mirrorless - sony alpha series others

[Turtles06]

hi i am the op - i bought one this weekend to test out - did not get the best price 699 (with 18-50mm) but they will price match later and can return easily enough to best buy.

 

Congrats on your purchase! I don't know why you think that about the price. That's the same price B&H Photo and Adorama (both well regarded internet retailers for photo gear) are selling it for with that kit lens (it's actually 16-50mm). [if you've seen a lower price, it's probably for the body only.)

 

Enjoy!

[wmjivey]

I just bought one too, the only to get a deal was to bundle both lens, with Adorama they threw in lots of extras if you bought the whole shebang

 

John

[wmjivey]

Oh by the way according to Sony Rumors the A6000ii will come out early summer, so prices should be dropping

 

John

[emeybee]

i know but sooo much to carry for a person coming from a point and shoot vs person coming down from dslr. i am going to play and watch some of the tutorials. i might also do a post to get some feedback on pocketable zooms good quality. see what people are saying.

 

Gary Friedman writes an excellent book about the A6000:

http://www.friedmanarchives.com/alpha6000/index.htm

 

If you don't want to deal with carrying/changing lenses and are thinking of walking away from the A6000 then I'd highly recommend the Panasonic FZ1000. Its sensor is smaller than the A6000 but bigger than any other superzoom camera, and it has more zoom than you'd get with the A6000+55-210mm lens (400mm at the longest vs 315mm). It is definitely not pocketable-- about the size of a small DSLR-- but it has a fixed lens so that's all you'd need to carry. I have the A6000 and kind of wish I'd gone the FZ1000 route instead, since I don't want to worry about having the wrong lens on when a great shot comes along.

[tommui987]

Oh by the way according to Sony Rumors the A6000ii will come out early summer, so prices should be dropping

 

John

 

B&H ad this morning:

 

Product Highlights

 

24.3MP Full-Frame Exmor CMOS Sensor

BIONZ X Image Processor

5-Axis SteadyShot INSIDE Stabilization

Enhanced Fast Hybrid AF and 5 fps Burst

Full HD XAVC S Video and S-Log2 Gamma

3.0" 1,229k-Dot Tilting LCD Monitor

XGA 2.36M-Dot OLED Electronic Viewfinder

Weather-Resistant Magnesium Alloy Body

Refined Grip & Robust Lens Mount

Built-In Wi-Fi Connectivity with NFC

with the Sony lens (28?-70mm)

[tommui987]

Forgot to add that the Sony sells for close to $2,000!

 

I'll wait till Dave comments on it - but it is way beyond my price range taking into consideration the type of pictures I take!

[havoc315]

Forgot to add that the Sony sells for close to $2,000!

 

I'll wait till Dave comments on it - but it is way beyond my price range taking into consideration the type of pictures I take!

 

That's NOT the A6000. It's the A7ii. The A6000 is an APS-C camera, the A7ii is a full frame camera. The most expensive part of a camera is the sensor. Larger sensors are MUCH more expensive than small sensors. In fact, 10 years ago, sensors were so expensive, it wasn't cost-effective to make sensors that were the same size as 35mm film. So they reduced the size of the sensors -- and APS-C was born, as a compromise. Then as sensors got a little bit cheaper to make, they started to come out with full frame cameras -- sensors the same size as 35mm film.

 

Anyway... long story short....

 

The majority of professionals (though not all) shoot full frame.

The majority of regular consumers shoot APS-C.

 

As prices of full frame have fallen even more the last couple of years, high end consumers (enthusiasts) have started to adopt full frame.

 

For most ordinary consumers, there really is no advantage of full frame over APS-C. You get better low light performance out of full frame, with more usable high ISO, it can enable faster shutter speeds. You get even greater ability to create narrow depth of field with full frame. And overall image quality is superior in full frame -- but this is often pixel peeping differences.

On the flip side, full frame cameras are bigger and heavier than APS-C (the full-frame mirrorless is about the same size as a small APS-C dSLR.. the A6000 (APS-C mirrorless) can be just a bit larger than a big P&S camera.

Full frame compatible lenses tend to be more expensive and heavier than APS-C equivalent lenses.

 

Point is... Unless you are a rather advanced enthusiast photographer, you shouldn't be looking at full frame.

[tommui987]

That's NOT the A6000. It's the A7ii.

 

Mea culpa! Over-anxious to see what "improvementrs" are being made to the A6000 as it is a pretty good camera as it is.

[pierces]

Forgot to add that the Sony sells for close to $2,000!

 

I'll wait till Dave comments on it - but it is way beyond my price range taking into consideration the type of pictures I take!

 

Havoc is right, the A6000ii mentioned is not yet officially announced and may turn out to be a NEX-7 replacement rather than an A6000 update. Either way, I would be surprised if either option didn't have the in-body stabilization added. I would gladly turn my head if my A6000 gained a few millimeters on its waistline if it stabilized my Rokinon 12mm and Lensbaby for me!

 

I would also concur that full-frame is still in the "serious" category...whether you are a "serious" photographer, have a "serious" hobby budget or just "seriously" into collecting hardware. Even though the cost of a last-generation A7 full-frame mirrorless is only $1200 (with a free $300 battery grip!), the cost of adding new full-frame lenses to the arsenal is pretty steep. Another reason APS-C is consumer-friendly is that the divide between APS-C and full-frame imaging has not only closed the gap in cost but in image quality. For all but the most discriminating uses, a good APS-C camera will produce not only "acceptable" images, but darned fine ones.

 

It's a great time to be a photographer!

 

Dave

Edited April 21, 2015 by pierces

[havoc315]

Havoc is right, the A6000ii mentioned is not yet officially announced and may turn out to be a NEX-7 replacement rather than an A6000 update. Either way, I would be surprised if either option didn't have the in-body stabilization added. I would gladly turn my head if my A6000 gained a few millimeters on its waistline if it stabilized my Rokinon 12mm and Lensbaby for me!

e

 

Need to stabilize a 12mm? Need to shoot at 1/2 second? ;)

 

I sold all my A-mount gear months ago..... but a stabilized A6000 would have gone nicely with my Minolta 200/2.8 and Minolta 100/2.8 macro.

[pierces]

Need to stabilize a 12mm? Need to shoot at 1/2 second? ;)

 

I sold all my A-mount gear months ago..... but a stabilized A6000 would have gone nicely with my Minolta 200/2.8 and Minolta 100/2.8 macro.

 

 

I'm reluctant to sell my A77 but it looks like I may do it just so I won't feel bad about it sitting there looking at me whenever I open the closet door....

 

Maybe I'll bundle the body with battery grip, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sony 16-50 f/2.8 and see if anybody on ebay wants to replace an aging A57 or something.

 

*sigh* The price of progress...

 

Dave

[havoc315]

I'm reluctant to sell my A77 but it looks like I may do it just so I won't feel bad about it sitting there looking at me whenever I open the closet door....

 

Maybe I'll bundle the body with battery grip, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sony 16-50 f/2.8 and see if anybody on ebay wants to replace an aging A57 or something.

 

*sigh* The price of progress...

 

Dave

 

So don't often have the situations where you want a 2.8 zoom?

In your shoes, I'd consider keeping around the 70-200/2.8 with an adapter...

 

The A77 + 16-50/2.8 is still a damn nice combination.

 

I sold all my A-mount and moved to Nikon... but part of me wishes I kept a couple of the best A-mount lenses along with a cheap body, or a mirrorless body to throw them on to.

[robjan245]

The A6000 with the two lens kit is $749 at Bestbuy or the A6000 with the kit lens for $599 (Amazon and BH Photo have it also on sale). Looks like they're clearing stock for the A6100.

[ehobbs1970]

we saw that this weekend. ok i know you guys know i have been comparing mirror less a6000 and a smaller compact travel. we bought the a6000 with both lenses this weekend and we are playing around. the light is sooo nice when u take pics. this sounds silly but everyone looks way better looking in the pics. ok so for our cruise to alaska and wild life tour - what are the recoomendations lens wise? vs what we have with the 16-55 and the 55-200 lens. any other suggestions - we were looking at the store at the 16-2000 lens too seems convenient although expensive unless buy used. any other lens that would be recommended for trip to alaska? thank you

[wmjivey]

What I did for Alaska is to rent a lens I could never afford without winning a Lottery. I rented the Sony 70-400 G for $80 aweek, I know they have a G2 version thats even better.

You would also need to rent the A to Nex adapter LA-EA4.

 

John

PS I bought my A6000 last week from Adorama and just received a big store credit since the price has dropped so much.

[tommui987]

[quote name='ehobbs1970'] what we have with the 16-55 and the 55-200 lens. any other suggestions - [/QUOTE]

You are pretty well set. Should you feel uncomfortable, you always can get an extender.
I think Dave mentioned the Minolta should you not be able to find a Sony extender

Alaska can be cool (if not downright cold) and it sounds heretical, but I often carry the 55-200mm zoom in my jacket when I am too lazy to carry two bodies. (NEX7 and the A6000)