If you want a high quality lens along your new A6000 you can get the camera+Zeiss kit at Bhphoto (Click here).
And if you want to see how good the A6000 performs check out the Imaging Resource comparometer! They just added the A6000. And the good news is that JPG files compared with the 24MP sensor from the NEX-7 look much better. Here is just one comparison image on courtesy of Imaging Resource:
Sony A6000 preorder list with US and Europe links:
Sony A6000 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonyStore. In Europe at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, AT, NL, BE, CH, FI, SE, PT, WexUK.
Silver A6000 at Amazon US, BHphoto, WexUK.
Sony A6000 with lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonyStore, Sony Canada, WexUK.
Silver A6000 with lens at Amazon US, BHphoto, WexUK.
Sony 70-200mm FE at Amazon, BHphoto, SonyStore. In Europe at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, AT, NL, BE, CH, FI, SE, PT
0 Responses
Interesting, but I hope they used the same lens on both cameras, can’t find that out..both shots with sel1670zeiss ? Or sel1650 on both, or …
different lenses. If I recal the nex 7 is using a (70mm?)sigma macro and the a6000 is using the sel50
yep nex7 is Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
via an adapter, right?
The Sigma 70/2.8 macro is much better than the sony SEL50F18 (just check at Photozone or SLRGEAR), but the results are still better with the A6000 with the lesser lens-that’s encouraging!
The SEL50F18 is a pretty good lens actually, but the sigma/2.8 macro is probably better.
Different lenses huh? Can’t say either way but the A6000 does look a smidge better.
You can’t say huh? And yet you post this nonsense. Have you got time to burn?
So this A6000 body + SEL1670Z kit = exactly as much as it would cost to buy the two separately?
According to the website that Admin linked to, $1645,95. You couldn’t figure out that yourself, could you?
Separately they cost LESS at least in Norway.
Thats strange.
In Denmark it’s about 1000 DKK cheaper as kit than separately.
Check f.ex. kamerahuset.dk
At the website Admin linked to, they cost $1646 when bought separately.
You save 50 cents!
I suppose that’s a good deal you getting there!
Typo. You save 5 cents. Been listening too much rap.
I compared to the Nikon D7100 at ISO 3200 there – and despite the NIKON has no AA filter the A6000 files look sharper. Can of course be a lens issue.
Sharper jpeg engine rendering.
IR used the Sony 50 1.8 OSS for their a6000 comparometer test shots. I wish they would use the best e-mount lens available (in all tests uniformly) so we can see the true capability of the sensor. I was comparing the a6000 to the NEX-7 and was pleasantly surprised to see a significant advantage coming from the a6000. Then I checked to see what lens they used on the NEX-7 and found it to be an old Alpha mount zoom. Ugh… I like what IR does but they won’t hesitate to pull junk of the shelves for testing…cheap bastards. It’s like having successful lasik surgery then looking at the World through a set of coke bottle spectacles….ridiculous.
I just accidentally a coca cola bottle is this bad?
Mirrorlessrumors already has a rumor today on Sony’s curved sensor tech unvailed. Suprised it isn’t posed on here yet.
The symposium where they would present their paper is on the 9th June! MR speculations are far fetched, to say the least. Such a technology, if viable, could make to tiny formats by 2018.
Regardless of what lens is used, this is a really excellent result for the A600. Other than the red fabric swatch, I think it beats the Canon 5D Mark III which is damn impressive. The price is just insane for what you get here.
* sorry, A6000 – didn’t mean to get the A-mount crew excited 🙂
Hmmmm…. Not to worry. See my earlier comment here. I’m the farthest from excited from the a6000’s comparometer’s results as a human can get. 8^)
Comparing the 5D III and the a6000 at 1600 iso on IR comparometer, the sony shows a little, but nearly none, more detail, but the Canon file is cleaner. At 3200 iso the Canon is just better, not by much, but better. Anyway, the Sony is just 1/4 of the Canon’s price.
To clarify, I was looking at 400 ISO and the Sony looked better. I fully expect the Mark III to trounce it at higher ISO.
These are jpegs, right? If so, it just shows how much the JPEG engine of the 6000 is improved. That’ll help some, but it’s not useful info to me…
Dear Sony,
please give us
-24mp full frame sensor
-clean ISO up to 6400
-super duper lightweight! all plastic built all the way up to the lens mount like the a58
-90% or more AF frame coverage like a6000
-more battery power pls! 2700mAh or more
-allow us to use continuous AF or dual AF at f2.8 instead of limiting it to f3.5
reason why im asking these feature is because of a99 only covers half of the frame so it is hard to use as a video camera in full AF mode because the focus keeps on changing when panning around. the small frame coverage only track the subject in the middle of the frame and then it will switch focus.
If you can provide us with a super duper lightweight FF camera then Sony will gain the biggest reputation for glidecam users because with lightweight camera + electronic steadyshot + full time video AF features combination? no other camera in this world can ever come close to such ease of use!
putting a99 on a glidecam in full AF mode is such a joy to use! Canon 5DmarkIII can’t even do what the a99 can do for video w/o putting the aperture up to f8 and raising up to ISO6400.
BATTERY BATTERY BATTERY! in order to solve this issue pls make it a 1.4m dot OLED EVF so it wont drain so much power. im not an engineer so I dont know how else can u make camera battery longer besides giving it more mAh? I know I can pack around 10 batteries in every event but running out of juice in the middle of shoot and 2mins to remove the camera from the gimbal’s mount and readjusting it again sucks! MORE BATTERY POWER PLS SONY!
Sometimes I read these forums just to see how thick one can get. You have won the week’s prize for the thickest post, congratulations.
WRONG!
A6000 + Zeiss vs NEX-7 + 18-55
This is ridiculously unfair!
If that’s true, credits go to sel1855 then 🙂 🙂 I knew it was more than a decent kitlens..but that CA, It’s not that extreme on my nex f3.
No, all are shot with the same Sigma macro lens. Exif is not reported correctly.
Anyone curious to see what a 50mm Zeiss looks like on an Olympus? Here you go….
It’s the same if not even worse. The “clarity” effect has been applied on A6000 jpegs. There are too many artifacts to be acceptable.
You can see them wherever you look:
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/sony-a6000/FULLRES/A6000hSL00800NR2D.JPG
On the color table, on the edges of the knitting ropes.
We’ll have to wait for DXO and DPReview to see RAW performance and the dynamic range.
Dynamic range on Nex7 with ISO 800 or highers is really small.
No, the clarity effect creates halos when overdone and the lack of halos (especially sharpening halos) is actually the best feature of the new jpeg engine, compared to previous Sony cameras and for example Canon cameras. Which is also very clear in the example posted in the OP.
The worst part is the higher levels of NR at default, but the improved settings for low NR help here.
Dpreview? No thanks.
Agreed. DPreview has lost all credibility, at least for me.
I’m not interested in switching over to an e-mount at this time so it’s academic but the a6000 performance isn’t making a compelling upgrade argument based upon the comparometer.
9 out of 10 times the 100% crop difference between consecutive models is not worth the $$$-$$$$ cost to upgrade. But for new comers it’s a sign that the system and platform is breathing.
A minor concern for me is that I have toyed with maybe upgrading my a65 to the new a77II. With SAR’s latest SR4 that the a77II is using a new sensor but sticking with 24MP, I’m getting a feeling the a77II will be deja vu all over again. 8^)
We can only reason about what we know and what we think is important. Once you get your hands on the thing, you will know the whole story and often it’ll be different to what you had imagined. Sure, the 24MP might seem like it’s no different but there could be even subtle differences in other areas that might make the whole usability experience very different.
They look the same to me.
The key is that the A6000 has IQ at least equal to the Nex 7, but at a far lower cost, and a far better AF system. The A6000 is shaping up to be a great deal, when you think about it…it’s priced very competitively.
What about colorshift/vignetting on the A6000? Is it better in that regard than NEX-7?
Comparing the high-ISO performance of the A6000 with the Nex7 is no real contest. If we focus on high-ISO performance alone, the Nex7 is no match at all.
The A6000 is very similar in high-ISO as the Nikon D5300. Which is pretty good btw, because the D5300 is only slightly inferior (if at all) than the D7100. I compared the 12800iso samples from IR and could´t see much of a difference worth mentioning.
The outphased Nikon D3200 already had better ISO-performance than the Nex7, and is trumped by the latest Nikon cameras as well as the A6000 in that department, which gives the latter a clear advantage over the Nex7.
if what I see on these compared shots from both cameras, I really see no reason to step to an A6000, to me the NEX-7 shot looks same, even a bit more sharp. A way to compare both is with same lens and see how much better the noise is in darkness at high ISO ranges. But still then, I doubt that it is worth to consider to change over. One single reason is super fast AF for sports shots or children in action photography. Anyway, Sony stepped full in the sh.. with NEX-7 owners by pretending this camera to be an upgrade for it. NEX-7 users still wait for something else.
What is that “something else”?
Except for tri-nav.
Non-proprietary microphone input jack.
A hump.
I just went to imaging resource and took the comparometer with Nex7 on left and a6000 on right. I opened the house poster and checked all areas of the picture in full size. So, do this your self here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Now, when you have both images from the 2 cameras side by side, look at the details, and see how a6000 shot looks at full size and you see that the better noise ratio is done by loss of detail.
I do not see any better rendering all over, I prefer the NEX+7 picture to the a7000 one on this comparison. So, we have then again to see if better high ISO shots are not done by losing detail
I add a screen shot, NEX+7 on left, a6000 on right.
When is Sony going to do F2.8 zooms and not F4?
Sigma are the only hope. They even do f/1.8 zooms. Sony/Zeiss love slow f/4 zooms and they come with a heavy price tag. 🙁
16-70mm f4 zoom is $900??? Why?