Jump to content

New at Sony a6000


Recommended Posts

I am doing an upgrade from my old P&S cameras to the Sony a6000. I just bought it last night. My photography times are mostly limited to travel and I am far from a professional, but I don't buy many souvenirs on vacation, I make a photo book of each trip. We got back from Italy followed by a TA cruise last fall and I came home frustrated with my picture taking ability with my current. P&S. Our next trips are to Europe and a TA next month and then Alaska in May. In October 2019 we have the Quebec to FLL cruise scheduled on the AOS. I do not want to go the full DSLR route. I don't want the weight or bulk and because of travel limitations I do not want to carry a whole slew of lenses with me, which is why I initially hesitated buying the new camera.

 

My new camera came with two lenses, the standard flat lens and one that goes from 55mm to 210mm. Will that give me enough zoom for Alaska? I think it will be ok for Europe next month. I really don't want to spend $1,000 on a lens. So, I am looking for suggestions as to what I will be needing and what is affordable. Also, any other advice in using this camera for travel would be highly appreciated. I have a theft proof strap already, Cases that would be lightweight? I figure that I will keep one lens on the camera and carry it cross body while touring and another in my travel purse (also cross body) that will hold the camera body and a lens when necessary. The purse was recommended just for that purpose.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to go the full DSLR route. I don't want the weight or bulk and because of travel limitations I do not want to carry a whole slew of lenses with me, which is why I initially hesitated buying the new camera.

No arguments from me. I use inexpensive compact point & shoots.

 

My new camera came with two lenses, the standard flat lens and one that goes from 55mm to 210mm. Will that give me enough zoom for Alaska? I think it will be ok for Europe next month.

So ... that's 82.5 to 315mm?

 

My wife and I did the Mediterranean with 25mm to 125mm equivalent, and I don't look at our photos kicking myself that we needed more.

 

In Alaska, I frequently ran up to 600mm equivalent taking wildlife/bird photos. That said, you can trade off focal length for resolution. I was using a 14 MP compact superzoom ... so you may be able to exceed that with your camera.

 

Other than eagles, I rarely got anywhere near the 600mm focal length ... and I got photos of humpbacks, sea lions, harbor seals, moose, and lynx. (My Dall sheep photos were at 600mm ... but they would have needed 3,000mm to be worthwhile ... so you can always use more zoom, but there's a law of diminishing returns in there.)

 

I really don't want to spend $1,000 on a lens.

Yeah. My 24mm - 600mm superzoom cost $125 ... back in 2013.

 

Also, any other advice in using this camera for travel would be highly appreciated. I have a theft proof strap already,

Theft is an issue in much of Europe ... not an issue in Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats on your new A6000. I have one and it’s been my go-to camera to take on cruises when I don’t want the bulk of my DSLRs. It takes great photos and the size is just right.

 

That being said... Alaska = zoom, Zoom, ZOOM. I don’t think my A6000 would have been enough to capture the wildlife that we encountered.

 

Almost all my wildlife photos were taken at the long end of a 150-500mm lens with my APS-C DLSR (1.6x crop factor = 800mm). Close up photos of the bears, bald eagles, and harbor seals that we saw would not have been possible without it. Of course, depending on the excursion, whales may be closer.

 

That being said, you could try to find an Olympus TCON-17 or B300 1.7x teleconverter which can screw onto the end of your Sony 55-210. With the A6000’s APS-C 1.5x crop plus the teleconverter it will bring your maximum zoom to just over 500mm.

 

The Olympus B300 is available preowned on Amazon for just $59 right now. Brand new Olympus TCON-17 are priced around $210 on Amazon. Either will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats on your new A6000. I have one and it’s been my go-to camera to take on cruises when I don’t want the bulk of my DSLRs. It takes great photos and the size is just right.

 

That being said... Alaska = zoom, Zoom, ZOOM. I don’t think my A6000 would have been enough to capture the wildlife that we encountered.

 

Almost all my wildlife photos were taken at the long end of a 150-500mm lens with my APS-C DLSR (1.6x crop factor = 800mm). Close up photos of the bears, bald eagles, and harbor seals that we saw would not have been possible without it. Of course, depending on the excursion, whales may be closer.

 

That being said, you could try to find an Olympus TCON-17 or B300 1.7x teleconverter which can screw onto the end of your Sony 55-210. With the A6000’s APS-C 1.5x crop plus the teleconverter it will bring your maximum zoom to just over 500mm.

 

The Olympus B300 is available preowned on Amazon for just $59 right now. Brand new Olympus TCON-17 are priced around $210 on Amazon. Either will work.

Thanks,!

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having owned both an A6000 and An A6300, I can tell you the most important thing do do before your trip is use your camera a lot. Play with settings. Read the manual. If the manual says something that confuses you or just doesn't make sense, Google it or ask here. Learning to use your camera reduces frustration and the number of shots missed as you fumble with settings. The A6000 is incredibly capable. I have had mine for almost 5 years and it is still chugging along and is still better than many current models from other manufacturers.

 

The two kit lenses are pretty capable as well. If by "flat" lens, you mean the 16-50 power zoom, it is surprisingly good and will serve very well for a walkabout lens in almost any city or countryside venue. The 55-210 will do well for longer shots but is a little short for distant wildlife in Alaska. If you plan on doing a lot of wildlife tours in Alaska but don't do much long shooting at home, you might consider renting a lens from a place like lensrentals.com rather than dropping $1k - $2k on one of your own.

 

Again, use your camera. you won't regret the time spent.

 

Enjoy your trips!

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both the A6000 and A6300. I would highly recommend buying the new 18-135 lens. In Europe you could use only this lens and be perfectly happy with your shots. I kept that lens on my 6300 for the entire British Isles cruise and I love it. On my 6000 I switched between a wide angle 12-18 and my longer 24-240 that I bought used. The wide angle stayed on most of the time, I only used the bigger lens when trying to take porpoise shots and we barely saw them, much less got pictures of them. In Hawaii spring of 2017 I had the 6000 with the 24-240 for whale watching and it was plenty. I bought the 24-240 used and I've always thought it was a little soft, it could be me though. :)

 

enhance

 

I am going on a bird watching evening boat ride next week and I have rented the 100-400 from lens rentals. I've been practicing taking pictures of birds for a few weeks. We're playing with the idea of an Alaska cruise next year (we already have a spring Europe cruise booked) and depending on the excursions I would either stick with the 24-240 or rent a bigger lens.

enhance

 

Every time I took out the 6000 since I bought it I told my husband, "I love this camera!" I hope you do too. Yes, I went up to the 6300 and love it even more, but it took a couple years and it was because I was ready for a second body.

 

Have fun!

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, everyone. I have spent hours reading and researching, DH and I have come to the conclusion that for budget considerations we will stick to the two lens kit that we have with the initial purchase for our European trip and Transatlantic next month. Alaska will not be until May of next year, so we will have 7 1/2 months in between. We will probably either purchase a lens converter or rent a lens for that.

 

All of your advice has been invaluable. And yes, I have a lot of playing with my camera ahead! I think a trip into the mountains to escape the Phoenix heat s in order soon, before we go to Europe - with my new camera in tow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... We will probably either purchase a lens converter or rent a lens for that....

 

Lens converters are notorious for distortion and color fringing. If they are made by the same manufacturer that made your lens and specifically matched to that lens, they work "ok". If not, you will likely get a better image by cropping one shot without the converter.

 

Renting a long lens like the FE 70-300mm or the FE 100-400mm G is a much better option. Both will work well with the A6000 and are fantastic lenses.

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lens converters are notorious for distortion and color fringing. If they are made by the same manufacturer that made your lens and specifically matched to that lens, they work "ok". If not, you will likely get a better image by cropping one shot without the converter.

 

Renting a long lens like the FE 70-300mm or the FE 100-400mm G is a much better option. Both will work well with the A6000 and are fantastic lenses.

 

 

Dave

 

There are cheap magnifying converters that don't really work well.

 

There are excellent teleconverters that are very expensive... the Sony 1.4 teleconverter is $548 --- And such teleconverters only work with specific lenses. They aren't meant to be used with the kit zoom lenses.

 

The 100-400 is excellent, my review is here:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/07/08/sony-fe-100-400mm-gm-review/

 

But for many people, it's simply too big and heavy to use comfortably.

 

The 70-300 is much more friendly for a layperson photographer, you won't feel like you are lifting a bag of bricks. And the 300... becoming equivalent to 450mm on the A6000, is plenty of reach even for Alaska. Though it does partially depend what you want to photograph... if your goal for the trip is to do as much bird photography as possible, then longer is always better. But 300 (450 equivalent) is plenty for most of the wildlife you'll see including closer eagles.

 

And if you stuck with the 55-210 for wildlife, becomes equivalent of 315mm.... Honestly, even that would be enough for some wildlife pics, if wildlife pics isn't your top priority.

Really depends on your priority. Alaska has a lot to see -- and photograph. If you want to capture the sweeping scenic vistas, then wide angle is more important than telephoto.

 

23061938720_377fc262b6_b.jpgDisney Wonder at Tracy Arm Alaska by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

If priority is getting whales and eagles.. then the telephoto becomes of more importance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that generally for serious long-reach needs, renting a good lens would be the way to go. But I'll also defend the concept of using tele-extenders (screw-on afocal extenders that attach to the filter threads of a lens, as opposed to proper teleconverters that mount between the lens and body) if you find one cheap, and don't intend to do a lot of this type of shooting. They can work decently well in a pinch and give you good reach extension for very little money. They really only work well with certain lenses, and you have to watch which ones you buy - some are better than others. The 55-210mm lens is actually a pretty good chassis for using these screw on converters...it has a small 49mm filter thread, and most of the screw-on exenders are 55mm to 58mm threading - a simple step-up ring allows them to attach to the lens, and deliver 1.7x magnification. If you stick to decently made extenders, like the Sony DH1758 or Olympus T-Con...then you can get pretty sharp results with little color fringing or separation except at the corners of the frame, where you would typically crop out anyway.

These extenders will convert your 55-210mm's long end to 357mm, and when applying the sensor's crop factor, is an equivalent reach of 535mm. Stabilization and autofocus continue to work as normal.

 

An FE70-300mm lens, or FE100-400mm lens, will be better overall, with better quality and performance throughout the range, but the 55-210mm plus a decent 1.7x extender will get you by for the occasional wildlife or distant shot, if you can find one for $100 or under used, it might end up paying off cheaper than renting a lens or buying a longer reach one, and you can just pull it out for those occasions you may want to try your hand at wildlife or need for a trip.

 

For a long time, I shot with the 55-210mm lens on my NEX-5N and later on my A6000, as a second body alongside my DSLR and 300mm F4 and 150-600mm lenses...this was before Sony offered any long-lens options for the E-mount bodies. The combo held its own well enough for birding duties, especially when it was too hot to lug the big DSLR rig around. As long as you crop a little tighter to eliminate the corners, and stick mostly to the 210mm end of the lens, the results could be quite decent:

 

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

If you're going to really get deeply into wildlife type photography, then investing in a good lens is the way to go, and the more reach the better. If wanting super-high-quality wildlife or bird photos on the Alaska trip, the rental lens route would be the way to go. If just wanting a cheap way to extend your reach for the possible or occasional long-reach need, and not looking for the utmost NatGeo worthy results, then a cheap teleextender and step up ring would be a good option to consider, with some judicious shopping for a good deal on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are cheap magnifying converters that don't really work well.

 

There are excellent teleconverters that are very expensive... the Sony 1.4 teleconverter is $548 --- And such teleconverters only work with specific lenses. They aren't meant to be used with the kit zoom lenses.

 

 

The converters in question were the filter-threaded screw on 1.5x-1.7x units. I wouldn't recommend any of them for use on the 55-210 due to the relatively heavy weight on the light zoom mechanism.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - the photos I posted above were meant to show that they were taken with the 55-210mm lens PLUS the DH1758 Sony 1.7x teleextender attached. I didn't type that properly in my text - so just to clarify - all of those shots were taken WITH the extender screwed onto the lens...the shots at 210mm were 535mm-equivalent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - the photos I posted above were meant to show that they were taken with the 55-210mm lens PLUS the DH1758 Sony 1.7x teleextender attached. I didn't type that properly in my text - so just to clarify - all of those shots were taken WITH the extender screwed onto the lens...the shots at 210mm were 535mm-equivalent.

Thank you for the clarification. Those are very impressive!

 

In Alaska we are taking a whale watching excursion in Icy Point Strait and an all day boat tour from Juneau to Tracy Arm Fjord for up close glacier viewing. They say they see whales 85% of the time and often see bears, etc along the water edge. No guaranteed sightings there. In Skagway we plan to take the train/van combo tour through the mountains up to the Yukon with Chilkot. I have done that before and saw no wildlife, just beautiful scenery. In Sitka, we plan to just enjoy the town on our own. The ship will spend two days with glacier viewing, one to Hubbard and on in Endicott Arm/Dawes Glacier. So, I know I will have scenery and I am hoping for wildlife, but not counting on it, other than whales in IPS. And I know that there are tons of seals! I got some beautiful shots last time with my old P&S, but sadly that died a few years ago and the new one just never measured up. I am not sure that I will be needing a long range lens after this trip very often.

 

This a6000 is my first foray into the DSLR world. So, this lens thing is very confusing to me. Perhaps a converter and a wide range lens would serve my purpose better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, everyone. I have spent hours reading and researching, DH and I have come to the conclusion that for budget considerations we will stick to the two lens kit that we have with the initial purchase for our European trip and Transatlantic next month. Alaska will not be until May of next year, so we will have 7 1/2 months in between. We will probably either purchase a lens converter or rent a lens for that.

 

All of your advice has been invaluable. And yes, I have a lot of playing with my camera ahead! I think a trip into the mountains to escape the Phoenix heat s in order soon, before we go to Europe - with my new camera in tow!

 

If you manage to take that mountain vacation, look into renting the 18-135 lens for that period of time. I sold my two kit lenses to buy the 18-135 and I'm really happy with it. It does away with any need to change lenses and it is smaller and lighter than the 50-200. It doesn't have the reach, but it is a much better lens and in Europe I rarely find the need for reach. My kit now is 4 lenses with 2 bodies. The 12-25, 18-135, 24-240 and a 35 prime lens (which I'm still learning how to use for best effect). It has taken me a couple years to put it all together. I also rent occasionally (but it's a little dangerous because I sometimes end up buying).

enhance

 

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you manage to take that mountain vacation, look into renting the 18-135 lens for that period of time. I sold my two kit lenses to buy the 18-135 and I'm really happy with it. It does away with any need to change lenses and it is smaller and lighter than the 50-200. It doesn't have the reach, but it is a much better lens and in Europe I rarely find the need for reach. My kit now is 4 lenses with 2 bodies. The 12-25, 18-135, 24-240 and a 35 prime lens (which I'm still learning how to use for best effect). It has taken me a couple years to put it all together. I also rent occasionally (but it's a little dangerous because I sometimes end up buying).

enhance

 

Vic

Great pictures! I am very tempted to do what you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, your use case is just like us. It's like 90% only when traveling and we make photo books after.

 

For Europe, the standard stuff you have is fine.

 

For Alaska, I'd consider renting a 70-300. Don't mess with teleconverters and stuff. Keep it simple.

 

The Sony a6000 has a STEEP learning curve. Play with it and practice with it as much as you can before your trips. It'll be hard enough learning it without delving into the world of teleconverters or even nicer lenses. Once you're pretty comfortable with settings and the basics of photography (not using auto everything for example), then the concepts with teleconverters and what makes a better lens will be simple to understand. Until then though, just learn how to use that thing to get nice pictures out of the lenses you have (the 70-300 should be similar to your existing ones in terms of what to expect for picture quality). Do NOT attempt to go to Europe without trying to learn the Sony for a good while. Especially if you're new. Even if you stick mostly with auto, you should learn basic functions of the camera like switching from shooting one shot at a time to a bunch of shots a second (great for capturing action like during whale watching). You may have to do it fast, which is what I mean by needing to practice.

 

It's incredibly light though so great for travel. Nothing really special to mention in terms of cases. Just stick with whatever you like. Can even be a regular backpack and maybe just get one of those protective pouches for it and throw it in the backpack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, your use case is just like us. It's like 90% only when traveling and we make photo books after.

 

For Europe, the standard stuff you have is fine.

 

For Alaska, I'd consider renting a 70-300. Don't mess with teleconverters and stuff. Keep it simple.

 

The Sony a6000 has a STEEP learning curve. Play with it and practice with it as much as you can before your trips. It'll be hard enough learning it without delving into the world of teleconverters or even nicer lenses. Once you're pretty comfortable with settings and the basics of photography (not using auto everything for example), then the concepts with teleconverters and what makes a better lens will be simple to understand. Until then though, just learn how to use that thing to get nice pictures out of the lenses you have (the 70-300 should be similar to your existing ones in terms of what to expect for picture quality). Do NOT attempt to go to Europe without trying to learn the Sony for a good while. Especially if you're new. Even if you stick mostly with auto, you should learn basic functions of the camera like switching from shooting one shot at a time to a bunch of shots a second (great for capturing action like during whale watching). You may have to do it fast, which is what I mean by needing to practice.

 

It's incredibly light though so great for travel. Nothing really special to mention in terms of cases. Just stick with whatever you like. Can even be a regular backpack and maybe just get one of those protective pouches for it and throw it in the backpack.

Thank you for the input. I am watching you-tube videos now and learning the basics. I can tell, it will be a lot of crash courses before we leave for Europe one month from today! With my work schedule it will be even a shorter time to learn.:eek:

 

What you said about sticking to the basics now seems wise. I am not ready to make another hefty lens investment right now. Too many other expenses. I will probably rent a longer lens for Alaska, but will not need it most of the other times we travel. I like the idea of the 18-135mm lens, but again, not really ready to make that investment yet, so I will try to make do with the kit lenses for this trip coming up. It will be my learning trip. My pictures will have to be better than what I took on our last trip to Europe. They actually turned out fine, but only after spending hours "fixing" them on the computer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pictures will have to be better than what I took on our last trip to Europe. They actually turned out fine, but only after spending hours "fixing" them on the computer!

 

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Often, with travel, you don't have the time to wait for the perfect lighting or whatever. Sometimes, you just have to take the shot you have time for and just fix it later on the computer. Now, as you get better, your shots will look better straight out of the camera and won't need as much fixing and you won't need as much time to make the edits. Still, you're learning right now. You can't fix what you didn't take. So, just make sure you get non-blurry shots. Shoot in RAW and you can fix the rest later. You can't really fix blurry shots, but you can pretty much fix everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot in RAW and you can fix the rest later.

 

 

Please shoot in RAW. Real photographers only shoot in RAW. Shoot RAW so you can deal with post-processing for every shot before you post it and become frustrated with having to deal wit a RAW converter of some sort.

 

RAW is a marvelous option when you are ready to take the next step into pixel peeping, last ounce of detail obsession. For a beginner, it is overkill and can lead to a somewhat negative experience. On my last cruise I spoke at length with a fellow using an iPhone to shoot the sunrise and he told me about the Rebel his photographer brother-in-law recommended and how he got tired of fiddling with the files and sold it after a few months. I asked him what he found "fiddly" and it was the RAW files from the camera. His BIL had convinced him the only way to get a decent photo was to always use RAW and he just got tired of dealing with it.

 

I shoot mostly JPEG and with a program like Lightroom, the amount of recoverable detail in a JPEG makes RAW unnecessary for all but the worst exposure mishaps. While it's true you can recover more from a RAW file than a JPEG, it really isn't required to get a great photo with the vastly improved JPEG processing engines in modern cameras.

 

Advice to Sunny AZ Girl: Shoot in fine JPEG and enjoy learning your camera. When you are comfortable with the camera and whatever editing/organization software you are using, try RAW. If it is the Holy Grail for you, use it. If, like me you decide to only switch to it when you are concerned about really, really bad light, that's ok too. The Photo Gods are pretty forgiving these days. ;)

 

 





I wrote an article discussing the pros and cons of JPEG vs. RAW that may answer some question that popped into your head while reading these last posts :)





http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/RvsJ_frame.html





Don't worry. Shoot happy!









Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always shoot in JPEG/RAW.

 

 

A easy way of increasing your light rendition post production are programs like Athentech's Picture Perfect or Photolemur.

 

 

But as Dave advises (and correctly so) Jpeg will take care of the majority of your needs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fellow Zonie the people who are responding to you are the experts with your camera, I am going to Alaska this September with my 6300 and my 6000. This is my second trip, I am renting the 100 -400 Sony and wouldn't go to Alaska with out it. Sometimes the wildlife is close most times in the distance. The lens is very expensive, but very if renting most people can swing it. I use Borrowlens and Lens Rentals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fellow Zonie the people who are responding to you are the experts with your camera, I am going to Alaska this September with my 6300 and my 6000. This is my second trip, I am renting the 100 -400 Sony and wouldn't go to Alaska with out it. Sometimes the wildlife is close most times in the distance. The lens is very expensive, but very if renting most people can swing it. I use Borrowlens and Lens Rentals
Thanks!

 

After absorbing all of the information here and watching hours of YouTube videos I have decided to do this European trip with my 2 kit lenses and rent the bigger lens for Alaska. I would love to have the 18 - 135 lens, but I may have to put that into a letter to Santa!

 

I will report back on how my trip went. I will probably be using the Smart Auto more than not in the beginning and trying my hand at manual as I go. I hope to post a link to my album after the trip.

 

Thanks again to everyone for all the help! This is such a great resource. [emoji106]

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fellow Zonie the people who are responding to you are the experts with your camera, I am going to Alaska this September with my 6300 and my 6000. This is my second trip, I am renting the 100 -400 Sony and wouldn't go to Alaska with out it. Sometimes the wildlife is close most times in the distance. The lens is very expensive, but very if renting most people can swing it. I use Borrowlens and Lens Rentals

 

John, I just pulled the trigger on the FE 70-300 G. I'll let you know if it might be worth adding to your kit instead of renting all the time. Justin's shots with it lead me to think it will suit my needs for a telephoto pretty well.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...