but ultrawide....

Basically, E/FE can fast AF more lenses than any other mount and takes as many manual lenses as any other mount. Really hard to complain about that. Do you own 130 lenses that you can use with your camera? Did you pay a total of less than $3000 for those 130+ lenses? I do and did. :-)

2 upvotes
Carnex

No, actually I'm quite poor for a photo enthusiast so I still use Nex-5 (original one) and Canon FD/m39/m42 lenses. Problem is, focusing can be pain in the ass and autofocus would be nice. I would get one autofocus portrait lens in range of Canon EF 85 1.8 but there is none available. Well there is adapter with autofocus but it's as slow as la-ea1 if not slower and less reliable.

0 upvotes
HFLM

When looking into the NEX system I didn't find the lenses I want, especially if I don't want an adapter. Focusing alpha lenses uses the adapter and not the autofocus system of the A6000, which is way better than the adapter. I want lenses like a 56/1.2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4 or upcoming 16/1.4 or 90/2.0 and I want 2.8 zooms, designed for APSC and not for FF, fitting the size of the small body and not overwhelming it.

3 upvotes
FiveForm

I don't feel that the DPR rating scale accounts for making all camera types equal. It certainly shouldn't imply that an SLR is "better" than a ILC, or that a particular high rated P&S is better than a Nikon D4s, for instance, if the total score is higher. So, I don't believe that this is a competition amongst camera categories...

0 upvotes
abortabort

@ iudex - Really? I don't see any of the other systems having constant aperture f4 zooms like the 24-105mm equiv and 28-158mm equiv do you? These are also popular FL lenses... Guess EVERYONE is behind Sony then?

0 upvotes
iudex

ProfHankD: argument that you can use many lenses via adapter is ridiculous. Why buying extra small and lightweight NEX body (sorry, alpha now), when you add an adapter and a heavy A-mount lens? And as was already mentioned, the highlight of this a6000 is ultra fast AF: with non-native lenses via adapter it looses this advantage.
So once again: how many native E-mount lenses are there? Are there fast portrait lenses? Fast standard zooms? Fast telezooms? Nope. ;.)

4 upvotes
iudex

abortabort: maybe you didn´t notice I was talking about f2,8 zooms. That´s 1 EV faster than f4, you know? ;-) Something like 12-40/2,8 Pro from Oly or 12-35/2,8 from Pana or 16-55/2,8 from Fuji or 16-50/2-2,8 from Samsung... Got it?
P.S. The 16-40/4 is pretty mediocre according to reviews, definitely not worth the money.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

iudex - if you mean the 16-70 E-mount it looks to be a key lens for the system to me:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-e-16-70mm-f-4-za-oss-t--review-24059
Seems to be busting through Excellent all over the place.

Oh, and I have m43 not E-mount kit, so no fandom going on. Their f2.8 lenses (of which I have a couple) capture broadly similar amounts of light (the sensor being 0.6x the size of the Sony) as E-mount f4 lenses, so similar-ish noise levels result.

Math: (17.3*13)/(23.4*15.6) = 0.61

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
123Mike

I think that's just sucking up to the hand that feeds it...
DPR is not really a Canikon shop though. Fro that turns out doesn't really know photo that much, for instance, now THERE is the ultimate Canikon. He won't acknowledge Sony even exists. There are others like that. Those Hong Kong boys, the one with the British accent that one, doesn't fully appreciate Sony for obvious reasons also.

0 upvotes
abortabort

@ iudex - You mean the Fuji f2.8 zoom that doesn't exist yet or some other one I don't know about? Your argument about f2.8 zooms was that Sony dont have lenses, my retort was Sony have lenses, popular lenses, that no other mirrorless systems has, but you are still hung up on f2.8 zooms like that is the only lens anyone would ever use / need. On the other hand m43's DOES have f2.8 zooms, which when tied to their smaller sensors are pretty close to f4 equiv, yet cover a smaller range.... So what's the big advantage there? That they can claim to have an f2.8 zoom? Well I have a Sony with a bigger f2.8 zoom than any of them, cost less than any of them (on their own) and clearly f2.8 is the only factor so it is instantly 'the best' right?

If so, then Sony produces the best lenses in the world bar none because they have a 24-200mm equiv f2.8, who would need anything else ever?

0 upvotes
W5JCK

@iudex, I hope you realize that the laws of optical physics says that an f/2.8 M43 lens is the equivalent speed on APS-C of f/3.6 and the equivalent speed on FF of f/5.6. So those M43 f/2.8 or just pure marketing crap. They are no faster, nor provide any more light, than a f/3.6 lens does on an a6000. Talk about a con, M43 BS marketing is a huge con!

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

W5JCK - actually no as they are really f2.8 lenses, which is the focal length divided by the entrance pupil. Hence the light per unit area is the same and the exposure the same as any other f2.8 lens. The difference is for a smaller sensor less total light is captured. However they're still f2.8 as that's how f-ratios are defined.

There is an implied DoF gain as you'd use a shorter focal length to capture the same view on a scene compared to a larger sensor, but that's just down to focal lengths used.

Also while it's scientifically correct to just multiply the f-ratio by the crop factor to correct for a smaller sensor's effects (ignoring aspect ratio and sensor technology differences) you can also say that if the sensor noise at the ISO's you shoot at doesn't worry you for the use you will make of the pics (which can vary pic-pic, maybe Facebook: ISO 1600 is fine, Wall Poster: ISO 200) and the lens can give you the DoF you want then it's all good, as you'll get f2.8 exposure maths.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Carnex

We have all this again... with different sizes of snesor size of glass to achieve certain light conducting efficiency varies. f2.8 on m4/3 requires smaller frontal lens than f2.8 on APS-C and does have same light efficiency. Size affects depth of field only. Ans for amount of light gathered, that should never be metered by sensor size but rather per pixel. On smaller sensor with roughly the same resolution each pixel gets far smaller. For example if you take 5D M3 as standards 1.5 APS-C sensor would have to have resolution 9.7mpix and m4/3 sensor would have to have resolution 5.7mpix to maintain roughly the same pixel size/density. So yea, ISO is kind of a bs in digital photography but aperture stays true even when you recalculate lens to match 35mm equivalent since light gathering capability is much more important than depth of field to most customers.
@123mike
Jared said that he doesn't test SONY equipment because SONY doesn't send him any. He won't buy something we wont use.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
iudex

abortabort: look, I do not mean to bash Sony and I actually like their cameras, but I simply cannot really imagine buying one because I have no standard lens to add. Kit 16-50mm zoom is smal and lightweightl, but that´s pretty much everything it offers. It is slow and optically weak and I would like something better. But what can I have instead? Only primes, but absolutely no zoom. I dont say it must be constant f2,8 zoom, I would be happy also with something like Fuji 18-55/2,8-4. But there´s nothing like this for E-mount.

0 upvotes
Hakan zsara

Please don't upload photos when you drinking beer or wine!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
electrophoto

Why on earth not?
Do we need more cat pictures then?

But wait, lets forbid all display of people drinking perfectly tasty beer and wine.
And whilst we are at it, no more adverts for cars that go faster than 40mph, no more extreme sports, no more sports in general, certainly no more parties...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Hakan zsara

You forgot something important!..
Alcohol is harmful to human body.
There are getting more and more people die because of alcohol.
Do we need to advertise alcohol ?..

0 upvotes
electrophoto

Hakan,
Alcohol is about as harmful to the body as say junk food, over-the-counter medication... IF ABUSED.
If consumed with measure and occassionally it does not do any harm.
By your logic there should be no depiction of anyone taking paracetamol (acetaminophen) (and over the counter pain killer...)... actually there are a lot of people getting seriously poisoned and some even die from taking it... well from taking too much of it.
Also we should never see a photo / advert for a car, a motorcycle or public transportation again. people commit suicide by jumping in front of trains... car accidents kill a lot people.

Forbid all junk food adverts (and close down the fast food sellers) too... it harms your body if you live of it...

And seeing someone sip a beer hardly counts as advertisement for becoming a chronic drinker.

Get a look at the bigger picture... and ask yourself would you really want to live in a place that forbids ALL those things?
Me? NO THANKS, I value my freedom.

0 upvotes
Mike Yorkshire

Being somewhat "old school" I must say that the lack of a touchscreen is a PLUS for me.
Not many of the "Cons" would actually affect me either although YMMMV

Level gauge? - isn't that what the viewfinder is for?
In-camera RAW conversion? If you shoot in RAW surely this is better done in software?
Autofocus points - I rarely if ever use this feature on any camera except maybe on some tripod shots. Move centre to point you want to focus on - hold focus, re-frame. Much faster than fiddling with adjustment of focus point.
Movies? Get a movie camera if you must. I am a stills man.
External charger - a pain to have to buy one, but solvable.

So that leaves me with poor flash exposures - not an issue for landscapes and street shots.... heavy noise reduction - not good (but I have used Lumix's where some of the shots end up like paintings) ... poor battery life - see notes on charger ...lens range meh - enough for me!
Oh NO! I may have to buy one of these!

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe

> Being somewhat "old school" I must say that the lack of a touchscreen is a PLUS for me.

How can not having a feature be a plus? Imagine if the body was unchanged other than including a touchscreen, you could fit extra quick links to settings that you now have to menu dive for, and you can place the focus point anywhere instantly. There are absolutely no downsides to having a touchscreen.

1 upvote
tecnoworld

If touchscreen is present, you can turn it off via menu. If it's not present, you can't turn it on.

I remember when ppl went on saying that they considered it a plus not having asr on cars.

4 upvotes
khorton

Every extra feature adds a bit of cost to Sony, both for the engineering and testing time to develop the feature, and for the production cost of the hardware to support the feature. This drives up the retail price. This is OK if you value the extra feature, but those of us who don't care about touch screens or level gauges would rather not pay for these features. If touch screens and level gauges are important to you, there are other cameras on the market with these features.

1 upvote
Mike Yorkshire

Thank you KHorton - you seem to understand.

Andy Crowe is clearly not a likely customer for a Leica M series film camera, whereas I am. I prefer to have my eye to the camera instead of poking a screen to determine focus points etc. For my type of photography a touch screen is totally unnecessary and something I would rather not pay for - it is superfluous and I don't like them............for ME, not necessarily for anyone else.
I DID say YMMV Mr Crowe and it clearly does. Doesn't make you wrong, or me wrong - we have different needs - and I am still pleased that the A6000 doesn't have a touchscreen.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@Mike but then every other feature you don't use would be a con too. If you like taking photographs completely manually then all those PDAF points on the sensor add cost and are superfluous, the electronic contacts and focus motor on the lens add cost and are superfluous etc. If you enjoy film workflow then even a rear screen could be superfluous.

Removing any of the above would make a much bigger difference to the price than adding a touchscreen would, and even if you don't use autofocus any time you have to change one of the slightly less commonly used settings a touchscreen can make that a much quicker process.

1 upvote
Jorginho

Excellent well deserved result. 80 points seems a bit low to my mind.I hope some other brands take notice of this feature set and how well it performs per feature! Nothing below 1100 odllar can compete when we look at the body only. Lenses remain the only downside to the system but it is not as bad as it used to be. it is the first mirrorless cam with such a sensor that is recommendedfro amateurs sportshooters!

Minor point of critique here (I did not read the whole review, so sorry if I missed somehting) is that their focustracking test with the biker does not prove a whole lot.... And the buffersize of 21 shots or so seems rather limiting. ut at that price, what can you expect?

Congrats to Sony!!

10 upvotes
Andy Crowe

> I hope some other brands take notice of this feature set and how well it performs per feature! Nothing below 1100 odllar can compete when we look at the body only.

I wouldn't say there was no competition, for example the GX7 is close in terms of IQ, has a similar feature set and includes some nice to haves above the a6000 such as touchscreen, IBIS, tilting EVF and unlimited length video recording.

2 upvotes
Jorginho

@ Andy: because of the superb focustracking the A6000 I think distances itself in a very important way. GX7 indeed has very good IQ, mainly because of the better lenses in general. Teh sensor is good for mFTs, but a little below par when compared to average APS-c. Sony's is one of the best out there.

Panasonic better come up with a competitor that allows for much improved AF-c. I have the Gh4 and that is the way to go for lower end models to from this perspective. Sony is astep ahead I think...

2 upvotes
tecnoworld

If this camera had the samsung or fuji lenses, it would be the #1 in the world.

0 upvotes
Boky

not bad at all....
Nick

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

Too bad its video IQ doesn't even approach that of the RX100 MkIII, let alone the even better RX10... It's on exactly the Nikon D3300 / D5300 level, resolution-wise. Otherwise, it'd be a tempting camera, apart from the lens problem, obviously.

BTW, two mistakes / overlooks in the article:

- "advantegs" on the Conclusions page

- "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." - the D5300 also has GPS (smething immensely useful if you don't want to keep a separate tracker and/or maintain a constant Wi-Fi connection to an Android / iPhone)

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
123Mike

In the video still demonstration, the A6000 shows it was focused on nearer objects, like the bottle or that flock of hair. The D3300's version looks less sharp on those details. But the flat parts like the charts that are behind it, the D3300's look sharper. Also, it look like a sub-par lens was used for the A6000, which was probably the 16-50 lens (I haven't actually checked), which isn't very good at all.
But scrutinizing and finding those focusing differences, I think that the A6000 is probably better for video than the D3300 is.
Also question comparisons with other cameras as well. The focus is often what screws up these tests. This goes for their still tests as well !

0 upvotes
Stan

Good luck videoing something needing a wider angle or more telephoto focal length than what the R100M3 allows. Same with DOF control or mere access to the funtionality which is hindered by the size goal.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend

I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.

4 upvotes
quezra

I guess that's the difference between people who've actually used the EVF and people who are experts at reading spec sheets

25 upvotes
Zeisschen

Manual Focus on a DSLR body that size? Oh wait... there is no DSLR that small...
99% will use AF anyways on A6000

2 upvotes
Scott Nicol

I was initially worried about the step down in EVF res but in practical use the new EVF is fine - the improved optics help a bit I think in terms of clarity and brightness, refresh rate feels much better in low light plus manual focusing with the auto zoom / peaking and in viewfinder distance scale (all when using a native lens) really help.

5 upvotes
Scott Nicol

I'm basing the above assessment on my previous experience with the a77 / NEX 6 and old a55 EVFs by the way

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend

@quezra: I've actually used the NEX-7 and NEX-6 EVFs and found them too low-res for my demand. I'm quite sure I don't need to actually use an A6000 to find out that less pixels lead to even lower resolution.

@Zeisschen: Using old manual focus lenses of all kinds is one of the most important application for mirrorless cameras. The worse an EVF is, the less a camera is fun for that purpose, because the more often you need zoom-in to get the focus right. With a good finder, you shouldn't need zoom-in.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend

@Scott: I see the point, and the A6000 probably is a capable camera if you don't mind using zoom-in with manual focus. The problem, though, is, that having to zoom in makes it near-impossible to use legacy lenses for snaphots.

1 upvote
photofan1986

Ever heard of focus peaking? I find it much easier to focus in a good EVF than on a normal sized OVF. Maybe on a full frame, it might be ok, but even so, you don't have to be in a hurry. But on a budget priced SLR, with the tiny tunnel pentamirror viewfinder, you'd be hard pressed if you manage to achieve manual focus!

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe

1.44MP is 800x600 RGB pixels you nitwit!

7 upvotes
abortabort

Yes, pity that there are no good optical viewfinders at a $650 price point, so your points are hardly valid. Sure a 1DX OVF is leagues ahead (well at least in terms of clarity, shooting information is a different story) but you won't see an OVF like that on a $650 camera... well ever.

Also as has been noted your math is wrong, it is an 800x600 panel.

2 upvotes
Scott Nicol

@Hubertus Yes I can see from a legacy lens point of view the lower res might be more of an issue if you want to focus whilst still seeing the whole scene unzoomed. My experience of focus peaking is that it helps immensely in good light but can struggle in low light / low contrast scenes. I guess my comments more address this idea that the A6000 is vastly inferior to the a77 / 6 EVF due to the drop in resolution - its actually more complex than that due to the refresh / improved optics and diopter adjustments. I personally would still give the a77 / 6 the edge but its much closer than resolution specs alone would suggest and so far I found it an easy adjustment to make when I swithc between the 2 (I still use the 6 as a backup body).

0 upvotes
Zeisschen

@Hubertus

The use of old lenses is just a side product of mirrorless cameras, not one of the main features. And Sony has the A7/r/s for use with those legacy (FF) lenses now, no need to put an expensive high res EVF in a small camera that's made for fast action

0 upvotes
Olymore

I think he may have been referring to the fact that three RGB points are required to make one pixel. I still think he got the calculation wrong though.

0 upvotes
Scott Nicol

@Hubertus have you had a chance to try the EVF on a Fuji X-T1? I tried a friends and found it impressive with its dual full screen / zoomed detail view (although I disliked the low refresh rate that appears to be a power saving feature until you half press the shutter - I tried it under fluorescent lighting and it was distracting). Of course, its worth noting that the X-T1 is in a different price bracket to the 6000.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@Olymore He may have divided by 3 twice or something, because 800*600*3 definitely equals 1.44 million :)

2 upvotes
quezra

I retract the stuff about him being an expert at reading spec sheets what was I thinking?

1 upvote
Robert Schroeder

@photofan1986: In every mirrorless camera I've used so far, I found that focus peaking tended to be more distracting then helpful, and except maybe for the Olympus E-M1 (which will probably become my next camera, by the way) it wasn't good enough on its own, I needed to zoom-in, too, to get the focus really right.

@Andy Crowe, @abortabort, @Olymore: My bad.

@Zeisschen: I don't see the A6000 being positioned as a camera specially focused on high-speed action. Like all the NEX predecessors have been, the A6000 is an all-purpose mirrorless camera, and surely a good one to boot. And with both the NEX-6 and the NEX-7 being discontinued, it is the only somewhat ambitious APS-C mirrorless camera available from Sony today. If they think they can force legacy lens users to buy the expensive A7/A7R – I won't.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Robert Schroeder

@Scott: Haven't yet had the chance to test the X-T1, but it sure looks like an interesting camera. I do find Fuji's lens line up quite attractive, too. As I still have some Four Thirds gear, it'll probably be the OM-D E-M1 in the end, though. My Sony investments so far only amount to a NEX-C3 to have some fun with my Minolta SR lenses (as much as that can be without any viewfinder whatsoever).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
spidermoon

Maybe because less and less people use EVF to compose ?
Recently, i go to the Eiffel Tower, young use phone, their parent use compact camera, grand pa use dslr and use a view finder, japanese use either phone or mirroless. And many photographer using camera with viewfinder compose with the big lcd screen. It's always strange to see people shooting with dslr at arms length :)
Me ? I use a GM1, nice IQ, not so great ergonomics and LCD hard to see in sunny day.

0 upvotes
Langusta

Great sensor in so-so body... i.e. same old story.

2 upvotes
Zeisschen

Great camera! For that price it's hard to find anything better.
Sony, please bring the autofocus system to the A7II

8 upvotes
davids8560

I think I may buy this camera and use it alongside my NEX-7 for awhile, and then decide. I do some railroad and aviation photography. The NEX-7 gets left behind when I'm going after those subjects, pretty much because of unreliable AF. But I really like everything else about the NEX-7. So I dunno. I wonder if the a7000 (?) murmurings have any truth to them? Maybe I should wait and see! But why would Sony refresh the NEX-7? Don't they want everyone to migrate to the A7 FF series?

0 upvotes
Jerry Fusselman

"While still respectable, the EVF on the a6000 is a step down from the one on the NEX-6. It's both smaller and lower resolution."

I have both of these cameras, and no one would prefer the NEX-6's EVF. Especially in low light, the a6000's EVF is far better to look at and far more useful. That, not just resolution, is the bottom line. Thus, the review's statement that the a6000's EVF is a step down is false. It is actually a big step up, when all aspects of using the EVF are considered.

26 upvotes
DtEW

That is absolutely correct. You can actually use the A6000's EVF to resolve what is past the point of naked-eye visibility in darkness with as pedestrian as a f/1.8 aperture. The prior 2.4 million dot EVF that was in the NEX-6/7/FDA-EV1S would crush it all down to absolute black.

The old EVF is nicer to look at (high res!) on cursory examination under ideal conditions, but any deeper usage under a variety of conditions would reveal that the new, lower-res version is simply more functional, bar none.

I'm afraid you guys rushed this one out, DPR.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Vsbastosx

Hi jerry
I have just bought the NEX 6 and I would like to your opinion if it is worthy to upgrade to the a6000. Is the image quality in low light any better? Thanks!

0 upvotes
Greynerd

It seems a bit of an assumption by apologists for the downgraded EVF that improvement in the EVF usability in liveview is entirely due to the drop in resolution. It could be just that the new cheaper EVF has been set up better with its firmware drivers.

2 upvotes
AFishEye

@Vsbastosx
Don’t overthink it. I have both cameras and they are both fantastic!
In my opinion, in low light the NEX 6 still has a slight edge.
I bought the a6000 for the new AF system that I can use with the new 70-200 f4 and for the slightly better cropping ability when shooting wildlife with the 70-400 (or the 70-200).
For all other purposes, you will not see a huge difference in real life use.
It comes down to your shooting style and price point.
If you have the extra money, you’d be better off spending it on better lens (16-70 f4 or the 10-18 f4)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Vsbastosx

Thanks AFishEye. I bought the NEX-6 2 weeks ago for USD 524, which I think is a bargain. You are correct....I better spend in better lenses. Cheers.

0 upvotes
DtEW

@Greynerd: It's far from an assumption when 1) an authority makes that claim, and 2) observations confirm the authority's claim. Sony has stated explicitly as to what the lower resolution EVF will do.

It is only you who is making a relatively unfounded leap to the theory that 1) this brand-new EVF couldn't possibly have any hardware advantages, and 2) the improvements we see must all be firmware, therefore implying 3) soon everyone with the 2-year old EVF will enjoy the same performance through a firmware upgrade.

Yeah, good luck on that.

0 upvotes
Greynerd

@DtEW
How does my 'it could just be' turn in to 'could not possibly'. I just made a suggestion. I appreciate your point of view but please reply to what is actually said. I doubt that there will be a firmware upgrade and never implied that there will be.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 833
2345