Just picked up a Sony A6000

BolleDuc wrote:

Hi Guys,

I may have finally lost my mind & demonstrated the utter insanity of the GAS attack!

Ever since unloading my A65 in favour of an all MFT kit, there was always some nagging thing in the back of my mind about the bigger sensor size of the APS-C format being somehow better. When Sony came up with a 24 megapixel variant, along with a promise of good low light performance, I almost couldn't help myself & I started reading the reviews on the A6000. The whopping additional $25 discount for Canada Day at a local big box store had me throw caution to the wind & I splurged $725 (about $820 with taxes) on the Sony, replete with the 16-50mm PZ kit lens.

I've been shooting my feet plonked on the corner of my desk, my flowers outside the front door & I've been trying the occasional shot out the window of a moving car (I do a lot of this with my GX7!) & I'm really not seeing the dramatic differences I expected. Actually I'm really not seeing that much difference at all, to the point where I'm now thinking of returning it.

I'm not a sophisticated pixel peeper but I do like to compare out of camera jpegs at 100%. I'm also aware that there are many reports on the poor optical quality of the 16-50mm PZ but I felt there should have been some decent improvement over my GX7 or my E-PM2 with a kit lens, other than the jpegs just being bigger.

I'm sharing this for fun & for those hapless few who, like me, are soon parted from their hard earned coin! I welcome your mirthful scorn & ridicule, along with your thoughts on what you might do were you to have this beautiful little piece of technology in your hands. And it does feel good in the hand! Should I take it back or maybe what I really need is to test drive is one of those full frame mirrorless babies from Sony!

Paul

This is a trap a lot of people fall into. Having shot with FF, APS-C and M43rds extensively, I can tell you that the difference in real use with the 3 different sensor sizes are much, much smaller than all the tests and reviews on the internet show. A stop or two of difference is really only apparent when you're printing massive in most cases, and the current M43rd sensors are at the point where they are simply good enough for almost any situation, so going with a "better" sensor doesn't make the difference you would think, unless you're doing something extremel like sports in low light where you really need to crank the ISO.

BolleDuc wrote:

Hi Guys,

I may have finally lost my mind & demonstrated the utter insanity of the GAS attack!

Ever since unloading my A65 in favour of an all MFT kit, there was always some nagging thing in the back of my mind about the bigger sensor size of the APS-C format being somehow better. When Sony came up with a 24 megapixel variant, along with a promise of good low light performance, I almost couldn't help myself & I started reading the reviews on the A6000. The whopping additional $25 discount for Canada Day at a local big box store had me throw caution to the wind & I splurged $725 (about $820 with taxes) on the Sony, replete with the 16-50mm PZ kit lens.

I've been shooting my feet plonked on the corner of my desk, my flowers outside the front door & I've been trying the occasional shot out the window of a moving car (I do a lot of this with my GX7!) & I'm really not seeing the dramatic differences I expected. Actually I'm really not seeing that much difference at all, to the point where I'm now thinking of returning it.

I'm not a sophisticated pixel peeper but I do like to compare out of camera jpegs at 100%. I'm also aware that there are many reports on the poor optical quality of the 16-50mm PZ but I felt there should have been some decent improvement over my GX7 or my E-PM2 with a kit lens, other than the jpegs just being bigger.

I'm sharing this for fun & for those hapless few who, like me, are soon parted from their hard earned coin! I welcome your mirthful scorn & ridicule, along with your thoughts on what you might do were you to have this beautiful little piece of technology in your hands. And it does feel good in the hand! Should I take it back or maybe what I really need is to test drive is one of those full frame mirrorless babies from Sony!

Paul

I bought an A7 a few weeks ago, and well, yeah, for what I shoot, I do really notice the IQ differences between it and my M43 cameras (GX7, EM1). I was thinking of moving to an all Sony system, and getting the A6000 instead of keeping my GM1 as my small backup camera, so I went and tried one out in the store a few days ago. Well, the long and short of it was, I just wasn't particularly impressed with it. It does have nice, zippy AF, for sure (the A7 is rather a bit pokier in that respect), but it just did nothing for me. The A7, on the other hand, I find quite enjoyable to pick up and use....it's really a different beast.

So....the moral of the story? If I were you, I would probably try the A6000 out with a different lens, or in more demanding lighting to give it a real test....but honestly, the GX7 and the EPM2 are both extremely capable cameras, and it would not surprise me if the results ended up being fairly equivocal. If you are curious about the A7, I would say to try one...but that does get you into a whole 'nother can of peas, as it were, with lenses (and adapted A-mount lenses) to cover your desired focal lengths. For me it is worth it, even though it's a pain in the butt, but not sure it would be for everyone.

-J

take it back. then pick up an RX1. %^}

I for one appreciate your honesty.  We all get new gear hunger every once in a while and this is a reminder that I'll keep using my E-M5 for a while longer.  At least until the E-M5 II comes out

I've been a bit tempted by the A6000 because of the reputedly excellent AF. The CAF on my E-M5 is not really useable and I'm not convinced the CAF on the EM1 is on par with APS-C slrs with respect to things like running dogs and birds in flight. But I've become very jaded in terms of comparing IQ. If you're printing huge images then higher resolution sensors, if mated to excellent lenses offer a tangible advantage. And if you were doing things like shooting indoor sports in poor light where very high iso performance is truly an asset, then sensor differences may offer a truly tangible benefit. And if pixel peeping is someone's thing then by all means that's how they should choose their cameras. But I'm of the opinion that the things folks mean by IQ (with the exception of DR) are largely irrelevant for the way most folks use their cameras and display their images. And I know I'm generalizing. In terms of choosing a camera I think things like ergonomics, features that you (the buyer) needs, lens availability, etc., are more important than differences in what we mean by IQ. And if folks really want thin DOF they they should choose a tool that gives them the control they need to achieve that goal. We're blessed with a ton of great cameras that will produce wonderful images if we aim them at interesting subjects, in good light, and with good composition.

Aaron801 wrote:

I'm intrigued wit the A6000 and actually the whole NEX series camreas. The bigger sensor and now much bigger resolution in the very small (as small as m4/3 package) seems pretty ideal. I've picked up one of the older models though, an A5000 and I just couldn't get with the shape/feel of it. It kind of seems like a cell phone with a big lens tacked on the side of it. The shape and the control layout of my GH2 I like much much better and as great as the specs are with the A6000 with the big sensor, big resolution fast AF etc doesn't seem so great for me with that odd (to me anyway) layout. I also like the fact that m4/3 seems to have many more and many cheaper options for lenses and because it's a more established system there are more lenses that I see showing up for great deals used... which is a great thing if you're like me, a photographer on a budget. I do like to crop pretty heavily sometimes and find the "picture inside the picture" in shots that I take so the larger resolution of the A6000 would be nice. Still, I kind of think that the 16mp that the m4/3 cameras have is more than capable of great images and certainly good enough for me 98% of the time... I don't think that I'll be trading up from what I have very soon.

As for the A7, I like the shape layout much better and love the fact that it's a full frame camera at that size. Still, I know someone who has one and has issues with it. Video makes the camera overheat pretty easily and pretty quickly... and the AF seems to have some problems too. Nice design and capable of great IQ I know, but if I were to ever go this route I'd be waiting for the mkII, when they have more of the bugs worked out.

I have never had any problems with the A7 overheating in video.    Shooting the same as with video from my old Pentax KX....that DID overheat quite a lot.

I am sure there would be situations where this does occur but it is not that often and the camera has so much more control for video than my GX7.

Also, while I don't use AF much with it, that is another thing I have not had any issue with....AF with the kit lens is fast, quiet and reliable.

It does focus to EV 0 (compared to the GX7 EV -4) but in low light while a bit slower than many recent cameras, it is still quite good.....in good to normal light it is excellent.

When the light gets low, the GX7 is the one that stays home.

In a way m4/3 seems perhaps a little less than ideal as there are smaller cameras with bigger sensors out there, but if you look at it from a perspective beyond just the technical specs to the design of the cameras and the variety of whats available for both bodies and lenses, then it's s system that to my mind looks like much less of a compromise.

jalywol wrote:

BolleDuc wrote:

Hi Guys,

I may have finally lost my mind & demonstrated the utter insanity of the GAS attack!

Ever since unloading my A65 in favour of an all MFT kit, there was always some nagging thing in the back of my mind about the bigger sensor size of the APS-C format being somehow better. When Sony came up with a 24 megapixel variant, along with a promise of good low light performance, I almost couldn't help myself & I started reading the reviews on the A6000. The whopping additional $25 discount for Canada Day at a local big box store had me throw caution to the wind & I splurged $725 (about $820 with taxes) on the Sony, replete with the 16-50mm PZ kit lens.

I've been shooting my feet plonked on the corner of my desk, my flowers outside the front door & I've been trying the occasional shot out the window of a moving car (I do a lot of this with my GX7!) & I'm really not seeing the dramatic differences I expected. Actually I'm really not seeing that much difference at all, to the point where I'm now thinking of returning it.

I'm not a sophisticated pixel peeper but I do like to compare out of camera jpegs at 100%. I'm also aware that there are many reports on the poor optical quality of the 16-50mm PZ but I felt there should have been some decent improvement over my GX7 or my E-PM2 with a kit lens, other than the jpegs just being bigger.

I'm sharing this for fun & for those hapless few who, like me, are soon parted from their hard earned coin! I welcome your mirthful scorn & ridicule, along with your thoughts on what you might do were you to have this beautiful little piece of technology in your hands. And it does feel good in the hand! Should I take it back or maybe what I really need is to test drive is one of those full frame mirrorless babies from Sony!

Paul

I bought an A7 a few weeks ago, and well, yeah, for what I shoot, I do really notice the IQ differences between it and my M43 cameras (GX7, EM1). I was thinking of moving to an all Sony system, and getting the A6000 instead of keeping my GM1 as my small backup camera, so I went and tried one out in the store a few days ago. Well, the long and short of it was, I just wasn't particularly impressed with it. It does have nice, zippy AF, for sure (the A7 is rather a bit pokier in that respect), but it just did nothing for me. The A7, on the other hand, I find quite enjoyable to pick up and use....it's really a different beast.

So....the moral of the story? If I were you, I would probably try the A6000 out with a different lens, or in more demanding lighting to give it a real test....but honestly, the GX7 and the EPM2 are both extremely capable cameras, and it would not surprise me if the results ended up being fairly equivocal. If you are curious about the A7, I would say to try one...but that does get you into a whole 'nother can of peas, as it were, with lenses (and adapted A-mount lenses) to cover your desired focal lengths. For me it is worth it, even though it's a pain in the butt, but not sure it would be for everyone.

-J

I have the A7 and GX7 and to me, M4/3 and FF complement each other.

Personally, I think the A6000 IQ WOULD be better than the GX7 but not by much and the GX7 is a higher level camera in so many ways.

The A6000 is an average level (still great though) camera with a party trick.....its AF.

I think if coming FROM M4/3 to a A6000 many people would NOT notice much difference (and equally if going the other way you would not notice much either)...depends more on what features you want.

Still, while I love the camera, I hate the grip of the GX7....it really bugs me more and more!

While the GX7 has some things I like very much, I don't think of it as a really special camera (to ME the A7 is) and while it has a LOT of useful things, a lot of them are not the greatest....EG, focus peaking is a poor poor imitation to me compared to the A7 (still pretty good) and silent shutter mode, while a great idea and still very useful is a bit limited....video quality is great too but then they limit it to max ISO 3200 and no mic jack! The GX7 has IBIS...again, love it, great feature but again, not the best in the GX7.....lots of things...more than almost any camera but not many done the best.....almost a jack of all trades but master of none (actually master of a couple maybe).

Do love the tilting ability of the EVF and silent/touch shutter though, even with its limitations.

If the coming Panasonic LX8 is as good as I hope, I will maybe get it for coat pocketing sell the GX7, get a cheap second hand smallish m4/3 camera (with a mic jack)...as the two systems DO complement each other for me, and get an A7S for low light and movies (rolling shutter will not be an issue for me, mostly on a tripod) and keep the A7 for normal use.

Your experience corroborates DxOMark's measurement results for the A6000 and EPM2. At the pixel level there is no difference between the two and your comparisons at 100% just show you that, and the fact that the 16-50mm isn't much better than your m43 kit lens.

neil holmes wrote:

If the coming Panasonic LX8 is as good as I hope, I will maybe get it for coat pocketing sell the GX7, get a cheap second hand smallish m4/3 camera (with a mic jack)...as the two systems DO complement each other for me, and get an A7S for low light and movies (rolling shutter will not be an issue for me, mostly on a tripod) and keep the A7 for normal use.

This is about the same place I am at, at the moment.   The A7 has moved into my primary camera spot, and the GM1 is my take-with.  However, I really do need an EVF some of the time, and it would be nice to just have the small camera, with no extra lenses, in my pocketbook at all times....so I am thinking of seeing what the LX8 has for features and sensor, and maybe going with that for my "always with me" camera.

-J