You may have a bad 16-50. But what about the posts I left for you showing that the Oly sensor is considerably inferior - less sharp- than the Sony? I would think this would be considered, and just get another 16-50 rather than the Oly.
I think that you feel the 16-50 kit lens is the end-all be-all lens for you, and your particular style of shooting. Some people do not feel the same as you do, so you need to accept that. It's not worth continually trying to make people think the same way you do about that lens.
Not sure what your problem is, but I have many lenses and don't think 16-50 is "be all" at all. I only like it for SP because it's small and unobtrusive. Don't put words in my mouth.
Hi Sam, I don't disagree that the Sony sensor is better. But the actual tests show much sharper results with the Oly kit lens. So what good is a theoretically better sensor if you can't get a decently sharp normal zoom (if you luck out with the 16-70) for under $700? The Sony A6000 is this incredibly capable body that has some decent primes (some of them thanks to Sigma and Samyang) and hardly any good zooms unless you pay a small fortune. You only get the Sony sensor's benefits with the primes (which I do have some) or major $$$ for the zooms.
Snapa, I appreciate that you like your kit zoom and that's great for you. But you are wrong that I love mine. I love the idea and potential of it, but not the reality. In fact, I just finished boxing up my NEX-6 with that zoom you say I love so much, and tomorrow it is shipping away to Amazon as they buy used equipment!
first, congrats on your new toy! it's a very interesting camera, and I was considering it myself not long ago (not for lack of quality on the Sony, but for some of the features of the Olympus).
well, that argument can also be flipped: what good is a theoretically sharper lens if the sensor is not good enough to take full advantage of it? (I'm not saying that this is the case for the Olympus, just that I would have tried to evaluate this aspect as well).
This was exactly my point. And, it's very possible the OP has a defective 16-50.
A crapshoot.
If you think you've solved the photography puzzle by beating two mediocre kit lenses with a slightly less mediocre kit lens then congratulations. I'd guess that it will not matter one bit in real world images and in the meantime you'll be carrying around a hodge podge of multiple systems with pretty mediocre equipment all because you have a "sharper" mediocre kit lens. Kind of a head scratcher really.
Thanks!
Well you have some point there. But of course if I said I ran a test on the A6000 versus the OM-D people would have said it was apples to oranges. I was specifically complaining about the kit lens so this is really a lens issue, so I thought that the best way to compare the performance of the lenses would be to shoot with equivalent MP.
A picture is only going to be as good as its weakest link. In the case of my NEX-6 and then A6000, the 1650 limited both of them. Even at 16mp it was obvious that the kit lens (at least mine) was never sharp. So really the 24mp of the A6000 is academic because that lens couldn't even come close to what the 16mp sensor could do. And my testing confirmed that even a micro 4/3 sensor, also 16mp, could easily out-resolve my 1650 at 16mp. Show me that much sharper lens in E mount that outresolves the 16mp of the NEX-6. I'm sure the Sigma 60 and perhaps 30 fall into that camp. But certainly not the kit, or the E16, etc. Perhaps the E35 or 50.
Sam, I'll try to do that. But of course I can't really post M43 photos here as that would be off topic. I will post a few of my good A6000 shots. I'm leaving 2nd half of August and back mid September.
Have a great trip! Remember to enjoy the present and not worry too much about capturing everything! Good luck...
do you have some RAWs that show the problem? I'm just curious to see how bad it is...
I do. What's the best way to do that given the file sizes? I could provide a 1650 and corresponding Oly 1442 as a comparison, along with the 1855.
I have uploaded 8 files taken with my 1650 and new used 1855. The focus is on the rose bush. Taken with 2 second delay on tripod. Files are clearly labeled to which lens, focal length, and aperture.
