Just picked up a Sony A6000

arbuz wrote:

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?

More and more will....again, all the STILLS reviews rate it highly or at least the ones I have seen so far.

It can take pictures but that's not what SOny is selling it for and that's not what people are buying it for.

No they are buying it for both......as a low light camera in the first instance.

Sony is selling it for both.

Then again, Nikon is flogging the D810 for video too but the video people seem to mostly laughing at that......ok that is a bit much....it remains to be seen...may well be great for video but does not look to be a really serious video camera at least compared to some others.

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.

Because as more than one reviewer says, the A7S is the best low light camera to date.

Here is Luminous Landscapes take

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a7s_first_impressions.shtml

"This then only leaves the most important question of all – what constituency is this camera intended for? Clearly, its low light sensitivity is remarkable. Two and a half to three stops more of usable sensitivity than just about any other camera would not be an indefensible claim. But, the trade-off is its use of a 12 Megapixel sensor. This is at the low end of the scale by 2014 standards. Anyone who crops a lot, or who wants to make large prints will find the sensor's low resolution constraining."

I love using my A7 for music gigs (went to one yesterday) and it is a great camera for that but the A7S is 2 to 3 stops better.

f5.6 and f8 will be common to use. and 12800 and 25600 and even 51200 will be to me like 6400 is normal and 12800 occasional for me on the A7.

I will probably get one at years end mainly for stills but dabbling in video (as I am with the A7).

The three are completely different cameras ....A7R is for resolution (not a camera I want or need), my current A7 is my main camera for general use and would remain so....also for sports with longer lenses. The A7S would replace the A7 for gigs and festivals (actually maybe I would take both).

A7S DR disadvantage is only at low ISO (and it still has a very good DR at base ISO ...as good as any m4/3 camera).....at even mid ISOs the A7S DR is excellent and by 3200 it has DR as good as some cameras have at base ISO (more than 10 stops at 3200 and I think the only camera to date that does in DXOs database).

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.

Maybe to a point, but not to the point with the A7S.

It seems reviewers who like to shoot in low light ALL (to date) love the A7S.

I thought it was going to be panned for video too (for rolling shutter) but it seems people might forgive that for its low light ability.

Then again, Canon might trump it in a couple of months.

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.