Sony A6000 vs. Nikon D750

[havoc315]

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.

Just did some pixel peeping and I don't agree with you..... In all the shots, putting aside depth of field issues, the A6000 corners are softer. But this is nitpicking to an extreme. The A6000+10-18 combo is a pretty good performer, and can generate equivalent overall quality shots in many situations.

The more I've played with the A6000.... it cuts both ways.... The more that I'm impressed by some aspects, but in other ways, the more confident I am that it won't replace my D750.

 

[HPS3]

Thanks for these comparisons! It shows how good APSC is these days. I've said many times that the Fuji noise looks better than the Sony's.

The D750 looks great at high ISO and for shallow DOF, but for landscapes I think the crop looks just as good. I would guess most people couldn't tell the difference in prints.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for these comparisons! It shows how good APSC is these days. I've said many times that the Fuji noise looks better than the Sony's.

The D750 looks great at high ISO and for shallow DOF, but for landscapes I think the crop looks just as good. I would guess most people couldn't tell the difference in prints.

The advantage of full frame for landscapes is largely the superior dynamic range, and I often do a lot of fine tuning on landscapes. On the other hand, the equalizer for APS-C on landscapes: I'm likely to shoot around F8, bringing the lens/camera combos to a greater equality than if I was shooting wide open. I'm also less likely to do significant cropping of a landscape, making pixel level sharpness less of a factor.

If and when Sony essentially merges the A6000 + A7ii + A7rii, it can be a killer product. The speed and responsiveness of the A6000, 24mp full frame(sorry, 42mp is not an advantage for everyone), with BSI and the AF capabilities of the A7rii.

 

[havoc315]

I just did a few quick outdoor good light portraits of my kids, trying both cameras. The results are moderately surprising, but not shocking when you consider several factors.
I'll post the actual examples in the next post.

I shot the D750 with the Tamron 24-70/2.8, which I often use for convenience during portrait sessions if I'm working with groups. If working with couples or individuals, I generally stick with the 85/1.8. I shot at 70mm and 2.8 and F4.
I shot the A6000 with the 50/1.8, so equivalent of 75mm, and shot it at 1.8 and 2.8.
So comparing full frame 70/2.8 to APS-C 75/1.8 and 70/4 to 70/2.8. Thus, the depth of field is a bit more equalized. Also comparing a great zoom to a good prime. Unless it's a horrible prime, the prime should almost always beat the zoom.

As you'll see in the next post... at low ISO (under 400), under these circumstances, the A6000 is actually slightly sharper than the D750. Depth of field is the same, but by comparing 1.8 to 2.8 and 2.8 to 4.
The differences are very slight, but still....

My explanations:
1-- Even APS-C compared to full frame, a prime still beats a zoom. If I had put the 85/1.8 on my Nikon, I think the results would have been different (maybe another test for later).
2-- On-sensor AF, with face detect and eye-AF... Allowed for perfect focus on an eye ball in every shot. On the D750, I did manually place the eye under an AF point. I have micro adjusted the lens, but it still always seems just a little off, depending on focal length, which AF point is used. It is nearly impossible to perfectly micro adjust a zoom lens, so back focus/front focus remains a slight issue.

So prime versus zoom equalized things a bit. And the fact that you can perfectly obtain eyeball AF anywhere in the frame on the A6000, that's a big selling point for portraits. For pros and amateurs alike.

The D750 with 85/1.8 will remain by go-to first choice for portraits, partially because of the narrower depth of field. But in good natural light, the A6000 with 50/1.8 may actually be a better choice than the D750 with 70/2.8. Eye-AF is simply a great feature.

 

[havoc315]

As discussed in the last post, outdoor portrait examples:

D750 at 2.8:
untitled-1.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000 at 1.8:
untitled-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750 at F4:
untitled-6.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000 at 2.8:
untitled-6-2-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750 at F4 close crop:
untitled-6-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000 at 2.8, close crop:
untitled-6-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Next post, a series with my son...

 

[havoc315]

A6000 at 1.8:

untitled-12.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750 at 2.8:
untitled-13.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000 at 2.8:
untitled-9.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750 at F4:
untitled-17.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000 at 1.8, close crop:
untitled-12-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750 at 2.8, close crop:
untitled-13-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Amazing for a $400 camera. Thanks for the effort @havoc315 .

 

[havoc315]

One more....... But now, the full frame combo wins.
Putting a good prime on the D750, even in good light, the D750 pulls ahead. But the A6000 holds its own respectably.

Nikon 85/1.8 at 1.8:
untitled-2-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony A6000 50/1.8 at 1.8:
untitled-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Without pixel peeping, the big difference is the depth of field. Totally melted background on the Nikon 85/1.8, while the Sony (effectively 75mm, ASP-C 1.8), has far far less background blur.

Now, Nikon 85/1.8 at 2.8: Now the background blur is about equal to the Sony A6000, but still prefer the look of the Nikon:

untitled-8.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now, the crop test --- Very close. But I would say the sharpest is the Nikon 85 at 2.8. The second sharpest is the Nikon 85 at 1.8. And the A6000/50 falls just a tiny bit below the Nikon when both are wide open. I applied the same amount of sharpening to all 3, but it led to an over-sharpened look on the A6000, suggesting there was less actual real resolution to sharpen:

The A6000:

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

The Nikon combo at 1.8 --

untitled-8-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

And the sharpest, the Nikon combo at 2.8:

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

So after a weekend of testing, my portrait conclusions....

1 -- In low light requiring high ISO, unsurprisingly, the A6000 falls a clear step behind. But you can still get good images on the A6000.
2 -- In good day light, the A6000 + 50/1.8 combo can match a full frame + 70/2.8 image quality and depth of field.
3 -- In good day light, the A6000 + 50/1.8 can't quite keep up with full frame + prime in sharpness.
4 -- In any light, by using a prime on a full frame, you can get significantly narrower depth of field than you can ever get on the A6000 (or any APS-C camera)
5-- The face detection + eye-AF + on-sensor phase detection of the A6000 makes shooting portraits EASIER than on a traditional dSLR.

So A6000 is easier to get focused results. The A6000 with a prime can equal a dSLR with 2.8 zoom in good light. For someone not trying to eek out the last ounce of image quality and narrowest depth of field, the A6000+50/1.8 is a very good portrait combo. And it will serve me well as a backup if my D750 kit ever goes down for any reason.

 

[HPS3]

Thanks for this Havoc!

I like the Sony better on your daughter's photos, but prefer the Nikon on your son. I think it would look even closer if the WB was matched.

The Fuji 56 f1.2 gives a rendering like the Nikon with the 85@.1.8.

I'm waiting for the A6??? With this BSI sensor.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for this Havoc!

I like the Sony better on your daughter's photos, but prefer the Nikon on your son. I think it would look even closer if the WB was matched.

The Fuji 56 f1.2 gives a rendering like the Nikon with the 85@.1.8.

I'm waiting for the A6??? With this BSI sensor.

The second set with my son is with the Nikon 85/1.8... In the first set, son and daughter, it was the Tamron 24-70/2.8. I accidentally had the shutter speed too high (had it set for the 85 which isn't stabilized so I crank up the shutter speed), resulting in higher ISO shots for my daughter, which may have impacted the comparison slightly.

Of note, it is interesting how differently both cameras process WB side by side. Nikon can go a bit too magenta at times, but overall, is more accurate. The Sony on the other hand, especially indoors, can really really muck up the white balance. The Sony also meters darker than the Nikon. In portraits, I often have to bring down highlights on the Nikon, while the Sony needs an exposure boost.

Fuji certainly has some great lenses. Unfortunately, Sony saves their great lenses for the full frame sensor. Of course they are compatible with the A6000, but bigger than they would be if they were just APS-C. I do find the 50/1.8 to be a nice small good quality lens, but it would certainly be nicer (and much more expensive) at 50/1.2!

This test reinforces a few things for me:
-Nailing focus is the most important thing. The Sony system, with eye-AF, is a real big selling point, and can result in better images at times, by making it easier and more consistent to nail focus.
-The full frame advantage is definitely still worthwhile for an enthusiast or pro. Not a necessity, but real value. The narrower depth of field. And the ISO difference still looks like more than a stop to me. Shooting in outdoor sunlight, no real difference. But I was doing some test shots just around ISO 1600-3200. 3200 on the D750 was almost entirely clean. No *need* for noise reduction. If you pixel peeped, you could use a tad of luminance NR. At around 2000 on the A6000, you absolutely needed NR.
-Lenses make the most difference. The D750+85/1.8 performed best. But the A6000 with a prime (the good but not great 50/1.8) could largely match the D750 with a great zoom. And while the Sony 10-18 is considered "good for a consumer zoom), it really doesn't totally meet my standards. Considering the size and convenience, and it can still produce good images when you aren't pixel peeping, I'll keep it around for some personal use.

I really wish Nikon would produce a cross between the D750 (their AF tracking know-how, their lens system, their flash system, the D750 24mp image quality), the A6000 and the A7rii (mirrorless, fast, responsive, wide AF coverage, eye-AF).

 

[dmaxphil]

Good stuff. I would expect the 50mm 1.8 to be soft at 1.8 so no surprise there. The Sony, at f/2.8 on you daughter's photo it's quite nice. Are you pushing the raw files equally hard with regard to clarity and sharpening. The A6000 files seem oversharpened in post by a hair.

 

[Geoff_M]

F-Stoppers did a recent series of tests of the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, and the Sony AR7II. The videos they did with the story is pretty entertaining.
Original Story.
Revision of story after complaints by Sony fans.
Final Analysis

 

[havoc315]

Good stuff. I would expect the 50mm 1.8 to be soft at 1.8 so no surprise there. The Sony, at f/2.8 on you daughter's photo it's quite nice. Are you pushing the raw files equally hard with regard to clarity and sharpening. The A6000 files seem oversharpened in post by a hair.

The 50/1.8 was sharper wide open than I expected it to be. Quite good not just in the center, but along the rule of thirds grid where I actually place the subject.

I think I sharpened the images equally. The fact that the Sony images look a bit oversharpened, suggests that the lens captured less real resolution, available for sharpening. I definitely found that the Nikon images had more room for sharpening.

 

[dmaxphil]

F-Stoppers did a recent series of tests of the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, and the Sony AR7II. The videos they did with the story is pretty entertaining.
Original Story.
Revision of story after complaints by Sony fans.
Final Analysis

No offense meant by this, as I own a Sony. But Sony fans are by far the most sensitive, most easily-aggravated bunch I've encountered.

 

[havoc315]

F-Stoppers did a recent series of tests of the Nikon D810, Canon 5DSR, and the Sony AR7II. The videos they did with the story is pretty entertaining.
Original Story.
Revision of story after complaints by Sony fans.
Final Analysis

The MP race has gotten ridiculous.

APS-C is honestly good enough for most regular consumers. Pros and enthusiasts can benefit from full frame. There is real value to better dynamic range, but not in every shot... it's really a post-processing advantage, for some types of shots.
I will say, the benefit of the Sony isn't higher resolution -- it's being able to nail accurate focus more reliably and more often. And that turns into sharper images.

 

[dmaxphil]

I will say, the benefit of the Sony isn't higher resolution -- it's being able to nail accurate focus more reliably and more often. And that turns into sharper images.

This is interesting as it has not been my experience at all - with one exception.. Back story: When I was shopping for A7II, I tested a bunch of cameras in the store on my SD Card and compared the results at home. I continually missed focus with the Sony using the standard half-shutter press method. The screen would indicate focus lock, and it would miss often. So I changed to face/eye detection and it nailed it seemingly each time. I rarely use this feature at home and continue to miss more shots than I'd like with the Sony.

So, I guess my question to you is, are you experiencing this reliable/accurate focus exclusively with face/eye detect or with other methods as well?

 

[havoc315]

This is interesting as it has not been my experience at all - with one exception.. Back story: When I was shopping for A7II, I tested a bunch of cameras in the store on my SD Card and compared the results at home. I continually missed focus with the Sony using the standard half-shutter press method. The screen would indicate focus lock, and it would miss often. So I changed to face/eye detection and it nailed it seemingly each time. I rarely use this feature at home and continue to miss more shots than I'd like with the Sony.

So, I guess my question to you is, are you experiencing this reliable/accurate focus exclusively with face/eye detect or with other methods as well?

I'm talking specifically about the face detect/eye-AF. At least for me, those are the situations where critical focus is most important to me, as I'm shooting narrow depth of field. I haven't tried much object tracking, etc... From what I've read, it's not as good and reliable as Nikon. But I really haven't tried it enough.
But the eye-AF is a very very impressive feature. On the A6000 and A7ii, it is only available in AF-S. But apparently on the A7rii, it is also available in AF-C. Quite an interesting possible feature for candids.

 

[dmaxphil]

You may have uncovered the secret to success on this thing. I'll give it a shot at my first opportunity.

 

[fractal]

No offense meant by this, as I own a Sony. But Sony fans are by far the most sensitive, most easily-aggravated bunch I've encountered.

What do you mean by that??

 

[dmaxphil]

What do you mean by that??

LOL