Sony A6000 Studio Comparison shots up at Imaging Resource

[JunzInc]

Hi Folks

FYI

Sony A6000 First Shots posted! See how the NEX-6 successor stacks up against the rest of the pack - Imaging Resource

Sony's doing a lot of talking these days, and you camera fans out there are listening. Take a quick glance at the

www.imaging-resource.com

Now that we have controlled results from Sony A6000, we can see how they compare with the NEX6 and NEX7.

My first thoughts are that the A6000 looks very good indeed.

Regards

JM

 

[viking79]

Hi Folks

FYI

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...see-how-the-nex-6-successor-stacks-up-against

Now that we have controlled results from Sony A6000, we can see how they compare with the NEX6 and NEX7.

My first thoughts are that the A6000 looks very good indeed.

ISO 1600 and the A6000 is shooting at 1/250 instead of 1/320, which is giving a 1/3 stop advantage to the A6000.

Just food for thought when doing comparison of two (look at EXIF for specific images you are comparing to see if it is different or not).

Eric

 

[semifast]

I see a bit more detail in the red label over the barley which I guess finally establishes the Nex-7 is officially obsolete.

 

[DtEW]

Hi Folks

FYI

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...see-how-the-nex-6-successor-stacks-up-against

Now that we have controlled results from Sony A6000, we can see how they compare with the NEX6 and NEX7.

My first thoughts are that the A6000 looks very good indeed.

ISO 1600 and the A6000 is shooting at 1/250 instead of 1/320, which is giving a 1/3 stop advantage to the A6000.

Just food for thought when doing comparison of two (look at EXIF for specific images you are comparing to see if it is different or not).

It seems like the exposures are the same against the NEX-6 (at least for the higher ISOs).

It seems pretty obvious that the A6k improves upon both the NEX-7 and the NEX-6 (a harder target with the bigger sensels) at the same ISOs.

 

[npires]

I just overlaid the ISO 100 stills of the NEX-7, A6000 and A7.

From what I can see the A6000 is very very close to the A7. The difference in detail on the blue fabric is massive compared to the NEX-7. Very impressed by this sensor. Heck I could have saved a bucket of £££ if I went with the A6000 instead of the A7. Looks to be a great buy.

 

[kcamacho11]

It seems pretty obvious that the A6k improves upon both the NEX-7 and the NEX-6 (a harder target with the bigger sensels) at the same ISOs.

This is EXACTLY what I was hoping for. I cannot wait for my a6000 to arrive.

 

[viking79]

Hi Folks

FYI

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...see-how-the-nex-6-successor-stacks-up-against

Now that we have controlled results from Sony A6000, we can see how they compare with the NEX6 and NEX7.

My first thoughts are that the A6000 looks very good indeed.

ISO 1600 and the A6000 is shooting at 1/250 instead of 1/320, which is giving a 1/3 stop advantage to the A6000.

Just food for thought when doing comparison of two (look at EXIF for specific images you are comparing to see if it is different or not).

It seems like the exposures are the same against the NEX-6 (at least for the higher ISOs).

It seems pretty obvious that the A6k improves upon both the NEX-7 and the NEX-6 (a harder target with the bigger sensels) at the same ISOs.

I think the difference vs NEX 7 is very slight except in the shadow; I think the A6000 has lower shadow noise in JPEG, look at the blacks. I didn't look vs the NEX 6 due to the different output size, would have to resize them at home to get a better feel. Again, only looked at ISO 1600, that was a setting I had seen looking better on the NEX 7 with someone elses samples.

Will have to look at RAW data as well. Any more I look only at RAW since I never shoot JPEG

Eric

 

[quezra]

Thanks! Finally some real comparisons. To my eye the a6000 JPEGs start to put distance between themselves and the NEX-7 from about ISO 1600. It's hard to tell whether it is from the JPEG engine or the sensor itself - my suspicion is the differences are down to JPEG engine not sensor. Are RAWs available?

The a6000 also seems more contrasty. Is that just me or a different lens used?

 

[Ron Parr]

Thanks for the alert.

It seems that A6000 isn't quite up to 5N performance levels at high ISO. Of course, there are other advantages to the A6000.

 

[ryan92084]

Thanks! Finally some real comparisons. To my eye the a6000 JPEGs start to put distance between themselves and the NEX-7 from about ISO 1600. It's hard to tell whether it is from the JPEG engine or the sensor itself - my suspicion is the differences are down to JPEG engine not sensor. Are RAWs available?

The a6000 also seems more contrasty. Is that just me or a different lens used?

RAWs are available here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A7.HTM

 

[quezra]

Thanks! Finally some real comparisons. To my eye the a6000 JPEGs start to put distance between themselves and the NEX-7 from about ISO 1600. It's hard to tell whether it is from the JPEG engine or the sensor itself - my suspicion is the differences are down to JPEG engine not sensor. Are RAWs available?

The a6000 also seems more contrasty. Is that just me or a different lens used?

RAWs are available here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A7.HTM

Oh yeah... I meant to ask if you can get them in the 'Comparometer' that lets you put the pics side-by-side.

 

[Hugo600si]

at iso 100 it seems the a77 is out of focus by comparison, nex-7 holds up ok at low iso (still a little behind the a6000), handling won't come close to the a77, but image quality looks gooooood.

Worth looking at the other features of the cam in any case.

*I do not need a new cam, I do not need a new cam*

ok I'll stop pixel peeping now

edit, pfew, no tri-navi, can't live without that

--
Shamelessly promoting my favourite painters website (my wife's ) and my handiwork:
http://edithsart.com and http://editshart.nl (Dutch)

 

[Juhaz]

Thanks! Finally some real comparisons. To my eye the a6000 JPEGs start to put distance between themselves and the NEX-7 from about ISO 1600. It's hard to tell whether it is from the JPEG engine or the sensor itself - my suspicion is the differences are down to JPEG engine not sensor. Are RAWs available?

The a6000 also seems more contrasty. Is that just me or a different lens used?

Sigma 70mm macro with NEX-6/7, SAL2470Z with NEX-5T and SEL50F18 with A6000, says EXIF data.

 

[WhiskeyBeforeBreakfast]

The A6000 raw files can be opened in Image Data Converter Ver. 4.

 

[SimonOL]

Thanks! Finally some real comparisons. To my eye the a6000 JPEGs start to put distance between themselves and the NEX-7 from about ISO 1600. It's hard to tell whether it is from the JPEG engine or the sensor itself - my suspicion is the differences are down to JPEG engine not sensor. Are RAWs available?

The a6000 also seems more contrasty. Is that just me or a different lens used?

Sigma 70mm macro with NEX-6/7, SAL2470Z with NEX-5T and SEL50F18 with A6000, says EXIF data.

That makes comparing images less useful than it could be. It would be much better to make comparisons between cameras using the same lenses.

To me, the A6000 low ISO photos compared to the Nex-7 photos seem to show sharper edge detail - but that may be more to do with the SEL50 on the A6000 than anything else. High ISO seems more detailed (sharper) on the A6000.

 

[parallaxproblem]

Hi Folks

FYI

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...see-how-the-nex-6-successor-stacks-up-against

Now that we have controlled results from Sony A6000, we can see how they compare with the NEX6 and NEX7.

My first thoughts are that the A6000 looks very good indeed.

Regards

JM

Thank you for the link. I was interested in NEX-7 vs A6000 at high ISO

At 3200, 6400 and 12800 I see a lot more resolution on the 'proportional scale' in the right of the picture on the A6000 together with fewer sharpening halos than on the NEX-7, but there seems to be more noise reduction happening with the A6000 as rather strange textures on the rear wall at 3200 & 6400 and strange colour blotches at 12800 testify

 

[foxgrover1]

In the FWIW category, I just used the Comparometer at Imaging Resource to compare the still-life JPEG out-of-camera photos of the A6000 with not only the Nex-7 but also with the Nikon D5300, Nikon D7100 and the Canon 70D, viewing photos at ISO 100, 400, 1600 and 3200. The comparisons took about two hours. In making my comparisons, I closely viewed the multi-cloth pattern at the top left of the page, the wool yarn at the top right of the page, the bottles at the middle of the page (especially the Hellas Muscat wine bottle), the black cup at the bottom right of the page, the crayons near the bottom left of the page, and the glass container with the stones at the bottom left of the page. To my UNTRAINED eye, I felt that the A6000 rendered better resolution than the Nex-7 at all resolutions. I also felt that the A6000 appeared to be as good as both Nikons at ISO 100 (although the Nikons appeared to render darker blacks), pulled away by ISO 400, and was clearly ahead in both noise and resolution by 1600. The A6000 and the Canon 70D appeared to be closely matched throughout all the various ISOs, although at higher resolutions the Canon perhaps rendered richer colors and the Sony perhaps had a little less noise and and slightly more resolution, but these comparisons are so close and subjective as to be almost meaningless.

I also compared the A6000 to the Nex-6, the new Fugifilm X-T1 and the Olympus OM-D EM-1. The comparison admittedly is a little apples to oranges, since the A6000 has 50% more megapixels than the other three cameras (24MP v. 16MP), and a more meaningful comparison might be to reduce the A6000 MPs to 16. Nonetheless, to my UNTRAINED eye, the A6000 performed just about as well as the other three cameras at all ISOs, with the 16MP cameras, especially the Olympus, arguably performing a little better. The differences, however, did not appear to be in any way compelling, at least to me. So, if you have a NEX-6, I feel that your images will be about the same as with the A6000, albeit with only 2/3's the MPs and, from what others have said, slower autofocus. Of course, there are a number of other considerations to take into account as to what camera best suits an individual's needs. The nice thing about the Imaging Resource Comparometer is that anyone can pull up the images and come to his or her own conclusion, and undoubtedly many DP members will come to different conclusions than mine. I offer my observations only as a possible point of passing interest.

 

[mountaindrew22]

In the FWIW category, I just used the Comparometer at Imaging Resource to compare the still-life JPEG out-of-camera photos of the A6000 with not only the Nex-7 but also with the Nikon D5300, Nikon D7100 and the Canon 70D, viewing photos at ISO 100, 400, 1600 and 3200. The comparisons took about two hours. In making my comparisons, I closely viewed the multi-cloth pattern at the top left of the page, the wool yarn at the top right of the page, the bottles at the middle of the page (especially the Hellas Muscat wine bottle), the black cup at the bottom right of the page, the crayons near the bottom left of the page, and the glass container with the stones at the bottom left of the page. To my UNTRAINED eye, I felt that the A6000 rendered better resolution than the Nex-7 at all resolutions. I also felt that the A6000 appeared to be as good as both Nikons at ISO 100 (although the Nikons appeared to render darker blacks), pulled away by ISO 400, and was clearly ahead in both noise and resolution by 1600. The A6000 and the Canon 70D appeared to be closely matched throughout all the various ISOs, although at higher resolutions the Canon perhaps rendered richer colors and the Sony perhaps had a little less noise and and slightly more resolution, but these comparisons are so close and subjective as to be almost meaningless.

I also compared the A6000 to the Nex-6, the new Fugifilm X-T1 and the Olympus OM-D EM-1. The comparison admittedly is a little apples to oranges, since the A6000 has 50% more megapixels than the other three cameras (24MP v. 16MP), and a more meaningful comparison might be to reduce the A6000 MPs to 16. Nonetheless, to my UNTRAINED eye, the A6000 performed just about as well as the other three cameras at all ISOs, with the 16MP cameras, especially the Olympus, arguably performing a little better. The differences, however, did not appear to be in any way compelling, at least to me. So, if you have a NEX-6, I feel that your images will be about the same as with the A6000, albeit with only 2/3's the MPs and, from what others have said, slower autofocus. Of course, there are a number of other considerations to take into account as to what camera best suits an individual's needs. The nice thing about the Imaging Resource Comparometer is that anyone can pull up the images and come to his or her own conclusion, and undoubtedly many DP members will come to different conclusions than mine. I offer my observations only as a possible point of passing interest.

I looked at the EM-1 too quickly, but I wondered if they used the 12-40 lens on the EM-1 vs the cheap 16-50 on the a6000. I found the EM-1 to be slightly better on the red fabric, but other than that they were similar. If the EM-1 used the 12-40 though, that would be a HUGE advantage in favour of the a6000.

 

[foxgrover1]

My understanding is that Imaging Resource does not necessarily use the kits lens but uses a lens that IR feels will give a fair across-the-board comparison of one camera to another, and if it feel that the kit lens is appropriate for such a comparison it might use the kit lens.. I have yet to see IR indicate exactly what lens it used to make its comparison photos on its Comparometer chart, although it does usually state what lens it used when it conducts a complete review of a particular camera.

 

[missingendpoint]

Still life, ASA 800, Macbeth color chart, NEX-7 [or even NEX-6] compared to the A6000.

The A6000 is quite muddy -- noticeably more color bleed compared to either the 6 or 7.