A6000 not as sharp as RX100??

[tomtom50]

Downsampled to 20MP and made the color balance of the A6000 more in line with the RX100, and added a modicum of sharpening (not a ton). If there's any remaining difference in the pixel level detail of this tree, it's minimal.

We tend to forget that 24 vs. 20MP is not equivalent, and I still say JPEGs are not reliable for lens clarity tests—Which is not to say you don't have a poor 16-50 with a flaw, or that they're not prone to flaws, or uneven clarity. That all may be, but based on this test alone I don't think we've established it. IMO, of course.

PS: maybe the 16-50 just isn't a 24MP lens at this aperture..?

PPS: Maybe there was some wind that moved the tree? I see some movement from one shot to the next in terms of the foliage, so there had to be some, at least. Heat distortion could also cause detail smearing...

I'll hand it to you. You brought them a lot closer.

I don't think it was wind. It was not windy and the shutter was 1/640s if I recall.

Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be wind if you were at 1/640 either, but then again, I've seen some weird image artifacts. Heat, glare, all kinds of weird stuff can happen. If you're doing another set, maybe take a few of each and review to see if the 16-50 has the same area of unsharpness?

Anyway, the sharpening prior to the 20MP downsample is what made the difference. I'm a graphics guy, not an optical technician, so I can't say if that means the original relative lack of detail was IC processing or optical. *shrug*

I'm impressed.

 

[rogatsby]

Downsampled to 20MP and made the color balance of the A6000 more in line with the RX100, and added a modicum of sharpening (not a ton). If there's any remaining difference in the pixel level detail of this tree, it's minimal.

We tend to forget that 24 vs. 20MP is not equivalent, and I still say JPEGs are not reliable for lens clarity tests—Which is not to say you don't have a poor 16-50 with a flaw, or that they're not prone to flaws, or uneven clarity. That all may be, but based on this test alone I don't think we've established it. IMO, of course.

PS: maybe the 16-50 just isn't a 24MP lens at this aperture..?

PPS: Maybe there was some wind that moved the tree? I see some movement from one shot to the next in terms of the foliage, so there had to be some, at least. Heat distortion could also cause detail smearing...

I'll hand it to you. You brought them a lot closer.

I don't think it was wind. It was not windy and the shutter was 1/640s if I recall.

Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be wind if you were at 1/640 either, but then again, I've seen some weird image artifacts. Heat, glare, all kinds of weird stuff can happen. If you're doing another set, maybe take a few of each and review to see if the 16-50 has the same area of unsharpness?

Anyway, the sharpening prior to the 20MP downsample is what made the difference. I'm a graphics guy, not an optical technician, so I can't say if that means the original relative lack of detail was IC processing or optical. *shrug*

I'm impressed.

You may be impressed, but the more certain thing is that you got owned.

 

[tomtom50]

Downsampled to 20MP and made the color balance of the A6000 more in line with the RX100, and added a modicum of sharpening (not a ton). If there's any remaining difference in the pixel level detail of this tree, it's minimal.

We tend to forget that 24 vs. 20MP is not equivalent, and I still say JPEGs are not reliable for lens clarity tests—Which is not to say you don't have a poor 16-50 with a flaw, or that they're not prone to flaws, or uneven clarity. That all may be, but based on this test alone I don't think we've established it. IMO, of course.

PS: maybe the 16-50 just isn't a 24MP lens at this aperture..?

PPS: Maybe there was some wind that moved the tree? I see some movement from one shot to the next in terms of the foliage, so there had to be some, at least. Heat distortion could also cause detail smearing...

I'll hand it to you. You brought them a lot closer.

I don't think it was wind. It was not windy and the shutter was 1/640s if I recall.

Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be wind if you were at 1/640 either, but then again, I've seen some weird image artifacts. Heat, glare, all kinds of weird stuff can happen. If you're doing another set, maybe take a few of each and review to see if the 16-50 has the same area of unsharpness?

Anyway, the sharpening prior to the 20MP downsample is what made the difference. I'm a graphics guy, not an optical technician, so I can't say if that means the original relative lack of detail was IC processing or optical. *shrug*

I'm impressed.

You may be impressed, but the more certain thing is that you got owned.

Did you mean pwned? Is that what discussion means to you? A commitment never to see the validity of another point of view?

 

[captura]

I've been using my a6000 for a few weeks now, coupled with both the 1650 and the Zeiss 24mm and Zeiss 16-70 (so not exactly crap lenses). Way too often, I find the pictures are not that sharp especially when photographing people (kids).

Mind, I'm using the exact same technique as on the RX100. I put the AF on either center or automatic, with face detect enabled. When the square around faces appear, I take the picture. Easy as that. Same aperture (usually work with fixed aperture).

A lot of times (way too often) on the a6000, the pictures tend to come out pretty soft. Not oof, just soft. When taking the exact same picture with the rx100 (tested them side by side), with the same technique, the faces (and eyes) are tack sharp, even sharper than what I'm getting with the 24Z (sometimes the 24Z 'nails' it, and then I get very sharp images, but 9/10 they're not).

You might suspect this is user error, but I've owned both the NEX5n and a NEX6 before, so I guess I can say I know my way around the system. I also own the Canon 5D3 with some L glass so I can also say I know a thing or two about photography (being a paid wedding photographer).

I'm not dissing the a6000 nor the lenses, but I wonder what could be the reason for this. Do I have a faulty a6000 AF system? Or anything else that could be missing? The pictures I got from my NEX6 with the 24Z were WAY sharper. But strange thing is, the a6000 sometimes is VERY sharp so it's not a sensor defect.

Btw, I always made sure that shutter speed was high enough to avoid camera shake. Any help appreciated.

ps: this is bugging me so much that I'm even thinking about selling the a6000 with all the lenses and get the rx100m3 coupled with my 5D3.

It seems that there might be a problem getting accurate AF with some or all A6000's. 5R's, 6's and 7's were OK.

 

[captura]

It seems that there might be a problem getting accurate AF with some or all A6000's. 5R's, 6's and 7's were OK.

I can't concur there. my A6000 did as well as my NEX-7. Only much faster. You might be right. I'm just not experiencing AF anomalies.