Reading mode: Light Dark

Leaving the m4/3 for Sony A6000?

Go to last post
Yannis1976

Yannis1976

Veteran Member
Messages
7,811
Solutions
2
Reaction score
10,235
Location
GR
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3. Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
 
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€
Click to expand...
All m43 kit zoom lenses are probably better.
Yannis1976 said:
and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm
Click to expand...
This lens is famous for its mediocre IQ; the Pana 14mm and 15mm and the Oly 12 mm are much better; probably even the 12-32.
Yannis1976 said:
and 20mm
Click to expand...
This is supposed to be about as good as the Pana 14mm.
Yannis1976 said:
and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.
Click to expand...
The new 14-140 is very likely better than this.
Yannis1976 said:
Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3.
Click to expand...
Right
Yannis1976 said:
Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc).
Click to expand...
Yes, the sensor is better (resolution and dynamic range) and also focusing on moving subjects, less good is AF in low light. Overall IQ is not visibly better (as far as I see) and dfepends very much on the lenses, too.

You loose IBIS (GX7 and M10) and silent shutter (GX7). Also build quality seems to be not as good: see http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-sony-a6000/
Yannis1976 said:
Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
Click to expand...
 
I had (still have actually) a Sony NEX5N plus a few lenses including most of those you mention. The IQ was good enough but the user experience was horrible. More like a smartphone than a camera. Before buying my E-M10 (and now E-M5 too) I looked hard at the Sony A6000 but in the end I decided that although the interface was a bit better it would still not give me the pleasure I was looking for from taking photographs.

In my opinion IQ was not the end of the story, I wanted to have some fun as well. When I'm ready I'll get a more exotic Olympus body.
 
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3.
Click to expand...
Well, pound for pound there is massive size advantage for the µFT lenses. Most of the E-mount lenses are clearly inferior and those that aren't are significcantly bigger and more expensive.
Yannis1976 said:
Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
Click to expand...
There ain't any MILCs - apart from the Nikon 1 sytem - that C-AF as good as the GH4 and the E-M1. Have you seen anwhere in the World Wide Web good action series shot with the A 6000? But there are loads shot with the GH4, E-M1 and even the E-M5. So the advantge of the 6000 over the E-M5 seems to exist only on the paper while it's outperformed by the other two on paper and in reality.

Please take a look at this S-AF test. And do you think that the camera with the slowest S-AF can shine when it comes to the C-AF? Well, I don't.

And yes, the Sony may feature the better High-ISO performance - but it doesn't help that it refuses to AF in the conditions where you would benefit from this performance.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
 
Last edited:
It will be an incremental upgrade in image quality, at the price of a bigger system with less lens choice. The size difference is and always be real, don't kid yourself. If it weren't we would have RX100 with a full frame sensor with the same specs zoom on it, at the same size.

I think this ,,upgrade,, isn't worth the trouble, but it may to you.
 
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3. Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
Click to expand...
I use M4/3 and Sony E (though A7) ......IF you think the A6000 is what you want then get it.

The lenses are fine and very good (even that 16-50 kit lens is decent.....at least on par with the Oly 14-42 ii to me).

The AF seems to be very good for the price (even the A7 which is not a camera to get if AF is a priority tracks ok for most uses....and the A6000 AF is much better).

The image quality (given a similar quality lens) will likely be a fraction better with the Sony though not really enough to be an issue.

The A6000 for instance is not as high spec as the GX7 ......some M43 cameras will do more things and different things than the A6000.

The a6000 party trick is its AF and it is a competent camera otherwise but so are many M43.

If the A6000 had been available when I got the GX7, I might have got it (though had a few M4/3 lenses at the time upgrading from a E-PL2).....the lower spec other than AF might have made a difference then too but having got the 16-50 OSS and 50 1.8 OSS APSC Sony lenses, those cheap lenses are every bit as good as the 14-42 and Oly 45 1.8 in my opinion (since sold the 45 1.8).

Short answer......if the a6000 works for you, get it.

Good luck with what ever you choose.
 
Last edited:
I leave the m4/3 community and come back. (I just ordered a GX7. I think the prices are as far down as they are going to go.) I think that I can take better pictures with my Canon 6D but I like the small size of the m4/3 cameras.
 
Don't do it. M4/3s users have fun and take lots of pictures because it is such an enjoyable experience.
 
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3. Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
Click to expand...
There is one, and only one, area that the A6000 is going to do better than the M43 cameras you have listed, and that is in C-AF. It also has a higher resolution sensor, if you need that.

If you need both of these things, then it is a good choice.

However....I bought one a couple of weeks ago to be my second body to the A7, and I could simply not believe how poorly the A6000 behaved in low light S-AF using the single focus point setting. Since this is the way I shoot, the camera was simply unacceptable in terms of AF performance in low light indoor shooting for me.

The Panasonics especially will focus in extremely low light, and they are fast, accurate, and lock just about instantly. The Olympus are not quite as good, but not bad. The Sony felt like I was back to working with my old EPL1 in the same indoor low light settings that the current gen M43 cameras just have zero problem with.

If you want to use C-AF and let the camera choose your focus point, the A6000 will do ok, but if you want more specific control and prefer S-AF and central focus box, you are out of luck in a lower light (normal winter living room type light) setting.

Plus, the M43 lenses are better, and better value. Until you get up into the higher priced Sony lenses, the optics are much more of a compromise than their equivalent Oly and Panasonic versions.

This was, by the way, a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to be able to use the A6000 as a sort of kick-around, small body to supplement the A7 and that I could use the same lenses on...but it was not to be.

My point is, be careful in your evaluation of the A6000 system. It has some really excellent attributes, but if they are not the most important ones to you, then it may not be your best choice.

-J
 
jalywol said:
to be.
My point is, be careful in your evaluation of the A6000 system. It has some really excellent attributes, but if they are not the most important ones to you, then it may not be your best choice.

-J
Click to expand...
very sensible statement, there is no such thing as best, only best for you. I am constantly amazed at people who buy products because the salesman tells them its the best yet they have never stopped to consider what they are looking for.
 
I do not believe it is worthwhile to go to Sony APS-C. If to Sony then A7 (ii). But you will end up with a larger system.
 
I often think about doing the same move. On paper, an A6000 for every day carry and an A7S/R for some really thought out work, all using the same lenses, sounds incredible to me. The problem for me is reading about people's experiences. The A6000 simply doesn't live up to it's hype when reading forum posts in this forum and even the Alpha forum. I then look into the lens situation and that makes the A6000 completely unusable for me as the lenses I really want, that will work on both bodies, are pretty expensive and slightly larger. I still lust after the A7S low light capabilities. While having incredible high ISO sensitivities, I'm unsure if it AF's and tracks subjects in that light as well as my E-M1. It really sounds like there is no camera that does everything well.

Oh, forgot to add that I'm pretty sure all the Alpha stuff mentioned is not weather sealed too?
 
Last edited:
Hello, I had an A6000 for a few months. Like you're planning I had the 16-50PZ, 20mm 2.8 pancake and the 18-200mm tele.

The camera body itself was a nice piece of kit, felt great in hand, easy to maneuver controls, solid balance, excellent battery life... But at the end of the day, cameras are about the photos you get, and the M4/3 optics largely beat the pants off the Sony photos. This not even just in my amateur hands, pros agreed.

The kit 12-32 zoom that's bundled with the (much smaller, RX100-sized) GM1 beat the heck out of the 16-50 Sony. It's night and day.

The 20mm f1.7 pancake m4/3 is a legend, and it's deserving of it, Sony's 20mm 2.8 is a pancake, but not even in the same league at all, I had to uparade to their 35mm f1.8 to get the picture quality I used to get from the Nikon D5000 prime.

Regarding the 18-200 travel zoom, a fine (big) lens, the 14-140 Panny to my eyes takes a better picture and takes less space in my bag.

The focus system is excellent on the A6000, but the glass and lenses aren't there, to say nothing of exotic wide angle and constant aperture zooms.
 
jalywol said:
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3. Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
Click to expand...
There is one, and only one, area that the A6000 is going to do better than the M43 cameras you have listed, and that is in C-AF. It also has a higher resolution sensor, if you need that.

If you need both of these things, then it is a good choice.

However....I bought one a couple of weeks ago to be my second body to the A7, and I could simply not believe how poorly the A6000 behaved in low light S-AF using the single focus point setting. Since this is the way I shoot, the camera was simply unacceptable in terms of AF performance in low light indoor shooting for me.

The Panasonics especially will focus in extremely low light, and they are fast, accurate, and lock just about instantly. The Olympus are not quite as good, but not bad. The Sony felt like I was back to working with my old EPL1 in the same indoor low light settings that the current gen M43 cameras just have zero problem with.

If you want to use C-AF and let the camera choose your focus point, the A6000 will do ok, but if you want more specific control and prefer S-AF and central focus box, you are out of luck in a lower light (normal winter living room type light) setting.

Plus, the M43 lenses are better, and better value. Until you get up into the higher priced Sony lenses, the optics are much more of a compromise than their equivalent Oly and Panasonic versions.

This was, by the way, a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to be able to use the A6000 as a sort of kick-around, small body to supplement the A7 and that I could use the same lenses on...but it was not to be.

My point is, be careful in your evaluation of the A6000 system. It has some really excellent attributes, but if they are not the most important ones to you, then it may not be your best choice.

-J
Click to expand...
Just making a clarification.

You don't have to let the camera chose the focal point for you in C-AF. You are probably talking about wide area focus. You can choose Zone, Center or Flexible spot in C-AF as well on the A6000.

And as most people mentioned to you on the Sony forum to you, the A6000 is definitely not as bad in low light as your experience. Definitely not mine.

A6000 low light focus unscientific:

Gx7 low light unscientific:


Regards
 
Last edited:
If you are planning to do any video, I have heard that the A6000 tends to overheat after maybe 10-15 minutes. I don't have one but my interest vanished at that point. But don't take my word for it as I don't know for sure. I could easily be wrong.

Some users only run short sections of video at a time, but I need to run for up to two hours at a stretch and that limits my choices. I'm a Sony user but as yet I'm not drawn to the E mount cameras. APS and mirrorless seem antithetical to me, given the wealth of mFT options.
 
JunzInc said:
JunzInc said:
Yannis1976 said:
Hi,

I have found a used A6000+16-50 lens at 500€ and I also checked some from Sony lenses and see that there are small primes like the 16mm and 20mm and there are also telephoto zooms like the E 18-200.

Comparing the A6000 with the current m4/3 I have or want to by (G6, GX7, M10) and their lenses there is no size advantage to m4/3. Furthermore A6000 seems a much more capable camera compared to current m4/3 options (sensor, focus at moving subjects etc). Also, even though the m4/3 lenses are more there seems to be also an adequate number of lenses for Sony E as well.

What do you think? Anyone made this change?
Click to expand...
There is one, and only one, area that the A6000 is going to do better than the M43 cameras you have listed, and that is in C-AF. It also has a higher resolution sensor, if you need that.

If you need both of these things, then it is a good choice.

However....I bought one a couple of weeks ago to be my second body to the A7, and I could simply not believe how poorly the A6000 behaved in low light S-AF using the single focus point setting. Since this is the way I shoot, the camera was simply unacceptable in terms of AF performance in low light indoor shooting for me.

The Panasonics especially will focus in extremely low light, and they are fast, accurate, and lock just about instantly. The Olympus are not quite as good, but not bad. The Sony felt like I was back to working with my old EPL1 in the same indoor low light settings that the current gen M43 cameras just have zero problem with.

If you want to use C-AF and let the camera choose your focus point, the A6000 will do ok, but if you want more specific control and prefer S-AF and central focus box, you are out of luck in a lower light (normal winter living room type light) setting.

Plus, the M43 lenses are better, and better value. Until you get up into the higher priced Sony lenses, the optics are much more of a compromise than their equivalent Oly and Panasonic versions.

This was, by the way, a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to be able to use the A6000 as a sort of kick-around, small body to supplement the A7 and that I could use the same lenses on...but it was not to be.

My point is, be careful in your evaluation of the A6000 system. It has some really excellent attributes, but if they are not the most important ones to you, then it may not be your best choice.

-J
Click to expand...
Just making a clarification.

You don't have to let the camera chose the focal point for you in C-AF. You are probably talking about wide area focus. You can choose Zone, Center or Flexible spot in C-AF as well on the A6000.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can, but if you want to use S-AF, and NOT have to deal with C-AF, you are out of luck. You HAVE to use C-AF if you want PDAF to be involved in the focusing, and the CDAF alone is just not very good in low light. Ergo, it simply did not work for my preferred style of shooting.

-J
 
The video I linked to are all S-AF on the A6000. But yes in very low light my GX7 does better as you can see in the video itself.

I responded just because your post seemed like you were mentioning that there is no control of focal point in C-AF and I just clarified that you can set your own focal points in C-AF and doesnt have to depend on the camera for choosing the focal point.

Regards
 
JunzInc said:
The video I linked to are all S-AF on the A6000. But yes in very low light my GX7 does better as you can see in the video itself.

I responded just because your post seemed like you were mentioning that there is no control of focal point in C-AF and I just clarified that you can set your own focal points in C-AF and doesnt have to depend on the camera for choosing the focal point.
Click to expand...
The problem with low light and C-AF and the small focal point, is that when the camera does have trouble locating a target within the small point, it expands the target til it can find something useful to focus on...and that is not necessarily what you want it to focus on. It's not the only camera that does this, but if it had intrinsically better low light AF locking capabilities, it would not have to widen out the focus area as often or as much as it does in C-AF.

-J
 
As I told you before, I was only clarifying this part of your original post which is a little misleading. C-AF can be used with all focus area modes and in my experience works quite well as well.
jalywol said:
If you want to use C-AF and let the camera choose your focus point, the A6000 will do ok,
Click to expand...
And about the below, If I am in flexible spot I usually use medium size which works more often than not. What you seem to be talking i.e camera expanding the area is probably due to the AF Assist lamp being turned on. If the AF Assist lamp is off then the camera will not expand its Area in flexible spot and it will either lock on the desired area or it will not.
jalywol said:
The problem with low light and C-AF and the small focal point, is that when the camera does have trouble locating a target within the small point, it expands the target til it can find something useful to focus on...and that is not necessarily what you want it to focus on. It's not the only camera that does this, but if it had intrinsically better low light AF locking capabilities, it would not have to widen out the focus area as often or as much as it does in C-AF.
Click to expand...
But yes, it did not work for you and I understand.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top