Nikon D5500 vs Sony a6000 IQ?

[ArtAlt]

Greetings! I currently use a Nikon D750 for high priority shoots and Sony a6000 for travel, toss in daypack, casual family, etc. Pretty happy with IQ from Sony a6000 although Nikon D750 is visibly superior as you might imagine.

Question: Have any of you compared IQ and autofocus capability of Nikon D5500 vs Sony a6000?

I think it might be more efficient for me to have my smaller lighter system be lens compatible with my main rig. Am considering going all-Nikon.

(I was originally going to go all Sony mirrorless for full frame too but in many ways the full frame bodies and lenses are a work in progress, especially autofocus in lower light.)

Thank you.

Art

 

[Mystery member]

Greetings! I currently use a Nikon D750 for high priority shoots and Sony a6000 for travel, toss in daypack, casual family, etc. Pretty happy with IQ from Sony a6000 although Nikon D750 is visibly superior as you might imagine.

Question: Have any of you compared IQ and autofocus capability of Nikon D5500 vs Sony a6000?

I think it might be more efficient for me to have my smaller lighter system be lens compatible with my main rig. Am considering going all-Nikon.

I've had some experience with the D7100 and Sony a5100 (close relation to the a6000).

Given good lenses, IQ is hard to pick. I save my everyday shots to monthly folders, and it's hard for others to pick which camera took a particular shot. Best lenses on the Nikon (e.g. 85mm f/1.8G) tend to stand out to the more experienced eye, but the better lenses on the Sony (e.g. FE 28-70mm and Sigma 19mm) aren't far behind.

AF on the D7100 is known to be exceptionally good, and is readily adaptable to various scenarios. The a6000/a5100 share the same AF capabilities, and while they are slightly idiosyncratic in a typical Sony fashion, the performance is very good. Focus point selection (particularly with Touch-Focus on the a5100) is better than Nikon. "Centre Lock-On and AF" seems to be particularly useful, but I haven't used it regularly enough to compare it with the D7100. The Sony has features such as eye and face detection which may appeal.

The Nikon D5500 AF is probably close to the performance of the D7100, and it has a touch screen, which is far more useful than the traditional Nikon toggling to set a focus point (I've never actually used it).

You would be aware of the benefits of using FX lenses on a DX body, and the previously-mentioned 85mm f/1.8G is particularly tasty. You would be able to fit your Nikon lenses to the a6000 using an adapter, but this may not suit your style of shooting, as you usually lose some AF capability, even with the best adapters.

I have a legacy lens that I fit to my a5100 and it works quite well, and the MF options on the a5100 are well thought out and convenient to use. "MF Assist" offers two levels of magnification for MF, and the swap between legacy lens and native lens is completely transparent to the other settings.


Konica 135mm f/3.5 manual focus; 100% crop. (Taken at f/5.6)


Crop of Logo from sign. Lens is sharp, but has CA.

 

[ArtAlt]

....

I've had some experience with the D7100 and Sony a5100 (close relation to the a6000).

Given good lenses, IQ is hard to pick. I save my everyday shots to monthly folders, and it's hard for others to pick which camera took a particular shot. Best lenses on the Nikon (e.g. 85mm f/1.8G) tend to stand out to the more experienced eye, but the better lenses on the Sony (e.g. FE 28-70mm and Sigma 19mm) aren't far behind.

AF on the D7100 is known to be exceptionally good, and is readily adaptable to various scenarios. The a6000/a5100 share the same AF capabilities, and while they are slightly idiosyncratic in a typical Sony fashion, the performance is very good. Focus point selection (particularly with Touch-Focus on the a5100) is better than Nikon. "Centre Lock-On and AF" seems to be particularly useful, but I haven't used it regularly enough to compare it with the D7100. The Sony has features such as eye and face detection which may appeal.

The Nikon D5500 AF is probably close to the performance of the D7100, and it has a touch screen, which is far more useful than the traditional Nikon toggling to set a focus point (I've never actually used it).

You would be aware of the benefits of using FX lenses on a DX body, and the previously-mentioned 85mm f/1.8G is particularly tasty. You would be able to fit your Nikon lenses to the a6000 using an adapter, but this may not suit your style of shooting, as you usually lose some AF capability, even with the best adapters.

I have a legacy lens that I fit to my a5100 and it works quite well, and the MF options on the a5100 are well thought out and convenient to use. "MF Assist" offers two levels of magnification for MF, and the swap between legacy lens and native lens is completely transparent to the other settings.....

Thanks for discussing your experiences. This is very encouraging for either choice, I suppose.

I had a lot of trouble with autofocus on a6000 in indoor or lower light, especially with v1.0 firmware. I think that it switches to CDAF and then has to hunt, whereas DSLR's are able to use PDAF down to far lower light. With v1.0 firmware on the Sony, my old Canon XTi actually focused more reliably in low light. I think newer firmware updates improved that. Probably the a5100, a much newer model, also has the newer firmware.

Ironic that the Sony focuses blazing fast in good light.

I think I have to jot down carefully what are my typical shooting situations. How often will I use manual third party lenses, where Sony excels. Etc.

 

[whiggy]

...

Thanks for discussing your experiences. This is very encouraging for either choice, I suppose.

I had a lot of trouble with autofocus on a6000 in indoor or lower light, especially with v1.0 firmware. I think that it switches to CDAF and then has to hunt, whereas DSLR's are able to use PDAF down to far lower light. With v1.0 firmware on the Sony, my old Canon XTi actually focused more reliably in low light. I think newer firmware updates improved that. Probably the a5100, a much newer model, also has the newer firmware.

Ironic that the Sony focuses blazing fast in good light.

I think I have to jot down carefully what are my typical shooting situations. How often will I use manual third party lenses, where Sony excels. Etc.

Had an a6000 for a while. Focusing in low light sucked (with the kit lens, at least). Even my D40 did way better in low light. Firmware 2.0 did not improve it IMO, and if it did it was unnoticeable. I am aware that a6000 focuses better with some higher quality lenses but those are also bigger and that would not have worked for me because I wanted a small setup.

As far as IQ, I was happy with a6000. I wish the ARW was better than 11-bit for easier post processing but, generally, the pictures looked good. Too bad the low light focusing was not all that good. I hope Sony makes some progress in that area because I liked every other aspect of the a6000.

 

[ArtAlt]

....

Had an a6000 for a while. Focusing in low light sucked (with the kit lens, at least). Even my D40 did way better in low light. Firmware 2.0 did not improve it IMO, and if it did it was unnoticeable. I am aware that a6000 focuses better with some higher quality lenses but those are also bigger and that would not have worked for me because I wanted a small setup.

As far as IQ, I was happy with a6000. I wish the ARW was better than 11-bit for easier post processing but, generally, the pictures looked good. Too bad the low light focusing was not all that good. I hope Sony makes some progress in that area because I liked every other aspect of the a6000.

BTW on the Sony forums I catch hell when I mention the problem with low light autofocusing. Great to hear a little more honesty from others on the topic.

 

[66GTO]

Greetings! I currently use a Nikon D750 for high priority shoots and Sony a6000 for travel, toss in daypack, casual family, etc. Pretty happy with IQ from Sony a6000 although Nikon D750 is visibly superior as you might imagine.

Question: Have any of you compared IQ and autofocus capability of Nikon D5500 vs Sony a6000?

I think it might be more efficient for me to have my smaller lighter system be lens compatible with my main rig. Am considering going all-Nikon.

(I was originally going to go all Sony mirrorless for full frame too but in many ways the full frame bodies and lenses are a work in progress, especially autofocus in lower light.)

Thank you.

Art

The way that the D5500 handles, and the images that it is capable of, may just be enough to have you using it more and leaving your bigger body at home.

 

[whiggy]

BTW on the Sony forums I catch hell when I mention the problem with low light autofocusing. Great to hear a little more honesty from others on the topic.

Yeah, I guess that's how people are - on Sony forums they don't like to hear anything bad about Sony, on Canon about Canon, on Nikon... Even if it's true.
But, yeah, a6000 AF is super quick as long as there is plenty of light. As soon as the light dims it just hunts and punts. CameraLabs.com a6000 review says "The A6000 may have far superior continuous AF, but the EM10 is quicker for Single AF and it continues to work in much lower light levels" so while a6000 may be class-leadng in good light it is definitely not class-leading in low light.

 

[mosswings]

BTW on the Sony forums I catch hell when I mention the problem with low light autofocusing. Great to hear a little more honesty from others on the topic.

Yeah, I guess that's how people are - on Sony forums they don't like to hear anything bad about Sony, on Canon about Canon, on Nikon... Even if it's true.
But, yeah, a6000 AF is super quick as long as there is plenty of light. As soon as the light dims it just hunts and punts. CameraLabs.com a6000 review says "The A6000 may have far superior continuous AF, but the EM10 is quicker for Single AF and it continues to work in much lower light levels" so while a6000 may be class-leadng in good light it is definitely not class-leading in low light.

This is a general problem with all OSPDAF implementations. The amount of sensor area dedicated to PDAF is much, much less than what DSLRs can field. The effective area for Sony or Nikon Series 1 style sparse arrays is about 10% of the total imaging sensor within each focus zone, whereas that of a DSLR approaches 75%. Canon's DPAF arrays put 50% into play.

CDAF by contrast uses all of the imaging sensor's area in the focus zones, so has the ability to work in far lower light. This is why sparse-array OSPDAF can have as much as a 5-stop deficit vs. traditional PDAF.

What OSPDAF does bring to the table, however, is the ability to hybridize PD and CD AF. The A6000 has a notoriously optimistic transition algorithm, holding on to PDAF way too long. The new implementation used in the A7RII and RX10II/RX100IV should work better, and in CDAF probably better than the Oly/Panasonic CDAF/DFD systems, but the reviews aren't in.

 

[rlyons]

....

Had an a6000 for a while. Focusing in low light sucked (with the kit lens, at least). Even my D40 did way better in low light. Firmware 2.0 did not improve it IMO, and if it did it was unnoticeable. I am aware that a6000 focuses better with some higher quality lenses but those are also bigger and that would not have worked for me because I wanted a small setup.

As far as IQ, I was happy with a6000. I wish the ARW was better than 11-bit for easier post processing but, generally, the pictures looked good. Too bad the low light focusing was not all that good. I hope Sony makes some progress in that area because I liked every other aspect of the a6000.

BTW on the Sony forums I catch hell when I mention the problem with low light autofocusing. Great to hear a little more honesty from others on the topic.

Agreed. They're very defensive over there. Don't say anything negative about a Sony camera or lens, regardless of how true or proven it is, otherwise you'll be labeled a troll!

Having said that... I did see massive improvement with low-light focusing after I upgraded to 1.20 firmware and that has carried over to 2.0. So, not saying it doesn't have issues in low-light, but at least for what I shoot it did indeed noticeably improve. FWIW there's a differing view, your mileage may vary.

R/R

 

[Dougbm_2]

Greetings! I currently use a Nikon D750 for high priority shoots and Sony a6000 for travel, toss in daypack, casual family, etc. Pretty happy with IQ from Sony a6000 although Nikon D750 is visibly superior as you might imagine.

Question: Have any of you compared IQ and autofocus capability of Nikon D5500 vs Sony a6000?

I think it might be more efficient for me to have my smaller lighter system be lens compatible with my main rig. Am considering going all-Nikon.

(I was originally going to go all Sony mirrorless for full frame too but in many ways the full frame bodies and lenses are a work in progress, especially autofocus in lower light.)

Thank you.

Art

D7200 has a near identical body /button layout to D750. D5500 smaller (too small?) but touch and swing out screen. D7200/5500 with 18-55 is a light walk around setup but not as compact as the A6000 / 16-50.

I am waiting for a 1" sensor compact with 24-100 and evf (not the pop up pull out Sony type) . Canon is nearly there. Lx100 is close has so so IQ from what I see and low resolution and other factors (eg no swivel screen).

 

[Dmac60]

I had a look at the A6000 v my D5100 and a D5500. It's one of the few small cameras that handles reasonably well due to the decent grip, the FPS rate is pretty impressive too. However, the thing that killed it for me was AF performance and lack of a decent quality standard zoom. Also, it seems crazy that it doesn't have a touchscreen so you can select an AF point - I love this feature with the D5500.

 

[Nevermess]

I think that D5500 + Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS will be very good combo. D5500 is small enough and has much better handling than Sony A6000. AF performance is much better especially in low light.

Of course with D5500 you will be prone to front/back focusing issues since D5500 has no micro focus adjustment. With A6000 you won't have similar issues and the AF will be much snappier (in good light).

 

[ArtAlt]

...Having said that... I did see massive improvement with low-light focusing after I upgraded to 1.20 firmware and that has carried over to 2.0. So, not saying it doesn't have issues in low-light, but at least for what I shoot it did indeed noticeably improve. FWIW there's a differing view, your mileage may vary.

R/R

I should really give the a6000 another shot in lower light now with v2.0

I am sad that most people buying a6000 will never really get to experience what it can do because there is not much publicity about the firmware upgrades unless you follow forums relentlessly. But even on the forums there was never stark admission about the low light AF problems of a6000, at least with firmware v1.0. Denial. I just don't tend to trust it because of bad early experiences. I take it on casual shoots only.

 

[Rdmkr]

The A6000's lenses are seriously outclassed by Nikon Dx ones in every category except size and weight. If you're specifically looking for something with extra portability and ease to carry, the A6000 might offer you something you like. Otherwise even older Dx models up to the D5200 are a more sensible choice.

A6000 has no 300mm lenses and on average the sharpness of lenses of the same price is about halved in terms of perceptual megapixels. To me it was all way too much of a compromise and switching to the D5300 was a huge relief.

 

[ArtAlt]

...To me it was all way too much of a compromise and switching to the D5300 was a huge relief.

Interesting voice of experience!

 

[Erichsg]

Sorry all, but I'm not sure about the answer for the straitght forward question; Which one delivers the best IQ?, far beyond portability, speed, and so, I want to know if any has experience with both cameras, thanks

 

[GROBERTS3]

I just stumbled on an open box buy for a Sony A6000 kit with 16-50mm and 55-210mm for $500! Brand new condition. So I figured it was too good of a deal to pass up, even to have as a smaller more portable camera. I played around with it yesterday and the IQ seems VERY good, but I am struggling with the smalliish viewfinder and images don't seem to instantly snap into focus in the viewfinder, but when I review the photo, they appear focused. Hmmm.

I guess I am used to the performance of a DSLR. My former camera was a Nikon D80 w/ 18-135mm. Not a great lense, but for walk around, ease of use, I found it quicker to use intuitively. So Now I am thinking that maybe I should get a D5500. (My D80 died after many years of great service)

I also agree the lense options available for a Nikon Dslr are vastly greater. But still, for $500, the A6000 is almost too good of a compact to let go. I'll probably keep it. But I think I will enjoy a D5500 more.

 

[ArtAlt]

I just stumbled on an open box buy for a Sony A6000 kit with 16-50mm and 55-210mm for $500! Brand new condition. So I figured it was too good of a deal to pass up, even to have as a smaller more portable camera. I played around with it yesterday and the IQ seems VERY good, but I am struggling with the smalliish viewfinder and images don't seem to instantly snap into focus in the viewfinder, but when I review the photo, they appear focused. Hmmm.

I guess I am used to the performance of a DSLR. My former camera was a Nikon D80 w/ 18-135mm. Not a great lense, but for walk around, ease of use, I found it quicker to use intuitively. So Now I am thinking that maybe I should get a D5500. (My D80 died after many years of great service)

I also agree the lense options available for a Nikon Dslr are vastly greater. But still, for $500, the A6000 is almost too good of a compact to let go. I'll probably keep it. But I think I will enjoy a D5500 more.

Tough call. Very different. a6000 has amazing face recognition and tracking, better even than my Nikon D750. But DSLR autofocus is stronger overall than mirrorless in my personal experience, at any given price point.

Last night I shot a concert and having Sony a6000 face recognition was huge, because with DSLR at concerts I tend to get microphone in focus rather than the face. Sony chose the face, when it could focus at all (which was less than my DSLR would have).

Sigh.

DXO rates image quality of D5500 as slightly higher than that of a6000 as I recall. D5500 has touch screen.

D5500 does NOT have micro focus adjustment which means you need to test it out carefully with any new lens. a6000 does not need it because all focus is done on sensor.

How often do you use "live view", i.e., shoot using the rear screen instead of viewfinder. Nikon DSLR's focus very slowly in live view, whereas with Sony mirrorless it's the same as in the viewfinder.

I use Nikon D750 & D810 for high quality scheduled shoots, and Sony a6000 for leisure. Small size of the Sony with the native APSC lenses is a factor, as is the face recognition. It takes a while to really learn to use it -- especially all the autofocus options. I screwed up using my a6000 when it was new more than with any other camera. Gary Fong has an inexpensive video that helps a lot.

 

[GROBERTS3]

I just stumbled on an open box buy for a Sony A6000 kit with 16-50mm and 55-210mm for $500! Brand new condition. So I figured it was too good of a deal to pass up, even to have as a smaller more portable camera. I played around with it yesterday and the IQ seems VERY good, but I am struggling with the smalliish viewfinder and images don't seem to instantly snap into focus in the viewfinder, but when I review the photo, they appear focused. Hmmm.

I guess I am used to the performance of a DSLR. My former camera was a Nikon D80 w/ 18-135mm. Not a great lense, but for walk around, ease of use, I found it quicker to use intuitively. So Now I am thinking that maybe I should get a D5500. (My D80 died after many years of great service)

I also agree the lense options available for a Nikon Dslr are vastly greater. But still, for $500, the A6000 is almost too good of a compact to let go. I'll probably keep it. But I think I will enjoy a D5500 more.

Tough call. Very different. a6000 has amazing face recognition and tracking, better even than my Nikon D750. But DSLR autofocus is stronger overall than mirrorless in my personal experience, at any given price point.

Last night I shot a concert and having Sony a6000 face recognition was huge, because with DSLR at concerts I tend to get microphone in focus rather than the face. Sony chose the face, when it could focus at all (which was less than my DSLR would have).

Sigh.

DXO rates image quality of D5500 as slightly higher than that of a6000 as I recall. D5500 has touch screen.

D5500 does NOT have micro focus adjustment which means you need to test it out carefully with any new lens. a6000 does not need it because all focus is done on sensor.

How often do you use "live view", i.e., shoot using the rear screen instead of viewfinder. Nikon DSLR's focus very slowly in live view, whereas with Sony mirrorless it's the same as in the viewfinder.

I use Nikon D750 & D810 for high quality scheduled shoots, and Sony a6000 for leisure. Small size of the Sony with the native APSC lenses is a factor, as is the face recognition. It takes a while to really learn to use it -- especially all the autofocus options. I screwed up using my a6000 when it was new more than with any other camera. Gary Fong has an inexpensive video that helps a lot.

 

[ArtAlt]

I just stumbled on an open box buy for a Sony A6000 kit with 16-50mm and 55-210mm for $500! Brand new condition. So I figured it was too good of a deal to pass up, even to have as a smaller more portable camera. I played around with it yesterday and the IQ seems VERY good, but I am struggling with the smalliish viewfinder and images don't seem to instantly snap into focus in the viewfinder, but when I review the photo, they appear focused. Hmmm.

I guess I am used to the performance of a DSLR. My former camera was a Nikon D80 w/ 18-135mm. Not a great lense, but for walk around, ease of use, I found it quicker to use intuitively. So Now I am thinking that maybe I should get a D5500. (My D80 died after many years of great service)

I also agree the lense options available for a Nikon Dslr are vastly greater. But still, for $500, the A6000 is almost too good of a compact to let go. I'll probably keep it. But I think I will enjoy a D5500 more.

Tough call. Very different. a6000 has amazing face recognition and tracking, better even than my Nikon D750. But DSLR autofocus is stronger overall than mirrorless in my personal experience, at any given price point.

Last night I shot a concert and having Sony a6000 face recognition was huge, because with DSLR at concerts I tend to get microphone in focus rather than the face. Sony chose the face, when it could focus at all (which was less than my DSLR would have).

Sigh.

DXO rates image quality of D5500 as slightly higher than that of a6000 as I recall. D5500 has touch screen.

D5500 does NOT have micro focus adjustment which means you need to test it out carefully with any new lens. a6000 does not need it because all focus is done on sensor.

How often do you use "live view", i.e., shoot using the rear screen instead of viewfinder. Nikon DSLR's focus very slowly in live view, whereas with Sony mirrorless it's the same as in the viewfinder.

I use Nikon D750 & D810 for high quality scheduled shoots, and Sony a6000 for leisure. Small size of the Sony with the native APSC lenses is a factor, as is the face recognition. It takes a while to really learn to use it -- especially all the autofocus options. I screwed up using my a6000 when it was new more than with any other camera. Gary Fong has an inexpensive video that helps a lot.