Just picked up a Sony A6000

neil holmes wrote:

arbuz wrote:

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.

10mp is fine for a many things.

My Pentax KX from 2009 is 12mp and it rates almost the same as my GX7 from last year on DXO ....if you just look at the charts you could be forgiven for thinking they have the same sensor....The KX actually does a bit better still in all their charts/graphs but only by a fraction....its 12mp is fine as is the 16mp of the GX7. A7 24mp is great too but I also like using APSC crop mode with the A7 and that is "only" 10mp.

12mp A7S will be fine for all but the biggest prints

A7S is both movie and stills.

Let's see. Who bought it for stills? It can take pictures but that's not what SOny is selling it for and that's not what people are buying it for. Why would anyone buy A7s and not A7 or A7r is beyond my imagination. There is actually DR disadvantage and marginal ISO advantage in all but most demanding conditions.

It seemed to me like it was more aimed at movie use but all the stills (photography) reviews so far rate it very highly as a low light stills camera (and not bad in good light).

Steve Huff (not really a video man).

Steve Huff is enthusiastic about every single camera he "reviews". It's salesman, not a a journalist.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/

''The Sony A7s Review. Wow. Period. The most creative digital photographic tool ever made for my uses! "

For movies, it looks like it will rate very highly for low light as well but rolling shutter MIGHT limit it a bit in good light against a camera like the GH4. A lot of movie people might buy both a GH4 and A7S.