Mini Review a6000

RichardTrueman · Sep 29, 2014

Long time Canon and Nikon user here, see my profile if interested.

First off, lets get the annoying things out of the way...

The Manual provided sucks. (I bought the Gary Friedman’s alternative and it’s worth it)

The battery life is MUCH shorter than I’m used to.

Many of the on_LCD C2 button help files are short and pointless (e.g.: File Format = Selects the movie file format.) Friedman’s manual gives detailed whys and whens.

Ejecting and retrieving the SD card is near impossible with my fingers. I’ve devised a violent alternative: touch and press the SD card down and release immediately, and it will fly across the table or floor or room ;-)

This camera will take pictures without a card inserted! (I’ve had a buddy take a day of important pictures with our realizing this.) My work-around is to NOT secure the battery door as a reminder to me that the camera is not ready to shoot yet.

Things I’m amazed by...

(I had to sell my APS-C 7D to finance this and the 55-210)
The files are for most purposes noise free up to and including 1600 ISO

The metering is very close and usually spot on. I have to Exposure Compensate (EC) my Canon files 60 % of the time whereas with the Sony about 20% of the time.

The JPG output is very good and most of the time they are used for my viewing pleasure on my MacBook Pro. I do hardly any post processing of them. I shoot RAW + Small JPG for all pictures and am pleased with Standard, +1 Saturation, and +3 Sharpening for those JPGs. The files at small but wider than my 1920 pixel screen and the real winners will be processed from the RAW files if necessary, or if the +1 Saturation is too much for difficult lighting or people’s complexions.

My Kit Lens is surprisingly good with only a touch of softness right side or top right corner, depending on the focal length and f stop. (Distortion or other defects unnoticeable because of Lightroom 5.) The 55-210 is a jewel and sharp throughout its focal range and image dimensions.

I’ve taken a thousand pictures in the past month and enjoy the lightness, responsiveness and convenience of this camera. I usually shoot Aperture Priority and like the easy choosing and viewing of the different apertures by the main control dial. I like the easy EC dial-in and the quick way of moving my single focus point around the viewing area, -all three of these adjustments without taking my eye away from the Electronic ViewFinder, which I like and am not spoiled by having used a better one. There appears to be no lag or ghosting here and since I do not review-display my taken shot on the LCD, focusing and repeated shooing is accurate and fast.

The instant panorama stitching is great. (Although and tough to expect, I wish the output was larger.)

I’ve got the bug now of getting the 16-70 Zeiss for this camera although I love the lightness of the camera and the kit lens. (Please persuade me not to buy the Zeiss Lens ;-)

Last year on my travels to Mexico my camera and computer weight was large and back breaking, This year i will put the tele lens and my computer in my regular fly-on luggage with a couple of changes of underwear and the camera around my neck and I’ll be light to go!

In the pictures below, a few are from Adobe RAW file conversion and Capture One RAW conversion. There are two Standard Panoramas, but most of them are just the regular small JPGs almost straight from the camera.

captura · Sep 30, 2014

Congratulations! You obviously enjoy your fine camera, and thank you for sharing the lovely photos of your family and the beautiful scenery.

RonFrank · Oct 1, 2014

I enjoyed your images. How did you get so close to the deer, or are they tame?

As for the Zeiss 16-70mm f4 there are two reasons to get that lens and neither has anything to do with quality. Constant f4 aperture, and the longer reach. You pay a lot for those two things and you loose the compact footprint.

I am waiting for a third party manufacture to make lenses for the Sony... but nothing so far. $1000 is a lot of money for a lens when the Sony is $150 and the the Zeiss has plastic threads... kinda cheap for a $1000 lens.

captura · Oct 1, 2014

The 28-70 is still a good choice, for a bit over $200 on the used market.

stoppingdown · Oct 2, 2014

RonFrank said:
I enjoyed your images. How did you get so close to the deer, or are they tame?

As for the Zeiss 16-70mm f4 there are two reasons to get that lens and neither has anything to do with quality. Constant f4 aperture, and the longer reach. You pay a lot for those two things and you loose the compact footprint.

Things are unfortunately a bit more complicated than this. I own the lens since January and I'm one of those that complained a bit, because sure the quality off-centre is not up to the price. The lens has got also a lot of sample variability, which is quite evident to me as I found a few samples on the internet that are better than mine and quite a few samples that are worse.

Things are controversial also for the comparison with the lens kit. I've just yesterday got into the "blind comparison" that was done here a few months ago. Actually, I could immediately see the difference in borders at 16mm, for instance. Sure, alone might not justify the price difference. For me the choice was easier because I do need that extra reach at 70mm, but I'd have bought the lens in any case over the kit lens.

It's a very strange matter, because MTF measurements of the kit lens at borders are nothing short than awful, unless some reviewers (see e.g. PhotoZone) got a bad sample - perhaps there's variation for this lens too. Sure, visual appearance is more important that MTF, but when the difference in charts is so relevant, well... BTW PhotoZone is going to publish the review for the Zeiss, so let's wait and see.

In the end - wait before buying the Zeiss and try to evaluate as many alternatives as you can. I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy it; if you do, be sure to think very carefully of it.

AlGor · Oct 2, 2014

I like a lot your vision! Nice pictures! High lovely IQ!

About 16-70/f4z - from time I get this lens (it was a deal with A6000 for $1350, so $700 for lens), best to my like pictures coming. So now I have two zooms (plus 10-18/f4) in one bag, nothing more for me, extremely happy.

Thanks for taking time and nice short review/share.

Al.

RichardTrueman · Oct 2, 2014

That deer picture was taken with the kit lens as you've noticed. We call her Lucy and these are her twins. We live on a remote island in BC Canada and wildlife is part of our daily landscape.

Why is her name Lucy? She has these white diamond patches below her eyes. (Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds) She was the runt of a litter some 5 years ago, kicked away from food by her mother. But she survived and is now on her 2nd or third litter, this time twins. I took the photo some 6 feet away from her. They’re all expecting handouts of garden refuse, pruned grape leaves, fallen apples, etc. If you look closely Lucy has no tail, just a stump. She lost it after her second year, probably escaping a predator.

RichardTrueman · Oct 2, 2014

Thanks Al

And how is that 10-18? I really like wide angles!

captura · Oct 2, 2014

Thank you for posting!

tomtom50 · Oct 2, 2014

I identified with your post, because I had a similar reaction. The EVF was, for me, a revelation compared to the pentamirror finder I had before, which was dark and tunnely. So bright in low light! So big!

I did sour on the kit lens after initially liking it (so light! so wide!), when I noticed that wide open it was just plain soft. I don't want to stop down from f5.6!

And there is the rub. Like you I want the 16-70. Not because it is awesome, but because it is good without being huge. But it is expensive.

So I use my EOS-M when I want a sharp normal zoom, because the Canon kit lens is really a lot better than the Sony 16-50.

Please Sony, bring out a better kit lens! I like the a6000, but not enough to drop a grand on a normal zoom!

captura · Oct 2, 2014

tomtom50 said:
I identified with your post, because I had a similar reaction. The EVF was, for me, a revelation compared to the pentamirror finder I had before, which was dark and tunnely. So bright in low light! So big!

I did sour on the kit lens after initially liking it (so light! so wide!), when I noticed that wide open it was just plain soft. I don't want to stop down from f5.6!

And there is the rub. Like you I want the 16-70. Not because it is awesome, but because it is good without being huge. But it is expensive.

So I use my EOS-M when I want a sharp normal zoom, because the Canon kit lens is really a lot better than the Sony 16-50.

Please Sony, bring out a better kit lens! I like the a6000, but not enough to drop a grand on a normal zoom!

In my opinion, with the exception of the 28-70, there is no better kit lens available than the rare Made-in-Japan 18-55 kit lens, as supplied to the first issues of the NEX-7. Glass is from Japan and is superior. Sony should start building these in Japan again, and offering them as an option for the A5100/A6000.

santiclaws · Oct 2, 2014

The last photo, with the "Oh God, he's got his camera out again!" expressions across all three faces is hilarious. I know it well...

captura · Oct 2, 2014

Amamba said:
captura said:

tomtom50 said:

I identified with your post, because I had a similar reaction. The EVF was, for me, a revelation compared to the pentamirror finder I had before, which was dark and tunnely. So bright in low light! So big!

I did sour on the kit lens after initially liking it (so light! so wide!), when I noticed that wide open it was just plain soft. I don't want to stop down from f5.6!

And there is the rub. Like you I want the 16-70. Not because it is awesome, but because it is good without being huge. But it is expensive.

So I use my EOS-M when I want a sharp normal zoom, because the Canon kit lens is really a lot better than the Sony 16-50.

Please Sony, bring out a better kit lens! I like the a6000, but not enough to drop a grand on a normal zoom!

Click to expand...

In my opinion, with the exception of the 28-70, there is no better kit lens available than the rare Made-in-Japan 18-55 kit lens, as supplied to the first issues of the NEX-7. Glass is from Japan and is superior. Sony should start building these in Japan again, and offering them as an option for the A5100/A6000.

Click to expand...

I have a black Thailand built 18-55 produced in 2013 which is sharp for a kit lens, not bad even wide open.

I also had an early 2012 silver 18-55 which was a total turd.

I suspect Sony had QC issues with early builds.

I would say that Sony may always have issues with early builds. Witness the 1650 which so many complained about, initially. And now, 2 years later there are fewer complaints. Has QC picked up and reduced instances of sample variance? Said S.V. seems to be a recurring issue with MOST Sony lens models.

I also have a Thailand 18-55 which I always considered to be a cood copy. No way does it compare to the MIJ lens, which is much better.

RichardTrueman · Oct 2, 2014

You are right. I never noticed that nuance of expression before. It's my wife and two granddaughters and they should know better. (He's ALWAYS got his camera out! ;-)

AlGor · Oct 2, 2014

RichardTrueman said:
Thanks Al

And how is that 10-18? I really like wide angles!

For landscape I think it is unbeatable,

I was trying this lens for tight rooms/crowds places - corners distortions; but with more practice always better results! With finish in LR not a problem.

I like a lot this lens. Love some micro contrast which can't found nowhere else.

And yes - it REAL wide even in my A6000 (means sensor size).

Good like with your choice!

Al.

10DeeQ · Oct 3, 2014

i was one of those who bashes the 16-70 zeiss before i have the lens.

my original plan was to get the G 18-105 instead

as they both have same f4 constant aperture same OSS, only different badges

and the sony has even more reach.

but after going in to a shop to get the Sony 18-105

i came out with the zeiss 16-70 instead

indoor those 2 beat the 18-55 kit lens and the 16-50 kit lens

though indoor, the sony and the zeiss is comparable, at least to my eyes.

but bring it outside

then you will surely fell in love with the zeiss.

theres something about it that i can't really know how to explain properly

it has a "pop" 3D effect.

the sharpness of the zeiss and sony is quite comparable, the zeiss is a little bit sharper but not much

but the micro contrast, colour, 3D effect, the sony is nowhere near the zeiss

just try the lens in a sony centre or a shop

you won't be disappointed.

but if you are looking for an indoor speciality lens, then get the SEL35F1.8 and/or

SEL55F1.8Z this is the sharpest lens i ever tried on A6000. but too bad it doesnt have OSS.

Timbukto · Oct 3, 2014

tomtom50 said:
I identified with your post, because I had a similar reaction. The EVF was, for me, a revelation compared to the pentamirror finder I had before, which was dark and tunnely. So bright in low light! So big!

I did sour on the kit lens after initially liking it (so light! so wide!), when I noticed that wide open it was just plain soft. I don't want to stop down from f5.6!

And there is the rub. Like you I want the 16-70. Not because it is awesome, but because it is good without being huge. But it is expensive.

So I use my EOS-M when I want a sharp normal zoom, because the Canon kit lens is really a lot better than the Sony 16-50.

Please Sony, bring out a better kit lens! I like the a6000, but not enough to drop a grand on a normal zoom!

The 16-50 is actually my favorite kit lens after having tried many but you just need to understand its faults and work with it. I prefer it to the Nikon 18-55 VR II which is also one of the better ones I've seen. And I sold my 24-105L because I felt the particular copy I got wasn't 'good enough' for the size/weight/cost either.

My 16-50 is well centered and has 1 fault which is by design and that is at 16mm it has tremendous distortion. The 16-50 pancake zoom is really like a 14-15mm fisheye corrected to 16mm rectilinear. But think outside the box and say...hey why not have a 14-15mm fisheye that is a bit sharper than a 16mm rectilinear with soft borders? It is up to you to adjust distortion as you see fit with the best software available to you, etc. Based on my comparison with the 18-55 I am guessing the 100% corrected 16-50 is in fact an estimated 16mm, but I wager the uncorrected distortion at wide is nearly 14-15mm at least.

Here are some test shots showing my 16-50 at wide angle wide open or f5.6 with no distortion control...it is not that bad in terms of sharpness. Also sometimes applying 100% distortion fix may straighten curvy lines but just makes other things in the scene look bizarre and distorted. Sometimes aesthetically the fish eye distorted look isn't that bad...just a preference. Even in a hypothetically perfect non-distorted rectilinear wide angle lens, you will still get perspective distortion in the form of extension distortion where things look stretched near the edges, etc. If anything the fisheye distortion counteracts that effect a bit.

Don't think of it as a 16-50 pancake zoom with 16mm rectilinear on the wide...think of it as a 14-50 pancake zoom with built in fisheye on the wide end. Hey some folks want their walkaround zoom to do a bit of macro...well this zoom does a bit of fisheye ;p.

captura · Oct 3, 2014

You mentioned the huge amount of distortion on the 16-50 lens, which is borne out in the review by Camera Labs, I believe.

Of course this distortion correction is easily corrected in JPEGS by in-camera corrections in the NEX-5R/T, NEX-6, A6000 and A5100 models. But would you happen to know if an older model, the NEX-7 has the correction algorithm for the 16-50? (Perhaps from the firmware update.)

stoppingdown · Oct 3, 2014

Timbukto said:
.hey why not have a 14-15mm fisheye that is a bit sharper than a 16mm rectilinear with soft borders?

This is not thinking out-of-the-box, it's plain nonsense.

If I want a fish-eye, I buy a fish-eye, not a sort-of-fisheye. And if I buy a 16-50 I want a regular zoom with the minimum possible of optical defects, including borders.

--
Fabrizio Giudici
http://stoppingdown.net

Timbukto · Oct 3, 2014

stoppingdown said:
Timbukto said:

.hey why not have a 14-15mm fisheye that is a bit sharper than a 16mm rectilinear with soft borders?

Click to expand...

This is not thinking out-of-the-box, it's plain nonsense.

If I want a fish-eye, I buy a fish-eye, not a sort-of-fisheye. And if I buy a 16-50 I want a regular zoom with the minimum possible of optical defects, including borders.

Mini Review a6000

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts