Just picked up a Sony A6000

tjuster1 wrote:

I have a NEX-5R which IQ-wise is about the same as the A6000. This is my experience:

1. Sony APS-C lenses basically suck unless they're very expensive (e.g., Zeiss), and almost all are significantly larger than their m43 equivalents. There are three "small" APS-C Sony lenses: your 16-50mm zoom, and 16mm and 20mm primes. All are lousy--I know, I've owned them all. The 16-50mm is far inferior to any of the m43 kit lenses, especially the 14-45mm, and of course either of the premium kit f/2.8 zooms. Its one virtue is that it's small, but when you compare it to the even smaller 12-32mm for m43 it's night and day.

2. The IQ differences between the APS-C and m43 bodies are negligible.

3. On the other hand, a big difference is the crop factor, which makes legacy WA and normal lenses much more interesting to me with an APS-C camera. Focus-peaking with the Sonys is really good too, so it's quite honestly a joy to shoot with my NEX + small RF lenses like the Canon 35mm f/2 and the Voigtlander 15mm f/4. To ME, that's the real call of Sony's bodies.

Have fun and be sure to share some pictures!

I currently have cameras from multiple systems, cherry picking what I want out of each system, and I agree that Sony mirrorless is optimal for adapting older glass.

However, I disagree that Sony APS-C lenses either suck or are expensive. The 35/1.8 OSS is good and has image stabilization unlike some of its cheaper rivals. The 10-18/4 OSS is good and is stabilized and costs about as much as the Panny 7-14/4 which isn't stabilized. If you allow non-Sony lenses into the conversation, then Samyang and Sigma's primes help plug in the gaps and they are all pretty good and relatively affordable. Even the much maligned 16-50 PZ is adequate. Yes it's not great wide open, but stopped down it's not that bad, especially in the center: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2122756@N21/pool/