Sony A6000 vs. Nikon D750

[havoc315]

Sony fanboys have long suffered from an inferiority complex, but not every Sony fan is a fanboy. You are a Sony fanboy is you adopt the following statements:
"Nobody would ever use an OVF after experiencing an EVF" (A Sony fanboy accused me of lying when I said I had switched from the A99 to the D750)
"Sony is the only company that innovates"
"Who needs so many lenses?"
You are a Sony A-mount fanboy is you use the line, "A half stop of light loss is meaningless!"

What's also interesting, among Canon and especially Nikon shooters, the mirrorless hate-boys. You know you are a mirrorless hate-boy if you adopt the following statements:
"OVF is so much better in low light" (Really, a black OVF where you can see nothing, versus a grainy EVF?)
"The cameras are too small to balance the lenses" (yes, that slight difference in size makes a 500mm lens perfectly balanced on a dSLR but impossible to balance any lens on a mirrorless?")
"I could never shoot any camera that uses lossy compression" (now an outdated statement)
"No pro can shoot without dual card slots!"
"Ken Rockwell says......" (actually, only an idiot quotes Ken Rockwell)

 

[havoc315]

Not exactly comparison, but adapting the magnificent Nikon 85/1.8 onto the A6000:

untitled-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pretty good result, especially for a mid/high ISO.

But I will say, manual focus of such a lens is slightly harder than I thought it would be. Maybe I'm missing something.
Focus peaking -- not that helpful, have the screen lights up at in focus. At most, it put me in the general ballpark of focus. Then had to use focus magnifier to nail focus.. But need to move the magnification point which takes a few seconds. Then handholding essentially a 127mm lens, while fiddling with the MF ring, it makes for a very jittery viewfinder.

Commlite will soon release an adapter that supports Nikon AF, but it will run over $350. Still may be worth it, even if it only supports slow contract detect AF.

 

[fractal]

Not exactly comparison, but adapting the magnificent Nikon 85/1.8 onto the A6000:

untitled-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pretty good result, especially for a mid/high ISO.

But I will say, manual focus of such a lens is slightly harder than I thought it would be. Maybe I'm missing something.
Focus peaking -- not that helpful, have the screen lights up at in focus. At most, it put me in the general ballpark of focus. Then had to use focus magnifier to nail focus.. But need to move the magnification point which takes a few seconds. Then handholding essentially a 127mm lens, while fiddling with the MF ring, it makes for a very jittery viewfinder.

Commlite will soon release an adapter that supports Nikon AF, but it will run over $350. Still may be worth it, even if it only supports slow contract detect AF.

Did you use the screen or evf? I've found the evf to be much more accurate using focus peaking.

 

[havoc315]

Did you use the screen or evf? I've found the evf to be much more accurate using focus peaking.

Both.

Not practical indoors at night with no VR. But I mounted my Nikon 300/4 on the a6000. It was the perfect match... It was like they were meant to go together. It's similar in size to the Minolta 200/2.8.
So an effective focal length of 450mm, f4 light gathering, in a relatively compact package. I will need to test it outdoors during the day.

 

[havoc315]

Alright, time to test another landscape. Nikon D750 with 18-35 (a bargain Nikon lens) set at 18mm, f8. 1/100, ISO 100. Underexposed. +100 shadows, +1.07 exposure. Contrast and highlights adjusted. A little sharpening. No noise reduction.
Sony A6000 with 10-18, shot at 12mm. Otherwise exact same settings.
Before I post the images, a footnote that AWB is much better on the Nikon. Maybe I'm just used to the Nikon at this point, but the Sony is consistently too warm. And it wasn't easy to get the WB to match between the photos in post.

So the images and some 100% crops

D750:
dahan-178-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Crops:
D750:
dahan-178.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750:
dahan-178-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My own conclusions:
If you aren't being especially discriminating, the A6000 holds its own, though I have some complaints about the WB.

Here is the show with "as shot" WB:
dahan-17-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So my biggest objection to the A6000 for landscapes is the white balance. But you can definitely get good images. And if you don't look closely, and you adjust the WB, it can be quite good.

But if you start to look closely, compared to the Nikon combo: It is clear that the lens/sensor combo is not nearly as sharp as the Nikon, and that the exposure/shadow lift added significant noise. While the Nikon D750 combo is still essentially noise free, you are starting to get ugly noise on the Sony. ISO is only 100, but a significant noise increase when lifting the shadows and upping the exposure.

My final thought: I can use the A6000 for casually shooting landscapes without hesitation. If I want a light walk-around camera with the freedom of shooting some landscapes as I go, the A6000 is perfectly adequate. If I'm packing up my camera gear specifically to capture a great sunset or a beautiful landscape, then I'm definitely sticking with the D750/18-35 combo.

And this lesson has brought me great appreciation for my 18-35g lens, which I hadn't been using much lately.

 

[fractal]

Alright, time to test another landscape. Nikon D750 with 18-35 (a bargain Nikon lens) set at 18mm, f8. 1/100, ISO 100. Underexposed. +100 shadows, +1.07 exposure. Contrast and highlights adjusted. A little sharpening. No noise reduction.
Sony A6000 with 10-18, shot at 12mm. Otherwise exact same settings.
Before I post the images, a footnote that AWB is much better on the Nikon. Maybe I'm just used to the Nikon at this point, but the Sony is consistently too warm. And it wasn't easy to get the WB to match between the photos in post.

So the images and some 100% crops

D750:
dahan-178-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Crops:
D750:
dahan-178.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

D750:
dahan-178-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A6000:
dahan-17-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My own conclusions:
If you aren't being especially discriminating, the A6000 holds its own, though I have some complaints about the WB.

Here is the show with "as shot" WB:
dahan-17-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So my biggest objection to the A6000 for landscapes is the white balance. But you can definitely get good images. And if you don't look closely, and you adjust the WB, it can be quite good.

But if you start to look closely, compared to the Nikon combo: It is clear that the lens/sensor combo is not nearly as sharp as the Nikon, and that the exposure/shadow lift added significant noise. While the Nikon D750 combo is still essentially noise free, you are starting to get ugly noise on the Sony. ISO is only 100, but a significant noise increase when lifting the shadows and upping the exposure.

My final thought: I can use the A6000 for casually shooting landscapes without hesitation. If I want a light walk-around camera with the freedom of shooting some landscapes as I go, the A6000 is perfectly adequate. If I'm packing up my camera gear specifically to capture a great sunset or a beautiful landscape, then I'm definitely sticking with the D750/18-35 combo.

And this lesson has brought me great appreciation for my 18-35g lens, which I hadn't been using much lately.

I'm also seeing more CA in the Sony shots. Of course that and WB can be adjusted if shooting RAW. Considering the Sony is a $400 aps-c camera going up against a nearly $2,000 Nikon Full-Frame I think it more than held its own. I had mixed feelings with the SEL 10-18 when I rented it. It did tend to flare too much and at 10mm the corner smearing was bad. I compared shots with my Rokinon 8mm and I'm really surprised how much sharper the Rokinon is, but the 10-18 it obviously more versatile. The Nikon 18-35 looks like a great lens. I wonder how it would compare to the FE 16-35.

 

[havoc315]

I'm also seeing more CA in the Sony shots. Of course that and WB can be adjusted if shooting RAW. Considering the Sony is a $400 aps-c camera going up against a nearly $2,000 Nikon Full-Frame I think it more than held its own. I had mixed feelings with the SEL 10-18 when I rented it. It did tend to flare too much and at 10mm the corner smearing was bad. I compared shots with my Rokinon 8mm and I'm really surprised how much sharper the Rokinon is, but the 10-18 it obviously more versatile. The Nikon 18-35 looks like a great lens. I wonder how it would compare to the FE 16-35.

Yes, I shot raw. Fixed the WB. Didn't really try to fix the CA.

I also have a Rokinon 14mm... Of course prime is better than zoom. But the Nikon 18-35 is darn good for a zoom. It's actually 1 of Nikon's sharpest lenses, which is pretty amazing for a $750 consumer lens. The Sony 10-18 actually runs $850 new.
The Nikon 18-35 tests better than the more expensive Nikon 16-35 (but it's wider with VR).
Same comparison with the FE16-35 --- DXO scores the Nikon 18-35 significantly sharper, and a better overall score. But of course, the FE16-35 is 2mm wider with stabilization. Plus, the FE weighs a lot more than costs twice as much!
This is a great example where a traditional system can really "beat" mirrorless---- I'm pretty sure that the D750+18-35 is actually lighter, plus much cheaper, than the A7rii+FE16-35.

Anyway... There are times when APS-C and/or A6000 does very well, with no caveats. In this comparison, the A6000 does well "for a mid priced APS-C camera."

 

[dmaxphil]

Quick question.. Are you shooting 12bit Raw with the Nikon?

 

[havoc315]

Quick question.. Are you shooting 12bit Raw with the Nikon?

14bit.. And that makes a difference as well.

 

[dmaxphil]

If you are zooming it could - especially in shadow areas. Or not. Maybe time for a comparison?

 

[dmaxphil]

Another question. Hows the distortion on that Nikkor before correcting compared to the 10-18? To my eyes there seems to be some edge differences between the two cameras. I know my 24-85 is distorted pretty heavily at the wide end.

Speaking of flare. The famous 14-24 Nikkor can be a flare monster, you just learn to avoid those situations.

 

[havoc315]

Another question. Hows the distortion on that Nikkor before correcting compared to the 10-18? To my eyes there seems to be some edge differences between the two cameras. I know my 24-85 is distorted pretty heavily at the wide end.

Speaking of flare. The famous 14-24 Nikkor can be a flare monster, you just learn to avoid those situations.

I correct immediately, so I don't really notice the difference myself. According to the tests and reviews, the distortion on the Nikon FF is slightly worse than the 10-18 on APS-C. Close, but the Nikon is a bit worse. But correctable.

For ultra ultra wide, I use the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm... Now that has huge distortion.

 

[havoc315]

Time to play with telephoto...
The D750 on the luxurious level..... the 300/4. A $4000 combination basically.
The A6000 with the 55-210, a $600 combination.

First thoughts --- the 55-210 is SLOW. At F6.3 on the telephoto end, it really is a very slow lens. Don't expect great background blur, and don't expect to use it in poor or indoor light.
In good light, the performance is........ better than I expected for a lens I purchased refurbished for $150. It doesn't hold a candle to the 300/4, unsurprisingly. I did some birding with both -- to be posted later. You can't really bird with the Sony 55-210, since I usually closely crop my birding photos.
But, in normal viewing, the results are "ok" Which isn't bad for a $150 lens.

Here are 2 shots of my son in the snow, with close crops:

d750snow300-216.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

d750snow300-216-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

a6000snow55210-241.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

a6000snow55210-241-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

On close inspection, there is NO comparison. But what do you expect when one lens costs 14x the other lens. At least I don't feel like I was ripped off on the expensive lens.

On another note, I prefer the WB on the Nikon.

 

[dmaxphil]

Were you shooting both wide open? I wonder if the sony lens would sharpen up a bit around f/8-9?

 

[havoc315]

Were you shooting both wide open? I wonder if the sony lens would sharpen up a bit around f/8-9?

That shot is wide open on the Sony... But that's a pretty slow 6.3. The Nikon is at 5.6.
I suppose stopping it down might sharpen it slightly. But having done some other shots stopped down, I can tell you the Sony is never tack sharp at the long end.
But in fairness, it's a $150 lens.

 

[havoc315]

Sony v Nikon, both at about 300mm.... Though very very different lenses:

Winter woodpecker by Adam Brown, on Flickr

a6000snow55210-73.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[HPS3]

Adam, that 55-210 doesn't look so hot. If only Sony would use Fuji lenses...lol

I'm always amazed at what Justin gets out of the 55-210 especially when birding.

 

[havoc315]

Adam, that 55-210 doesn't look so hot. If only Sony would use Fuji lenses...lol

I'm always amazed at what Justin gets out of the 55-210 especially when birding.

Nooo.... Justin doesn't use the 55-210. He uses Sony's 70-200/4, which is a very good $1000+ lens.
The 55-210 is a $200 kit zoom lens (I got it new/refurbished for $150).

My expectations were sooooo low, it kinda exceeded my expectations.