[wildman]

Am thinking of getting the Sony a6000.
Have pretty much covered all the reviews and whats on Utube but wonder if any of the forum members have anything more to add about this camera?

[rawr]

I think Christine has one. No doubt she will be along soon.

[Mikesul]

I have an A6000 in addition to a K-3, K-5, K-01 and Q7 (ok also an original Q). The A6000 is a wonderful camera which is very easy to use and has almost all of the functionality of a DSLR. Some of its lenses are great but it does not have the rich choice offered by Pentax. Also, for some probably irrational reason, I enjoy using the K-3 and K-5 much more. Much of that is due to the lenses. Sony has nothing like the DA* 300 or DA* 60-250. It has some nice medium range lenses but they do not provide the fun of Pentax limiteds. I have tried using adapted lenses on the A6000 and they usually work very well (I had my best success with my M*300 on the A6000) but that is not my favorite way to use a camera and you use much of the advantage of a small camera when you attach a large telephoto. I use my cameras hiking a lot where the A6000 has a clear advantage in weight but not in ruggedness. I have been fighting this battle for over a year, first with the NEX 7 then the NEX 5r and finally the NEX6 which I used regularly for over a year. I even sold all of my Pentax cameras except the K-01. However, when it came to selling the main lenses I just could not do it and bought the K-3. I now have the A6000 but I probably will sell it soon and concentrate on the Pentax equipment. I realize that much of this is just my screwy emotional attachment to Pentax but there it is. Hope this helps a little. You will not be unhappy with the A6000 unless you are overly attached to Pentax lenses. Confession over with.

[audiobomber]

I was using a K-3, K20D and Q when I bought an a6000 a few months ago, with 16-50mm kit zoom and the Zeiss Touit lenses (12mm/2.8 and 32mm/1.8). The a6000/16-50 has completely sidelined the Q, with its compact size and superior IQ. I still use the K20D with Sigma flash and zooms when needed, but the a6000 has become the backup to my K-3 when I'm carrying two bodies (which I do frequently). If I'm only carrying one body for general photography, it will be the K-3 and 18-135mm if there's rain or snow in the forecast. I have a bag that just holds the a6000 with kit zoom, and I have a small LowePro Event Messenger 100 that holds the body with kit zoom and Touits, or kit zoom and a telephoto.

Lens selection for e-mount is impoverished, especially telephotos. There's a slow 55-210 consumer and a large 70-200mm f4 full-frame. No tele primes at all beyond 60mm. A decent selection of primes 50mm and shorter is available. No f2.8 zooms, a couple of f4's, a couple of kit lenses and a superzoom. Very limited third party support, but of course you can use DSLR and rangefinder lenses with a suitable adapter (and manual focus). I have a couple of PK adapters from RJ, one with Turbo element that mimics full-frame with my A, FA and D FA lenses.

I bought the Zeiss 32mm hoping it would be as good as an FA 31mm, but it's more like my FA 35mm; really solid, not really exceptional. The Zeiss 12mm easily beats the DA 15mm Limited for sharpness across the frame, one stop faster, reasonable size. The extra wideness is a mixed blessing. The advantages for the DA 15mm are smaller size, lower distortion and better flare resistance.

The a6000 grip is extremely comfortable in my hand. I could not get on with the scrunched up EM10, and the Fujis are too large for what I wanted. A6000 menus and buttons are horribly clumsy to set up, but everything is there once configured. It's certainly no match for a K-3 or indeed any DSLR with twin dials, but this hasn't been a big problem. It looks like Sony stole a couple of Pentax features, allowing auto ISO in M-mode (TAv), and Program shift. I'm not an EVF fan, but again it hasn't really been a problem for my uses, and it's actually saved a few shots that would have been spoiled due to my error (e.g. incorrect EV setting). The tilt screen has come in handy a few times, but I much prefer looking through a VF whenever possible. Battery power is paltry.

I recently shot a wedding and used all three bodies. The K20D with 16-45 and Sigma flash on a sling, and in a messenger bag across the other shoulder, the a6000/32mm and K-3/100mm with ancillaries. The a6000/Zeiss had no trouble keeping up. I like the Face Detect feature, metering is extremely well judged, sharpness, colour and contrast very good. The shutter is significantly noisier than a K-3. The onboard flash is pretty wimpy, which is a problem for daylight fill.

All in all, I really like the a6000 a lot. Image quality is best in class when combined with good lenses, and it has features that are not available from Pentax, especially the compact size. Running two systems is a bit clumsy at times and certainly more expensive (temptation to build both systems). I would not be satisfied with Sony as my sole system, but I consider it the ideal choice for my uses as a backup/alternate/compact camera.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 05-18-2015 at 12:03 PM.

[osv]

i think that there are a metric ton of legacy autofocus lenses available for the a6000, if you get the sony adapter that has the electrical connections... lea2?

Alpha A-mount and E-mount lenses guide

the evf should be wysiwyg, like the a7r, but smaller, with lower p.q... but no more tweaking the aperture just to set the focus, you can focus at the same aperture you shoot at.

[wildman]

Thanks all for the info.

Ever since I got into digital photography I've been waiting for something like the a6000 - something small, light, fast and responsive. Essentially a digital rangefinder like my old Nikon S2.

Let's face it - DSLRs from APS-C on up have gotten impractical for many types of shooting where being discreet is important like street photography or interior shots in public places.
If I do get the a6000 it will be used as a "f/8 and be there" type of camera. So far as I can tell my biggest problem will be the limited lens selection. I think my best strategy right now is to just get the kit lens and wait and see what comes out in the future. I will, however, get a 15 buck T ring adapter just to see how it performs on the backend of my 560mm for bird shots.

In any case it will be used in a limited specialized way and I have no intention of giving up on the K5 and the K mount glass.

Thanks,
Wildman.

[TonyTurley]

I use K-mount lenses on my NEX-5R and NEX-6 all the time. I almost always have the cameras set on Manual, although I've tried Aperture Priority a few times.

[audiobomber]

In any case it will be used in a limited specialized way and I have no intention of giving up on the K5 and the K mount glass.

Do you have any intention of getting a K-3? It is a significant upgrade from the K-5, IME.

[Christine Tham]

Been wanting to post but feel embarassed because I have hardly used the A6000 since buying it. Have been very busy with work.

Just a note on lenses. The 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 E-mount (non full frame) are THE lenses to get - they are cheap and deliver great results.

This is not the camera for long lenses - think of it as a digital rangefinder (with Leicas, there are no good lenses past 90mm and the 90mm is extremely heavy and rarely used), so the sweet spot are the trio of primes (24mm, 35mm, 50mm). Sony also make 16mm and 20mm primes, but with some compromises in quality (soft edges wide open, but very sharp stopped down).

There's also a 30mm macro - this is surprising decent and produces great bokeh.

For zooms, the new CZ 16-70 f4 is nice, and the 55-210 is surprisingly very good for a budget kit zoom. People are always surprised when I show them pictures taken with the 55-210 - they always say "wow you have a nice telephoto prime". The old kit zoom that was sold with the original NEX is also very good (you may be able to find it on Ebay) - bimjo has posted some fantastic pictures with it.

[jogiba]

Been wanting to post but feel embarassed because I have hardly used the A6000 since buying it. Have been very busy with work.

Just a note on lenses. The 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 E-mount (non full frame) are THE lenses to get - they are cheap and deliver great results.

This is not the camera for long lenses - think of it as a digital rangefinder (with Leicas, there are no good lenses past 90mm and the 90mm is extremely heavy and rarely used), so the sweet spot are the trio of primes (24mm, 35mm, 50mm). Sony also make 16mm and 20mm primes, but with some compromises in quality (soft edges wide open, but very sharp stopped down).

There's also a 30mm macro - this is surprising decent and produces great bokeh.

For zooms, the new CZ 16-70 f4 is nice, and the 55-210 is surprisingly very good for a budget kit zoom. People are always surprised when I show them pictures taken with the 55-210 - they always say "wow you have a nice telephoto prime". The old kit zoom that was sold with the original NEX is also very good (you may be able to find it on Ebay) - bimjo has posted some fantastic pictures with it.

I agree, the 55-210mm NEX kit zoom that I use with my NEX 3N is a sharp lens for a telephoto kit zoom. It also works in APS-C mode on full frame E mount cameras .

[audiobomber]

I agree, the 55-210mm NEX kit zoom that I use with my NEX 3N is a sharp lens for a telephoto kit zoom.

It's similar in size and price to the DA 55-300mm WR, not weather-resistant, only 210mm, 1/2 stop slower on the short end, and a whole stop slower at 200mm. I doubt very much that IQ is better. Sony desperately needs a 55-300mm. They have nothing over 200mm in e-mount, it's absurd.

---------- Post added 2014-08-14 at 21:33 ----------

The 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 E-mount (non full frame) are THE lenses to get - they are cheap and deliver great results.

I was fortunate to get in on the half-price Zeiss Touits. Sigma's three Art primes make a pretty strong case for the financially challenged. Best prime lenses for the Sony A5000 - DxOMark

I'm giving up on adapted lenses. Adapters throw way too much CA and slop up the corners. I want an E-mount telephoto prime, but the SEL 50mm is too short, the Sony FE 55mm is too expensive and the Sigma 60mm is too slow. A 70 to 85mm f2 would be ideal.

[wildman]

This is not the camera for long lenses - think of it as a digital rangefinder (with Leicas, there are no good lenses past 90mm and the 90mm is extremely heavy and rarely used), so the sweet spot are the trio of primes (24mm, 35mm, 50mm).

So far as I understand what kind of camera the a6000 is I agree with Christine completely.

Sure I could take a small, light, fast and responsive (11oz) camera add the weight and length of an adapter, snap on my 1.4 85mm and add an additional 22oz of weight and 85mm of length to the adapter's and lose auto diaphragm and stabilization but what's the point? I already have a camera that's ideal for such a lens - the K5. Even if Sony had such a lens in native nex mount, physics being what it is, the lens would still be out of scale and purpose to the camera body in my opinion.

I have no hands on experience with this camera so perhaps I misunderstand and I'm missing something. If so I'm listening.

[jogiba]

It's similar in size and price to the DA 55-300mm WR, not weather-resistant, only 210mm, 1/2 stop slower on the short end, and a whole stop slower at 200mm. I doubt very much that IQ is better. Sony desperately needs a 55-300mm. They have nothing over 200mm in e-mount, it's absurd.

---------- Post added 2014-08-14 at 21:33 ----------



I was fortunate to get in on the half-price Zeiss Touits. Sigma's three Art primes make a pretty strong case for the financially challenged. Best prime lenses for the Sony A5000 - DxOMark

I'm giving up on adapted lenses. Adapters throw way too much CA and slop up the corners. I want an E-mount telephoto prime, but the SEL 50mm is too short, the Sony FE 55mm is too expensive and the Sigma 60mm is too slow. A 70 to 85mm f2 would be ideal.

The Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* is sharper than the $3,990 Zeiss Otus 55mm and I use all of my large lenses over 200mm on my mirrorless cameras .

[audiobomber]

So far as I understand what kind of camera the a6000 is I agree with Christine completely.

Sure I could take a small, light, fast and responsive (11oz) camera add the weight and length of an adapter, snap on my 1.4 85mm and add 22oz of weight and 85mm of length and lose auto diaphragm and stabilization but what's the point? I already have a camera that's ideal for such a lens - the K5. Even if Sony had such a lens in native nex mount, physics being what it is, the lens would still be out of scale and purpose to the camera body in my opinion.

I have no hands on experience with this camera so perhaps I misunderstand and I'm missing something. If so I'm listening.

I don't know if you're referring to something I said. The worst thing about adapted lenses is not the weight and size, which can be quite reasonable with smaller lenses by the way. The worst thing for me by far is the performance hit with an adapter. I have three of them, and they vary from bad to worse; lots of CA at wide apertures and mushy edges at all apertures.

I agree, the a6000 is best with small lenses. Hefting the small messenger bag with the a6000 and Touits inside, it almost feels like the bag is empty. But I'm vexed that I can't get the lens I want at the price I want. I'm uncomfortable shooting head shots with a 50mm, I rarely use the one I already own. The SEL 50mm 1.8 will be even shorter than 50mm at portrait range, because it is an IF lens. I want a short tele for the a6000, and I'm not happy with any of the current choices, as outlined above.

The Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* is sharper than the $3,990 Zeiss Otus 55mm .

That is a superb lens. Call me when it goes on sale, I may be interested, but $1000 is bit much for a second system lens that is shorter than I would prefer. I'm looking for a lens that can double for head shots and general tele use.

[osv]

I don't know if you're referring to something I said. The worst thing about adapted lenses is not the weight and size, which can be quite reasonable with smaller lenses by the way. The worst thing for me by far is the performance hit with an adapter. I have three of them, and they vary from bad to worse; lots of CA at wide apertures and mushy edges at all apertures.

that is not correct.

the only adapters you should be using don't have any glass, so of course they can't alter the optical properties of the lenses.