Sony A6000 vs. Nikon D750

[havoc315]

So I've been doing some professional work, mostly portraits (family, couples, solo). My go-to setup is my full frame Nikon D750 + Nikon 85/1.8. About a $2500 combination.
I've had some concerns and felt like I needed a backup... Wouldn't want something to go wrong in the middle of a paid job. I thought of getting a cheaper APS-C Nikon second body, pairing it with the Nikon 50/1.8 for an effective focal length of 75mm... And having a simple backup.
But for a similar price, even though it isn't a compatible system, I decided to try going smaller, and give the A6000 a try. Figured it also has some mirrorless advantages -- better video, better live view. Picking it up used, with the Sony 50/1.8. So also an effective focal length of 75/1.8. Having bought it used, I know I can re-sell it without any significant loss. Bought new, it would be about a $650 set up, but I got it for less buying used.

So I've only been testing it for a few minutes literally. But I wanted to share a few thoughts and images.

untitled-6.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-1.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-4.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So the first obvious difference is the size difference. But one camera is a full frame semi-pro camera with semi-pro lens attached. The other is a consumer APS-C with a consumer prime. In terms of bulk, the cameras are actually closer in size than I expect. Neither is exactly going in a pocket. Of course the A6000 is smaller, but also has a smaller sensor. The bigger difference was weight, where there is a noticeable difference....

... But... much of that weight difference is due to the much smaller battery. Between the smaller battery and faster battery drain due to more power consumption.... Seemed the A6000 lost 10% of its battery in just 10-20 shots. 10-20 shots on the D750 does virtually nothing to the battery power.

So first off --- Yes, the A6000 is smaller, which is nice. It is lighter, which is very nice. But at a cost of significant battery power. Additionally the size difference isn't what I would consider massive. And of course, the D750 has a much bigger sensor.

Of course, what really matters is the image quality.

One reason I wanted to give the A6000 a try as my backup portrait camera was because of the 90% focus coverage with face detection and eye-af. (which needs to be separately configured).
On the D750, I mostly rely on focus and re-compose. Although there is pretty good focus coverage over the sensor, I'm not always composing with an eye under an AF point. There is kinda-face detection, but it isn't super reliable. So I rely on focus on an eye and re-compose. The 85/1.8 is a fantastic lens, but I still don't always nail the focus.
With it's coverage, face detection and eye-AF, I don't need to re-compose. I can compose the shot, let the face detect find the face, and use the eye-AF to make sure it focuses on an eye. I tried it a few times, and it didn't find an eye 100% of the time. But it mostly worked, and the results were very very impressive. A quick shot of my son:

untitled-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Zoom in 100% on his left eye -- And you will find it nailed focus perfectly. Additionally the 50/1.8 is sharp near the center, wide open. I haven't tested the edges. But at least towards the center 1/3rd of the frame, it is sharp enough for most uses even at 1.8. Honestly, my Nikon 85/1.8 isn't too much sharper in the center wide open, and it is considered 1 of the sharpest lenses around. So kudos to the 50/1.8, at least near the center. So reasonable sharpness combined with an ability to nail perfect focus, can really lead to some nice portraits.

Now some direct comparison to the D750, in semi-low light. I didn't want to go extreme, but indoor situations without flash. ISO of 1000-3200 type of shots.

First thing I noticed, the A6000 meters darker than my Nikon D750. In other words, when aperture and shutter speed were set the same on both cameras, the A6000 opted for lower ISOs and tended to underexpose the images slightly. I did these shots in raw. The A6000 needed more brightening in post-production, artificially effectively raising the ISO and adding noise.

But let's see some shots where I tried to equalize things.

First, a couple non-cropped shots.

From the D750 + 85/1.8:

untitled-4.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

From the A6000 + 85/1.8
untitled-3-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Technically, we are comparing 75mm vs 85mm, so the framing is slightly different.

The most obvious difference is the depth of field. Shooting with full frame, I definitely get much more background blur, much thinner depth of field. (which is good for some shots, and a disadvantage in some shots). In the A6000 shot, you see a blurry chair in the background but its still pretty well defined. In the D750 shot, its just a blurry shape.

The D750 shot is much higher ISO (5000 vs 1000) for a few reasons: As mentioned, the A6000 opted for lower ISO, so I had to brighten it in post. Also, the A6000 combo has stabilization, while the D750 combo is unstabilized. Therefore, I shot the D750 at 1/200 to prevent camera shake (Though I can go to 1/100, I really wanted to avoid camera shake). I was able to shoot the A6000 at 1/80. So in terms of camera settings, it was 5000 vs 1000. But with the need to add post-processing exposure boost to the A6000, it was more like comparing 5000 vs 2000.

Still, the A6000 shows some strengths here. Canon/Nikon dSLR primes are mostly not stabilized. Most lenses for the A6000 are. So you get to use that lower ISO. Using the lower ISO on the A6000 compared to the higher ISO on the full frame D750... we get 2 images that in normal viewing, are pretty equally comparable.

Now some closer crops of a different image set..
I decided to equalize things a bit, and stop down a bit..
So shot both cameras at 1/100 (selecting the sharpest D750 shot with a couple of attempts), shot both at F2.8. I intentionally brought down the ISO of the D750 to 2500. The A6000 automatically went with ISO 3200, so it's not a perfect match, but it's close. Both shots were processed through lightroom, with the same amount of noise reduction, same amount of sharpening, and with a similar amount of exposure boost.

Nikon D750, cropped:
untitled-18.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony A6000:
untitled-14-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Once again, the big thing that sticks out to me... Depth of field is much narrower on the D750. Even at F2.8, the entire doll is not in focus. While on the A6000, the entire doll is within perceived focus at 2.8.

Second thing that is obvious.... This isn't a 100% crop... It's not super high ISO, in the 2500 to 3200 range... But you are clearly seeing noise starting to affect the A6000 image much more than the D750 image. On the other hand, the A6000 image still looks good, and most casual users would not object.

So my takeaway points:

1 -- Mirrorless and the A6000 has some advantages in terms of focusing portraits -- No need to focus and re-compose, eye AF button. Seems you can nail focus more often, more reliably.
2-- It's smaller and lighter. In terms of carrying a camera for hours and hours, it would surely make a difference. But the difference is sometimes exaggerated. Even compared to a full frame Nikon D750, its not an earth shattering difference in size. It's not an elephant compared to a mouse. More like a small SUV compared to a large sedan.
3-- Absolutely will need to get extra batteries for the A6000.
4-- For most consumers, the image quality of the A6000 will be good enough, especially when paired with a good lens. Considering it is 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of my fullframe set up, it is far better than 1/3-1/4th the quality.
5-- For demanding enthusiasts and pros, the big difference is the depth of field control. This goes to the APS-C versus full frame. Not all shooters demand the super creamy background blur. But for times you do want it, full frame greatly surpasses APS-C.
6-- Shooting in good light, I feel you can probably get very similar image quality. Not surprisingly, as you boost ISO and look more carefully, the advantages of full frame become apparent. But in ordinary shooting scenarios, even indoors without flash, the A6000 would probably be good enough for most uses. Certainly for people who are just sharing images on facebook or printing 4x6 images.

I'm going to keep playing. If anybody has questions or input, please don't hesitate.

 

[rymahoney]

Nice write up. I also thought the size difference would be greater. Im assuming your Nikon camera and the d5100 should be close in size correct?

 

[havoc315]

Nice write up. I also thought the size difference would be greater. Im assuming your Nikon camera and the d5100 should be close in size correct?

No, the d750 is bigger.
Look here:
http://j.mp/1OnKfNi

I'd say the d750 is double the size and weight of the a6000 -- significant but not life changing imo. The d5100 is probably halfway in between the a6000 and d5100.

 

[rymahoney]

This kinda makes me want to see how much smaller the next gen is next month or whenever the release is.

 

[dmaxphil]

Add a grip to the D750 and then the sizes are really different.

Nice writeup as I love these sorts of comparisons. My limited experience with the A6000 (and Sony in general) is that the autofocus accuracy is no match for the Nikons.

Also in your last picture is something I've noticed with Sony - incredibly sharp everywhere, rendering ugly, noisy bokeh if not careful.

Full frame depth of field can be difficult to get the hang of.. especially when shooting both crop and FF at the same time/event. You have to think differently with aperture to get your subject in focus. Angled faces are a problem for me on FF, I often forget to stop down enough to get entire face in the focus area.

 

[havoc315]

This kinda makes me want to see how much smaller the next gen is next month or whenever the release is.

Next gen will be bigger. Sony has been increasing the size of the mirrorless camera in order to add in body stabilization. (A7ii bigger than a7, a7rii bigger than a7r, etc). The a6000 successor is likely to be slightly larger.

 

[havoc315]

Add a grip to the D750 and then the sizes are really different.

Nice writeup as I love these sorts of comparisons. My limited experience with the A6000 (and Sony in general) is that the autofocus accuracy is no match for the Nikons.

Also in your last picture is something I've noticed with Sony - incredibly sharp everywhere, rendering ugly, noisy bokeh if not careful.

Full frame depth of field can be difficult to get the hang of.. especially when shooting both crop and FF at the same time/event. You have to think differently with aperture to get your subject in focus. Angled faces are a problem for me on FF, I often forget to stop down enough to get entire face in the focus area.

As to full frame solo portraits, I don't worry so much. As long as one eye is perfectly focus, the narrow depth of field just creates a nice soft dreamy look to the portrait. No need to worry about every part of the face being in perceived focus.

As to Sony mirrorless vs Nikon autofocus... I shot Sony dslrs for many years. For the last year plus, I've shot the Nikon d750 -- the Nikon autofocus is far superior.
But comparing it to Sony mirrorless is a bit more complex.

The Sony AF can do things that are just impossible on Nikon (or Canon). Push a button, and get instant totally sharp autofocus on an eye. Almost anywhere in the frame. No back focus or front focus. No micro adjusting lenses. These are benefits of on-sensor phase detect AF. A dslr can't ever replicate that.

In terms of depth and lateral tracking, the Sony can track over more of the frame. But the Nikon seems to do it a bit faster and more accurately.

And finally, in low light, the Nikon focuses faster unless you have a wide aperture on the Sony.

So for AF, they each have slightly different strengths. But phase detect face detection anywhere in the frame plus eye-AF... It's a bit of a game changer in how to shoot portraits.

 

[havoc315]

And a quick comparison of New Year's Eve portraits of my kids as they wait for midnight. I switched the D750 to my 24-70/2.8 lens and took all pics at 2.8. (so effectively 70/2.8 on the D750 and 75/2.8 on the A6000). With this lens on the camera, the A6000 is indeed MUCH smaller. But there is no equivalent fast zoom for the A6000. I also note of the few shots I took, I missed focus a few times on the D750, never on the A6000. But these are low light portraits, taken just with indoor lights. Fairly high ISO. When the D750 shots are in focus, they are better. But the A6000 is close enough that it would honestly do in many situations.

So which is which camera?

untitled-4.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-4-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[dmaxphil]

Thats always tough. Did you do any post sharpening, noise reduction, WB adjustment, or profile changes?

 

[dmaxphil]

**Pixel peepers only**

Not to hijack, but hopefully add to the discussion.. You motivated me to take some test shots with my Nikon full frame, my Sony full frame and my Fuji crop. I was trying see a comparison of noise levels from each at the same shutter speed, aperture and auto iso. I shot in raw and corrected WB for each and did no lens corrections, sharpening, noise reduction on any. First I'll post a few comparables at f/2.8. ISOs are different. (I'll post a link to the gallery containing all images including full size originals at the bottom of post.) Next, In order to see the noise differences, I normalized all image sizes to 12mp. Then cropped an area of blur and increase the size x3. This produces a 300% crop of noise for comparison.

I'll go ahead a talk results now. As I've seen in my previous photos, the Sony is unusually noisy at relatively low ISOs. Almost like there is some sort of super sharpening magic done in-camera to RAW files that is making out of focus areas noisy.

Sony at ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/100s 55mm

Nikon at ISO 2200 f/2.8 1/100s 50mm

Fuji at ISO 5000 f/2.8 1/100s 35mm (53mm eq)

Now for the noise

Set 1 - lowest ISO

Set 2 - Middle ISO

Set 3 - Highest ISO

Link to full set

 

[havoc315]

Yes, I did my normal post processing of raw... To get a real world comparison of final images. I don't sell unprocessed raw images to clients.

As to your pixel peeping, it matches test results I've seen. It's a reason the a7ii never appealed to me -- see dpreview and dxomark testing. The a7ii uses an older sensor and has poor ISO performance for a full frame camera. (On the other hand, the a7rii and a7sii are among the best, and the a6000 is nearly as good as the a7ii). So it's model specific, not brand specific. Be careful comparing the Fuji, which I believe calculates ISO in a different way.

When pixel peeping or cropping, it's no surprise that my d750 ISO performance is clearly superior to the aps-c a6000. Dxo testing suggests a 1 stop difference but it looks more like a 1 1/2 - 2 stop difference to my eyes. Noise level get pretty noticeable on the a6000 at 3200 and higher. A level I don't hit on the d750 until around ISO 10,000-12,800. In fact, I'd compare the a6000 to the full frame a99 -- meaning the a6000 is pretty good for aps-c, and the a99 is pretty poor for full frame. (And I believe the a7ii uses the a99 sensor).

These are all reasons my d750 isn't going anywhere. I shot a big family reunion last weekend. I was shooting natural light in a cloudy overcast and did a 40 person group shot as the sun was setting. So light was getting low and I had to stop down a lot as I had 40 people over 3-4 rows. That pushed my ISO up to 6400 or so. I feel I still gave the clients a usable 12x18... I couldn't have done that with an aps-c camera.
Plus, at lower ISOs, my d750 images still look sharper though that has a lot to do with lenses, and I use some pretty good glass on the d750. I just have the nifty fifty on the a6000 -- which seems very good but not spectacular. Other a6000 aps-c lenses appear to be much more mediocre. Many of the FE lenses are great, but erase the size advantages.

Again leading me to the conclusion, for most consumers, who stick to kit lens shooting, there is little need to go beyond aps-c, and the a6000 can deliver quite a lot for an aps-c camera. It may even become my primary vacation camera -- and that's saying a lot. For my most demanding images though, it is strictly a backup.

 

[dmaxphil]

Yes, I did my normal post processing of raw... To get a real world comparison of final images. I don't sell unprocessed raw images to clients.

In that case it's almost impossible to tell which pic is from which camera at that resolution. I'll play though.. How about #1 Sony #2 Nikon? #3-4?? You did a good job in post of giving them all a similar look - important if this is to be a backup.

As to your pixel peeping, it matches test results I've seen. It's a reason the a7ii never appealed to me -- see dpreview and dxomark testing. The a7ii uses an older sensor and has poor ISO performance for a full frame camera. (On the other hand, the a7rii and a7sii are among the best, and the a6000 is nearly as good as the a7ii). So it's model specific, not brand specific. Be careful comparing the Fuji, which I believe calculates ISO in a different way.

Yep, with this test method, you can see the Fuji ISO home-cooking. However, these shots were all taken at 1/100s and identical apertures, so the comparison removes ISO from consideration. Given identical settings-identical exposures, the Sony has more chunky/noticeable noise in the blurred areas. Re Fuji, what I've found is that they meter ISO approximately 1 stop higher given similar light. Fuji ISO 200 = Nikon ISO 100 . Whats surprising and what I've not noticed before is that the Sony has some home-cooking going on as well when compared to the Nikon.

With proper post processing, you would not be able to see the noise even printing huge prints. I'm nitpicking about differences at 300% zoom. What I've learned is that I need to treat raw files from my Sony combo (A7II/55mm) differently in post to preserve noise-free background blur.

These are all reasons my d750 isn't going anywhere. I shot a big family reunion last weekend. I was shooting natural light in a cloudy overcast and did a 40 person group shot as the sun was setting. So light was getting low and I had to stop down a lot as I had 40 people over 3-4 rows. That pushed my ISO up to 6400 or so. I feel I still gave the clients a usable 12x18... I couldn't have done that with an aps-c camera.
Plus, at lower ISOs, my d750 images still look sharper though that has a lot to do with lenses, and I use some pretty good glass on the d750. I just have the nifty fifty on the a6000 -- which seems very good but not spectacular. Other a6000 aps-c lenses appear to be much more mediocre. Many of the FE lenses are great, but erase the size advantages.

Again leading me to the conclusion, for most consumers, who stick to kit lens shooting, there is little need to go beyond aps-c, and the a6000 can deliver quite a lot for an aps-c camera. It may even become my primary vacation camera -- and that's saying a lot. For my most demanding images though, it is strictly a backup.

Yes, lenses make all the difference. The Sony crop sensor lenses are mostly mediocre when peeping, but absolutely fine for taking quality photos. What the mirrorless guys offer that Nikon/Canon can't touch is the quality of live view/evf. Focus peaking with manual focus lenses (and the ability to quickly do a focus check) is another big plus for my Sony/fuji. The ability to hold my camera on the ground or up in the sky and use back screen with same fast AF system is huge. As a hobbyist, it's difficult to go back to a dSLR after using these systems.

 

[havoc315]

In that case it's almost impossible to tell which pic is from which camera at that resolution. I'll play though.. How about #1 Sony #2 Nikon? #3-4?? You did a good job in post of giving them all a similar look - important if this is to be a backup.


Yes, lenses make all the difference. The Sony crop sensor lenses are mostly mediocre when peeping, but absolutely fine for taking quality photos. What the mirrorless guys offer that Nikon/Canon can't touch is the quality of live view/evf. Focus peaking with manual focus lenses (and the ability to quickly do a focus check) is another big plus for my Sony/fuji. The ability to hold my camera on the ground or up in the sky and use back screen with same fast AF system is huge. As a hobbyist, it's difficult to go back to a dSLR after using these systems.

Good job... 1 and 3 were sony. 2 and 4 were Nikon. But even at this fairly large size, with good post processing, very hard to tell the difference. But again, the 50/1.8 is a pretty good lens. So I'm comparing a crop camera with a good prime, versus a full frame with a good zoom. So taking the lenses into the equation, it's not shocking that it would be close. (the best zooms are only as good as fair primes). On the other hand, as you said... if I were to stick the kit zoom lens on the A6000, My D750 + Tamron 24-70/2.8 would likely blow it away. Yes, it would be a totally unfair comparison, except that there is no native 2.8 zoom option for the A6000, and if there was, it would erase most of the size advantage.
In other words, if I want the A6000 to be competitive with a full frame camera + lens, AND keep it small, then I need to use a small prime like the 50/1.8. It comes the closest to matching the quality in a much smaller package.

Your second point about live view is huge. In a moment, I'll make another post --- Yesterday, I just posted the 50/1.8. The seller gave me a good deal on the 10-18, so I got it as well. This will let me use it as a landscape vacation camera. While full frame is typically better for landscapes, and I would still use my D750 for many landscapes... If I'm going to the beach, or walking around Disney for hours and hours, I think I may use the A6000 with 10-18. (and at Disney, if I dont mind carrying a lot, I could see carrying my Nikon D750+45/1.8 for dark rides, and the A6000 with 10-18 for landscapes, and eliminate lens changing).
Getting back on point.. I just tested the Nikon with 18-35, a GREAT VALUE lens, with the Sony 10-18. The lenses sell for about the same price, but the Nikon is full frame. It's also one of the sharpest lenses that Nikon makes. A fantastic value.
Now about the live view..... I took a couple of shots crouched to the ground. It was EASY with the A6000... tilted the screen up, has fast live view. I only had to bend slightly (being middle aged with arthritis, I dont really love getting all the way down to the ground but I'm still capable of it). With the D750... it has the tilt screen, but that would have meant using live view, which has lousy autofocus. So I had to crouch really low and uncomfortably, in order to use the viewfinder.

Anyway, I'll post the Nikon 18-35 vs Sony 10-18 in the next post...

 

[havoc315]

The Nikon 18-35 is one of the best values for Nikon full frame lenses. Extremely sharp ultrawide angle, and affordable for a full frame lens. Also pretty small and light. The downside is that it is not stabilized, but not a big issue for wide angle. It also starts at 18mm, which isn't consider super super wide.
Sony has a 10-18 for crop mirrorless. So it is an effective focal length of 15-27. It is considered one of the better zooms for Sony mirrorless.

I shot that both at the same effective focal length -- 18mm on the Nikon and 12 (18 effective) on the Sony. I shot at F8, as I usually do for landscapes. So this should be both lenses at approximately their sharpest. I bracketed and ended up post-processing the 1EV underexposed images. ISO was low (100-400 range). I used the underexposed images to preserve sky detail. I can happily report that the A6000 does maintain good dynamic range at low ISO. So I had similar success recovering shadows in all the images.

Judge for yourself below.

D750:
untitled-5.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony A6000:
untitled-11-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony A6000:
untitled-14-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750:
untitled-14.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

If you don't pixel peep, I don't think you can really tell the difference. Both camera/lens combos produce good dynamic range, nice images, the distortion is well controlled for ultrawide angle. If you pixel peep, you see more of a difference..... At the edges, there is no comparison. Pixel peeping, the A6000 gets mushy at the edges, while the D750 with 18-35 stays sharp.
I didn't take any crops, but the difference is obvious if you look at the rock in the lower left corner in the first set of images. I just checked the lens tests at photozone.de, and it is entirely consistent:
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/829-sony1018f4oss?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/821-nikkorafs18353545ff?start=1

At the center, its much closer. At the center, the A6000 is ok when pixel peeped, but still lags behind the D750:

Extreme crops:
untitled-11-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-5-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Conclusion -- As you start to put consumer grade zoom lenses on the A6000, even a pretty good one like the 10-18, you can start to see more weaknesses. For ordinary use, it is still a very good option. And still may be my vacation landscape combo. But for discriminating eyes, the D750 combo is still superior. Technically, the 18-35 is considered a consumer zoom lens, in the same class as the Sony 10-18. They are even close in price. But the 18-35 hits way above its weight class, performing with pro quality.

Most of these comparisons are totally unfair... Im comparing a consumer grade APS-C camera with a full frame camera. A $400 camera body with a $1900 camera body. So what's impressive, is that these comparisons are indeed fairly close in some respects.

 

[dmaxphil]

Good stuff. The Nikon is significantly better in the corners. The Sony though, has a nice "look". I've always felt that FF landscape shots had a really cool dynamic range. Almost a 3D quality like you can step into the photo. The Sony holds its own here in overall look.

Another thing you can try to compare is shadow recovery. I'm guessing your D750 will do a significantly better job there.

 

[havoc315]

Good stuff. The Nikon is significantly better in the corners. The Sony though, has a nice "look". I've always felt that FF landscape shots had a really cool dynamic range. Almost a 3D quality like you can step into the photo. The Sony holds its own here in overall look.

Another thing you can try to compare is shadow recovery. I'm guessing your D750 will do a significantly better job there.

At low ISO, the Sony holds its own at shadow recovery. But I don't expect the miracles I get from the d750.

For vacation landscapes, I'm really going to need to weigh size vs quality.

 

[dmaxphil]

Here's another one. Guess which is aps-c and which is full frame. Both shot at at 1/500s f/8 24mm. I'll make it easier and organize by Camera. Focus point is center.

Camera 1 - Scene 1

Camera 2 - Scene 1

Camera 1 - Scene 1 - Left corner crop

Camera 2 - Scene 1 - Left Corner Crop

Camera 1 - Scene 2

Camera 2 - Scene 2

Camera 1 - Scene 2 - Left corner 100% crop

Camera 2 - Scene 2 - Left corner 100% crop

 

[havoc315]

Camera 1 is sharper (though don't know if its camera or lens).... But it's pretty darn close.

 

[fractal]

Yes, I did my normal post processing of raw... To get a real world comparison of final images. I don't sell unprocessed raw images to clients.

As to your pixel peeping, it matches test results I've seen. It's a reason the a7ii never appealed to me -- see dpreview and dxomark testing. The a7ii uses an older sensor and has poor ISO performance for a full frame camera. (On the other hand, the a7rii and a7sii are among the best, and the a6000 is nearly as good as the a7ii). So it's model specific, not brand specific. Be careful comparing the Fuji, which I believe calculates ISO in a different way.

When pixel peeping or cropping, it's no surprise that my d750 ISO performance is clearly superior to the aps-c a6000. Dxo testing suggests a 1 stop difference but it looks more like a 1 1/2 - 2 stop difference to my eyes. Noise level get pretty noticeable on the a6000 at 3200 and higher. A level I don't hit on the d750 until around ISO 10,000-12,800. In fact, I'd compare the a6000 to the full frame a99 -- meaning the a6000 is pretty good for aps-c, and the a99 is pretty poor for full frame. (And I believe the a7ii uses the a99 sensor).

These are all reasons my d750 isn't going anywhere. I shot a big family reunion last weekend. I was shooting natural light in a cloudy overcast and did a 40 person group shot as the sun was setting. So light was getting low and I had to stop down a lot as I had 40 people over 3-4 rows. That pushed my ISO up to 6400 or so. I feel I still gave the clients a usable 12x18... I couldn't have done that with an aps-c camera.
Plus, at lower ISOs, my d750 images still look sharper though that has a lot to do with lenses, and I use some pretty good glass on the d750. I just have the nifty fifty on the a6000 -- which seems very good but not spectacular. Other a6000 aps-c lenses appear to be much more mediocre. Many of the FE lenses are great, but erase the size advantages.

Again leading me to the conclusion, for most consumers, who stick to kit lens shooting, there is little need to go beyond aps-c, and the a6000 can deliver quite a lot for an aps-c camera. It may even become my primary vacation camera -- and that's saying a lot. For my most demanding images though, it is strictly a backup.

Thanks for all the work and comparisons @havoc315 . I've always said my NEX-7 (which has basically the same sensor as the A6000) was a low ISO champ, but struggles above ISO 1600. The one thing that will help equalize things in low light conditions is of course a lighting system.

 

[fractal]

One more thing - regarding your wide angle zoom comparison; in the "rock" pictures the bottom corners are clearly worse with the 10-18, however the top corners appear much better on the Sony.