Just picked up a Sony A6000

tjuster1 wrote:

arbuz wrote:

tjuster1 wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

I'm intrigued wit the A6000 and actually the whole NEX series camreas. The bigger sensor and now much bigger resolution in the very small (as small as m4/3 package) seems pretty ideal.

Remember, 24Mp isn't "much better resolution"; it's 22% more pixels horizontally and vertically. That's certainly better, but I'd quibble with "much better".

It 50% more pixels. it's clearly much better. If it's not better then also 36mpix FF (nikon D800 / sony A7R) ar not much better than 24 mpix FF like canon 6D.

We're still quibbling about the word "much". I don't consider 22% more pixels horizontally and vertically to be "much more"; you do. Fair enough.

I consider that 50% more pixels = potentially 50% more detail.

Or maybe you should opt for 11mpix camera, since 16mpix u4/ is not much better.

In principle, yes. But of course the 12Mp offerings used an older-generation sensor that was inferior to the new ones, besides having fewer photosites. But if everything else were constant, I'd agree: a 16Mpx sensor would offer very few practical benefits over a 12Mp sensor. Isn't this Sony's logic with the A7s?

No. Sony logic is to provide a sensor which their electronics can read x times per second without skipping lines and which resolution matches 4k material (so no line binning). That's the Sony logic. I wonder if asnyone will buy it for taking pictures. It's a movie camera and that's how it is marketed.

As far as the larger sensor goes, the reality is that perceptible difference in IQ between the two sensors is very, very small.

Resolution advantage - meh, IQ advantae - meh, 100g wieght advantage - an enourmous difference, my back does not hurt anymore, I can hike mountains while previously I was barely able to climb my bed.

I agree! In fact, I really like the Sony bodies--they're amazingly small and well designed. Unfortunately the lenses, not so much.

This is a fact that has been reported ad nauseum by people who own both APS-C and m43 cameras, including me. If you go over to the Sony/NEX forum you'll read post after post boasting of Sony's enormous sensor (often ridiculing m43 for its "tiny" one), but when you actually look at images the difference is imperceptible. I know because I have.

Buy RX100. It's even less difference between it and u4/3. And this camera actually has weight or sdize advantage over u4/3 (pocketable vs not pockateable).

I've had it and it is a great camera, but of course it's limited by its single lens. For many people it will be enough; for me, I wanted the opportunity to play with different lenses so it wasn't.

Then Nikon 1. or combination of both RX100 mx3  Nikon 1 m 70-300 is a very versatile and lightweight combo...