Sony A6000 vs. Nikon D750

So I've been doing some professional work, mostly portraits (family, couples, solo). My go-to setup is my full frame Nikon D750 + Nikon 85/1.8. About a $2500 combination.

I've had some concerns and felt like I needed a backup... Wouldn't want something to go wrong in the middle of a paid job. I thought of getting a cheaper APS-C Nikon second body, pairing it with the Nikon 50/1.8 for an effective focal length of 75mm... And having a simple backup.

But for a similar price, even though it isn't a compatible system, I decided to try going smaller, and give the A6000 a try. Figured it also has some mirrorless advantages -- better video, better live view. Picking it up used, with the Sony 50/1.8. So also an effective focal length of 75/1.8. Having bought it used, I know I can re-sell it without any significant loss. Bought new, it would be about a $650 set up, but I got it for less buying used.

So I've only been testing it for a few minutes literally. But I wanted to share a few thoughts and images.

untitled-6.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So the first obvious difference is the size difference. But one camera is a full frame semi-pro camera with semi-pro lens attached. The other is a consumer APS-C with a consumer prime. In terms of bulk, the cameras are actually closer in size than I expect. Neither is exactly going in a pocket. Of course the A6000 is smaller, but also has a smaller sensor. The bigger difference was weight, where there is a noticeable difference....

... But... much of that weight difference is due to the much smaller battery. Between the smaller battery and faster battery drain due to more power consumption.... Seemed the A6000 lost 10% of its battery in just 10-20 shots. 10-20 shots on the D750 does virtually nothing to the battery power.

So first off --- Yes, the A6000 is smaller, which is nice. It is lighter, which is very nice. But at a cost of significant battery power. Additionally the size difference isn't what I would consider massive. And of course, the D750 has a much bigger sensor.

Of course, what really matters is the image quality.

One reason I wanted to give the A6000 a try as my backup portrait camera was because of the 90% focus coverage with face detection and eye-af. (which needs to be separately configured).

On the D750, I mostly rely on focus and re-compose. Although there is pretty good focus coverage over the sensor, I'm not always composing with an eye under an AF point. There is kinda-face detection, but it isn't super reliable. So I rely on focus on an eye and re-compose. The 85/1.8 is a fantastic lens, but I still don't always nail the focus.

With it's coverage, face detection and eye-AF, I don't need to re-compose. I can compose the shot, let the face detect find the face, and use the eye-AF to make sure it focuses on an eye. I tried it a few times, and it didn't find an eye 100% of the time. But it mostly worked, and the results were very very impressive. A quick shot of my son:

untitled-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Zoom in 100% on his left eye -- And you will find it nailed focus perfectly. Additionally the 50/1.8 is sharp near the center, wide open. I haven't tested the edges. But at least towards the center 1/3rd of the frame, it is sharp enough for most uses even at 1.8. Honestly, my Nikon 85/1.8 isn't too much sharper in the center wide open, and it is considered 1 of the sharpest lenses around. So kudos to the 50/1.8, at least near the center. So reasonable sharpness combined with an ability to nail perfect focus, can really lead to some nice portraits.

Now some direct comparison to the D750, in semi-low light. I didn't want to go extreme, but indoor situations without flash. ISO of 1000-3200 type of shots.

First thing I noticed, the A6000 meters darker than my Nikon D750. In other words, when aperture and shutter speed were set the same on both cameras, the A6000 opted for lower ISOs and tended to underexpose the images slightly. I did these shots in raw. The A6000 needed more brightening in post-production, artificially effectively raising the ISO and adding noise.

But let's see some shots where I tried to equalize things.

First, a couple non-cropped shots.

From the D750 + 85/1.8:

untitled-4.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

From the A6000 + 50/1.8

untitled-3-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Technically, we are comparing 75mm vs 85mm, so the framing is slightly different.

The most obvious difference is the depth of field. Shooting with full frame, I definitely get much more background blur, much thinner depth of field. (which is good for some shots, and a disadvantage in some shots). In the A6000 shot, you see a blurry chair in the background but its still pretty well defined. In the D750 shot, its just a blurry shape.

The D750 shot is much higher ISO (5000 vs 1000) for a few reasons: As mentioned, the A6000 opted for lower ISO, so I had to brighten it in post. Also, the A6000 combo has stabilization, while the D750 combo is unstabilized. Therefore, I shot the D750 at 1/200 to prevent camera shake (Though I can go to 1/100, I really wanted to avoid camera shake). I was able to shoot the A6000 at 1/80. So in terms of camera settings, it was 5000 vs 1000. But with the need to add post-processing exposure boost to the A6000, it was more like comparing 5000 vs 2000.

Still, the A6000 shows some strengths here. Canon/Nikon dSLR primes are mostly not stabilized. Most lenses for the A6000 are. So you get to use that lower ISO. Using the lower ISO on the A6000 compared to the higher ISO on the full frame D750... we get 2 images that in normal viewing, are pretty equally comparable.

Now some closer crops of a different image set..

I decided to equalize things a bit, and stop down a bit..

So shot both cameras at 1/100 (selecting the sharpest D750 shot with a couple of attempts), shot both at F2.8. I intentionally brought down the ISO of the D750 to 2500. The A6000 automatically went with ISO 3200, so it's not a perfect match, but it's close. Both shots were processed through lightroom, with the same amount of noise reduction, same amount of sharpening, and with a similar amount of exposure boost.

Nikon D750, cropped:

untitled-18.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony A6000:

untitled-14-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Once again, the big thing that sticks out to me... Depth of field is much narrower on the D750. Even at F2.8, the entire doll is not in focus. While on the A6000, the entire doll is within perceived focus at 2.8.

Second thing that is obvious.... This isn't a 100% crop... It's not super high ISO, in the 2500 to 3200 range... But you are clearly seeing noise starting to affect the A6000 image much more than the D750 image. On the other hand, the A6000 image still looks good, and most casual users would not object.

So my takeaway points:

1 -- Mirrorless and the A6000 has some advantages in terms of focusing portraits -- No need to focus and re-compose, eye AF button. Seems you can nail focus more often, more reliably.

2-- It's smaller and lighter. In terms of carrying a camera for hours and hours, it would surely make a difference. But the difference is sometimes exaggerated. Even compared to a full frame Nikon D750, its not an earth shattering difference in size. It's not an elephant compared to a mouse. More like a small SUV compared to a large sedan.

3-- Absolutely will need to get extra batteries for the A6000.

4-- For most consumers, the image quality of the A6000 will be good enough, especially when paired with a good lens. Considering it is 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of my fullframe set up, it is far better than 1/3-1/4th the quality.

5-- For demanding enthusiasts and pros, the big difference is the depth of field control. This goes to the APS-C versus full frame. Not all shooters demand the super creamy background blur. But for times you do want it, full frame greatly surpasses APS-C.

6-- Shooting in good light, I feel you can probably get very similar image quality. Not surprisingly, as you boost ISO and look more carefully, the advantages of full frame become apparent. But in ordinary shooting scenarios, even indoors without flash, the A6000 would probably be good enough for most uses. Certainly for people who are just sharing images on facebook or printing 4x6 images.

I'm going to keep playing. If anybody has questions or input, please don't hesitate.

I understand the need/desire of a backup unit when doing paid work....what I don't get is why you would get a totally different system as a backup. I would think a D7xxx or even a used D600/610 (if you wanted to stay full frame) would have been a much better choice. That way if your 750 were to go down and need to be sent out for repair you would still have a comparable unit to use with your lens collection (assuming you have a collection of nikon mount lenses).

I understand the need/desire of a backup unit when doing paid work....what I don't get is why you would get a totally different system as a backup. I would think a D7xxx or even a used D600/610 (if you wanted to stay full frame) would have been a much better choice. That way if your 750 were to go down and need to be sent out for repair you would still have a comparable unit to use with your lens collection (assuming you have a collection of nikon mount lenses).

Yes, and for those reasons, I was strongly considering the d3300 or such as my backup. It was a tough call, but I chose the a6000 for a couple reasons:

1. It can be more than just a backup. It brings capabilities that I can't get in a d3300 -- or even the d750. Far superior video capability, 11 fps, far superior live view, etc So there are times it won't just be a back up, but can actually compliment or supplement my shooting.

2. I can still use my Nikon lenses, they will just be manual focus, or possibly slow AF with some adapters. And MF is damn easy on the a6000 compared to any dslr. With focus magnification and peaking, MF is quite usable. So while I'm losing some capability of my Nikon glass, I can still use those lenses. Jason Lanier has a video where he shot an entire wedding reception using the Sony a6000 and primarily Nikon lenses.

3. Back to beyond backup --for some of my personal use, the size of the a6000 was compelling. Gives me something even smaller than the d3300 to carry around for some of my vacation shooting, etc.

4. The small size also really opens up simultaneously carrying 2 bodies. The d750 + d3300 would be a bit much for me to personally carry and use at the same time. But the a6000 is small enough, that I can carry 2 bodies, and reduce lens changing.

If Nikon had a camera equivalent, I would have gone that route.