Camera issues

[nvtsallo]

I Am going to wdw for the upcoming marathon weekend. This is just he wife and i for our anniversary. I have the canon 5d3 and 1dx but wanted something smaller to focus on my time there. I did some basic tests with the canon sl1 with kit lens, 40mm pancake, several L glass. Compared to the sony rx100 m3. I was surprised that the overall images were sharper (sony) vs the kit lens on the Canon. Could this be true? The flash output on the canon was more evenly distributed but had a hard time picking up the extra detail and lower noise the Canon should have offered. Should I go with the sony or try the sony a6000 with 16-70 zeiss? The final option is to bring my 5d and one lens. Just hoping to have a lighter bag. Anyone been there done that have any insight?

 

[DVC Mike]

I was in the exact same boat. I had a Canon 5D Mark III and wanted something smaller. I went with the Sony A6000 and got great results.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3358964

 

[nvtsallo]

I was in the exact same boat. I had a Canon 5D Mark III and wanted something smaller. I went with the Sony A6000 and got great results. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3358964

Thanks. What lenses did you use most?

 

[havoc315]

The rx100 punches above its weight. I do find the iq not too far below aps-c. And the faster lens allows lower ISO, letting it surpass the quality of aps-c + kit. (ISO 800 on the rx100, for example, will be better than 1600-3200 on the SL1).

The a6000 will be even a little bit better. But also bigger.

So the question is just how small and light do you want to go. I've done both types of vacations -- the rx100, and full dslr kits. The Rx100 is tiny and freeing. Excellent for daylight landscapes and regular people shots. But there are times I want/need my full frame camera.

I'd suggest bringing your 5d3 and the rx100. Knowing you have the rx100, you can often leave the big gun at the hotel. But it's there for some of your shooting.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I was in the exact same boat. I had a Canon 5D Mark III and wanted something smaller. I went with the Sony A6000 and got great results.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3358964

Mike actually swayed me while I was down there a few weeks ago so I went to BB and bought one with a lens bundle (Hey! It was on sale! ). I walked around with it for the final 3 days I was there. I have a 6D (I'm a poor man. ) and a 70D. I doubt I'll be carrying them in the parks much anymore.

The difference between Mike and me is that I drive (Maybe he does too now that I think about it.) so I'll still take everything. Why? Because I can, and because I may need something. The fullsize cameras just won't be making near as many trips into the parks, that's all.

I do have a slightly different goal than Mike, I think. I think he's trying to lighten his entire load. I'm just a camera nut and buy a lot of stuff just to play too. I want a Metabones converter so I can use my nice Canon lenses with the a6000. That's not exactly lightening my load. I do intend to invest in a full complement of lenses for the a6000 though. Once I have done that, I may lose interest in the Metabones, but I doubt it.

 

[DVC Mike]

Thanks. What lenses did you use most?

I used the 10-18 f/4 the most.

Here is a list of the equipment I brought to Disney:

Sony Alpha A6000 / ILCE-6000
Sony SEL1018 10-18mm f/4 OSS Wide angle zoom [15-27 equiv]
Sony SEL1670Z Vario-Tessar T E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS [24-105 equiv]
Sony SEL35F18 35mm f/1.8 OSS prime [52.5 equiv]
Sony NP-FW50 Lithium battery (3)
Sony BC-TRW battery charger (2)
SanDisk Extreme Pro 32-GB SDHC UHS-1/U3 95MB/s (7)
Sony RM-SPR1 Remote Cable
ThinkTank Photo Mirrorless Mover 30i camera bag
MeFoto A1350Q1T Roadtrip Travel Tripod

 

[nvtsallo]

Yeah thanks. I want to travel light. I am running in the marathon so I want to take it easy on what I carry around. Also want to enjoy the time with the wife. I think I will grab the A6000, 16-70, 35mm 1.8 and put that up against the rx100. Either will be light weight but I will do a little shoot out before I go. Definitely like the rx100 over the canon sl1. I hate to say it but the iq os so close in such a smaller package.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

One note for ya... LOVE my a6000. Having said that, it eats batteries. Compared to your 5DIII, you're going to be in shock. There's a reason Mike carries 3 batteries. Just be prepared.

FWIW, the mirrorless cameras almost have to use a lot more battery power than a conventional DSLR. It's just the nature of the differences in the tech in the beasts.

Sony desperately needs to work on the battery tech. If there's one place they could really improve the "a" series, that's it, IMHO. The NEX line had the same issue and I owned several of those.

That RX100 is going to be hard to guard for what it is. It consistently gets rave reviews, and not just for what it is. I know several folks that are professional photographers and the RX is their go-to when they don't want to carry a DSLR. Just remember that you're looking at two totally different approaches to the problem here, with distinctly different intentions. It all depends on what yours are.

 

[docwoodstock]

We were just there, first two weeks of December. I used an a6000 with a peak design pro capture belt clip. Mostly walk around with 16-70, but carried 10-18 and three batteries in a small bag. I brought some other lenses, 24-1.8 and 18-200, for special circumstances but I only carried one extra lens at a time.

The peak design clip was excellent with the smaller a6000.

Great results!

 

[havoc315]

Yeah thanks. I want to travel light. I am running in the marathon so I want to take it easy on what I carry around. Also want to enjoy the time with the wife. I think I will grab the A6000, 16-70, 35mm 1.8 and put that up against the rx100. Either will be light weight but I will do a little shoot out before I go. Definitely like the rx100 over the canon sl1. I hate to say it but the iq os so close in such a smaller package.

You'll find the a6000 similar in size to the sl1. In theory, iq should be very similar, they are both aps-c cameras. In practice, the a6000 may be the better camera. Though it can take getting used to, I prefer Evf to ovf under most circumstances. The a6000 has a more advanced AF system. The Sony sensor generally outperforms the Canon. The main downside is the poor battery life.

Both the sl1 and a6000 are small. The rx100 is tiny, making the others look big.
In most circumstances, especially compared to kit lenses, the iq will ultimately be very close. In some cases, you may even get better results with the rx100.
On the downside, I use the original version -- the most updated version has EVF. I tried it, but it was rather uncomfortable. You also have a rather limited focal range (28-100 or 24-70 depending on the camera ).
You can also look at the rx10 (24-200/2.8). Won't be as small as the rx100, but probably comparable in size to the sl1 and a6000, with a great lens.

 

[DVC Mike]

If you want to see the size difference between a Sony A6000 and a Canon 5D, see this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3355908

 

[nvtsallo]

I have narrowed it down to the sony a6000 with 16-70 zeiss or sony rx100 m3. I did several wide and tele shots and the differences were so minor that I had a hard time telling the difference. I just want a decent camera to get couple shots of my wife and I enjoying the parks. The rx100 is great but it seems so small in my hands and the sony is nice but I expected a larger jump in quality that I just am not seeing. Maybe I am expecting too much but there was quite a bit of noise at iso 1600 on the a6000.

 

[HPS3]

Have you looked at the Fuji cameras? I shoot with a X-E2 and X-T1. Both are fantastic and the kit 18-55 f2.8-4 is probably better than the 16-70 Zeiss. All of the fuji lenses are awesome. I would buy the X-T1 and 18-55 before the A6K and Zeiss. I actually have shot a 6D and A7 together with my Fuji's and have since sold both the 6D and A7.

 

[fabulousfive]

I Am going to wdw for the upcoming marathon weekend. This is just he wife and i for our anniversary. I have the canon 5d3 and 1dx but wanted something smaller to focus on my time there. I did some basic tests with the canon sl1 with kit lens, 40mm pancake, several L glass. Compared to the sony rx100 m3. I was surprised that the overall images were sharper (sony) vs the kit lens on the Canon. Could this be true? The flash output on the canon was more evenly distributed but had a hard time picking up the extra detail and lower noise the Canon should have offered. Should I go with the sony or try the sony a6000 with 16-70 zeiss? The final option is to bring my 5d and one lens. Just hoping to have a lighter bag. Anyone been there done that have any insight?

Just curious how the 40mm or L series lens did on the sl1 body? I'm searching for a small setup for my upcoming South African mission trip. I am really leaning toward the sl1 because I'm familiar with Canon. I currently shoot with 5d cameras, mostly with the 50mm 1.2 attached. I want a smaller setup where I won't stand out as much. I'd love to hear more of your experience with the sl1 if you can share. Thanks!

 

[nvtsallo]

Have you looked at the Fuji cameras? I shoot with a X-E2 and X-T1. Both are fantastic and the kit 18-55 f2.8-4 is probably better than the 16-70 Zeiss. All of the fuji lenses are awesome. I would buy the X-T1 and 18-55 before the A6K and Zeiss. I actually have shot a 6D and A7 together with my Fuji's and have since sold both the 6D and A7.

Thanks but I am leaving in 2 days and do not have time to order one.

 

[nvtsallo]

Just curious how the 40mm or L series lens did on the sl1 body? I'm searching for a small setup for my upcoming South African mission trip. I am really leaning toward the sl1 because I'm familiar with Canon. I currently shoot with 5d cameras, mostly with the 50mm 1.2 attached. I want a smaller setup where I won't stand out as much. I'd love to hear more of your experience with the sl1 if you can share. Thanks!

They performed fine but the image was still soft in some situations which could have beed afma issue which you cqnnot do. The 40mm was nice but still the noise levels of an apsc are hard for me to deal with when I have been shooting with the 5d3 and 1dx. Even the a6000 exhibited a large amount of noise in the shadows at iso 1600 and above. I know people say its one of the best sensors but the last crop that was great was my old 60d qnd 17-55 2.8. The sony seems great but they need a nice 24-70 ff equiv. 2.8 then it would be nice. Back to the Canon. I liked the iq when it was sharp but the iso bumped in full stops and I generally like 1/3 stop increments. Plus the touch would not let you change settings. You could pinch amd zoom pics or touch the focus area. Finally with L glass it was not balanced qt all. Probably would consider the t5i or 70d for a lighter crop. Or wait.

 

[havoc315]

They performed fine but the image was still soft in some situations which could have beed afma issue which you cqnnot do. The 40mm was nice but still the noise levels of an apsc are hard for me to deal with when I have been shooting with the 5d3 and 1dx. Even the a6000 exhibited a large amount of noise in the shadows at iso 1600 and above. I know people say its one of the best sensors but the last crop that was great was my old 60d qnd 17-55 2.8. The sony seems great but they need a nice 24-70 ff equiv. 2.8 then it would be nice. Back to the Canon. I liked the iq when it was sharp but the iso bumped in full stops and I generally like 1/3 stop increments. Plus the touch would not let you change settings. You could pinch amd zoom pics or touch the focus area. Finally with L glass it was not balanced qt all. Probably would consider the t5i or 70d for a lighter crop. Or wait.

Problem is, 2.8 zoom lenses aren't small. Sony does make an excellent 16-50/2.8 which you can use with an adapter on the a6000. But you end up adding so much weight, you have erased the advantage of small mirrorrless. Even a native lens without adapter, can only be so small if you want a large aperture.

That's really why Sony has stuck with f4 zooms.

Size advantages of mirrorrless are slightly exaggerated, once you take into account truly equivalent lenses.

The only way to truly fully downsize is to accept a smaller sensor. (The Rx series, m4:3 cameras, etc... Can truly give you an all around smaller experience).

 

[nvtsallo]

Problem is, 2.8 zoom lenses aren't small. Sony does make an excellent 16-50/2.8 which you can use with an adapter on the a6000. But you end up adding so much weight, you have erased the advantage of small mirrorrless. Even a native lens without adapter, can only be so small if you want a large aperture. That's really why Sony has stuck with f4 zooms. Size advantages of mirrorrless are slightly exaggerated, once you take into account truly equivalent lenses. The only way to truly fully downsize is to accept a smaller sensor. (The Rx series, m4:3 cameras, etc... Can truly give you an all around smaller experience).

So I am realizing the hard way. So I need to figure out if I want a small bag with the a6000 or pocket the rx100. Finally could just bring my 5d3 with 24-70 and that would be light to a point.

 

[zackiedawg]

I have narrowed it down to the sony a6000 with 16-70 zeiss or sony rx100 m3. I did several wide and tele shots and the differences were so minor that I had a hard time telling the difference. I just want a decent camera to get couple shots of my wife and I enjoying the parks. The rx100 is great but it seems so small in my hands and the sony is nice but I expected a larger jump in quality that I just am not seeing. Maybe I am expecting too much but there was quite a bit of noise at iso 1600 on the a6000.

A few notes on the A6000 at high ISO - it actually should be one of the top performers in APS-C - but it might take a few things to set up right first. There are 3 noise reduction settings - off, low, and normal/high...at the highest setting, there may be a lot less noise, but also some smearing of details from the noise reduction. At off, you get max detail but also max noise, for those who like to remove it themselves. I like the low setting myself - rarely have to touch the JPGs, and if shooting RAW, it doesn't much matter as you do the NR yourself.

Remember when viewing the photos to check for noise that when you're 'pixel-peeping', you're zoomed in to a 24MP photo, which means you're looking at an amazingly small subsection of the photo at 100% viewable. Those used to 16MP sensors or lower sensors might not realize just how much more zoomed in you are, how blown up the photo is, at 24MP 100% viewable. I shot with the NEX-5N, which at 16MP was widely considered to be one of the best APS-C sensors for high ISO on the market, and still today one of the best. My A6000 performs better, holds more detail, has less noise, and can shoot at high ISOs - by easily 1 full stop, if not more. I was pretty much at ISO6400 for the usable limit on the NEX-5N, and the A6000 is at 12,800 for the usable limit, with forays even higher as needed.

I shoot JPG most often, and generally I do not have to do any post processing on shots from ISO100 to 6400, and only apply light processing to any ISO above 6400 all the way to 12800. If you get the exposure right, and don't underexpose, the A6000 should be very comfortable shooting at anything up to ISO6400 with very little noise and excellent detail retention. I probably shoot more often at high ISO than most people do - I do a lot of handheld night photography, low light wildlife shooting, etc...so I'm probably shooting nearly 40% of the time at ISO1600 to 12800 with the A6000.

 

[havoc315]

So I am realizing the hard way. So I need to figure out if I want a small bag with the a6000 or pocket the rx100. Finally could just bring my 5d3 with 24-70 and that would be light to a point.

If you look at DVCMike's thread, you will see the huge potential difference in size between the 5d3 and A6000..... But that's partially because it is full frame vs APS-C. Stick to native APS-C lenses on the A6000, it is potentially a much smaller kit, that will fit in a bag. And if you aren't pixel peeping, the IQ will be just fine. But beware, those native A6000 APS-C lenses aren't the greatest on earth.

It's purely personal preference, but I like the RX100 as my back-up "small" camera. The IQ potential can't match the A6000. But I look at it this way:
I can already go semi-small by sticking a prime lens on my D750. The A6000 is only slightly smaller.
This way, I have the option to go with something truly truly small -- so it's either my full sized kit, for the utmost in image quality, autofocus, etc... or something super small that fits in my pocket, for acceptable/good IQ at a moment's notice.
For me, personally, the A6000 kit... it wouldn't quite me small enough to give me a big reason to carry it over my full frame kit. (Though my full frame kit is smaller than yours). And the IQ of the A6000 isn't necessarily so much better than the RX100 to justify carrying it over the RX100. It would be a good compromise/replacement if I was looking to replace BOTH my RX100 and my D750.