For travel I'd suggest RX100 III, but if choice were only ILC and only between T5i and A6000, then A6000.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Does your E-mount replace a DSLR?
- Thread starter jimmy.walsh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a6000
Some people like shitty bear, like Bud, some are happy with Sony e-mount lenses selection, its absolutely normal.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
You said it. I prefer the E-mount system over shitty bears that you do. It is what leads us to our arguments, one understands the benefits and can take advantage of it, the other sits and whines about "disinterests".
Last edited:
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
I 'd suggest you to mount for example FA50/1.4 @ K20D and run the tests under daylight vs tungsten light (I had both once - 2 different adjustments were required for those 2 spectrums, but alas camera did not support that)... but I am pretty sure that denial wins
... why do you think Pentax was on a years long quest to fix their AF system... they might make it somewhat better in K3, but PDAF will be PDAFmy woes ? back then it was only killing the central spot metering for me (I always used Nikon K3 screens w/ nice prism in the center), you probably know that light path for a regular PDAF in dSLR is not going through focusing screens... it only affects metering (and whatever else functions might be supported by metering sensor) and MF through OVF
Hey ,
If any of you folks think you can get the same image quality file out of Sony E-Mount as you can out of A Canon or Nikon DSLR using Canon or Nikons best lens then you are kidding yourself's. I like the A6000 for certain things but it is nowhere near in Image quality what I can get out of my Canon gear with my L lens.
I have seen some outstanding photos taken with the A7's and alternate lens!
If any of you folks think you can get the same image quality file out of Sony E-Mount as you can out of A Canon or Nikon DSLR using Canon or Nikons best lens then you are kidding yourself's. I like the A6000 for certain things but it is nowhere near in Image quality what I can get out of my Canon gear with my L lens.
I have seen some outstanding photos taken with the A7's and alternate lens!
audiobomber
Veteran Member
I did the tests long ago, and noted a different focal point between daylight and tungsten. But shooting a test chart at close range and f1.4 aperture is not real life. In real life I did not have a problem. Note though that I use the FA 50 at f2 max, because of softness wide open. Pentax flagship DSLR's from the K-7 on used SAFOX+ AF, for better accuracy in coloured light. For some reason the K-5 was wonky under tungsten, as shown in this AF test I did before returning the K-5 permanently. The K-5 II and K-3 don't have this issue. https://picasaweb.google.com/100586096103361553535/TungstenLightTest?authkey=Gv1sRgCLf74sWxotSUfA#I 'd suggest you to mount for example FA50/1.4 @ K20D and run the tests under daylight vs tungsten light (I had both once - 2 different adjustments were required for those 2 spectrums, but alas camera did not support that)... but I am pretty sure that denial wins
Focus issues are often reported when using third party lenses. I only use Pentax lenses. When I receive a lens, I do focus testing. If it's off, I exchange the lens or send it to Pentax for calibration. I've done this with the DA 15mm Ltd, 18-135mm, FA 35 f2 and DA*300. All my lenses are dead on with all my bodies. I have no AF issues.
I know that when people change the screen, they have to **** around with shims to get accurate focussing.
Wait, so you are saying the A6000 with APSC lens cant give you the same image quality as a 5D2 with L lenses?
Thanks for the insight. :S
Last edited:
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
Would you mind sharing a sample of this unattainable IQ with an E-mount camera compared to the Canon DSLR you speak of?
The Incredible Hoke
Leading Member
I'd like to see that too. I'm not sure any Canon combo is going to best an E-mount A7(r) with the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 attached to it. Those Canon sensors are getting a bit long in the tooth, while the Sony sensors are leading APS-C and FF class.
--
Brooklyn, USA
Random Stuff on Flickr
Last edited:
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
As I had expected, you only stopped by to troll, instead of making a reasonable point and being capable of backing it up.
Try elsewhere, with counting camera bodies.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
200%. My first DSLR was a D40, and the bulk of my shooting is in less than ideal light. The upgrade in low light performance from my NEX-C3 far outweighed the loss of lenses... and in reality, Nikon's DX lens map sucks, so the loss in lenses wasn't that huge.
Once I build my Lens Turbo + Canon FD lens set it will be game over. Not much of a loss as equivalent lenses on the AF on the NEX in the dark is pretty awful anyway.
But the idea that mirrorless or anything to do with the camera's optical design is the reason why sales are down the tubes is ridiculous. As cell phones show, and like Thom says, Joe Sixpack cares about WORKFLOW, not IQ. As soon as CaNikon realize that ease of photosharing is what will get people to buy cameras again, the vultures will stop circling. But it seems like the heads of the imaging departments there are just spec fetishists. IQ was "good enough" 5, 6 years ago.... but the interface and workflow still sucks.
Once I build my Lens Turbo + Canon FD lens set it will be game over. Not much of a loss as equivalent lenses on the AF on the NEX in the dark is pretty awful anyway.
But the idea that mirrorless or anything to do with the camera's optical design is the reason why sales are down the tubes is ridiculous. As cell phones show, and like Thom says, Joe Sixpack cares about WORKFLOW, not IQ. As soon as CaNikon realize that ease of photosharing is what will get people to buy cameras again, the vultures will stop circling. But it seems like the heads of the imaging departments there are just spec fetishists. IQ was "good enough" 5, 6 years ago.... but the interface and workflow still sucks.
Jerry Fusselman
Leading Member
Amazing! Which three?
Jeff E Anderson
Active member
My A7R definitely replaced a DSLR. The resolution of D810 at half the weight and size. Awesome!
sproketholes
Active member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 9
I just posted this in another thread;
Ive been dragging my heels on making a definitive purchasing decision on an A6000 or an A7, and the Nex7 has really held its value right up until now, and in the hand the Nex7 still has "premium hardware" written all over it, regardless of the speed prowess of the A6000.
For me for work, however, two A6000s is a very cheap option, to replace them if something happens to one or both, and I honestly believe that when it comes to publishing your images for print, the client doesn't care as long as you have covered the content. I now know more professional photographers who are shooting with Nex7's and now this A6000 then I know who are using dSLRs. Im not even sure if full frame is entirely necessary either.
I should caveat this by saying that it really depends on the work you are doing and the client. For me its reportage, so full frame is as far as I can tell from what I have encountered or from conversations with colleagues not necessary. Speed of operation is important, and the size of the hardware is also.
jimmy.walsh
Leading Member
The A6000 really does produce beautiful images. I've been really impressed with mine. That said, if I am working in low light I prefer to be using my D600. I have a few reasons for this:
1. Full frame gathers more light; produces less noise
2. AF is faster
3. I can use my f1.4 primes
Yes, they JUST came out with FF E-mount! What did you want, 20 lenses available at launch?
You have an A6000 -- you must see something there....
We have endured 4 years of, "Where are the lenses?" threads for the APS-C Nex cameras, so I suppose it's only natural to go through it again with FF, but it's still tedious.
Certainly, if you want every obscure lens available, and simply refuse to use the A-mount or other adapters, go with a more established system, but recognize that you're imposing a list of requirements that most of us are not interested in. Tilt-shift? I'll fix it up in software. 200/4? Several years ago, that might have made sense, but these days, I'll just up the ISO. Need more shallow DOF (and still won't use adapters)? Fair enough. If you cannot see any alternative, then stick with your DSLR, but don't act like it's so crazy to get E-mount, that you're so stuck and helpless if doing so.
I can see of specific cases where a DSLR makes more sense but even with my old DSLR, I had a number of compromises I had to live with for not buying more expensive lenses and camera. So, part of the equation is how much money are you going to throw at these obscure needs?
moffatross
Senior Member
Although there would be a little extra light attenuation through even an optically ideal focal reducer, for a given lens area doing the gathering, end sensor size by itself should make almost no practical difference to the number of photons it can make use of. The real benefit of increasing a sensor's size is that light doesn't need as much 'bending' to get there in the first place so refraction can be better managed, and there will be less diffraction interference between adjacent pixels. I don't know what the resolution of a D600 is but for practical purposes, the noise difference from APS-C and FF is likely to be marginal between say 36MP FF and 24MP APS-C (Nex 7/A6000 to A7R).
Mel Snyder
Senior Member
Al, I'd like to respectfully dissect your response:
No, none of them are Sony native E mount lenses. Thanks to the short registration distance of the E/FE mount, virtually any lens ever made can effectively have a "native" mount with adapter.
No, none of them have "bulky adapters" - the adapters are sleek, and with them the lenses are effectively the same size as a native E/FE mount lens.
Now we get to the difference - NONE of them have "slow autofocus." They all are manual focus lenses that capitalize on the excellence of Sony's focus peaking - and with it, I capture every kind of image I would want of sports, landscapes, portraits, street scenes etc. This is the great joy of the Sony E mount. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/melsnyder/ for examples.
Yes, it demanded that I re-acquire skills had I lost after a decade of shooting AF with Nikon DSLRs. During that period, I got really, really sloppy, and when I first started shooting with MF lenses on my NEX-6, I was aghast at how - in just 10 years - I had lost much of my ability to focus and hand-hold and zone focus. And so, for weeks, while I watched the evening news, I started practicing the old techniques with a new camera and old lenses.
Why did I do that? Several reasons. First of all, my NEX-6 was a fun camera. I have expensive hobbies, only one of which is photography: travel, my sailboat, ham radio. I have a significant investment in two Nikon D7000s and lenses, mikes, etc. for the medical video component of my business. I can't rationalize spending lots of money on lenses for a fun camera.
Second, I had a lot of MF lenses going back to the early 1980s that I acquired back then for my Leica M4P and Canon FD mount SLRs. The cost of buying adapters for them is peanuts. To use them, I DID have to make an investment in learning how to focus manually again. But that investment turned out to be minimal, brcause it is so easy with Sony.
Third, I was embarrassed by having lost skills I thought I'd never lose - but had. My dad was a highly respected industrial photographer who didn't care how great your compositon and "moment" were if all the technical aspects weren't bang on. I'd have been humiliated to show him my first hand-held MF shots with my NEX-6 and 35mm lenses.
I respect those who simply want to - and can afford to - buy AF/OSS lenses, and just attach them to their Sonys and shoot like I used to shoot my Nikon DSLR. When I bought my NEX-6 and A7, I was well aware of the limited AF/OSS lens availability. I also knew that Sony, unlike Nikon and Canon, is an electronics company, not a lens company. I was prepared to accept that any lenses they offered would likely be heavily outsourced for design and manufacture - and due to the limited number of owners who would buy them, very expensive.
II urge you to give manual focus a fair shot. Buy a nice medium tele and adapter, and don't get frustrated by your first attempts - they are unlikely to be great. But when it clicks, you will feel proud of the accomplishment - and a whole new world of affordable, fast possibilities will open to you. And if you decide it's not for you, you can likely sell the lens and adapter for what you paid for them, Al.
Al, before we had AF, we shot everything we do with AF today - active kids, sports, street photography. And you can do it, too - and enjoy the great Sony APS-C/full frame world!
The Incredible Hoke
Leading Member
Hey Mel, I chcked out your Flickr. Nice work! I don't want to derail this thread with my question about using A7 to shoot performers, so do you mind if I shoot you a PM? Thanks!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum