Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[fractal]

gedneypark.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-61.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

First shot in photomatix HDR. I hadn't realized I was shooting jpegs at first. But the second shot.. in RAW... I realized how spoiled I have become by the D750 and full frame. I know the A6000 is considered to have good dynamic range, for an APS-C, but it can't come close to full frame. I used to do a lot of my landscapes in HDR. But the dynamic range of the D750 is so great, I can essentially get HDR quality in just one image. I see I'll need to go back to bracketing if I use the A6000 for this purpose.

Havoc, the A6000 is known for having issues when pushing the files much. That doesn't make a difference to me cause I don't like the look of HDR.

I've always been impressed with how much shadow I can pull out of my NEX-7 files. I know it can't match a newer FF sensor but I've been using HDR less and less after discovering how much I can push my RAW files. Here is an extreme example I just found and edited...

Original shot, no adjustments to RAW file exported as Jpeg

Same file with the following adjustments in LR;

Exposure +3.1
Contrast -32
Highlights -28
Shadows +100
Whites +36
Blacks -16

Noise Reduction
Luminance 35
Detail 50
Contrast 0
Color 39
Detail 50

Obviously some color banding and noise issues in the darkest areas but pretty good detail recovery from the original file in almost completely black areas. I'm pushing this file pretty hard, adding over 3 stops of exposure. The a6000 sensor is essentially the same as the NEX-7's with some tweaks.

 

[havoc315]

I've always been impressed with how much shadow I can pull out of my NEX-7 files. I know it can't match a newer FF sensor but I've been using HDR less and less after discovering how much I can push my RAW files. Here is an extreme example I just found and edited...

Original shot, no adjustments to RAW file exported as Jpeg

Same file with the following adjustments in LR;

Exposure +3.1
Contrast -32
Highlights -28
Shadows +100
Whites +36
Blacks -16

Noise Reduction
Luminance 35
Detail 50
Contrast 0
Color 39
Detail 50

Obviously some color banding and noise issues in the darkest areas but pretty good detail recovery from the original file in almost completely black areas. I'm pushing this file pretty hard, adding over 3 stops of exposure. The a6000 sensor is essentially the same as the NEX-7's with some tweaks.

Not bad. I'll have to do a side by side test.

I really like to underexpose my landscapes to preserve the complex sky colors.

 

[fractal]

Another less extreme example.

Original,

Edited in LR...

 

[Rgonzalez79]

Wow, what a difference that shadow slider makes. The feel of the image is completely different. @havoc315 Aside from the size, is there anything you prefer on the A6000 vs your full frame Nikon?

 

[Rgonzalez79]

Wow, amazing colors! I'm stunned at some of the shots you guys get. Beautiful tones and framing was spot on @dmaxphil

 

[havoc315]

Wow, what a difference that shadow slider makes. The feel of the image is completely different. @havoc315 Aside from the size, is there anything you prefer on the A6000 vs your full frame Nikon?

Live view. Eye-AF. EVF. In camera HDR and Panorama. Face detect.

So yeah... A few things. Now if I could just get my d750 and a6000 to mate and breed the perfect child.

 

[Rgonzalez79]

Live view. Eye-AF. EVF. In camera HDR and Panorama. Face detect.

So yeah... A few things. Now if I could just get my d750 and a6000 to mate and breed the perfect child.

Nice, the 6750 model from a third party lol I know you're not a huge fan of the A7ii, and I don't dabble in full frame, but would another of the A7 cameras fit your needs?

 

[havoc315]

Nice, the 6750 model from a third party lol I know you're not a huge fan of the A7ii, and I don't dabble in full frame, but would another of the A7 cameras fit your needs?

I'm pretty invested in Nikon now, so I'm not seriously switching unless something really blew my D750 out of the water -- Or if there are eventually good AF adapters for Nikon lenses.
If there were good AF adapters -- (Commlite is about to launch the first Nikon AF adapter but early reviews are horrible.... so if they work out the kinks...)..... Here is what I would be looking for in an A7 camera:
-- The A7rii looks fantastic, but I am never spending $3000 on a camera body, and I have no interest in 42mp. 24mp is perfect for me. I don't want larger files and a slower camera, dealing with megapixels that don't really give me any benefit. And that are increasing the price of the camera.
-- Especially if they don't make a good Nikon AF adapter, I couldn't seriously go to FE without a much bigger lens selection, and preferably a little more affordable.
-- While the A6000 is mostly fast and snappy, everything I've seen with the A7 series is rather slow. Needs faster FPS, needs a deeper buffer, and a faster processor.
-- The Sony flash system is still a major drawback.
-- While I want 24mp, the A7ii is using a very old sensor. It's performance is far worse than the D750. So give me a new 24mp sensor.

Essentially, I can't see Sony convincing me to change for my main camera, any time soon. While there are things I like about Sony, for my core needs, Nikon is a better fit. (great lenses, great image quality, fast responsive camera, great autofocus). The bigger possibility is that a Sony APS-C mirrorless starts getting a lot of attention from me. For now, I'm on the fence about how often I'll really use the A6000. If the A6100/7000 blows me away, I could turn around and re-sell the A6000 and upgrade. (I basically only paid about $300 for it, so even if I only go $250 for it re-selling it, it wouldn't be much of a loss). I do want to try a few more side by side ultrawide zoom shots. So far, this is where I'm really on the fence. The A6000 shots feel very inferior to me for a few reasons, but maybe its in my imagination. The shots with the A6000/10-18 feel much softer than the Nikon with 18-35. It feels like there is much less dynamic range. And I got some weird sun flare the other day with the 10-18.
I was hoping that the A6000 with 10-18 (which is a well reviewed lens) would be good enough for me to become a walk-around vacation landscape camera. So I want to do a bit more side-by-side to see if the differences are real, or in my imagination. Ideally, if I end up being happy with the 10-18, I can imagine going to Disney world with both cameras. Some days just carrying the A6000. Some days, carrying both -- Keeping the D750 with prime lens as my dark ride camera for maximum ISO performance. The A6000 with 10-18 for landscapes. Then maybe just 1 or 2 more lenses for some general purpose stuff. 2 camera bodies with no more than 3 lenses in a day, should be a lot less lens changing than 1 body with 3 lenses. (If I had just the D750, I'd definitely go with a fast prime for dark rides, an ultrawide lens, and then probably my 24-70/2.8 as well for general purpose. Then I'd have a telephoto mostly at the hotel, but coming out for Animal Kingdom. )

 

[dmaxphil]

I'm pretty invested in Nikon now, so I'm not seriously switching unless something really blew my D750 out of the water -- Or if there are eventually good AF adapters for Nikon lenses.
If there were good AF adapters -- (Commlite is about to launch the first Nikon AF adapter but early reviews are horrible.... so if they work out the kinks...)..... Here is what I would be looking for in an A7 camera:
-- The A7rii looks fantastic, but I am never spending $3000 on a camera body, and I have no interest in 42mp. 24mp is perfect for me. I don't want larger files and a slower camera, dealing with megapixels that don't really give me any benefit. And that are increasing the price of the camera.
-- Especially if they don't make a good Nikon AF adapter, I couldn't seriously go to FE without a much bigger lens selection, and preferably a little more affordable.
-- While the A6000 is mostly fast and snappy, everything I've seen with the A7 series is rather slow. Needs faster FPS, needs a deeper buffer, and a faster processor.
-- The Sony flash system is still a major drawback.
-- While I want 24mp, the A7ii is using a very old sensor. It's performance is far worse than the D750. So give me a new 24mp sensor.

Essentially, I can't see Sony convincing me to change for my main camera, any time soon. While there are things I like about Sony, for my core needs, Nikon is a better fit. (great lenses, great image quality, fast responsive camera, great autofocus). The bigger possibility is that a Sony APS-C mirrorless starts getting a lot of attention from me. For now, I'm on the fence about how often I'll really use the A6000. If the A6100/7000 blows me away, I could turn around and re-sell the A6000 and upgrade. (I basically only paid about $300 for it, so even if I only go $250 for it re-selling it, it wouldn't be much of a loss). I do want to try a few more side by side ultrawide zoom shots. So far, this is where I'm really on the fence. The A6000 shots feel very inferior to me for a few reasons, but maybe its in my imagination. The shots with the A6000/10-18 feel much softer than the Nikon with 18-35. It feels like there is much less dynamic range. And I got some weird sun flare the other day with the 10-18.
I was hoping that the A6000 with 10-18 (which is a well reviewed lens) would be good enough for me to become a walk-around vacation landscape camera. So I want to do a bit more side-by-side to see if the differences are real, or in my imagination. Ideally, if I end up being happy with the 10-18, I can imagine going to Disney world with both cameras. Some days just carrying the A6000. Some days, carrying both -- Keeping the D750 with prime lens as my dark ride camera for maximum ISO performance. The A6000 with 10-18 for landscapes. Then maybe just 1 or 2 more lenses for some general purpose stuff. 2 camera bodies with no more than 3 lenses in a day, should be a lot less lens changing than 1 body with 3 lenses. (If I had just the D750, I'd definitely go with a fast prime for dark rides, an ultrawide lens, and then probably my 24-70/2.8 as well for general purpose. Then I'd have a telephoto mostly at the hotel, but coming out for Animal Kingdom. )

I'll respond to a couple of points here. One, the D750 and A7II are pretty darn close in sensor technology. Where the D750 excels is the AF system and selection of glass. DR would be another area the Nikon has an edge. DXOmark sensor scores for each are pretty close.

Sony A7 series cameras are the only mirrorless FF interchangeable lens cameras - so they have that going for them.

The main benefit I see with the A7 series (A7II specifically) is the combination of full frame + in body stabilization for older manual focus lenses. Focus peaking on full frame with stabilization is a pretty big deal. My initial plan when I got the A7II was to load up on good, older glass. But I got sidetracked.

 

[havoc315]

I'll respond to a couple of points here. One, the D750 and A7II are pretty darn close in sensor technology. Where the D750 excels is the AF system and selection of glass. DR would be another area the Nikon has an edge. DXOmark sensor scores for each are pretty close.

Sony A7 series cameras are the only mirrorless FF interchangeable lens cameras - so they have that going for them.

The main benefit I see with the A7 series (A7II specifically) is the combination of full frame + in body stabilization for older manual focus lenses. Focus peaking on full frame with stabilization is a pretty big deal. My initial plan when I got the A7II was to load up on good, older glass. But I got sidetracked.

Unfortunately, the A7ii sensor gets pretty mediocre reviews on both dpreview and DXOMark.

Granted, you are talking about pixel peeping differences, but that's the difference between just about all modern cameras. According to DXO scoring, the D750 has 1 extra EV of dynamic range over the A7ii, and a half stop of better high ISO performance. (It actually gets the better ISO score because of the better dynamic range. But for me, it's loss of dynamic range which is a bigger deal than noise).
Now, as I said -- all modern sensors are pretty darn close. But it's clear that the D750 and A7ii are not using the same sensor. The A7ii has about the same dynamic range as the A99, and I absolutely notice the difference with the D750.

I completely agree that the A7 series has a lot of positive points -- But focus peaking is not a big deal for me, I don't really like to manual focus. IBIS is a minor pro for me... Currently, most of my lenses are stabilized. The only time I miss stabilization is sometimes with my 85/1.8. And the A7 isn't that much smaller than the D750, so that isn't a big selling point for me.
What excites me most about the A7, would be the accuracy of on-sensor phase detect. Though the new Nikon AF-auto-fine-tune may be a huge feature if it expands into future Nikon cameras. If it works as well as it should, back and front focus issues should be greatly greatly reduced.

 

[fractal]

String theory by Chris Dikos, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Chappaqua Starbucks at Night by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Misty Road by Chris Dikos, on Flickr

 

[dmaxphil]

Misty Road by Chris Dikos, on Flickr

Impressive!

 

[dmaxphil]

-- While I want 24mp, the A7ii is using a very old sensor. It's performance is far worse than the D750. So give me a new 24mp sensor.

Far worse? I'd like to hear how you determined this.

Unfortunately, the A7ii sensor gets pretty mediocre reviews on both dpreview and DXOMark.

Granted, you are talking about pixel peeping differences, but that's the difference between just about all modern cameras. According to DXO scoring, the D750 has 1 extra EV of dynamic range over the A7ii, and a half stop of better high ISO performance. (It actually gets the better ISO score because of the better dynamic range. But for me, it's loss of dynamic range which is a bigger deal than noise).
Now, as I said -- all modern sensors are pretty darn close. But it's clear that the D750 and A7ii are not using the same sensor. The A7ii has about the same dynamic range as the A99, and I absolutely notice the difference with the D750.

DXO scores are often misinterpreted. Its actually a bit of a mystery to me how Nikons have always scored so well in dynamic range (at base ISO) compared to other brands (Canon anyone?)

If you look at the measurements there is a little less than a 1 stop difference in DR between the two cameras at ISO 100. Beyond ISO 100, the results are much closer. Also, it's 1/4 stop difference in ISO performance (Not 1/2).

Having said all that, I may be selling my A7II. Really, the lens options available don't excite me all that much and the menu system is not growing on me. I have noticed a difference in AF accuracy and overall snappiness since updating the firmware. Also 14bit uncompressed raw is now an option. Kudos to Sony for improving an existing camera.

 

[havoc315]

Far worse? I'd like to hear how you determined this.




DXO scores are often misinterpreted. Its actually a bit of a mystery to me how Nikons have always scored so well in dynamic range (at base ISO) compared to other brands (Canon anyone?)

If you look at the measurements there is a little less than a 1 stop difference in DR between the two cameras at ISO 100. Beyond ISO 100, the results are much closer. Also, it's 1/4 stop difference in ISO performance (Not 1/2).

Having said all that, I may be selling my A7II. Really, the lens options available don't excite me all that much and the menu system is not growing on me. I have noticed a difference in AF accuracy and overall snappiness since updating the firmware. Also 14bit uncompressed raw is now an option. Kudos to Sony for improving an existing camera.

Lol. I definitely notice far more dynamic range... Even compared to the Sony a99, I'm amazed at the extra latitude I get on the d750.

I agree that dxo scores are often misunderstood. I ignore the scores and look at the graphs which are more informative.

In real practice, I find DXO understates differences. According to DXO, I should only be gaining about 1 stop between the a6000 and d750, but it feels closer to 2 stops in real practice. (Maybe about 1 1/2).

Getting back to the a7ii, I'm also relying on the dpreview review for my conclusions.

In terms of FE mount lenses, they seem to be doing well with options for primes under 100mm, though at expensive prices. Their zooms are underwhelming, and telephoto nearly non-existent. But for landscapes and portraits, seems you can do alright.

 

[fractal]

Daughter trying on pointe shoes. The shop reminded me of the wand shop in Harry Potter.

Rokinon 8mm 2.8.

 

[toomanycars]

[GALLERY=]DSC00125-Edit-Edit by Michael Hunt, on Flickr[/GALLERY]
China at Epcot by moon light
China at Epcot by moon light. the bright light on the left side of the photo is the moon over a 30 second exposure.

Sony A6000
Rokinon 12mm f 2.0
12mm
ƒ/f8
30 secs
ISO 100

 

[fractal]

[GALLERY=]DSC00125-Edit-Edit by Michael Hunt, on Flickr[/GALLERY]
China at Epcot by moon light
China at Epcot by moon light. the bright light on the left side of the photo is the moon over a 30 second exposure.

Sony A6000
Rokinon 12mm f 2.0
12mm
ƒ/f8
30 secs
ISO 100

great shot! How do you like the Rokinon 12mm?

 

[toomanycars]

great shot! How do you like the Rokinon 12mm?

Love it and thank you!