This was posted 9 years 7 months 4 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Sony A6000 (ILCE-6000) with SELP1650 & SEL55210 for $793 at Sony Centre Nunawading VIC

540
Sony A6000 (ILCE-6000) with SELP1650 & SEL55210 for $793 at Sony Centre Nunawading VICAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
LTea-Aholic on 29/10/2014 - 22:07 sony.com.au (1811 clicks)
Last edited 29/10/2014 - 23:59 by 2 other users
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Hi, this is my first post so I'm not completely sure how to work this.

Sony is giving away a free 55-210mm zoom with their a6000 camera at most retail stores in Australia. The cheapest deal I've found is at the Sony Store in Nunawading, they have a A6000 + kit 16-50 + 55-210 for $793. No body only.

Ted's have body only for ~$750 and is supposed to come with the 55-210 as well, but the with the 16-50 the cost is $1000.
http://www.teds.com.au/sony-ilc-e6000

Electrical & Electronics Camera Camera Lens Sony

Related Stores

Sony Australia
Sony Australia

closed Comments

  • WatchNerd on 29/10/2014 - 22:22
    +4

    Tip One - Don't write "This is my 1st post".
    That's what the big yellow L is for.

    • dollar8 on 29/10/2014 - 22:39
      +3

      Tip #2 don't say "so I'm not completely sure how to work this."

      I don't know of better way you could've written the post. You did just great!

    • glengood on 30/10/2014 - 10:20
      +1

      I guess he can correct it for the next time he makes his first post on Ozbargain….

      • WatchNerd on 30/10/2014 - 14:24

        He can correct it anytime he wants with the edit button.

  • hypie on 29/10/2014 - 23:08

    JB Hifi is doing the A6000 + SELP1650 for $799 (I think)… Still a really good deal.

    • Lukian on 29/10/2014 - 23:27
      +1

      Think anyone like JB Hifi will match this deal? Do they stock the other lens?

      Slightly more 'direct' link - http://www.sony.com.au/microsite/summerofsony/#a6000

    • SwedishChef on 30/10/2014 - 16:46

      They don't seem to be offering the bonus 55-210 lens though. Better off going through Sony Centres.

      • chillybags on 30/10/2014 - 22:32
        +1

        For those of you who don't live in VIC, Bing Lee also have the same lens deal on the camera for $899, using the code ILIKE10OFF (valid till friday night) will reduce the price to $809, which is a very good price too (free pickup from store, or only $5 shipping)

      • Lukian on 30/10/2014 - 23:15
        +2

        Successfully obtained the bonus 55-210 lens at JB Hifi (+ Camera and 16-50 lens kit for $799). The PDAs are not updated. The checkouts will register the promo A-OK. Good luck finding a JB Hifi with both in stock. JB Hifi's should have a 'photographic paper' print of the deal next to the display model camera.

        You can probably call them and get stock delivered to a specific store for instant redemption.
        Alternately, you can potentially chat about redeeming the lens at another store… good luck again if so!

        • Trawler on 01/11/2014 - 01:08
          +2

          I can confirm - picked up one from JB in Carindale Brisbane with both lenses today for $799. Thanks for the heads up OP.

        • ocoolio on 29/11/2014 - 09:02

          Looks like JB-Hifi changed the deal back to "body only" for $798 :(
          So practically the Sony offer to get an extra lens was skewed to be "get a different lens".

          https://www.jbhifi.com.au/Search/results/?keywords=a6000&p=1…

  • skskskskzzz on 29/10/2014 - 23:14

    I wonder how well Perth Sony Central can do for pricing, the duration of this event is kinda overkill (not a bad thing).

  • Shadowsfury on 29/10/2014 - 23:14

    I paid $763 from digidirect back in June/July.

    I've been surprised the price went up after that instead of down so nice to see its finally dropping a little (even if its through extra lens)

  • Vidgamer on 30/10/2014 - 07:05
    +1

    I have this camera,
    It's an awesome camera, this is a bargain!

    • deal88 on 30/10/2014 - 15:19
      +1

      I also have this camera and these lenses. Awesome set up.
      FYI, if there is an expired $30 card in the camera box for accessories, call up Sony and they will usually extend the expiry date for you. I did this and it was pretty simple.

  • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 10:03
    +1

    To be honest, Sony are probably giving away their 55-210mm zoom because they can't sell those things. Whilst I think Sony are producing great cameras at the moment, same can't be said about their lenses.

    This lens 'retails' for around $200 (Kogan) it seems. It might look nice, but the slow F4.5-6.3 aperture is terrible for use on anything apart from outdoor daylight and even then, you still might have to crank up the ISO. Full-frame cameras are fine cranking up the ISO, but with these smaller APS-C cameras, cranking up the ISO to even around 1600 already makes it terrible with the noise.

    Just to add to how overpriced this lens is, Nikon's equivalent DX lens, the 55-200mm f/4-5.6G is about half a stop faster (maybe a 1/3rd, I don't remember my partial stops!) but the big point is, this Nikon lens retails for around $140 (eGlobal). That's 30% off the Sony lens.

    You can find similar Canon lenses for the same price as the Nikon lens. That Nikon lens also has VR and all the other goodies you'll get with this Sony lens.

    That's the problem with Sony cameras at the moment. They're fine for people who are upgrading from a point-and-shoot and will only ever use one or two lenses anyway and they're fine for rich amateurs who can cough up enough money for their plastic, over-priced lenses. But for people who actually need an array of lenses for the work they do, Sony just doesn't cut it. They release lenses too slow. Their lenses are usually of worse construction quality than Nikon or Canon (i.e. you can just get a Tamron or Sigma for equal construction quality on a Sony) and their lenses are just way too expensive.

    Add that onto a non-existence of any second hand market and that's why I'll never buy Sony. I've bought Nikon lenses second hand, used them for several thousand photos and sold them for pretty much the same amount. If you want a 'quick sale', price it around 5-10% below the market and your Canon/Nikon lenses are sold within a day. Try finding Sony lenses second hand and try selling Sony lenses second hand. Just doesn't happen.

    • champsk on 30/10/2014 - 10:29
      +2

      not sure what you are on about with the ISO, I have the A6000 and I can use the camera up to ISO 6400 without any issues

      • nadan on 30/10/2014 - 10:35
        +1

        He must be thinking of a tech from the past decade :) People use their P&S at ISO 1600 with very little noise.

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 10:55
          +2

          It's not just an issue of noise. That's just the signal-to-noise ratio…etc. and it's just one part of the whole story on high ISO.

          If you're shooting pictures of your family vacation, fine, ISO 1600 will be more than fine. But if you're shooting landscapes or anything which requires dynamic range, you're screwed.

          Here's an example of what happens when you use high ISO:

          http://www.rubbingpixels.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/02…

          That's shot on a 5DM2, which has far, far better high ISO performance than any APS-C format camera. I think we can all agree that anything above ISO6400 there is unacceptable, just look at the loss of definition in the trees at the top. ISO3200 is okay, ISO1600 is great…etc.

          But remember that when you're using an APS-C sized sensor, you're going get an even smaller amount of light, thus, noise is amplified, thus, you're going to need a lower ISO than ISO1600 to get a professional grade shot.

          Sure ISO1600 is acceptable, so is ISO6400. News professionals and paparazzi shoot at like ISO12800, but none of those guys are actually concerned about image quality, all they care about is actually getting a shot, because that's what pays their bills. Talk to landscape and portrait shooters, anybody with a camera can scale a mountain and get a shot, the difference between getting published in a magazine and not getting published is whether your shot is good.

          High ISO reduces your tonal range (colour) and dynamic range (contrast). That's not a problem for families taking happy snaps and paparazzi trying to get sneak shots of celebrities, but for anybody who does serious portrait or landscapes, even people who do weddings, it's an issue.

          Just for good measure, here's an example of an APS-C sized sensor (D7000 and D7100) on ISO6400. Come on, that's not acceptable for landscapes.

          http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2013/04/nikon-d7100-a-defin…

        • bliss15 on 30/10/2014 - 11:05

          @paulsterio: agreed. I am a canon user (600d and eos m) and I never want to use iso more than 1600. Maybe sony's sensor is superior to canon's but having a look at this test
          http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/noise.sht…
          I don't think the 6400 from a6000 is comfortable to use in my own humble opinion.

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 11:17

          @bliss15: Yep, you're right on the money here. Even the best high ISO performers (i.e. paparazzi bodies - think Canon 1Dx, Nikon D4s) aren't that great at high ISOs.

    • EnALup on 30/10/2014 - 11:20
      +1

      They are different segments Paul and I dont think comparing Canon lenses with Sony us fair:Mirrorless and DSLR.
      Sony has done a wonderful job in downsizing the size of great quality cameras and the end results are comparable to DSLR.
      As these cameras are compact, there is no built in stabilisation.
      Sony lenses have build in stabilisation and that is one of the reason they are expensive. I am not sure what do you mean by quality.

      I like the quality of Sony lenses over Sigma and Tamron. Then again you cannot compare DSLR lenses with Mirrorless lenses.

      Sony mirrorless cameras are one of the best in the market and if you dont like their lenses, you can always buy an adapter and use Nikon or Canon lenses.

      • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 11:32
        -1

        I never said that Sony doesn't make good cameras. In fact, they make great cameras.

        But when their lens is $200 and an equivalent Nikon lens (with the same features) is $140, it's tough to make the argument to go with Sony. That's the truth of the matter really. And it's not just this particular example, have a look on somewhere like eGlobal, Sony lenses are hard to come by and are generally more expensive than equivalent models from Canon and Nikon.

        Also, adaptor is not a good solution, it works, but you lose autofocus, which is a deal breaker. For some, they have issues with metering…etc.

        • oz-dave on 30/10/2014 - 11:49
          +1

          Also, adaptor is not a good solution, it works, but you lose autofocus, which is a deal breaker. For some, they have issues with metering…etc

          Most Canon lenses do NOT lose the ability to autofocus when used on a Sony E-mount camera like the α6000, or the full frame α7/α7r/α7s series - I can confirm this because I am currently using them :-)
          (Some are slower than others but they DO autofocus)

        • Tycn on 30/10/2014 - 12:02
          +3

          I think you're missing the point. Mirrorless cameras and lenses are generally smaller and lighter (apart from telephotos perhaps) and that's why they cost more. That is a very important feature you've not taken into consideration.

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 12:53

          @Tycn: Not really. Mirrorless standards and telephotos are exactly the same thing as DSLR standards and telephotos. There's no inherent 'design benefit' to mirrorless that allows us to make smaller and lighter standards and telephotos. Any weight difference is down to the choice of the manufacturer to use lighter materials.

          For example, the 55-210mm Sony zoom in question here is 345g (from Sony website), the Nikon 55-200mm I was discussing is 335g (from Nikon website). You'll find similar results for other similar lenses.

          The only lens class which benefits from the design of mirrorless are wide-angle lenses. For them, because of the flange distance of DSLRs, yes, mirrorless do have an inherent weight and size advantage, but to say that mirrorless cameras and lenses are 'generally smaller and lighter' is a huge overstatement is is very much untrue.

        • Tycn on 30/10/2014 - 13:19
          +1

          @paulsterio:

          but to say that mirrorless cameras and lenses are 'generally smaller and lighter' is a huge overstatement is is very much untrue.

          http://j.mp/1DzpRQh

          Yeah, they all look the same size to me ;)

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 13:40

          @Tycn:

          Hardly a fair comparison between some pretty significantly different lenses.

          Let's make it fair and compare 3 most commonly used lenses:

          1) 35mm f/1.8 prime for APS-C
          2) 70-200 f/4 zoom
          3) 18-55mm VR zoom

          3 pretty different lenses for pretty different usages. Let's find out how much each weighs.

          First up, we have the 35mm f/1.8 prime.
          - From Sony - http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel35f18 - 154g
          - From Nikon - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm - 197g

          Second, the 70-200 f/4 zoom
          - From Sony: http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel70200g - 840g
          - From Nikon: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm - 845g

          Third, the 18-55mm VR
          - From Sony: http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel1855 - 194g
          - From Nikon: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm - 263g

          Sony lenses are lighter? I guess so, 50-60g in some cases. But go up to telephoto and most of them all are the same weight. You wouldn't notice carrying 50-60g less anyway.

          You seem to struggle understanding lens design. Optically, standards and telephotos for mirrorless and DSLRs are the same thing, the same pieces of glass, in the same place. Only wide-angles are significantly different, and yes, for wides, mirrorless has an advantage, but to say that the advantage is across the board is misleading and you know it.

          Your link is irrelevant. We're not talking about camera bodies. We're talking about lenses. Nobody doubts that mirrorless bodies are smaller.

        • Tycn on 30/10/2014 - 14:46
          +1

          @paulsterio:

          Hardly a fair comparison between some pretty significantly different lenses.

          So it's not fair to compare the standard, roughly 28-75mm equivalent, (mostly) slow kit zooms that are bundled with their respective system cameras?

          3 pretty different lenses for pretty different usages. Let's find out how much each weighs.

          First up, we have the 35mm f/1.8 prime.
          - From Sony - http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel35f18 - 154g
          - From Nikon - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm - 197g

          Second, the 70-200 f/4 zoom
          - From Sony: http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel70200g - 840g
          - From Nikon: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm - 845g

          Third, the 18-55mm VR
          - From Sony: http://www.sony.com.au/product/sel1855 - 194g
          - From Nikon: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm - 263g

          Sony lenses are lighter? I guess so, 50-60g in some cases. But go up to telephoto and most of them all are the same weight. You wouldn't notice carrying 50-60g less anyway.

          The Sony 35mm f1.8 is smaller, lighter AND is optically stabilised.

          Even the Fuji 35mm f1.4 is smaller and lighter than the Nikon despite having a metal construction and a 2/3 stop larger aperture.

          The 18-55 you linked is superseded by the 16-50mm pancake which is a third of the size of the Nikon 18-55. Not exactly fair to compare to the old lens as it's not sold with any current cameras.

          The Nikon 18-55 is also the same size (though lighter, for obvious reasons) as the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4 which is a stop faster.

          For telephoto lenses there's no real size advantage, as I mentioned above.

          Your link is irrelevant. We're not talking about camera bodies. We're talking about lenses. Nobody doubts that mirrorless bodies are smaller.

          but to say that mirrorless cameras and lenses are 'generally smaller and lighter' is a huge overstatement is is very much untrue.

          Okay, if you say so…

        • EnALup on 30/10/2014 - 16:41

          As I explained earlier, Sony lens have Optical Stabilisation in Lens. That is the reason they are heavy and expensive.
          Secondly Nikon/Canon DSLR cameras are expensive and a little cheap lenses. I have this lens, don't use it that often. Sony is new in this era and gaining momentum. I still think their E mount lenses are great.

          If you are a pro, why would you go for A6000? But I have seen few prof. using these and are happy.
          At the end of the day, you will always find few who are never satisfied or happy about anything….

    • oz-dave on 30/10/2014 - 11:45
      +1

      paulsterio

      Sony are probably giving away their 55-210mm zoom because they can't sell those things

      They can't be having too much trouble selling the lenses - they have been listed as "Currently out of stock" for quite a while on Sony's website ;-)

      One big advantage of a camera system like the α6000 is the size and weight.
      The Sony α5000/α5100/α6000 series offer comparable performance (with nice added extras) to the Canon and Nikon alternatives, which also use APS-C sensors, but the Sony Cameras can quite easily fit in your pocket. The smaller camera and generally smaller lenses mean you can take more and/or avoid backache.
      Even the α7/α7r/α7s series, which offer a full frame sensor, are smaller than most of the Canon and Nikon APS-C cameras.

      Being a newer system, Sony E-mount cameras do not have as big a range of Sony manufactured lenses as Canon and Nikon, but Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma, etc make E-mount lenses and, with a simple adapter, Sony E-mount cameras can also use the full range of Sony A-mount lenses, and the Minolta lens system they were based upon.
      Minolta actually produced the first integrated autofocus 35mm SLR camera system back before most of us were born, and there are plenty of suitable cheap second hand lenses available for the Minolta camera system.

      Additionally, the Sony E-mount system can use lenses from pretty much any other camera system (including Canon and Nikon) with simple cheap adapters. You may not get full performance in all cases with other manufacturer's lenses, but you can use your old glass (or purchase cheap second hand glass) from any manufacturer to achieve specific effects, or until Sony makes the lens you are after.

      • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 12:58
        -3

        They can't be having too much trouble selling the lenses - they have been listed as "Currently out of stock" for quite a while on Sony's website ;-)

        Not out of stock on the vast majority of retailers, even grey importers like Kogan.

        One big advantage of a camera system like the α6000 is the size and weight.

        I never said that wasn't the case, I'm aware that one of the main benefits to a Sony mirrorless system is size and weight.

        Being a newer system, Sony E-mount cameras do not have as big a range of Sony manufactured lenses as Canon and Nikon, but Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma, etc make E-mount lenses and, with a simple adapter, Sony E-mount cameras can also use the full range of Sony A-mount lenses, and the Minolta lens system they were based upon.

        Doesn't change the fact that Sony E-mount is extremely difficult to find compared to Canon and Nikon. A lot of lenses don't exist in general on Sony E-mount and the ones that do exist are more difficult to source. You buy a lens and don't like it? You're going to have a harder time selling it if it's a Sony.

        Additionally, the Sony E-mount system can use lenses from pretty much any other camera system (including Canon and Nikon) with simple cheap adapters.

        Not exactly 'cheap' adapters. Maybe if you get ones from China they're cheap, but I'd genuinely be afraid of the lens falling off my camera. The ones from reputable manufacturers such as Metabox are like $200+, by which time, your Sony system is adding up to be pretty expensive and inconvenient.

        I'm not saying Sony cameras are bad, I'm just saying they're good for certain people, but for photographers who are serious about the photos they take and need a variety of high quality lenses, Sony just doesn't offer that at the moment.

        • oz-dave on 30/10/2014 - 13:33
          +1

          Doesn't change the fact that Sony E-mount is extremely difficult to find compared to Canon and Nikon. A lot of lenses don't exist in general on Sony E-mount and the ones that do exist are more difficult to source. You buy a lens and don't like it? You're going to have a harder time selling it if it's a Sony.

          The Sony lens in question can't be that hard to find - according to your research they are "Not out of stock on the vast majority of retailers, even grey importers like Kogan." ;-)

          And as for selling, I am not sure why you think it is difficult - have you had trouble???. The used prices I look at are generally a little bit cheaper than new, and at a comparable discount to used Nikon or Canon lenses.
          Additionally, some great used Minolta lenses can be picked up for less than $50.

          Not exactly 'cheap' adapters. Maybe if you get ones from China they're cheap, but I'd genuinely be afraid of the lens falling off my camera. The ones from reputable manufacturers such as Metabox (sic) are like $200+, by which time, your Sony system is adding up to be pretty expensive and inconvenient.

          "Metabones" (I assume you meant that when you referred to "Metabox") are just one of many manufacturers making adapters. There are far cheaper adapters (and more expensive), and cheap doesn't necessarily mean low quality or faulty - OzBargain is dedicated to "cheap" :-)
          Sony offer their high quality A-mount/Minolta adapters (and the Metabones) for free with many of their cameras.

          And I fail to see what is inconvenient about having the ability to use almost any lens in existence - the flexibility is a genuinely useful bonus, not "inconvenient".

          You don't have to like the Sony system, but don't assume it's just for novices upgrading from "point-and-shoot" or "rich amateurs" - there are a number of high profile "serious" professional photographers who have converted to the Sony system, or use cameras like the α6000 as their "backup" system.

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 13:55

          @oz-dave:

          I just want to make this clear before anybody gets insulted or too passionate. I'm not making any of this up, I have no bias against Sony and I'm not employed by Nikon or Canon, I couldn't care less about what camera anyone uses as long as they make great pictures, it just makes for fun banter to discuss the different camera systems and their strengths and weaknesses.

          And as for selling, I am not sure why you think it is difficult - have you had trouble???. The used prices I look at are generally a little bit cheaper than new, and at a comparable discount to used Nikon or Canon lenses.

          Yes, I have friends who use Sony systems and they all say it's hard to sell Sony stuff second hand. Also hard to buy stuff second hand. Look at Camera Traders groups or Gumtree, there are 5x the amount of ads for Canon and Nikon as there are for Sony (approximately speaking). You want a lens, chances are, you'll find it on Nikon or Canon more easily.

          "Metabones" (I assume you meant that when you referred to "Metabox") are just one of many manufacturers making adapters. There are far cheaper adapters (and more expensive), and cheap doesn't necessarily mean low quality or faulty - OzBargain is dedicated to "cheap" :-)

          I meant Metabones, my bad. Anyway, I know, but Sony 'endorses' them and they have good reviews, they're pretty much the standard, so I think their prices are fair.

          And I fail to see what is inconvenient about having the ability to use almost any lens in existence - the flexibility is a genuinely useful bonus, not "inconvenient".

          Because these adaptors don't actually get all the features you want. You're never going to be able to use all lenses in existence. I was considering a Sony E-mount camera as a backup, and I thought that I would be able to use my Nikon F mount lenses through an adaptor, but I lose autofocus. No big deal for landscape shooters, but for portrait shooters, yeah it's a big deal. For sports shooters, it's an absolute deal breaker.

          These adaptors aren't all they are made out to be. There are online 'tests' showing loss of quality and sharpness…etc. I'm not sure about their reputation or accuracy, but there are numerous reports and I'm inclined to say that it's better to play it safe and stick to whatever lenses are made for whatever systems. If you use Sony, use Sony lenses, if on Canon, use Canon, if on Nikon, use Nikon. The only problem is, Sony has a genuine lack of lenses.

          You don't have to like the Sony system, but don't assume it's just for novices upgrading from "point-and-shoot" or "rich amateurs" - there are a number of high profile "serious" professional photographers who have converted to the Sony system, or use cameras like the α6000 as their "backup" system.

          There are professional shooters shooting any brand of camera.

          For professional shooters, no matter what you are shooting, the three most important lenses are the 17-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. Portrait pros have a set of primes on top of that as well, but the 'trinity' as it's widely known is the standard set of lenses all professionals would have.

          The fact that Sony doesn't make a single one of them in E-mount seriously hampers E-mount as a serious professional's tool. That's what I see it as from my point of view.

          Anyway, I'm aware Sony does have a 16-35mm f/4 from Zeiss and a 70-200mm f/4. But for low light, f/4 just doesn't cut it. Perhaps one day, when Sony does release more lenses natively for E-mount, it will be a serious option, but right now, the only way to go for pros is Nikon or Canon.

          Sure, some pro here or there might use Sony, but how many weddings have you been to where the photographer uses Sony? How many press conferences have you been to where you see a single Sony camera in the field. If you're a sports fan, how often do you see the photographers on the sideline shoot with Sony?

          Also, just for a good laugh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxAtT2pTlyw - I'm not saying you're a fanboy, but it's just funny to watch :)

        • EnALup on 30/10/2014 - 16:44
          +1

          @paulsterio: I don't know what your friends do or expect, but I have sold my Sony lenses or E mount Sigma lens without a problem on Gumtree and eBay.

          You see any listing of NEX7 or lens, they are sold quickly. 55-210 lens is not loved by many as most of them are not wild life photographers or profs., they want to have a good quality with little knowledge about photography…

          I prefer 18-200 mm over 55-210.

        • oz-dave on 30/10/2014 - 17:06
          +1

          @paulsterio:

          I am certainly not insulted, and I would hope you weren't either :-)
          I don't have a bias towards Sony, I also have and use Pentax, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus systems, among others…
          I just thought you were being a bit harsh with your original statements about Sony giving the lenses away because they are so bad nobody wants to buy them. Despite your assertions to the contrary, the lens works just fine indoors with a modern sensitive camera.
          And I also thought your assertions that only upgrading point-and-shooters or rich amateurs would use the system were once again harsh, because as even you have acknowledged, professionals use them too…

          But your point about the relative lack of E-mount lenses is valid, and I agreed with that - as I said above, it is something to be expected with a new camera system. But some would argue that Sony is taking a bit too long in rectifying that issue.

          The adapters for other brands are not perfect and in some cases the results are definitely sub-par, but I would argue that it is still great to have the option.
          The Sony A-mount/Minolta adapters on the other hand give you full functionality and thus allow you to use lenses such as the 70-200mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm f/2.8 (close enough to your 17-35mm) of your holy trinity. :-)

          Incidentally, the 70-200mm f/4 you referred to is a "full frame" E-mount, and on a camera like the α7s, it performs just fine at f/4, even in a room so dark you can't see anything with the naked eye. Indeed, in full sunlight it is sometimes preferable to "close the hole" even more than f/4.

          The Sony is a cutting edge camera system for early adopters, and technophiles, but is also "gentle" on new users, rather than the "old guard" conservative systems of Nikon and Canon. It has obviously caught their eye as they are now playing catch-up with some of the features.

        • p1 ama on 30/10/2014 - 17:51

          @oz-dave:

          I know I was harsh, but I think the point I was trying to make was that Sony, as of yet, doesn't have the repertoire to appeal to a professional photographer, especially given they lack so many key professional lenses. And you're absolutely right in saying that it's to be expected with a new camera system, but it's partly Sony's fault, they had a fully working A-mount with heaps of lenses, so I'm not sure what the rationale about the E-mount is. (I'm not an expert in Sony system).

          I do apologise for being harsh or coming off as a Nikon/Canon snob. I've considered Sony before, their A7 is excellent, their A5000 is a nifty little camera that I would love to have around because it'd just be a fun toy to play with when I'm relaxing or taking casual photos.

          The adapters for other brands are not perfect and in some cases the results are definitely sub-par, but I would argue that it is still great to have the option.

          Definitely, lack of AF is an issue. Even though the Canon adapter has AF, reports/reviews are that it's slow and almost not worth using.

          The Sony A-mount/Minolta adapters on the other hand give you full functionality and thus allow you to use lenses such as the 70-200mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm f/2.8 (close enough to your 17-35mm) of your holy trinity. :-)

          I still don't understand why Sony moved away from A-mount when it was a perfectly good mount. I understand the whole rationale of the A-mount being for the bigger cameras and E-mount being for the smaller 'NEX' cameras, but the A7 would be much more appealing if it had a native A-mount for sure. Then Sony wouldn't have to release a set of full-frame E-mount lenses and can simply have A-mount for full-frame large bodies and E-mount for APS-C small-body cameras.

          The Sony is a cutting edge camera system for early adopters, and technophiles, but is also "gentle" on new users, rather than the "old guard" conservative systems of Nikon and Canon. It has obviously caught their eye as they are now playing catch-up with some of the features.

          I think we both come to agreement here. I completely concur with you in saying that it's a good camera for early adopters. I said right from the start that the Sony Alpha series are great, the A7 is excellent, the A5000 and A6000 are good cameras too, but there's just a flaw with having a lack of lenses.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2014 - 18:00
          +3

          @paulsterio: Lack of lenses? Canon doesn't have a FF mirrorless system (and they're APS-C mirrorless system has only 4 lenses) and Nikon doesn't even have an APS-C mirrorless system.

  • HereYeeHereYee on 09/11/2014 - 19:19

    Nice

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join