A few snaps with Sony FE 70-200mm f4 and a6000

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
nevercat Veteran Member • Posts: 3,193
Re: Why...

Jorginho wrote:

123Mike wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

123Mike wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Not as good AF system? Why do you think so. I have the Gh4, the AF is exceptional. It focusses virtually instantly at -4 eV. I did focustracking yesterday on cars which drove 120 km/h right towards or away from me. With the lens he uses, the 35-100, it was bang on almost everytime at 7,5 fps. Just no misses...for wildlife, it has more difficulties though. So...in total...it is just very good.

The A6000 is also very good. They claim it has the fastest auto focus system.

What Gh4 has over A6000 is controls on cam

Controls on the A6000 I find just fine.

, weather and dustsealing

That is a plus.

, a swiveling touchscreen,

I really don't like the Canon style side screen. I can't work with that. I much prefer the A6000 setup.

a better EVF,

The EVF on the A6000 is just fine.

DSLR like battery life,

I just ordered two Wasabi batteries including charger and car charger for under $40 CDN delivered. I find the battery lasts pretty darn long, but for on vacation I'd like to have an extra one.


You asked someone else why someone would buy a GH4. Than I give you some examples of differences and then you reply why you do not need them. Which is fine, the point is that when someone else needs or wants them the A6000 does have them.

The points I raise will likely appeal to others as well. Plus the facts I point out are useful, like the higher image quality produced.

The higher image quality is a combination of shoots that are in focus, plus the glass used plus the sensor used. When we look at DxO lens scores we see that native lenses of mFTs with the best sensors produce better results than any NEX with its best glass.

OK let's accept this challenge:

I looked at DXO at the next lenses: Sony: 50mm f1.8 APS lens ($300) 35mm f 1.8 OSS ($400)
And for mft: the Panasonic/Leica: Summilux 25mm f1.4 ($600)

You can see I did not pick the (better) Zeiss lenses...

Now we can look at the differences in the DXO scores:
Sony 50mm: Sharpness: 13 MP, Distortion: 0%, vignetting: -1.6, CA:2 um
Sony 35mm: Sharpness: 11 MP, distortion: 0,7%, vignetting: -1.8, CA: 6 um
Pana 25mm: Sharpness: 11 MP, distortion: 1.6%, vignetting: -1.2, CA: 14 um

To this I selected the Sony Nex 7 camera ($725) and the Olympus OM-D M1($1399) Again you see the MFT is NOT better, even when you go for a more expensive camera and lens.

When you look for the FF E-mount camera with the Zeiss 55mm lens the scores are like this:
Sony 55mm: Sharpness: 29 MP, Distortion: 0.4%, vignetting: -1.6, CA:9 um

There are two parts where the Panasonic lens is better: Apperture and vignetting. The equivalent apperture is about the same (f2.8 for the Panasonic and f2.7 for the Sony)...

I find it odd that we're seeing so many people trying to inject GH4 and XT1 into the E-mount forum. It's only showing that as an overall package, that the A6000 is a clear winner.

You state something as facts where it is an opinion. I have never said the GH4 is better. GH4 does things better than the NEX, like shooting video, like being more rugged (weathersealed) etc. That makes it a better deal for those who value that. It does not make it a better cam and of course the same is true for A6000.

I think it is silly to say that one camera is better over an other camera when the differences are that great. When comparing still IQ the Sony is the winner at the moment, video IQ goes to the Panasonic. Build quality is for Panasonic, size goes to Sony. Price is for Sony, controls on camera is for Panasonic. So it all dependcs on what you find important, what camera is best for you.

No one ventured here shwoing off the GH4. Someone came in with A6000 and GH4 and seems to like the GH4 more. Then an argument starts as to why anyone would chose that cam over the GH4, It is only logical that someone who made that choice tries to explain. It seems quite a few over here have difficulty with that and somewhat large toes. Personally I have said zero negative words about the A6000, yet it is too much it seems...

The only thing that makes me wonder is why a person like you, who has no Sony camera (according to your gearlist) and is raving about his non Sony camera in a Sony forum. Then you claim that you said zerro negative words about the A6000 but when I read your post you clearly say that mft cameras produce better results then Sony cameras According to DXO (a statement I disprooved above) this is a negative word about the A6000 asit is a Sony camera and it is not true.

You could have a RX100 and not need anything any A6000 or GX7 offers and repsond in this way. Is the point that you wnat to understand someone else or only want to say that you do not need it?

There is a whole lot of distortions and weaseling around, but it's not from the Sony proponents.

No of course it are "the others"...Some over here simply says because he does not value the extra's on a cam they are of no value to anyone. it is not a real question he asks, because when someone indicates what the differences are and that others DO value them, he notes they are of no use to him.

Come on, people are all forgetting that all modern mirrorless cameras are taking stunning pictures, that the lenses are from acceptable, to great for all brands. We should take more time helping each other to get the best out ourt cameras then looking at the minor differences...

I can see why people buy a A6000 over a GH4. I can see why people buy Gh4 over A6000. They are clearly different and some aspects are more appealing to one and other aspects to others...

And that is the wisest thing you said in this thread (many things you said are wise, but this is the wisest!)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow